|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Mar 23, 2017 20:21:03 GMT
Eh. I just say live and let live.
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Mar 23, 2017 21:54:42 GMT
Eh. I just say live and let live. We can't. Obamacare puts us on the hook for wealth transfers to Big Pharma on behalf of these people. The psychiatry alone makes each one of them a customer for life. Obamacare mandates psychiatric coverage, and it mandates psychiatric coverage at full financial parity with physical coverage. "Do you like to play with blocks or dolls? That will be $5000 please". How many health problems are these people going to have down the line when they take the whole laundry list of pharmaceuticals? That's what got them sick in the first place. When fish and frogs are born in waterways polluted with birth control pills, they come out transgender too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2017 17:59:18 GMT
There are differences between the male brain and the female brain, and there have been studies done on the brains of male-to-female transgender people, and the results of those studies demonstrated that the brains of MTF trans people are like those of natural-born females. Not all transgenders "cut off body parts" nor have a desire to. Jenner hasn't and probably won't. Some of them are comfortable with keeping the genitalia that they were born with especially because they would lose physical (read: sexual) sensation down there if they were to get surgery. There are also people out there known as "intersex" -- what was once described as "hermaphrodites". Their genitalia and/or other bodily features are like a blend of both sexes. The point I'm trying to make is that nature doesn't always get it right. Nature makes mistakes sometimes. So, just because you personally aren't comfortable with the idea of a transgender person, it does not mean that they have a "mental illness" or that they don't have a right to undergo a transition. Just because you personally can't comprehend why such people would want to change themselves, it does not mean that they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Caitlyn Jenner still has Bruce's penis? Okay that makes little sense.
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 25, 2017 1:52:20 GMT
I am gay and I also understand where you are coming from. Yes, it is disturbing, but for some reason, TG'd expect others to get them. They do have some very serious psychological issues. I can accept a transgendered person for their life and humanity, just not understand or respect the serious mutilation they have done to their sex. How can they possibly expect a vast majority of humans in the world, who do appreciate the body they are born with, to embrace and honor their transition into a fake gender, and not question the psychology or even ethics behind it? Jenner is a narcissist and he hasn't even had a cut and tuck yet as far as I'm concerned, so that gives him even less privilege to be woman of the year. It is a f<>king farce. Regardless, he will still always be genetically male, even if he psychologically identifies as a woman. But yes, that is all in his mind. Exactly, and that is why TG is a scourge and pestilence on the homosexual community. Heh Cute.
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 25, 2017 2:00:51 GMT
Yes, you are a scourge and pestilence and even your choice of avatar even speaks volumes. It looks insidious, deceitful and devious to me. How sociopathic and passive aggressive of you to claim something is cute, when you are really boiling inside. Get your NPD sorted out, before you get anything else extreme done to yourself. Troll! Heh heh Loving it.
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 25, 2017 2:12:20 GMT
Heh heh Loving it. What are you loving? You don't know do you? You have now gone into typical denial and delusion mode and lack the self-awareness to see how boring and transparent you really are. You are a lost cause and a lost ideal and you will only ever be accepted by a select few and that will largely be within your own community. Wake up and smell the coffee sweetie. The world is not going to bend, for a very small group of self-entitled narcissists who didn't get they attention they so desperately craved as a child. Like I mentioned in a previous post, grow up! Heh heh heh
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 25, 2017 2:37:04 GMT
I realize this might offend some, but I mean to express that I honestly don't understand the support of being transgender.
I am a humanist, I support the ideas of freedom and life in general That's where you lost me. Doesn't seem to be any conflict here if you are an actual humanist. Live and let live, brother.
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 25, 2017 9:54:48 GMT
Heh heh heh Look, an extra heh! How wicked!
|
|
|
Post by Jillian on Mar 25, 2017 9:56:33 GMT
I don´t either, but I think it is important to realize that one can´t know how another person is feeling and respect that as much as possible. Golden rule, easier said than done, but there it is.
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 25, 2017 10:58:56 GMT
I don´t either, but I think it is important to realize that one can´t know how another person is feeling and respect that as much as possible. Golden rule, easier said than done, but there it is. True! No one needs to “get” other people. As long as they are not harming others, they deserve respect.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 25, 2017 18:37:31 GMT
I am gay and I also understand where you are coming from. Yes, it is disturbing, but for some reason, TG'd expect others to get them. They do have some very serious psychological issues. I can accept a transgendered person for their life and humanity, just not understand or respect the serious mutilation they have done to their sex. How can they possibly expect a vast majority of humans in the world, who do appreciate the body they are born with, to embrace and honor their transition into a fake gender, and not question the psychology or even ethics behind it? Jenner is a narcissist and he hasn't even had a cut and tuck yet as far as I'm concerned, so that gives him even less privilege to be woman of the year. It is a f<>king farce. Regardless, he will still always be genetically male, even if he psychologically identifies as a woman. But yes, that is all in his mind. Well said.
How do people expect this to not be questioned? As though you and I are wrong for even asking.
Regarding being gay, I fully understand the completely natural process of that, and that nearly all animals have gay members of their species.
And crossdressing, hey whatever, whoever wants to can have a great time.
But mutilating yourself is something different. Being called the woman of the year is insulting to women.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 25, 2017 18:44:44 GMT
I realize this might offend some, but I mean to express that I honestly don't understand the support of being transgender.
I am a humanist, I support the ideas of freedom and life in general That's where you lost me. Doesn't seem to be any conflict here if you are an actual humanist. Live and let live, brother. Yeah, heroine addicts. live and let live brother Anorexics. live and let live brother. Multiple personality. live and let live brother.
Being a humanist doesn't mean you let self harm occur because it's their choice.
By saying live and let live, you're just being dismissive of the potential of an actual problem.
|
|
bd74
Junior Member
#WalkAway
@bd74
Posts: 1,522
Likes: 659
|
Post by bd74 on Mar 25, 2017 18:45:24 GMT
Well said.
How do people expect this to not be questioned? As though you and I are wrong for even asking.
Regarding being gay, I fully understand the completely natural process of that, and that nearly all animals have gay members of their species.
And crossdressing, hey whatever, whoever wants to can have a great time.
But mutilating yourself is something different. Being called the woman of the year is insulting to women.
Jenner being named "woman of the year" has to do with whatever organization chose to call her that. That organization probably wanted to draw attention to themselves, since Jenner had made headlines after transitioning. But it has no bearing on transgenders themselves. And by the way, many people "mutilate themselves" all the time. Why should women be allowed to have their tubes tied, if that's not what nature intended?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 25, 2017 21:41:50 GMT
Jenner being named "woman of the year" has to do with whatever organization chose to call her that. That organization probably wanted to draw attention to themselves, since Jenner had made headlines after transitioning. But it has no bearing on transgenders themselves. And by the way, many people "mutilate themselves" all the time. Why should women be allowed to have their tubes tied, if that's not what nature intended? Wow you're comparing a small surgical procedures to gender reassignment which in addition carries the idea that you are pretending to be something you aren't?
I guess we should complain about ear piercing and toenail clipping then. What a great point you just made.
And Jenner being named "woman of the year" is exactly the point. Promoting this as though there is absolutely nothing to question about it, is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 25, 2017 21:45:08 GMT
Yeah, heroine addicts. live and let live brother Anorexics. live and let live brother. Multiple personality. live and let live brother.
Being a humanist doesn't mean you let self harm occur because it's their choice.
By saying live and let live, you're just being dismissive of the potential of an actual problem.
