|
|
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? |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 26, 2017 19:50:21 GMT
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?
Actually, you are neither major nor a proponent Know your place. I'm a proponent and a student, but I'm not a major proponent, and saying someone is a major student sounds kind of funny. The fact is, you don't even understand the basics of the scientific method, and all attempts at teaching them to you have been blissfully ignored. Which does not mean you are a bad person, but you are in no way a proponent of the scientific method, much less, in the eyes of science itself, science-friendly. Your perceptions of the issue are another matter. The statement you refer to was in a conditional clause. If the hood fits, however, there is good reason for that. Even if I were not to state you are transphobic yourself, (almost) all your posts on the subject have factually been. Your posts have been transphobic in stating or implying wrong and critical assumptions about the TG community and, against advertence, repeating them, as well as defective questions that are, also, classified as such. You already know these assumptions and these questions, since they were already mentioned. And, for the record, the only people who say pc or pretend left and right don’t exist are (in, the latter case, usually politically inactive) right-wing people. |
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 26, 2017 19:58:31 GMT
And accepting that you have the physical body you have. Not accepting that is having it surgically altered. Actually, no, it isn't. People are born with many defects, conditions or other morphological characteristics that can be altered surgically. Neither science nor they nor any movement that fights for their rights see that as who they are. OK, some other people, like you, and J's Ws, do, but your misguided definitions of who they are don't matter when their rights are concerned. J's Ws don't accept transfusions due to their personal, irrational beliefs. You don't accept SRs. Neither of you matter when healthcare for other people is concerned, but you both are free not to undergo the operations you don't accept yourselves. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with altering our bodies surgically. However, not accepting something in your body is not the same as having this part altered surgically. If it was, we would be undergoing immediate magical surgeries all the time. For any surgery at all to be performed, it must before be evaluated by a surgical professional, and, following the right criteria, it's always done with the endorsement of the medical community. SRs is actually so well employed that it not only demands a previous surgical evaluation, but also a psychological one. So, in fact, it's actually above average in this regard! |
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 26, 2017 20:07:45 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!Perhaps I would not use those words, but that's fundamentally the view of all people not of your religion and mindset about the influence of your religion on matters of state. Since we officially won that fight in the West long ago, we thankfully have the upper hand in political debate when it comes to Laicism. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 26, 2017 20:10:49 GMT
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?
Actually, you are neither major nor a proponent Know your place. I'm a proponent and a student, but I'm not a major proponent, and saying someone is a major student sounds kind of funny. The fact is, you don't even understand the basics of the scientific method, and all attempts at teaching them to you have been blissfully ignored. Which does not mean you are a bad person, but you are in no way a proponent of the scientific method, much less, in the eyes of science itself, science-friendly. Your perceptions of the issue are another matter. The statement you refer to was in a conditional clause. If the hood fits, however, there is good reason for that. Even if I were not to state you are transphobic yourself, (almost) all your posts on the subject have factually been. Your posts have been transphobic in stating or implying wrong and critical assumptions about the TG community and, against advertence, repeating them, as well as defective questions that are, also, classified as such. You already know these assumptions and these questions, since they were already mentioned. And, for the record, the only people who say pc or pretend left and right don’t exist are (in, the latter case, usually politically inactive) right-wing people. I have to be honest, I stopped listening to you awhile back. You just sort of ramble, and it would help if you learned how to be concise and direct in how you write. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 26, 2017 20:16:07 GMT
And accepting that you have the physical body you have. Not accepting that is having it surgically altered. Actually, no, it isn't. People are born with many defects, conditions or other morphological characteristics that can be altered surgically. Neither science nor they nor any movement that fights for their rights see that as who they are. OK, some other people, like you, and J's Ws, do, but your misguided definitions of who they are don't matter when their rights are concerned. J's Ws don't accept transfusions due to their personal, irrational beliefs. You don't accept SRs. Neither of you matter when healthcare for other people is concerned, but you both are free not to undergo the operations you don't accept yourselves. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with altering our bodies surgically. However, not accepting something in your body is not the same as having this part altered surgically. If it was, we would be undergoing immediate magical surgeries all the time. For any surgery at all to be performed, it must before be evaluated by a surgical professional, and, following the right criteria, it's always done with the endorsement of the medical community. SRs is actually so well employed that it not only demands a previous surgical evaluation, but also a psychological one. So, in fact, it's actually above average in this regard! Yes, you're talking about alterations that present an actual challenge, which you haven't demonstrated transgender to be. The only challenge appears to be accepting it, which you are advocating against. |
