this guy got trolled
That post is written so badly it is hard to understand what his point is.
Although I will comment on the notion that "your gender does not identify you beyond which role in the reproductive cycle you play".
As he did mention in his post, there are differences based in evolution, but these are not only physical (which are in my opinion not "slight" at all) but also mental.
We are all born with a set of preloaded instincts, with the best example of them being preloaded is the fact that human babies exhibit a great grip strength and an instinct to just grip anything as strong as they can. There is a video showing one week old babies being able to fully support their own weight by griping a wooden bar. And these instincts can be different for men and women, with male instincts characterised by the "focus", which made our ancestors more effective at hunting and much better at protecting the females. And female instincts are characterised by the "situational awareness and attention to detail" where situational awareness being a defensive mechanism, allowing for better detection of threats to the pack, and attention to detail being helpful in gathering of food.
The other thing of course is weather or not you consider these as a "persona", as it does dictate some of your actions, or just as a part of the "evolutionary traits" (very ambiguous term btw), on the basis that it is something you have no control of.
Such questions have no definite answers and either side of the argument can use them to their advantage.
>>6105157
It's just the same TERF argument that gender should be abolished, but people who cross gender norms shouldn't be allowed to, and they don't have a right to bodily autonomy. Dysphoria is made up, all trans women are sick fetishists who want to rape REAL ("cis" is a slur) women in their own safe spaces, trans men don't exist but when they do they're actually all victims of internalized misogyny.
If you disagree you're an anti-gay MRA (because trans women are men and trans men don't exist) and should be harassed and outed to your workplace, school, and community.
except not all standards of what makes a man and women are social. Transsexuals are people who want to be the same biological sex as women, or men. The social is not always part of it and infact there are many trans people who think the biological and physical is needed.
Like it or not but men and women are different beyond bodies and what we set,there are also chemicals and functions and that will change who you are and how gender roles developed
>>6104829
That's really dumb.
Does this guy not believe in homosexuality, or is that too due to sexism?
>>6105201
basically
>>6105157
Mental is physical. To borrow the computer analogy of cognitive psychology, the gender of the brain is a rom program and the gender roles are ram programs.
The guy doesn't know the details or concepts of what he's arguing. In an ironic twist he's mansplaining to help feminists reach equality.
He's weighing in on subjects he doesn't understand and only took the time to make a conversational argument.
It's all invalid because the basis of his initial point is invalid.
Trans people just wants the 95% of partners instead of the 5%. No one wants to talk about this but that's what it is. They want nothing to do with lgbt and everything to do with people that would never be in that
>>6105406
What? Gay men practically owned lgbt for half a century despite not being a majority.
>>6105201
I'm the anon who posted the bit you are referring to but I'm not sure if you are bashing me, or the post in OPs picture.
If you want to make an argument, state it in such a way that it's clear for everyone, take your time to write.
>>6105480
I was attempting to clarify the OP post and got a little carried away.
gender is male or female
penis is male
vagina is female
thoughts have no gender
likes have no gender
clothes typically have no gender unless designed for that genders genitals/breasts
what you people have done is you took gender away from genitalia and made it an archetype
its fucking abhorrent
>>6105560
OP appreciates your passionate sarcasm carry on
>>6104829
I've said basically the same thing, but without the word "evolutionary" or using "gender" like it was indistinguishable from "sex."
>>6105568
Fortunately, the vast majority of radical feminists reject sex essentialism and are trans inclusive.
>>6105568
Allow me to blow your mind.
Cables have more than two genders.
If you want your cable to fit with different equipment you can just change the gender.
>>6105667
People saying dumb and uninformed stuff is quite common.
>>6105568
You are confusing two basic terms here
Sex is the biological differences and it's well established with the female XX and male XY chromosomes determine what reproductive organs (ovaries, testes) would a fetus develop and what kind of hormones (oestrogen, testosterone) these organs would produce.
There are of course exceptions due to diseases and mutations in genes but since these are exceptions they can be ignored.
Gender is trickier since the general consensus has not agreed on a single explanation and the discussion is still open.
There are three main explanations on how gender works:
The Hormones Theory
The notion that oestrogen and testosterone contribute in differing development of the brain and that both can cause different behaviours, in turn setting the basis of the gender.
The Evolution Theory
A central claim of evolutionary psychology is that the brain (and therefore the mind) evolved to solve problems encountered by our hunter-gatherer ancestors during the upper Pleistocene period over 10,000 years ago. And as long ago as it may sound, research shows that our brains don't really differ from our ancestors from 10,000 years ago, which means we still come sort of "preprogrammed" with the instincts, which differ for male and female.
The Biosocial Theory
This theory takes in account both the sex and the social labeling caused by the predetermined sex. So depending on what sex the newborn has it will be labeled differently by its parents and from then on the gender development begins. In turn the child will grow up being treated differently, depending on its sex, and that treatment will determine its gender identity. Therefore it is possible to raise up a male child to have a female gender identity by treating him as a female.
>>6105788
gender referring to our penis and vaginas not our sperm sacs and baby ovens
>>6105560
Ok, so you are telling me that since I do not agree with the opinion you hold I am, I quote "an anti-gay MRA" and that I "should be harassed and outed to your workplace, school, and community".
Or is this just a ruse?
This is literary my first time on this board so I'm not accustomed to your, possibly, different ways of communication in some aspects and I don't like jumping to conclusions.
>>6105837
It's pretty obvious, anon was writing what the pic in OP is thinking.
>>6105816
Sex is not as well established as you make it out to be. There is lots of research even about chromosomes and how they affect sex traits. There are other things too. But you don't hear about any of that because nobody really cares and most of the population doesn't have the degrees and education necessary to parse the experiments in plain English.
>>6105824
Your penis doesn't have a gender, neither does your belly button.
>>6105837
I was sarcastically writing out the sex essentialist trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) ideology and how it plays out in practice -- trans women are routinely denigrated and have their identities denied, and in some cases come under harassment.
I don't know you, my post was not aimed towards you.
>>6105377
I am the anon from the post you are referring to.
I was trying to reply to you for a bit now but I kept getting distracted.
I am not sure again if in your post you are talking in regards to me or the OPs author. Either way Cognitive psychology is a very valid study and if you look at it from its perspective then yes, mentality is a part of physicality but one thing I don't like with it is its explanation of Metacognition as a poor excuse for trying to explain sentience in my opinion.
>>6105568
If a cis woman wears a certain set of clothes, that's her style. If a trans woman wears that same set of clothing, it's a political act. Can't we express ourselves without having everything become a part of a nefarious political movement?
If the overall goal is to destroy the notion of the gender.. How does policing a groups choice of clothing advance that goal?
>>6105800
I was so vague that I'm not sure if you think I'm for or against transgender rights, and whether or not you are, so I'm not sure how offended I should be by this insult
>>6105816
gen·der
ˈjendər/
noun
noun: gender
1.
the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
"traditional concepts of gender"
sex
seks/
noun
noun: sex; plural noun: sexes
2.
either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
"adults of both sexes"
synonyms: gender
"adults of both sexes"
>>6105876
The point is that the program which is gender in this case is encoded in hardware. Meanwhile the expressions of gender roles and the adoption of clothing styles is encoded in software.
The problem is that if you concede with words like mental then you allow them to challenge by saying that the gender has been learned.
In autopsies of brains differences between male and female and sexual orientation are identified and can be observed physically under the microscope. This means that it is the same as being born with a penis or being born with a vagina but you can't see it from the outside. Yet it is still a physical difference inside.
>>6105922
Emphasis on typically. You have to remember that activists and social scientists have muddled the waters tremendously. Where once upon a time there was just medical facts.
>>6105930
but that doesnt define you as male or female. your sex organ does.
all that does is effect the way you think.
you dont think female or male. you think thing in brain or different thing in brain.
calling it male and female is just out of ignorance
>>6105854
A lot of research, in all kind of fields, goes unnoticed because it holds no interest in the general public. Research was never really popular with the majority of the populous, mainly due to the disconnect of different social groups.
But regardless it is very important that it happens because it's all that unnoticed research that allows for the occasional "breakthroughs" that the public can get behind and see the "progress".
Besides, in my own opinion, pushing the boundaries of science has never before been as popular with the general public as it is now. It is thanks in a huge part to the internet and although the Google Theory (i.e. Digital Amnesia) is making us and especially the kids less capable of memorising things, we are more curious then ever which is a great thing.
>>6105922
Yes, that's what I was basically saying, well with an addition that some people might argue that gender is defined by differences in the biology and not necessarily the nourishment one has recived
>>6105948
the problem here is you are telling me that you have to use a different definition of the word in order for what was said to be wrong.
>>6105951
Actually no in biology what defines you as male or female is the size of the cell that combines with the other cell to create new life. It's some obscure thing like that. The shape of the delivery or holding mechanisms are just incidental. Not even your chromosomes matter much. That's biology for you.
>>6106004
Not at all. I am telling you that transgender used to be transsexual and it was changed through society rather than a medical or scientific breakthrough. Your definitions is just variable semantics, differs per culture or interpretation. Are you arguing about the meaning of words or are you arguing about things you can observe in reality. The reality doesn't change in a different language or culture but the words might.
>>6106040
im curious if you even know what im arguing
>>6106058
You're arguing about the definitions of words. I am saying the words are just approximations and are meaningless in any real discussion of a subject.
>>6105922
Unless you're discussing the language in particular posting a word definition in the middle of a discussion translates to: herp derp durr I don't understand anything but here is a copy paste from a dictionary
>>6106081
no im telling someone else that i didnt mix up any terms and then you chimed in outta fucking nowhere with 2 cents about fucking nothing and i thought you were him spouting nonsensical bullshit about redefining the word.
maybe declare that you arent the person whos arguing if you wanna sidenote somebody
>>6105866
Oh don't worry, I don't take offence on anything random people on internet say about me.
As I said, first time here, I was expecting a lot of typical "regressive leftists" who rather call you a sexists/racist/etc... than accept differing opinions, and for a second there you made me think you're one, but I didn't want to jump to conclusions as I said.
The truth is that I'm having some actual interesting conversations in here, with most people accepting differing opinions and I am surprised.
Additionally, not to poke anyone or anything, but I believe that trans-genderism is a complex mental health issue, with different causes and different levels of affection. And I do not mean it terms of typical mental health stigma and calling people "crazy", I mean it as an actual health and well-being problem. A problem our society is not resolving correctly by pumping people with hormones and socially allowing for sex change operations, even going as far as saying that sex change will solve all their problems.
And I know, this is probably and unpopular opinion, but I see the whole situation as something like the use of Lobotomy and Aversion Therapy to "treat" gays.
I believe that people with problems as to their gender identity should instead seek help with aligning their gender to their sex and should only consider the sex change therapy as their last resort.
What this guy fails to understand is that trans people don't transition just so that they can live in a social role without stigma. Trans people transition to cure their gender/body disphoria, which is all about the aesthetic like bone structure and fat distribution. Gender dimorphism is a thing, what do you think hormones exist for? Male and Female are different on a mental and physical level and to suggest otherwise or to suggest that there is any more than two physical genders is fucking asinine.
i see a butt load of regressive thinking in order to defend transgenderism
>>6106158
Can you explain why you feel that way?
I have some assumptions about your line of reasoning but I'd like to hear you out first.
>>6106203
holy fuck you are stupid.
>>6106206
You don't need to defend transgenderism it's been a real thing in science for many decades already.
>>6106214
You have yet to post anything intelligent.
>>6106225
likewise buttlicker
>>6106217
its a theory
>>6106232
You have been given information about language use, biology definitions of sex, informed about your dumb dependence on language, and many other things. Your contribution?
>male is man female is woman big stick go smash now you crazy people webster say you wrong harr harr
>>6106241
Yeah like evolution. Christ why do people still living in the pre industrial age have internet access?
>>6106241
>its a theory
I don't think you know exactly what theory means in scientific world
>>6106340
string theory
loop theory
let me know if this example is over your head.
>>6106460
Wow you are the Michio Kaku of 4chan.
>>6106206
>regressive thinking
Uh, science and medicine isn't regressive. Don't hate on doctors just cause you don't like what they find.
https://www.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/publications/downloads/fs_professional-org-statements-supporting-trans-health_1.pdf
>>6106209
I've read some collective briefs from studies on the matter quite recently(I don't read whole research papers most of the time, find it all way too boring).
The big problem is that many of these papers disagree on each other making actual determinations about the results of these operations inconclusive.
The main thing is that, though inconclusive, a lot of the research agrees on possible higher risks of lower mental health quality of live, attempted suicide and suicide in patients after the operations. All of it probably linking to the post operational regret and the fact that in many cases it does not solve the problems of gender dysphoria.
Then even when it does, it leaves the person with the underlying psychological problem which in most cases is not addressed after the operation because people believe the operation was enough.
Then there is the scientific fact that these people become neuters in terms of genital sex, as the sex change is in name only. Additionally to that the fact that there is no way to change the "biological sex" means that regret and mental problems could surface years later, after the person comes to the realization of what actually happened.
In my opinion, the empowerment of the transgender people should have waited for more research into sex change operations and the psychological problems causing gender dysphoria. Right now, people might have bun seriously hurt or even died because of the portrayal of the operations as the key to solve all the problems that these people had for years.
>>6104829
>If people thought of males and females as the same then this wouldn't be a thing
Aren't TERFs and transphobes complaining that trannies are trying to do this? How we're trying to blur the lines between male and female? I see these people talking about how your biological sex doesn't define you as a person but then they turn around and try to uphold sex segregated spaces while viciously demonizing trans women as predatory men because they were born male and may or may not have a penis. That's plain old misandry, no matter how you slice it, and misandry is rooted in sexism. Every bathroom panic fantasy is founded on an alleged male bodied person harming a helpless and weak female. If that catastrophic scenario isn't based on gender stereotypes and sexism, then I'm done.
If these people really were for tearing down sexism and gender, then they'd be all for unisex bathrooms and a major restructuring of feminism-maybe even the destruction of feminism and the construction of all inclusive egalitarianism. Feminism shouldn't even exist under this man's ideals.
Instead of tossing out buzzwords and using trans people as a scapegoat for their society's problems, they should practice what they preach and stop upholding sex based segregation and stereotypes. Trans people aren't the ones reinforcing sexism, they're not a super majority of the population. They're just playing by the rules that cis people created, because if they don't conform to them, they are viciously attacked. And besides, a trans woman can never be politically correct in her gender expression. If she's too feminine, she's labeled a sexist pervert. If she's too masculine, she's labeled a sexist pervert that's flaunting her male privilege. Fuck these people and their arbitrary rules.
>>6106545
Oh the left, how I love to see you devour yourself.
>>6106644
Right has it's own brutal civil war cause of based trump's revolution
>>6106158
https://youtu.be/v7NYWd7p-zE
Check this out as well
>>6106810
Oh that's really funny. Guy who insists bill Nye is a Illuminati is your science reference. Awesome.
You know, even Hannity thinks Crowder's a loony. Fired him like a dog from Fox.
Except that there are HUGE differences between male and female behavior attitudes and thought patterns. Tbh only losers who don't know how to attract the opposite sex think both sexes are "the same"
>>6106158
Uh, so you're saying the overwhelming scientific consensus is wrong because of what? Your emotional reactions?
Do you really think that's the right reason to ban everyone's bodily autonomy? Sounds pretty regressive and childish tbqh.
>>6106898
>Guy who insists bill Nye is a Illuminati
I don't follow Crowder that much but I know that on some interview Bill Nye said that he "can see how" some people are "pursuing criminal investigation" of people who "introduce this extreme doubt about climate change" because it is "affecting my quality of life as a public citizen".
All that from the face of Science in the USA for many young people, it is just unacceptable because it is in no way a representation of how the scientific method works.
Crowder picked up on it and he was pissed (as anyone with any interest in science should), he wrote 2 or 3 articles on it, calling Nye out on his bullshit and presenting some interesting research papers on how Climate Change/Global Warming, might not be what most people believe right now, making his case that Nye would rather jail people doing these researches than to have doubts about what is considered the correct explanation right now. He does ask some questions to why Nye would say such a thing (he is quite a smart guy after all, unless dementia is getting to him or something) and he does propose some conspiracies as the answers but there are 3 things to take away from that:
1. Bill Nye The Fascists Guy should have never said such a thing in an interview, especially being the "face of science"
2.These conspiracies are no where near the level of "Illuminati" and some are quite logical
3. It is Crowder, and his job is to say ridiculous things so don't just blindly trust everything he says
>[Crowder] is your science reference
Two things:
1. Nowhere in the post, you are referring to, I have stated that this video is my science reference, apart for the link there was "Check this out as well", that was all
2. You obviously have not watched the video, because if you did you would have know that if I was going to use that as my science reference it would not be about Crowder.
>>6106542
OK. If you're referring to Paul McHugh, the (former) John Hopkins guy, here's a thorough rebuttal of his misused citations:
http://www.transadvocate.com/clinging-to-a-dangerous-past-dr-paul-mchughs-selective-reading-of-transgender-medical-literature_n_13842.htm
Another fact checking of a claim that transitioning increases suicide risk:
http://www.transadvocate.com/fact-check-study-shows-transition-makes-trans-people-suicidal_n_15483.htm
The WPATH Standards of Care document is very thorough and has lots of context and explanation of the protocols for transitioning. A lot of times anti-trans talking points just misrepresent what the actual experts are saying. It's very easy to read, and if you have some time, I recommend you read the parts that concern you.
http://www.wpath.org/uploaded_files/140/files/Standards%20of%20Care,%20V7%20Full%20Book.pdf
>>6106898
>You know, even Hannity thinks Crowder's a loony. Fired him like a dog from Fox.
Just because Hannity thinks Crowder's a loony does not make him a loony and it does not make any of his opinions invalid. Neither does being fired by Fox (some would say that's a good thing)
What if, on basis of that post, I have labeled you as a retard and insisted that everyone else should consider you a retard and that it makes any of your opinions invalid? Would be quite unfair if it went through right?
But you see some people (unlike you apparently) can think for themselves and instead of discrediting someone on basis of the childish "she said, he said bullshit" we can listen to what these people have to say.
tl:dr I'm guessing you have some kind of personal vendetta against Crowder and every time you just see his name your brain switches off and you go into "zombi keyboard warrior mode", it's probabbly bad for your health so stop.
P.S. One more thing, on Crowders website not every article is written by Crowder you know?
>>6107453
Ok thanks.
I will read that all at some point, not very convinced about the Fact Checks from transadvocate.com as it seems there might be some bias (but you probably think the same of me using McHugh so all fair), I will read it nonetheless.
As for that "Standards of Care" document, it seems quite interesting so thanks.
Although from what I can see in general what these documents are I will probably won't much on the mental illness part of this problem, which is a shame because there won't be need for this debate weather or not mental problems and suicide risk increase as the result of the operations, if only actual treatments were developed.
>>6107570
http://www.wpath.org/site_page.cfm?pk_association_webpage_menu=1635&pk_association_webpage=4905
Look at. It's written by board of APA and WPATH. Paul cited a study that proved him wrong.
I can't understand what they're trying to say for shit. They sound like the insane ramblings of an SJW on crack.
>>6107692
thankyou. I was thinking the same. Read it twice and still wasn't sure wtf was the point.
>>6107634
I was just about to say that I weren't basing my claims of that guy but of Walt Heyer.
I have not been to sleep for about 40h now so I don't follow very well what's going on.
After doing a bit of reading around transadvocate.com I think it looks like any other leftists media outlet, and although they seem to provide plenty information to back themselves up (didn't read to much into that) they still go with the regressivness when it comes to people saying things they don't like, labeling Paul McHugh as a transphobe just because he believes Gender dysphoria is a mental illness, and as a psychiatrists and a professor, with 7 books and multiple researches, you could AT LEAST give him that his opinions are valid (reminder validity =/= truth)and not label him a transphobe because he clearly knows his stuff.
And that is the biggest problem with majority of the left, this closed-mindedness to the outside ideas, which makes me hard to believe ANYTHING found on any leftists media outlet.
Being a centrists I don't think the right has such problems, of course there will be outlets that are obviously racists, but at the same time most of the rest allow for some exchange, instead of living in that bubble.
So do any of you know any leftists media outlets that do not resort to labeling and homogeny of ideas?
>>6107570
>Bias
I suppose, but the articles have the actual researchers talking about their own studies are being quoted out of context or misconstrued. If the trans community won't speak up to correct the record, who will?
>>6106545
clapping for the last paragraph.
>>6107779
>If the trans community won't speak up to correct the record, who will?
It is partially true but at the same time:
community representatives =/= community
Besides, a representation of the minority "editing" studies on that minority, it does look like a perfect recipe for bias.
And to just back it up very quickly with something I found
Dr McHugh:
“Then there is the subgroup of very young, often prepubescent children who notice distinct sex roles in the culture and, exploring how they fit in, begin imitating the opposite sex. Misguided doctors at medical centers including Boston’s Children’s Hospital have begun trying to treat this behavior by administering puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous."
Mari Brighe:
"Puberty suppression is NOT provided to prepubescent children- the current WPATH Standards of Care indicate that individuals should reach at least the Tanner Stage II of sexual development (meaning puberty has begun) before suppression can begin."
Brighe argues that Dr McHugh is wrong because prepubescent children cannot be put on puberty-delaying hormones since the WPATH Standards of Care state that individuals should reach at least the Tanner Stage II of sexual development (meaning puberty has begun).
The thing is that, according to Lawrence Neinsteins Tanner Scale, Stage II is somewhere between 9 and 12 years old, which, as I hope you can see in the picture included, is mostly pre-pubescent range (the fuller the colour is the higher percentage of kids are in puberty).
>>6107959
The onset of puberty would be before most of puberty, yes..?
>>6107761
Oh that's hilarious, no.
The apa is not a leftist media group just cause you dislike it.
They're all Paul's former colleagues and kicked him out for academic fraud. Say clinical studies found the exact opposite of what they really found and then that's fraud.
Fact is his colleagues kicked him out and the only group he's currently part of Is acpeds and that's a tiny fringe group o about sixty other disbarred who claims gays are pedophiles adinfinatum.
Simply put, it's not very rational for you to insist the scientific data lies and conspiracy theories deserve equal weight.
That isn't center. That's the shoddy judgment that leads to people treating antivax as legit.
>>6107761
>valid
Studies found the exact opposite of what he claimed.
We can't take your feelings over that, sorry.
reboasting
>>6106545
THIS.
>>6109057
>The apa is not a leftist media group just cause you dislike it.
I never said it is, I quote my post :
"transadvocate.com, I think it looks like any other leftists media outlet"
"I think"
And ok maybe APA is not a leftist media group, but after reading a bit of articles on transadvocate.com I felt like I'm reading a typical leftist media outlet. And later on I provided why I think that way:
"And that is the biggest problem with majority of the left, this closed-mindedness to the outside ideas, which makes me hard to believe ANYTHING found on any leftists media outlet."
i.e. transadvocate.com might be in a media group that is not leftist, but their articles made me feel like it's a leftist media outlet because of the labeling, not saying it's true or not, I'm saying that it's what I think.
>Say clinical studies found the exact opposite of what they really found and then that's fraud.
That is not fraud unless it's proved that someone manipulated the research to get the results they wanted. If nobody proved that it's fraud, then these two are just contradicting researches, and such situations happen in the scientific world all the time, it's how the scientific method works, more research should be done until one of these is proved, beyond any doubt, right. And even then somebody might come around later with a research that could disprove the one that was proved right.
In the mean time, it is our right to back whichever side we want, and as I respect the research provided by transadvocate.com, they (and you) should respect research provided by Dr. McHugh and not call it a "conspiracy", unless one of the sides research is disproved or de-legitimized by, a preferably, outside source.
>>6111834
It's not Study A saying one thing and Study B saying another;
Paul McHugh wrote an opinion article. He took the results of other peoples' research and misrepresented it. TransAdvocate then went to the original researcher who said that Paul McHugh was stating an incorrect conclusion.
It's not the scientific method. Paul McHugh was deceiving the audience of his op-ed when he misrepresented the scientific research.
>>6109057
>it's not very rational for you to insist the scientific data lies and conspiracy theories deserve equal weight.
>Simply put, it's not very rational for you to insist the scientific data lies and conspiracy theories deserve equal weight.
For a supposed "conspiracy theory" they provide a lot of data and seemingly valid points from multiple researches, which makes it a legitimate theory and not a "conspiracy"
>Fact is his colleagues kicked him out and the only group he's currently part of Is acpeds and that's a tiny fringe group o about sixty other disbarred who claims gays are pedophiles adinfinatum.
First what the hell is "adinfinatum" ?
Secondly I never heard of Dr. McHugh being kicked out by his colleagues so if you could provide something on that matter, that would be great.
And last thing, I do realize that ACPeds is a rather conservative group, but, linking it to what I said before, their views contradicting with yours, and some other groups, does not make them illegitimate.
>That isn't center. That's the shoddy judgment that leads to people treating antivax as legit.
Nice to know that you have the all knowledge and authority to tell people where they are on a political spectrum.
>That's the shoddy judgment that leads to people treating antivax as legit.
I do agree that anti-vax movement has many things wrong and many of them made some "shoddy judgments" as vaccinations have been proved to save lives while having extremely low chances of adverse side effects, but just because you said that I might have made some shoddy judgments does not make it so, and I would strongly disagree.
>>6109057
To summarize it all:
Scepticism is the best way to come closer to the "absolute truth".
I you never hold any of your belies as "absolute truth" and respect believes of others, allowing these believes to either prove or disprove yours if they provide enough justification, then you will know for sure that your believes are closer to being the "absolute truth"
Same in science, no theory is ever "absolute truth" but by trying to either prove or disprove it we can confirm that it is closer to being "absolute truth".
tl;dr Nobody knows the "absolute truth" but by allowing for the exchange of ideas we can get closer to it in all fields of live.
>>6111859
Ok that is fair enough if its all true. If so then Dr. McHugh is a cunt for trying to get people onto his side by manipulating evidence but that still does not discredit the arguments of the side that Dr. McHugh is a part of.
But the problem still remains, with many studies contradicting each other on weather or not it's all a mental disorder, if these people should be receiving hormone treatments and sex change operations or mental therapy and counseling, if sex change solves their problems and people actually improve on their mental health afterwards, if it is morally right or wrong for parents to raise kids with gender labels contradicting their biological sex, and weather or not only adults should be allowed to make a decision to change their sex.
Im sure you have your opinions on all of these, as I have, and I'm sure we might not agree on everything (if anything), but it does not make either of us "right" or "wrong" until one side is proved to be "right". And even then we might decide to stick with our opinions despite being actually "right" or "wrong".
And even then it might not be so simple, some of these questions could be answered in favour of one side, and other questions in favour of the other, but what's important is to keep your mind open and to never hold any of your believes as "absolute".
>>6112072
(1/2)
>If so then Dr. McHugh is a cunt for trying to get people onto his side by manipulating evidence but that still does not discredit the arguments of the side that Dr. McHugh is a part of.
The issue is, is that because of McHugh's credentials, he is held up as a voice of reason by that same side. So his deception is magnified because of his stature.
>with many studies contradicting each other on weather or not it's all a mental disorder
The APA's position is that it is not a mental disorder. See: http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx
>if these people should be receiving hormone treatments and sex change operations or mental therapy and counseling
Psychotherapy isn't a proven treatment for the distress caused by gender dysphoria. However, the options are there, no patient is FORCED to transition. If they choose to, there are options; if they choose not to, there are options. Why limit the patient's choice?
>sex change solves their problems and people actually improve on their mental health afterwards,
It can improve dysphoria as well as conditions caused by it, however social stigma is still an issue, as well as whatever other mental disorders they may need to treat.
> if it is morally right or wrong for parents to raise kids with gender labels contradicting their biological sex, and weather or not only adults should be allowed to make a decision to change their sex.
I'm not sure what the moral issue is.
The citations to these responses can be largely found in the Standards of Care document.
>>6112072
(2/2)
>And even then it might not be so simple, some of these questions could be answered in favour of one side, and other questions in favour of the other, but what's important is to keep your mind open and to never hold any of your believes as "absolute".
The trouble comes when one side uses tactics such as misrepresented studies, cherry-picked data, or scare tactics such as fear, uncertainty, or doubt.
Is it important to have a questioning mind? Of course. But we have to look at the objective facts and not let our preconceptions color our decisions. (Again, refer the Standards of Care document, which refers to lots of data).
And while there are *questions*, yes, the consensus of the field is that patients deserve medical and therapeutic support in transitioning.
And these victories were hard won, inch by inch against those who do not want us to have it. The history of trans rights is littered with setbacks and defeats.
And yet people pressed on; and the result has been a lot of improved lives.
>>6112149
(1/2)
It's like you have not actually read what I wrote or if you did, you don't understand what I'm trying to say.
>The issue is, is that because of McHugh's credentials, he is held up as a voice of reason by that same side. So his deception is magnified because of his stature.
I agree with that, and it hurts that side that much more, but it still does not illegitimates them. It does however illegitimate Dr. McHugh himself.
>The APA's position is that it is not a mental disorder.
That is understandable, associations like APA (both "big APA" and "small APA") and other scientific organisations, have to asses all the research on the subject and decide on the most plausible answers. And such assessments are done weather or not the research on the said subject has been completed to provide, what in APAs eyes are, the most plausible guidelines on the subject.
Basing your opinions on the matter on guides from such scientific organisations is probably the safest bet as they have many professional members and such guidelines are probably evaluated with extreme care.
However, it does not mean that these guidelines can not be disproved by any further research and as the most obvious example is Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis, who was a pioneer of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics.
Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings as it was at the time before the germ theory was proven by Louis Pasteur.
This closed mindedness of the medical community has costed many lives which could have been saved if only they allowed for some skepticism in the established scientific and medical opinions at the time.
>>6112281
OK, no organization is 100% infallible. It doesn't mean it's 0% useful. The scientific community will continue researching the area. I don't think it's likely that they will completely change their stance.
>>6112149
(2/3)
>Psychotherapy isn't a proven treatment for the distress caused by gender dysphoria.
I would disagree on psychotherapy not being effective when treating gender dysphoria but I understand your position.
>However, the options are there, no patient is FORCED to transition. If they choose to, there are options; if they choose not to, there are options.
I do understand that, never said there is no option for these people and I know nobody is forced into transition. But the problem is that, with so many researchers unable to reach an argument, people with such problems contemplating weather or not they should transition should be able to easily see both sides of the argument, and not just see the arguments on one side and the arguments on the other side being labeled as a "conspiracy" by the representatives of the first. Such actions can effectively limit the choices for these people by limiting the information they will access, unless they are determined to do research on their own (which most people don't). This in turn has a potential of hurting people who could have benefited from the alternatives argued by the "conspiracy theorists".
>Why limit the patient's choice?
I have never said I would like to limit patients choices. Furthermore, as I explained above, if anyone is limiting anyone's choice it is people who discredit their opposite side and their arguments.
>It can improve dysphoria as well as conditions caused by it, however social stigma is still an issue, as well as whatever other mental disorders they may need to treat.
Again, it allegedly can improve dysphoria as well as conditions caused by it, and again I respect your argument but I disagree with it.
In terms of social stigma, such problems are not generally solved over just one generation, and the way the radical left is going about solving that problem is only hurting transgender people.
>>6112405
>I would disagree on psychotherapy not being effective when treating gender dysphoria but I understand your position.
Citation?
From the WPATH document:
>"Treatment aimed at trying to change a person's gender identity and expression to become more congruent with sex assigned at birth has been attempted in the past without success (Gelder & Marks, 1969; Greenson, 1964), particularly in the long term (Cohen-Kettenis & Kuiper, 1984; Pauly, 1965). Such treatment is no longer considered ethical."
From the APA:
>"Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful attempts to "convert," "repair," change or shift an individual's sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. Such directed efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized attitudes."
>>6112149
(3/4) I didn't expect I would right that much.
(...) By demanding special rights for a very small percentage of the population (about 0.3%), they can make most of the remaining majority despise that given minority. It is especially true when demanding something as controversial as allowing the transgender people to use toilets and changing rooms, in all public places, of the gender they identify with instead of the ones that correspond to their biological sex, which makes the majority feel like it could affect their well-being.
This is proved very well by the recent events around Target, after Target representatives said that
"We welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity"
and that
"Everyone deserves to feel like they belong."
which has angered many people who were outraged and think that such actions are not right.
Since then, over one million people have signed a boycott petition (afa.net/target), Targets stock has dropped by a huge 5%, numerous customer surveys indicated that Target lost about 10% of their previous customers, support for mixed-sex bathrooms dropped 8% while support for single-sex bathrooms has increased 12% and the worst is that it wrecked the public opinion on transgender people.
>I'm not sure what the moral issue is (on parents raising children with gender labels opposite to their sex and minor being allowed to chose to transition).
Some people argue that raising a child with a gender label opposite to their sex can be very damaging to their mental well being and their social life (I don't know if there is research on it). They argue that such actions contradict the accepted social norms and such child would be most likely casted out of any social circles in their schools and communities, damaging their mental health and their social life, all in the name of their parents "performing an experiment" on their child.
>>6112649
>bathroom laws
Social attitudes can change relatively rapidly. See: gay marriage in the past 10 years. And in any case, it's better to try than to give up.
>Some people
Who?
>argue that raising a child with a gender label opposite to their sex can be very damaging to their mental well being and their social life (I don't know if there is research on it).
Then why argue it?
>They argue that such actions contradict the accepted social norms and such child would be most likely casted out of any social circles in their schools and communities, damaging their mental health and their social life,
Any social transition would be decided by the parents, the child, and their therapists. In any case, from a recent study:
>The research found that the 73 children, age 3 to 12, had rates of depression and anxiety no higher than two control groups — their own siblings and a group of age- and gender-matched children. And their rates of depression and anxiety were significantly lower than those of gender-nonconforming children in previous studies.
http://www.washington.edu/news/2016/02/26/transgender-children-supported-in-their-identities-show-positive-mental-health/
Attitudes are changing.
>all in the name of their parents "performing an experiment" on their child.
I don't think any parent would "force" their children to do this. The main driver of the transition is the child. Have you read the WPATH Standards of Care for children?
anon A says X
anon B says Y
>this thread in a nutshell
>>6112649
(...)
>(on morality of minors deciding to transition)
I'm guessing you have been young at some point (unless you are underage then b&), as was I, and you could probably agree with me that being a child and especially a teenager can be very confusing. Many teenagers, especially during puberty, question many things about themselves and are very confused, this confusion can lead to many wrong choices which they will regret when they finally grow up and establish a sense of who they are.
I think we should not allow these confused people, with small knowledge about the world and life, to make such drastic and lifetime choices, simply because they cannot be trusted with making a decision they would not regret later.
These young people should be confronted by their parents, and they should do some actual parenting, helping them understand who they are and answering any questions they might have.
>>6112181
>The trouble comes when one side uses tactics such as misrepresented studies, cherry-picked data
As said before, that does not disprove their arguments.
>scare tactics such as fear, uncertainty, or doubt.
If you mean the fear of becoming mentally unstable after the transition and uncertainty of the transition actually solving their problems then these, as you call them, "scare tactics" are absolutely right.
These people have the right to know, and to be scared, what could happen, they have the right to make their own decision knowing all the positives and negatives and if they go with transition despite knowing what could happen then they know that it is truly their own decision they have made, and not a decision that somebody made for them.
>we have to look at the objective facts and not let our preconceptions color our decisions
As I explained previously, there is no thing as a truly objective fact and what I'm talking about are not "preconceptions" but legitimate arguments based on research
>>6112181
>>6112361
>>6112462
>>6112704
Ok, I am getting tired of constructing paragraphs of logical arguments for you because you seem to be unable to understand what I'm writing.
To most of the stuff you wrote in this posts I can just answer by saying (as I said before, again and again):
You have your believes and opinions, based on research and the general consensus of the major psychological community. That is fine with me and I respect that.
I have believes and opinions, which are based on research and the general consensus of the "outcasts" of major psychological community. I hope that it is fine with you and you respect that.
Neither of us is right or wrong (as I said, general consensus does not make something right), chances are neither of us ever will and the truth would lie somewhere in the middle.
I told you my views, you told me mine, I told you what I think of yours, you told me what you think of mine. We agree to disagree, that is all.
>Social attitudes can change relatively rapidly. See: gay marriage in the past 10 years.
Gay marriage is different because (contrary to what some people where/are crying out) there was never a chance of any real threat to any aspects of the day to day life of the majority.
Introduction of mixed-sex toilets in public places however, (for even a smaller minority than gays) has a real chance of affecting the day to day life of the majority, with the concern for children and sexual assaults. And I'm not saying that all transgender people are pedophiles and will sexually assault people in toilets (some might), I'm saying that the concerns is from actual pedophiles and deranged people using such laws to get away with stuff.
>Who? (argues the morality of rising kids with gender labels opposite to their sex)
People who understand how damaging such actions can be to the child and who have a clear moral compass.
>>6112953
>I have believes and opinions, which are based on research and the general consensus of the "outcasts" of major psychological community. I hope that it is fine with you and you respect that.
If the research is sound, sure, but the onus is on you to prove that. Otherwise I don't respect bad science.
>Neither of us is right or wrong (as I said, general consensus does not make something right), chances are neither of us ever will and the truth would lie somewhere in the middle.
This isn't a question of correct or incorrect. It's a matter of principles and empirical data. Either you value patients' well-being as recorded in studies and have principles based on bodily autonomy, or you don't.
>Introduction of mixed-sex toilets in public places however, (for even a smaller minority than gays) has a real chance of affecting the day to day life of the majority, with the concern for children and sexual assaults. And I'm not saying that all transgender people are pedophiles and will sexually assault people in toilets (some might), I'm saying that the concerns is from actual pedophiles and deranged people using such laws to get away with stuff.
Wtf? What does that have to do with anything? That has nothing to do with the core idea at debate here.
>People who understand how damaging such actions can be to the child and who have a clear moral compass.
What people? What damage? What morals are you basing this decision on?
It's clear, you're not willing to open your mind to the mainstream scientific research (because you'd lose), you're not willing to value bodily autonomy or the notion of gender identity (because you'd lose), and only by using vague woo-woo ideas of "morals" do you have a leg to stand on. And even then you don't even have an argument.
>>6112953
You're not presenting logical arguments, you're just avoiding answering the question.
I just want a thesis, supporting statements, and data. The kind of writing you learned in middle school. Give me an actual argument, not "Well, someone said.."
I can't address your argument because you're not giving me a cohesive one.
>>6112704
>Then why argue it? (no research)
This has to be the most retarded question you have asked so far.
1. Because if people are concerned with something they should voice it, and this is really concerning.
2. You still don't seem to grasp the idea of an argument.
You don't have to be right or wrong to have an opinion and make an argument.
Research can legitimise your arguments but still won't make it right.
Making an argument without any research to back it and similarly no research to disprove it does not make it a illegitimate one.
Making arguments on a subject with no research on provokes research to happen so the argument can either be legitimised or illegitimated.
It's human nature to question everything around us and claiming that something should not be questioned because there is no research on it has to be the most stupid thing I've seen in this thread.
>The research ...
I was arguing on the effects of parents labeling children with opposite genders (I might have not made it clear but it means that parents labble for example a male baby as a female from birth or before 3yo, and persist in that label while the child is growing up), that research has studied children who chose their gender by themselves AND are supported by their families.
The research itself is interesting but and backs your arguments but you have to remember that (as far as I know) this is the second research in that subject and the previews one came to the opposite conclusions, in turn backing my arguments.
Since both researches disagree, and there is only these two, I would not believe either until more extensive research is done.
>I don't think any parent would "force" their children to do this
At least we can agree on that. That post was not arguing about parents supporting children who strongly identify as a gender different from their sex. It was arguing the morality of parents who might raise kids with contradicting sex and gender label.
>>6113124
>This has to be the most retarded question you have asked so far.
If there's no research, then while the argument may be interesting there is no reason for us to talk about it, since we can both make our arguments and then nothing will change. Our time is better served discussing more substantive issues.
>That post was not arguing about parents supporting children who strongly identify as a gender different from their sex. It was arguing the morality of parents who might raise kids with contradicting sex and gender label.
OK... So what *is* the morality issue? You're dancing around this.
>>6113158
I ask because you said the morality issue was damaging children for the sake of parents 'experimenting' on children. I then brought up the fact that transitioning will be child-driven, not parent driven, and pointed to the Standards of Care protocol. I then pointed to the study showing that in a supportive environment, trans kids were nearly normal in terms of mental health.
>>6113045
>If the research ...
I will refer you to something similar to WPATH Standards of Care which is the ARIFs (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility) compendium of research which goal was to incorporate more research findings into decision making in NHS. There was two reviews to that research and as a brief introduction a quote from the first one:
"The overall conclusion reached by ARIF was:
The degree of uncertainty about any of the effects of gender reassignment is such that it is impossible
to make a judgement about whether the procedure is clinically effective."
And the second:
"Both reviews while recognising net benefits to carefully selected individuals remained concerned about
the quality of evidence on effectiveness (particularly adverse outcomes) and the biases to which
available studies were open."
Here is the full document (search for "Gender reasignment surgery" or go to page 1408)
http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-mds/haps/projects/ARIF/completed-requests.pdf
>This isn't a question of correct or incorrect. It's a matter of principles and empirical data. Either you value patients' well-being as recorded in studies and have principles based on bodily autonomy, or you don't.
How can you say that this is not a question of right or wrong when in the next sentence you say that it has to be based on principles and empirical data?
Setting aside principles, as these are "right" or "wrong" depending on personal preference and social norms, data can be either correct or incorrect and so far the research, at least in my opinion (and I'm not alone on that) is inconclusive, therefore there is no correct data.
The sole reason of valuing the patients well-being is why I question what WPATH says in their Standards of Care because there is research that says otherwise. And, as I said before, since principles are a matter of personal preference, they have nothing to do with our discussion.
>>6113316
Now look for one where it supports the opposite :)
>>6113045
I don't why if you are trying to imply that I am anti-trans but I did not make a single argument in this thread, based solely on my principles.
>What people? What damage? What morals are you basing this decision on?
Parents for example, teachers, people who deal with kids.
The possible damage to their mental health and social development. Families who support their children in their own choice are great but kids are cruel beasts, they don't express compassion in the same way the adults are and can bully each other for the most stupid reasons.
Morality based on the bio-social model of gender development.
You have a biologically determined sex, which is not only different reproductive organs but also different hormones and differences in brain development, and the last two affect your personality.
Your gender however is mostly the society labeling you as either male or female, although the hormones and differences in the brain will affect that as well.
Based on that morality it would be wrong for parents to label a male as a female from their birth or up to 3 years old, and persists in that label through their upbringing, simply because the child's gender is not solely based on that label but on their biology as well.
>It's clear, you're not willing ...
I am open to accept research that would prove beyond any doubt, while disproving everything else, what the WPATH is talking about. This is not in any way about losing or wining for me, if it was I could not be open minded.
Although this whole sentence seems like you consider this a matter of winning or losing, and it's probably true when you call the other side a "conspiracy".
As I said before, weather or not I value bodily autonomy has nothing to do with it.
As I stated above, because I believe in a duality of bio-social in shaping of ones gender I support the notion of gender disorders being a mental health problem. It does not mean however that I am against transitions and transgenders.
>>6113045
>and only by using vague woo-woo ideas of "morals" do you have a leg to stand on. And even then you don't even have an argument.
I used the idea of morals explaining the concerns about a single problem. And in that problem I wrote about the concerns and arguments of OTHERS and THEIR morality affecting their arguments on that problem.
You took that and ran with it implying that I used morality as basis for ALL my arguments.
The same arguments that apparently do not exist although you are still arguing with me over them.
>>6113082
From the Internet Encyclopedia od Philosophy:
"(...)"arguments" are those statements a person makes in the attempt to convince someone of something, or present reasons for accepting a given conclusion."
I was not really trying to convince anyone of anything as I have said before but I was presenting reasons for accepting conclusions made in research and personal experiences of others.
I would like to think that my arguments were logical and cohesive and you are contradicting yourself again as you addressed many of my arguments here by providing counter arguments yourself.
Otherwise, if my arguments had no value at all, why would you respond to them providing your counter arguments?
>>6113158
>>6113212
Ok ignoring that.
>>If there's no research, then while the argument may be interesting there is no reason for us to talk about it, since we can both make our arguments and then nothing will change. Our time is better served discussing more substantive issues.
I was sure I answered this exact same question before but whatever.
The reasons are pretty much stated in the post you are referring to.
The fact that you are responding to it alone is the reason to make such arguments. It made you think and construct a counter argument, that is enough.
How is anything supposed to change if people do not talk about it in the first place? Would slavery changed if nobody started talking against it? Would women get their right to vote if nobody had talked about it?
>>6113347
Says opposite? How? That it's conclusive? Then on what findings is it conclusive? And why would you tell someone to look for it when you obviously know about it, why not post it yourself? And how am I supposed to find it when you gave me literary no background info apart for the fact that it's conclusion somehow "supports the opposite" ?