You are still wrongly assuming surgery is either “self-harm” or maltreatment. We do surgery all the time for all kinds of problems and feel no guilt about it. Plastic surgery, neurosurgery, heart surgery, endocrinological surgery, gynecological surgery, dental surgery, urological surgery, craniofacial surgery. Do you seriously believe only lethal conditions are treated surgically (although, for the record, distress and dysphoria do have the potential to be lethal)? And if your assumption is that we should deny medical care, what’s your alternative? If you don’t have any, and if you don’t even acknowledge nor care about the problem – the distress and dysphoria suffered by part of the TG community –, which I’m already long tending to suspect, then what’s the point of criticizing the establishment? Scientists make criticism (“questioning”) within their specialty because they know how to identify operational definitions, they know how to identify problems and they know how to propose solutions. Your statements and questions, however, are nonsensical, because they don’t get the definitions right, have no base on actual psychiatric, endocrinological, psychological, social or surgical data and have no counterargument whatsoever. What’s more, they are based on your personal belief system of body purity, which, in the eyes of science, has no meaning (which means they are irrational beliefs). And no, the TG spectrum, although not a disorder, is not derived from irrational beliefs. Nor are the disorders you mention, anorexia , MPD (controversial in its status, but I’m leaving it here anyway) and addiction. If you don’t have any idea of what you are talking about, why do you even post? Science is not built on “opinions”. The psychological evaluations made before HRT and sometimes even identification itself already do get the definitions right, are aware of the problems and know which are the best ways we know of managing them. They don’t skip steps in the scientific method. And, needless to say, they don’t throw all the steps out of the window, which is what criticism with no scientific grounding does.
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 25, 2017 22:32:48 GMT
Wow you're comparing a small surgical procedures to gender reassignment which in addition carries the idea that you are pretending to be something you aren't? There is no such idea in the process. No pretending either. It just does not conform to your own irrational beliefs, which are in themselves just a reflection of what you expect such things to be, when science uses other definitions. And tubal ligation is technically major surgery. So is SRS, by the way, and neither is considered significant in its adverse effects, much less in its life risk. It should be promoted because there is nothing wrong about it and the world has already moved on. Also, if something being open to be "questioned" would make its promotion ridiculous, then every promotion would be ridiculous, because there is always going to be a misguided individual somewhere in the world with ungrounded criticism based on what he thinks is natural (not a scientific definition in the sense employed). And, for the record, natural (as in non-artificial) things, per se, are not all that good. Nature is much more inhospitable than welcoming. Only through 1.5 Ma of a lot of artificial intervention did our weird genus reach its current life-span and quality of life.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 25, 2017 22:43:11 GMT
Yeah, heroine addicts. live and let live brother Anorexics. live and let live brother. Multiple personality. live and let live brother.
Being a humanist doesn't mean you let self harm occur because it's their choice.
By saying live and let live, you're just being dismissive of the potential of an actual problem.
You are still wrongly assuming surgery is either “self-harm” or maltreatment. We do surgery all the time for all kinds of problems and feel no guilt about it. Plastic surgery, neurosurgery, heart surgery, endocrinological surgery, gynecological surgery, dental surgery, urological surgery, craniofacial surgery. Do you seriously believe only lethal conditions are treated surgically (although, for the record, distress and dysphoria do have the potential to be lethal)? And if your assumption is that we should deny medical care, what’s your alternative? If you don’t have any, and if you don’t even acknowledge nor care about the problem – the distress and dysphoria suffered by part of the TG community –, which I’m already long tending to suspect, then what’s the point of criticizing the establishment? Scientists make criticism (“questioning”) within their specialty because they know how to identify operational definitions, they know how to identify problems and they know how to propose solutions. Your statements and questions, however, are nonsensical, because they don’t get the definitions right, have no base on actual psychiatric, endocrinological, psychological, social or surgical data and have no counterargument whatsoever. What’s more, they are based on your personal belief system of body purity, which, in the eyes of science, has no meaning (which means they are irrational beliefs). And no, the TG spectrum, although not a disorder, is not derived from irrational beliefs. Nor are the disorders you mention, anorexia , MPD (controversial in its status, but I’m leaving it here anyway) and addiction. If you don’t have any idea of what you are talking about, why do you even post? Science is not built on “opinions”. The psychological evaluations made before HRT and sometimes even identification itself already do get the definitions right, are aware of the problems and know which are the best ways we know of managing them. They don’t skip steps in the scientific method. And, needless to say, they don’t throw all the steps out of the window, which is what criticism with no scientific grounding does. I'm not assuming that actually. I'm asking why transgender should be treated any differently than other concepts where somebody has a view of themselves that doesn't match with reality like anorexia.
It's not based on my personal belief system, and I'm not skipping steps in the scientific method, I'm asking what steps have been taken.
So instead of just repeating that I have some irrational belief system, why don't you explain the rationality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 2:28:09 GMT
Heh heh heh Look, an extra heh! How wicked!
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 26, 2017 3:25:21 GMT
I'm not assuming that actually. I'm asking why transgender should be treated any differently than other concepts where somebody has a view of themselves that doesn't match with reality like anorexia.
It's not based on my personal belief system, and I'm not skipping steps in the scientific method, I'm asking what steps have been taken.
So instead of just repeating that I have some irrational belief system, why don't you explain the rationality.
I don’t know if I should, but, since I feel quite a deal of responsibility as an advocate of Science, I’m going to give you a detailed explanation of it and its method, and then of how it applies to each of these topics, step by step. That’s what the “rationality” is called, by the way: science (in this case, empirical science). It’s a strict, demanding, unforgiving system, not unlike, in the discipline, subservience and the humility (towards God/Science) it demands, that of Muslims, or of Middle Age Catholic monks. And the fact is, in the eyes of Science, if you can’t become a model “Muslim”, or a model “monk”, that is, literally a scientist (or someone who has ingrained the basics of the system into the core of his mind and always thinks like this), you can’t even ask questions. Actually, you can’t even speak, or see, or feel the world at all, because you don’t have any senses to perceive it. Of course, that only matters in the world of actual knowledge. You can still speak, state things and ask questions in your day to day life, but, if Science were a Goddess who were to stand watching you during your every moment, the unforgiving queen that she is, she would be throwing everything (99 – 100%) you speak or state or ask directly on the trash can, and just as you finish doing so. Not necessarily because you are under the average of your gullible species, but because that’s all your gullible species can do when it’s left to its own whims – in the world of knowledge, rubbish. And scientific humility is humility before this Goddess, that is Science itself (again, just a didactic model; it’s literally a system you must always, always follow to produce or understand knowledge) – knowing that your thoughts don’t matter, that everything of you is rubbish to her , unless you follow her hard, narrow, difficult system, step by step. I’m going to explain the methods and the methodology in detail, again, step by step, but not now, since it takes time. Perhaps tomorrow, perhaps during the week. You can ask questions (without any previous assumptions) afterwards to try to better understand how it works. If you want to really dive into it, I can recommend you tons of books, and explain the basics of studying scientific literature. If you don’t actually follow the steps after that, however, I’m not coming back to them, since I’m not being paid, after all! I will just going to point where you are wrong and why, and you will have to look back to get more info, or actually research about it in college level books (that I may recommend you). In other words, it’s going to be technical, but painted in such a way that I, though I’m no professional popularizer of science myself, believe you would be able to understand. O follow all the steps, though, and be sure to have mastered each one before going to the next. It’s how we science students do, as well as professional scientists. You can’t learn how to play the Appassionata if you decide to use but one hand, or if at every step you deviate from the method. Scientific methods do change, but they change slowly, at the very point of vanguard of statistics and methodology. One such example is how Bayesian statistics, with the recent developments of CP Science, is slowly gaining favor over Frequentist inference over many parts of analysis (and some do believe that it may actually take over Frequentism as the dominant paradigm). As you are also going to see, statistical inference is an integral part of both the skeleton and the brain of science, and that some basic analytical logic laws that scientists assimilated do constitute part of that skeleton, but are insufficient in themselves. Again, it must be followed step by step. As we go, I will cover to you the basics of Psychiatry, Sociology and Psychology, that do tend to elude people who do not know how/are not used to think scientifically about people, minds and behavior. And, by the way, all we scientists decide to become such monks because, as strict as Science is, the reward it gives us is great! We understand how the world actually works better than ever before, all the while manipulating it to develop new technologies to help our species survive, go on and live better. There at least two (factually wrong) assumptions you have been making in different posts: one of them is that all these (differently categorized) groups of people mentioned present irrational beliefs that do not match reality, and the other is that surgery is self-harm. As you are going to see, all of this is already decided, and it’s neither harm, nor self-, if you are getting the gist of it already. If not, then I hope you are going to, that is, after I explain everything. You are also going to see why these are considered facts in the scientific community. The final goal is for you, like it is for me and all other scientists (though, for us, there are other goals that go much deeper), to see yourself and all your beliefs and opinions and whatnot you produce and can be organized as information as rubbish (in the world of knowledge). It’s hard on the heart, but it’s necessary. Also part of the goal is to make you able to start clearing your questions of every bias they contain, to make you able to understand and identify different types of definitions, identify and understand operationalization (what definitions actually are in concrete terms and what are their limitations), identify and understand every step of the scientific method, understand how we reach very limited results through test and analysis, and how we actually process large amounts of data by employing metanalysis, which in turn weights on the definitions used, the questions asked, the hypotheses conjectured. Like you can see, there are a lot of steps, and you were not even reaching the first (not an indication you are necessarily under the average). Luckily, you will finish the process with better glasses on how to see the world. Well, I sound like one of my professors (so cool!). This wide-range organization works very well for us students; I don’t know how it works for the layperson. To some other IMDB members, I’m sure it does not work at all. If you are actually willing to walk down the path of stones and not deviate from it, however, it probably will work at least to a small extent. And yes, it’s going to be far, far heavier than your average IMDB post, but that’s what you actually asked for. I apologize for typos and other grammatical mistakes, since I'm quite sleepy right now. When I have the time, I will quote you, and you will be notified. And, to everyone else: People, in their daily lives, can be classified as more or less rational about certain topics in certain occasions. They can be classified as such to the degree that their thought proccesses actually mimic the logic of science, or to the degree that they are efficient in informing themselves from actual, reliable scientific sources or, alternatively and concomitantly, to the degree that they are able to assume the scientific humility I speak about in the text and clear their questions of their biases, situating themselves, in their satements, in a more realistic point of knowledge production -- that is, that of the receiver and informal reader. The strict method I alluded to in the text is the model to actually understand things, but people, in their daily lives, do not mirror it perfectly. I don't, my peers don't and my professors and their peers don't either. If we actually want to guess any position at all in an informed way, than we have to try mirroring it as well as we can.
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 26, 2017 3:27:59 GMT
Are you freakin' serious with this statement? It sounds like you are just grasping at straws to make some kind of desperate impact. A woman having her tubes tied is an "internal" procedure to prevent pregnancy from happening. It is a common thing and she may not want any more children. It does not change her biological status or genetic structure as a female being. She also has tubes because she is female. Can a trannie have it's tubes tied so it won't get pregnant. It can't be explained. Becoming transgender is only a "rational" approach to those that consider themselves TG, and then they expect everyone else to rationalize it. It is steeped in a psychological disorder of "irrationality" and they are not being "realists". It is about playing the victim and wanting attention due to narcissism. Poor transgendered being, who is physical healthy and normal as their genetic structure dictates, and yet they think their life is just so difficult and complex, compared to those that do suffer birth defects and abnormalities due to no choice of their own. Heh heh Suggests all scientists are TG, and doesn't even know he does. And surplus never stops working, it seems.
|
|