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 26, 2017 20:50:59 GMT
I have to be honest, I stopped listening to you awhile back. You just sort of ramble, and it would help if you learned how to be concise and direct in how you write. I sent you 100-1400 word summarizations of 500-2000 page books. Being more concise would be difficult. Not saying it cannot be done, but I’m not Betrand Russell nor Steven Pinker nor V. S. Ramachandran, and even they had to actually write their attempts at popularizing science in book format. Sometimes, they were very long books. If you want to ask good questions, you have to have or develop the attention span to read much, much longer texts. Unfortunately, there’s no escaping that. If you were to read such books, then you would start fighting personal assumptions and judgments and misguided or overvalued guesses. Before that, even thinking about properly talking about science, let alone be a proponent of it, is not an option. |
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Mar 26, 2017 20:51:19 GMT
Yes, you're talking about alterations that present an actual challenge, which you haven't demonstrated transgender to be. The only challenge appears to be accepting it, which you are advocating against. Large breasts or uneven teeth or not wanting to have children but wanting to have a lot of unprotected sex present actual challenges, I agree with you. Not one iota of the challenge of living with body dysphoria, however. And body dysphoria is not an inability to “accept” your body, it is the uneasiness of having a body that does not match your mind type. Even if the person “accepts” it, the uneasiness and distress do not go away. Body dysphoria is a byproduct, in some cases, of being TG (which means they are not the same thing). To give you the basic thought exercise we are given in our very introduction to the scientific method, sometimes it rains when there are clouds in the sky, but clouds in the sky don't mean there is going to be rain. Being TG is inalterable, for the reasons I already explained. Body dysphoria is not easily manageable, and the best way to manage it are the options we present to TG people in healthcare. Either way, if we did nothing, they would not stop being TG, they would not stop presenting dysphoria and they would keep on suffering with it, sometimes until suicide. That's why HRT, SRS and counseling are the best option in such cases. For more details, I’m going to copy paste the most relevant excerpt of my last post on the issue: "We should accept others when they are not harming others. The rest doesn't matter. Contrary to OP's assumption, 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 legal sponsor) 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." |
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Mar 26, 2017 20:52:38 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!Perhaps I would not use those words, but that's fundamentally the view of all people not of your religion and mindset about the influence of your religion on matters of state. Since we officially won that fight in the West long ago, we thankfully have the upper hand in political debate when it comes to Laicism. And that's the reason why I wrote WHAT THEIR GOD made them. PS I dislike God, particularly the Christian one, if he infact exists. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 26, 2017 20:53:39 GMT
I have to be honest, I stopped listening to you awhile back. You just sort of ramble, and it would help if you learned how to be concise and direct in how you write. I sent you 100-1400 word summarizations of 500-2000 page books. Being more concise would be difficult. Not saying it cannot be done, but I’m not Betrand Russell nor Steven Pinker nor V. S. Ramachandran, and even they had to actually write their attempts at popularizing science in book format. Sometimes, they were very long books. If you want to ask good questions, you have to have or develop the attention span to read much, much longer texts. Unfortunately, there’s no escaping that. If you were to read such books, then you would start fighting personal assumptions and judgments and misguided or overvalued guesses. Before that, even thinking about properly talking about science, let alone be a proponent of it, is not an option. ok. Enjoy that. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 26, 2017 20:54:42 GMT
Yes, you're talking about alterations that present an actual challenge, which you haven't demonstrated transgender to be. The only challenge appears to be accepting it, which you are advocating against. Large breasts or uneven teeth or not wanting to have children but wanting to have a lot of unprotected sex present actual challenges, I agree with you. Not one iota of the challenge of living with body dysphoria, however. And body dysphoria is not an inability to “accept” your body, it is the uneasiness of having a body that does not match your mind type. Even if the person “accepts” it, the uneasiness and distress do not go away. Body dysphoria is a byproduct, in some cases, of being TG (which means they are not the same thing). To give you the basic thought exercise we are given in our very introduction to the scientific method, sometimes it rains when there are clouds in the sky, but clouds in the sky don't mean there is going to be rain. Being TG is inalterable, for the reasons I already explained. Body dysphoria is not easily manageable, and the best way to manage it are the options we present to TG people in healthcare. Either way, if we did nothing, they would not stop being TG, they would not stop presenting dysphoria and they would keep on suffering with it, sometimes until suicide. That's why HRT, SRS and counseling are the best option in such cases. For more details, I’m going to copy paste the most relevant excerpt of my last post on the issue: "We should accept others when they are not harming others. The rest doesn't matter. Contrary to OP's assumption, 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 legal sponsor) 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." Woooooooords |
|
Suggests all scientists are TG, and doesn't even know he does. 
. In other words: completely sane.
THAT IS COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT!