|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 26, 2017 4:37:52 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.What?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 10:52:00 GMT
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.
Because the patients are satisfied with the treatment and live more fulfilling lives? I'd recommend reading this if you're interested: linkAs far as anorexia goes, It results in worsening of health and death.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 26, 2017 12:05:29 GMT
Because the patients are satisfied with the treatment and live more fulfilling lives? I'd recommend reading this if you're interested: linkAs far as anorexia goes, It results in worsening of health and death. Right, so major reconstructive surgery to look like a different person even though the parts won't work is perfectly sane as long as it makes you happy.
No reason to even ask questions. That's casual family dinner conversation.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Mar 26, 2017 13:50:01 GMT
Now you sound like a priest. Why should they accept their bodies? And why does your rule (since that's what it is) of self-acceptance applies to their bodies, but not to their minds and their identities? well, then why should ANYONE accept anyone else for that matter? if we now have a choice to chose our gender outside of the womb why cant I chose to not hang out much with a guy in a dress?
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Mar 26, 2017 14:01:30 GMT
Yeah, heroine addicts. live and let live brother
er... I didn't know there were people out there who were addicted to lady heroes... if you are going to ATTEMPT to mask your ignorance, the least you could do is SPELL/PRONOUNCE THE WORDS CORRECTLY. right up there with My ahuntie is ridakilus! She called the pohleeece and an ambalance at the libary when she got stabbed.It doesn't matter what you call your aunt, the fact that you are unable to pronounce simple words is an indication that you are fake.
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 26, 2017 18:15:28 GMT
well, then why should ANYONE accept anyone else for that matter? if we now have a choice to chose our gender outside of the womb why cant I chose to not hang out much with a guy in a dress? Sorry, I didn't quite get what you were exactly getting at. Could you rephrase your question? Meanwhile, I'm going to give you an answer below from what, I believe, I did understand from it. We should accept others when they are not harming others. The rest doesn't matter. Despite what OP seems to think, we do accept anorexic patients and addicts in society. Now, whether we should provide them with care is another matter entirely. Healthcare professionals should provide health service when the patient (or legalsponsor) wants it and when there is something we can change that could help the patients more than the evidence suggests it harms them. Gender (1) is a definition that exists in a dimension completely alien to secondary sexual characteristics (2), reproductive organs (3) and sexual chromossomes (4). It is a psychosocial definition of identity, much like being Chinese, being a cinephile, etc, and it's mostly dependent on brain type, its cognitive byproducts and identity development during human growth. It's more fundamental than being a cinephile, probably more fundamental in most senses than being of your given nationality, but just as impossible to change as it is. As for the other numbers, they are all definitions operationalized on biological morphology, except for number 2, that contains cognitive and behavioral dimensions as well. Number 3 is defined by number 4 and certain conditions of embryonic development. Number 2 is defined by certain conditions of development and complex physiological changes started by "cues" sent by different parts of the body under certain conditions, among them 3. However, a lot of variation does occur already at this level of analysis for a variety of different reasons, and these characteristics may not be expressed at all, due to both artificial and natural factors. Either way, gender is completely different, and that's why TG people's minds do match reality. They don't wrongly believe they are chromossomal Xy or XX, nor do they believe they have male or female reproductive organs, nor do they believe they have or don't have male or female secondary characteristics. They don't necessarily believe anything at all. They just have a male or female type mind they cannot change and an identity that reflects that mind. As for choosing your own gender identity, evidence suggests it's not much of a choice, and that it's not changeable eiher, even if the patient wants it to change, by any service we can provide him/her that would not incur in irreversible, unjustifiable harm and, all evidence suggests, not even work at all. People already tried doing this in the past, sometimes with consent and previous patient demand, just as people already tried doing other things we now know we can't do. It's not just guesswork. Now, let's suppose that you could change your gender identity by choice. That would be a great power in your hands, and, according to the criteria above, there's no reason whatsoever we should not accept you and your choice. Now, should we provide you with some kind of healthcare? It totally depends on what changing your gender would mean to you. Would it provoke body dysphoria (this, yes, a negative symptom, unlike being TG, and which does not have any fundamental relationship at all to the patients' beliefs)? That happens for some, but not all trans people. If yes, then we should present you with the option of undergoing HRT, SRS and counseling. All of this process is only began after a careful psychological evaluation that tries to determine that you really do present the neccessary requirements and that doing so has, according to the data we have, a higher probability of helping you more than harming you. That is, briefly explained, how healthcare works. [ ArArArchStanton, I don't know, from your previous post, if you are really interested at all in understanding the scientific method step by step and its applications to these issues. Here is, once again, one more summarized explanation. If you are still really interested in knowing the steps involved, tell me so, and I will you give you the technical, long, strict explanation you want.] As for hanging out with crossdressers, that's totally OK, and we should, yes, accept it, just as we accept them for who they are. There's no reason not to. The same goes for hanging out with TG people. You could also choose not to hang out with them, just as you can choose not to hang out with men, with women, with college students, or any other group of people. Who you hang out with is your choice. Transphobia is in not accepting TG people, holding discriminatory beliefs about them, denying them their rights, promoting discrimination or negative beliefs about them (a kind of discrimination), and other things that help separate them from the rest of the population. Who you hang out with has very little or nothing to do with it. Actually, if you remain your whole life neutral and silent about them, there's no reason for we to even call your behavior transphobic. You might then still secretely hold transphobic beliefs and attitudes, but we don't have access to them. Your mind is your palace. Did I answer your question? If not, feel free to rephrase it and ask what you did not understand.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 26, 2017 18:19:12 GMT
well, then why should ANYONE accept anyone else for that matter? if we now have a choice to chose our gender outside of the womb why cant I chose to not hang out much with a guy in a dress? Sorry, I didn't quite get what you were exactly getting at. Could you rephrase your question? Meanwhile, I'm going to give you an answer below from what, I believe, I did understand from it. We should accept others when they are not harming others. The rest doesn't matter. Despite what OP seems to think, we do accept anorexic patients and addicts in society. Now, whether we should provide them with care is another matter entirely. Healthcare professionals should provide health service when the patient (or legalsponsor) wants it and when there is something we can change that could help the patients more than the evidence suggests it harms them. Gender (1) is a definition that exists in a dimension completely alien to secondary sexual characteristics (2), reproductive organs (3) and sexual chromossomes (4). It is a psychosocial definition of identity, much like being Chinese, being a cinephile, etc, and it's mostly dependent on brain type, its cognitive byproducts and identity development during human growth. It's more fundamental than being a cinephile, probably more fundamental in most senses than being of your given nationality, but just as impossible to change as it is. As for the other numbers, they are all definitions operationalized on biological morphology, except for number 2, that contains cognitive and behavioral dimensions as well. Number 3 is defined by number 4 and certain conditions of embryonic development. Number 2 is defined by certain conditions of development and complex physiological changes started by "cues" sent by different parts of the body under certain conditions, among them 3. However, a lot of variation does occur already at this level of analysis for a variety of different reasons, and these characteristics may not be expressed at all, due to both artificial and natural factors. Either way, gender is completely different, and that's why TG people's minds do match reality. They don't wrongly believe they are chromossomal Xy or XX, nor do they believe they have male or female reproductive organs, nor do they believe they have or don't have male or female secondary characteristics. They don't necessarily believe anything at all. They just have a male or female type mind they cannot change and an identity that reflects that mind. As for choosing your own gender identity, evidence suggests it's not much of a choice, and that it's not changeable eiher, even if the patient wants it to change, by any service we can provide him/her that would not incur in irreversible, unjustifiable harm and, all evidence suggests, not even work at all. People already tried doing this in the past, sometimes with consent and previous patient demand, just as people already tried doing other things we now know we can't do. It's not just guesswork. Now, let's suppose that you could change your gender identity by choice. That would be a great power in your hands, and, according to the criteria above, there's no reason whatsoever we should not accept you and your choice. Now, should we provide you with some kind of healthcare? It totally depends on what changing your gender would mean to you. Would it provoke body dysphoria (this, yes, a negative symptom, unlike being TG, and which does not have any fundamental relationship at all to the patients' beliefs)? That happens for some, but not all trans people. If yes, then we should present you with the option of undergoing HRT, SRS and counseling. All of this process is only began after a careful psychological evaluation that tries to determine that you really do present the neccessary requirements and that doing so has, according to the data we have, a higher probability of helping you more than harming you. That is, briefly explained, how healthcare works. [ ArArArchStanton , I don't know, from your previous post, if you are really interested at all in understanding the scientific method step by step and its applications to these issues. Here is, once again, one more summarized explanation. If you are still really interested in knowing the steps involved, tell me so, and I will you give you the technical, long, strict explanation you want.] As for hanging out with crossdressers, that's totally OK, and we should, yes, accept it, just as we accept them for who they are. There's no reason not to. The same goes for hanging out with TG people. You could also choose not to hang out with them, just as you can choose not to hang out with men, with women, with college students, or any other group of people. Who you hang out with is your choice. Transphobia is in not accepting TG people, holding discriminatory beliefs about them, denying them their rights, promoting discrimination or negative beliefs about them (a kind of discrimination), and other things that help separate them from the rest of the population. Who you hang out with has very little or nothing to do with it. Actually, if you remain your whole life neutral and silent about them, there's no reason for we to even call your behavior transphobic. You might then still secretely hold transphobic beliefs and attitudes, but we don't have access to them. Your mind is your palace. Did I answer your question? If not, feel free to rephrase it and ask what you did not understand. What?
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Mar 26, 2017 18:27:13 GMT
I didn't ask that question to be actually answered. it was rhetorical but the idea behind the question still stays the same. why should the world accept anyone else and their views and their bodies and their religion or whatever if they don't have to accept what their God gave them? I am just stating that all this pc crap just isn't worth it now. trans gender bathrooms IN SCHOOLS? THAT IS COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT!
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 26, 2017 18:41:05 GMT
Right, so major reconstructive surgery to look like a different person even though the parts won't work is perfectly sane as long as it makes you happy.
No reason to even ask questions. That's casual family dinner conversation.
Not a different person. The same person, with a changed body. Our body is always changing. And the parts do work for the aims required, which are not reproduction. How is the pink text different from any major surgery at all, which includes all plastic surgery? Or the green text, for that matter? We are willing to cut into your skull and implant devices in your brain to decrease your suffering. We are even willing to cut parts of your brain to do so. Why wouldn't we be willing to make so much less risky and complicate changes to achieve our aims? As for the orange text, it's not. Where did you get that idea? It's casual medical conversation, which is to be held between specialists in TG issues, or between them and their patients. You are not supposed to be a part of it, because you don't know the definitions, don't know the steps involved, you disregard them altogether and you are not even personally involved so as to make your input significant as an object of study. Regarding the blue text, the questions, criticisms, comments and suggestions that matter are asked and published by the specialists in the field, who know the definitions, know the entire process step by step, as well as the reasons behind it, and are updated about the most recent results and meta-analyses. Your criticisms or "questioning" are, to the eyes of science, rubbish. And yes, they are not rational, since rational means, as it regards to scientific knowledge, conforming to the method, to the available results and their weighting by meta-analysis, which informs their correct, scientific interpretation. You are not even able to present anything rational at your level of knowledge, be it a critical question or a judgment. You are, yes, able (and welcome!) to inform yourself of why things happen as they do. If you by any chance happen to read the official and most reliable sources and show them to other people, you are even able to help the scientific community inform them. Nothing more, nothing less. That's the extent to which you matter, or any other person who is not specialized in it nor is undergoing the process (in which their input may matter in certain parts of it).
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 26, 2017 18:42:05 GMT
What didn't you understand?
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 26, 2017 18:43:06 GMT
Heh heh Suggests all scientists are TG, and doesn't even know he does. And surplus never stops working, it seems. Nice how you like to play devil's advocate and twist around comments to make some asinine and warped point, when you are only proving how mad you really are. Yes, I don't get you and never will, and you won't listen to anyone that doesn't side with your one-sided and biased notion about TG being accepted and respected by those that couldn't possibly understand your mental disorder, confusion and arrogant narcissism. You were asked to explain the rationality, not your pseudo-intellectual, pretentious, arrogant, conceited, self-important, self-centered, self-serving, IRRATIONAL narcissistic personality disorder that you have already made us all aware of in your self-absorbed gobbledegook posts. Now, what was it you wanted to convey again about a trannies need for acceptance and respect, because they want to mutilate their genitals and become a fake person due to a selfish and self-entitled psychological disorder, namely NPD? See look! I have it all pegged and sussed, without resorting to pompous ass rhetoric. And to think, I almost sound as impressive as you want others to think you are. Hah hah So cute!
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 26, 2017 18:46:29 GMT
Right, so major reconstructive surgery to look like a different person even though the parts won't work is perfectly sane as long as it makes you happy.
No reason to even ask questions. That's casual family dinner conversation.
Not a different person. The same person, with a changed body. Our body is always changing. And the parts do work for the aims required, which are not reproduction. How is the pink text different from any major surgery at all, which includes all plastic surgery? Or the green text, for that matter? We are willing to cut into your skull and implant devices in your brain to decrease your suffering. We are even willing to cut parts of your brain to do so. Why wouldn't we be willing to make so much less risky and complicate changes to achieve our aims? As for the orange text, it's not. Where did you get that idea? It's casual medical conversation, which is to be held between specialists in TG issues, or between them and their patients. You are not supposed to be a part of it, because you don't know the definitions, don't know the steps involved, you disregard them altogether and you are not even personally involved so as to make your input significant as an object of study. Regarding the blue text, the questions, criticisms, comments and suggestions that matter are asked and published by the specialists in the field, who know the definitions, know the entire process step by step, as well as the reasons behind it, and are updated about the most recent results and meta-analyses. Your criticisms or "questioning" are, to the eyes of science, rubbish. And yes, they are not rational, since rational means, as it regards to scientific knowledge, conforming to the method, to the available results and their weighting by meta-analysis, which informs their correct, scientific interpretation. You are not even able to present anything rational at your level of knowledge, be it a critical question or a judgment. You are, yes, able (and welcome!) to inform yourself of why things happen as they do. If you by any chance happen to read the official and most reliable sources and show them to other people, you are even able to help the scientific community inform them. Nothing more, nothing less. That's the extent to which you matter, or any other person who is not specialized in it nor is undergoing the process (in which their input may matter in certain parts of it). yep no questions asked. perfectly sane to cut off your dick.
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 26, 2017 18:50:50 GMT
yep no questions asked. perfectly sane to cut off your dick. Just as sane as it is to cut your brain if it's determined to be justified by the medical community and the operation is consensual . In other words: completely sane.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 26, 2017 18:59:26 GMT
yep no questions asked. perfectly sane to cut off your dick. Just as sane as it is to cut your brain if it's determined to be justified by the medical community and the operation is consensual . In other words: completely sane. Sure and you would cut your brain if there is an actual diagnosable problem that's a threatening concern. What's the threatening concern that takes anything more than just accepting what you are?
|
|
skribb
Sophomore
IMDb since June 2005
@skribb
Posts: 767
Likes: 204
|
Post by skribb on Mar 26, 2017 19:10:41 GMT
Just as sane as it is to cut your brain if it's determined to be justified by the medical community and the operation is consensual . In other words: completely sane. Sure and you would cut your brain if there is an actual diagnosable problem that's a threatening concern. What's the threatening concern that takes anything more than just accepting what you are? it's not just a mindset. It's not a mood you can come off. And if it's a psychological problem, so what? That does not imply it being worthy of derision, in any sense. If you can imagine how it would be like for long enough, you would probably start to accept it.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 26, 2017 19:16:51 GMT
Sure and you would cut your brain if there is an actual diagnosable problem that's a threatening concern. What's the threatening concern that takes anything more than just accepting what you are? it's not just a mindset. It's not a mood you can come off. And if it's a psychological problem, so what? That does not imply it being worthy of derision, in any sense. If you can imagine how it would be like for long enough, you would probably start to accept it. I didn't deride it. Why do people like yourself think simply questioning something is the same thing as derision? I'm simply saying there is this idea that when it comes to sexual identity, somehow we should never question that, and this is the defense you are hiding behind as though the first priority should be to worry about offending somebody. I'm worried about the reality of the situation and helping people if necessary. I don't make decisions or statements based on whether people will be offended or not.
