First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Transgender people
17654 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Croatia
Offline
Posted 1/25/16
Keep up the good work, guys. I need this thread to be active. ^^
Member
48494 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / ar away
Offline
Posted 1/25/16

Nalaniel wrote:

Keep up the good work, guys. I need this thread to be active. ^^
Why?

17654 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Croatia
Offline
Posted 1/26/16

JustineKo2 wrote:


Nalaniel wrote:

Keep up the good work, guys. I need this thread to be active. ^^
Why?



I'm bored.
Member
3228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/29/16
I generally don't care what may or may not be dangling between your legs. However, I certainly will be pissed if you're making me pay to "fix" that.

I understand that gender dysphoria is a very real issue. It's also a very RARE issue, and 99% of the Tumblrinas claiming to be transgendered do NOT have gender dysphoria. However, this is a psychological issue, and Hormone Therapy and gender re-assignment even within those real cases is exceedingly rare; usually, counselling of various types is tried first (and only after long assessment periods). However, gender re-assignment is always considered a last resort.

This type of rational approach to the issue, I wouldn't mind the funds for it coming from taxes, actually. It's sane, it's rational, it makes sense.

I also don't believe in all this "respect muh pronouns" stuff. A transgender person is, by definition, someone who is in the process of transitioning to the opposite gender they were born with. Star-gendered is right out.

I also don't really care about misgendering. I do that with people that are NOT trans (or at least to my knowledge) simply because I sometimes just can't tell. However, there was a guy I knew at one of my old forums who lives in my city, has a beard, dresses in "manly" clothes, and wanted people to start calling him by female pronouns. I completely refused, because...

Your fantasy might be more palatable to you, but it doesn't interfere with my reality.
Moderator
33510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 2/1/16

sarteck wrote:

I generally don't care what may or may not be dangling between your legs. However, I certainly will be pissed if you're making me pay to "fix" that.

I understand that gender dysphoria is a very real issue. It's also a very RARE issue, and 99% of the Tumblrinas claiming to be transgendered do NOT have gender dysphoria. However, this is a psychological issue, and Hormone Therapy and gender re-assignment even within those real cases is exceedingly rare; usually, counselling of various types is tried first (and only after long assessment periods). However, gender re-assignment is always considered a last resort.

This type of rational approach to the issue, I wouldn't mind the funds for it coming from taxes, actually. It's sane, it's rational, it makes sense.

I also don't believe in all this "respect muh pronouns" stuff. A transgender person is, by definition, someone who is in the process of transitioning to the opposite gender they were born with. Star-gendered is right out.

I also don't really care about misgendering. I do that with people that are NOT trans (or at least to my knowledge) simply because I sometimes just can't tell. However, there was a guy I knew at one of my old forums who lives in my city, has a beard, dresses in "manly" clothes, and wanted people to start calling him by female pronouns. I completely refused, because...

Your fantasy might be more palatable to you, but it doesn't interfere with my reality.

My sentiments exactly. Like literally exactly.
Member
698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/16
So are the two of you advocating that surgical intervention makes sense when okayed by a qualified professional who has seen the patient for an appropriate amount of time? Just making sure I am getting from your posts what I think I am.

As to the pronouns, I'm not especially bothered. If it makes them more comfortable and they politely make it clear I will address them as preferred. it doesn't really cost me anything nor cause me any trouble. If they are rude and obnoxious I won't need to use pronouns in their presence since I will likely just refuse to deal with them if that is an option. The bearded fellow seems rather dissonant. Why would you choose to identify as female and then sport the single manliest symbol available outside of male genitalia? That is a very inconsistent choice and I would have to question it without sufficient coherent rationale.

There are also humans born intersexed and those who have genetic complications of their biological sex (xyy, xxy, xxx to xxxxx, and even xo). We don't have proper pronouns to cover some of these individuals really, so I am fine with them choosing what fits best. A portion of the trans community were gender assigned at birth to a gender that does not match their chromosomes or ends up not fitting the way they turn out. Heck, there is a community called Salinas in the Dominican Republic where some individuals they were raising as daughters (who under a standard medical physical exam appear female) then hit puberty and a scrotum forms, testicles drop, and a penis grows. Ta-da, your daughter was really a son all along! This community accepts the change happened and moves on.
Moderator
33510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 2/3/16

LordDust wrote:

So are the two of you advocating that surgical intervention makes sense when okayed by a qualified professional who has seen the patient for an appropriate amount of time? Just making sure I am getting from your posts what I think I am.

No. I am advocating that a silicone injection into the chest area will not turn a man into a woman. Sure, it may make them feel better. They may have a 100% belief that they are a woman in a man's body, but if your body is producing testosterone and is capable of producing sperm, then you are biologically functioning as a male, and your feelings do not matter past that point.

There are some people who are born with a rare disorder that makes them grow body hair all over and at an extremely accelerated rate. Yet they share every other trait that 'normal' humans do. Does that single disorder make them any less of humans? No.

There is an extremely rare, cancerous disease that causes the skin to grow at an accelerated rate and creates wart like lesions that are rough and comparable to 'tree bark'. Does that disorder make them any less of a human? No.

The point is, just because you have a mess up in a chromosome somewhere, extreme (as my examples) or not (transgenderism), it does not change what you were born as. All that SRS can accomplish, at this point, is to change what you look like, and I'd prefer my tax dollars to not go towards a 'feel good' cause. Sorry, if that makes me a douchebag.


As to the pronouns, I'm not especially bothered. If it makes them more comfortable and they politely make it clear I will address them as preferred. it doesn't really cost me anything nor cause me any trouble. If they are rude and obnoxious I won't need to use pronouns in their presence since I will likely just refuse to deal with them if that is an option. The bearded fellow seems rather dissonant. Why would you choose to identify as female and then sport the single manliest symbol available outside of male genitalia? That is a very inconsistent choice and I would have to question it without sufficient coherent rationale.
I'm not really for calling someone what they are not. Just like I wouldn't refer to someone as an attack helicopter after they put a propeller on their back.


There are also humans born intersexed and those who have genetic complications of their biological sex (xyy, xxy, xxx to xxxxx, and even xo). We don't have proper pronouns to cover some of these individuals really, so I am fine with them choosing what fits best. A portion of the trans community were gender assigned at birth to a gender that does not match their chromosomes or ends up not fitting the way they turn out. Heck, there is a community called Salinas in the Dominican Republic where some individuals they were raising as daughters (who under a standard medical physical exam appear female) then hit puberty and a scrotum forms, testicles drop, and a penis grows. Ta-da, your daughter was really a son all along! This community accepts the change happened and moves on.
And yes, I am aware that there are complicated scenarios. Which is why I have a simplified way of dealing with them.

If they are not having menstrual cycles, and they are able to produce sperm and it has been affirmed that they have a prostate, then I have no problem associating them as a man.

If you are having menstrual cycles and you want me to call you a man, then I'm sorry, but I'm not complying to such demands, as I find them unreasonable.

Finally, in the case that neither of your genitalia can function, then I will refer to you as whatever your body type most closely resembles.
Member
698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 2/4/16

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:

No. I am advocating that a silicone injection into the chest area will not turn a man into a woman. Sure, it may make them feel better. They may have a 100% belief that they are a woman in a man's body, but if your body is producing testosterone and is capable of producing sperm, then you are biologically functioning as a male, and your feelings do not matter past that point.

There are some people who are born with a rare disorder that makes them grow body hair all over and at an extremely accelerated rate. Yet they share every other trait that 'normal' humans do. Does that single disorder make them any less of humans? No.

There is an extremely rare, cancerous disease that causes the skin to grow at an accelerated rate and creates wart like lesions that are rough and comparable to 'tree bark'. Does that disorder make them any less of a human? No.

The point is, just because you have a mess up in a chromosome somewhere, extreme (as my examples) or not (transgenderism), it does not change what you were born as. All that SRS can accomplish, at this point, is to change what you look like, and I'd prefer my tax dollars to not go towards a 'feel good' cause. Sorry, if that makes me a douchebag.

I'm not really for calling someone what they are not. Just like I wouldn't refer to someone as an attack helicopter after they put a propeller on their back.

And yes, I am aware that there are complicated scenarios. Which is why I have a simplified way of dealing with them.

If they are not having menstrual cycles, and they are able to produce sperm and it has been affirmed that they have a prostate, then I have no problem associating them as a man.

If you are having menstrual cycles and you want me to call you a man, then I'm sorry, but I'm not complying to such demands, as I find them unreasonable.

Finally, in the case that neither of your genitalia can function, then I will refer to you as whatever your body type most closely resembles.


I'm not especially likely to call you a douchebag. I find it interesting that you are insistent upon "calling a spade a spade" in the first part of your position, then clarify your personal standards, then assert that if those standards are baffled you will simply rely on appearances. It is inconsistent and isn't well supported by biology the way it is being applied according to what you listed. If a male loses his testicles due to cancer or injury and develops some feminine secondary sex characteristics, that position would call for changing from "him" to "her". If someone has their organs surgically altered and receives hormonal therapy they would not have a menstrual cycle or produce sperm, but they would resemble most the gender they are identifying as which calls for calling them their preferred pronoun by the criteria listed, the opposite of your position. I don't desire to change your mind, I just find your position one that I could not hold. It simply does not make sense to me personally.