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 26, 2017 19:32:52 GMT
it's not just a mindset. It's not a mood you can come off. And if it's a psychological problem, so what? That does not imply it being worthy of derision, in any sense. If you can imagine how it would be like for long enough, you would probably start to accept it. I didn't deride it. Why do people like yourself think simply questioning something is the same thing as derision? I'm simply saying there is this idea that when it comes to sexual identity, somehow we should never question that, and this is the defense you are hiding behind as though the first priority should be to worry about offending somebody. I'm worried about the reality of the situation and helping people if necessary. I don't make decisions or statements based on whether people will be offended or not. Actually, there is the same idea about anything studied by science. If, today, you start questioning orbital models and saying atoms are compact, or saying the basic component of all matter is water, then your words are also going to be called the rubbish they are. The only ethical difference is that, in that case, you would only be ignorant, while in the other you are ignorant and transphobic. You certainly can make such comments, however, but they are going to be called what they are. Free speech is a double-sided coin.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 26, 2017 19:39:57 GMT
I didn't deride it. Why do people like yourself think simply questioning something is the same thing as derision? I'm simply saying there is this idea that when it comes to sexual identity, somehow we should never question that, and this is the defense you are hiding behind as though the first priority should be to worry about offending somebody. I'm worried about the reality of the situation and helping people if necessary. I don't make decisions or statements based on whether people will be offended or not. Actually, there is the same idea about anything studied by science. If, today, you start questioning orbital models and saying atoms are compact, or saying the basic component of all matter is water, then your words are also going to be called the rubbish they are. The only ethical difference is that, in that case, you would only be ignorant, while in the other you are ignorant and transphobic. You certainly can make such comments, however, but they are going to be called what they are. Free speech is a double-sided coin. I'm a major proponent of the scientific method, thanks.
It's cute that you try to name call me as transphobic. That's what PC junkies do, just run around calling people racist, but where have I been transphobic?
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 26, 2017 19:40:01 GMT
Sure and you would cut your brain if there is an actual diagnosable problem that's a threatening concern. What's the threatening concern that takes anything more than just accepting what you are? Accepting who you are is accepting yourself as a TG person (if you are a TG person). Even if a TG person wanted not to be a TG person, she/he would have no option. Provided the identity is well established, she/he would have no power to do so. We, medical professionals, would not be able to do anything to change that either, for reasons already explained. Medicine is not omnipotent. If the TG person in question presents body dysphoria, this (together with the comorbid distress and other complications) is the threatening concern that does exist. If medical care is not provided, they can suffer great despair and even commit suicide (die). In unresponsive depression, we also have the option do neurosurgery. Tumors, aneurysms, strokes and other conditions that share higher visibility are not the only ones that are treated this way.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 26, 2017 19:41:03 GMT
Sure and you would cut your brain if there is an actual diagnosable problem that's a threatening concern. What's the threatening concern that takes anything more than just accepting what you are? Accepting who you are is accepting yourself as a TG person (if you are a TG person). Even if a TG person wanted not to be a TG person, she/he would have no option. Provided the identity is well established, she/he would have no power to do so. We, medical professionals, would not be able to do anything to change that either, for reasons already explained. Medicine is not omnipotent. If the TG person in question presents body dysphoria, this (together with the comorbid distress and other complications) is the threatening concern that does exist. If medical care is not provided, they can suffer great despair and even commit suicide (die). In unresponsive depression, we also have the option do neurosurgery. Tumors, aneurysms, strokes and other conditions that share higher visibility are not the only ones that are treated this way. And accepting that you have the physical body you have. Not accepting that is having it surgically altered.
|
|