They are all human in your examples, yes. They are not the same as other humans. Refusing the cancerous fellow surgery because most human skin doesn't cause most humans problems would not make sense. The line between male and female is not always clear cut in nature. Genetic disorders related to the X and Y chromosome pair can in fact make you a mixture of male and female, or not precisely either at all. Hormonal issues can prevent a human from developing some or most of the secondary sex characteristics.

As to the surgery, as I stated before it has been shown to provide benefit and have more positive outcomes for many of them (even if there is room for further scientific inquiry and debate, that is what is available). Without surgery there is a higher incidence of suicide attempts and successes, institutionalization, etc. and other costs for tax dollars for those whose medical is supported by taxes. When insurance companies are footing the bill it becomes a diffused cost in the premiums and deductibles equations, but it is still going to result in other increases from the same population's derived problems as with taxes. I am not a "warm fuzzies" kind of human. It is a bit challenging for me to engage others emotionally, doing it for strangers that I cannot relate to isn't in my wheelhouse. I cannot relate to transgenders aside from the "outsider" identity, which isn't exactly a great starting point for any attempt at empathy so I have little emotional stake. For those reasons I prefer to look at the issue in terms of how best to solve attendant problems.

It seems to me that your position is that: "regardless of data and qualified scientific and professional opinion, surgery should not be covered as a medical expense for those suffering gender dysmorphic disorders." Feel free to correct me if that is inaccurate, but please do clarify further.

The pronoun issue is simple for me; I don't have a particular investment. I also don't find it especially silly if they are in fact identifying as that gender (the bearded individual listed above would not qualify). I do not find the helicopter example to be comparable really. The argument presented doesn't really persuade me to change my methods and in fact seems like it will require more effort on my part. I'm not big on extra effort for small or no returns. You can call them as you wish in a free society, I'll employ the same freedom and stick with my method.
Moderator
33510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 2/4/16
First off, I'll go ahead and say that I'm glad that, though we likely won't end up seeing eye to eye, you can at least respect my stance, and I respect yours as well. I'll also clarify that my stance is based on the fact that there is simply not enough for me to change my mind on it: it is not that I am against the concept of SRS or transgenders, but right now, the surgery is nothing more than changing the appearances.

I feel that it is up to you to do what you will with your body, but the main point of this thread was asking whether or not you would feel fine with your tax dollars going into helping pay for SRS, and that is where I was going with my previous reply.

Now, to answer you in chronological order as I am tired and do not feel like doing a bunch of formatting. I will break up paragraph by paragraph though.


LordDust wrote:

I'm not especially likely to call you a douchebag. I find it interesting that you are insistent upon "calling a spade a spade" in the first part of your position, then clarify your personal standards, then assert that if those standards are baffled you will simply rely on appearances. It is inconsistent and isn't well supported by biology the way it is being applied according to what you listed. If a male loses his testicles due to cancer or injury and develops some feminine secondary sex characteristics, that position would call for changing from "him" to "her". If someone has their organs surgically altered and receives hormonal therapy they would not have a menstrual cycle or produce sperm, but they would resemble most the gender they are identifying as which calls for calling them their preferred pronoun by the criteria listed, the opposite of your position. I don't desire to change your mind, I just find your position one that I could not hold. It simply does not make sense to me personally.
Unfortunately, to my knowledge, there is no consistent way to tell what sex someone is without using their reproductive system as a distinctive marker of sorts. Also, to my knowledge, there have been no cases of males losing their genitalia and then adopting female characteristics as a byproduct. And, even if they lose their genitals physically, if they are still producing testosterone at the normal rate and they have not developed female genitalia, then no I would not consider them as female. Sorry for "calling a spade a spade", but that's a hell of a lot more consistent than calling a spade a hatchet because someone always places it under a sign that says 'hatchet'.

Having someone surgically alter their organs that work fine as the sex that they are trying to shy away from is no more than mutilation. You are changing normal, working organs into non-functioning organs that look like the organs that you wish that you had. Receiving hormone altering medication to alter your hormone levels is not tantamount to producing your own hormones.


They are all human in your examples, yes. They are not the same as other humans. Refusing the cancerous fellow surgery because most human skin doesn't cause most humans problems would not make sense. The line between male and female is not always clear cut in nature. Genetic disorders related to the X and Y chromosome pair can in fact make you a mixture of male and female, or not precisely either at all. Hormonal issues can prevent a human from developing some or most of the secondary sex characteristics.
I don't think you understand the point that i was trying to make. Excuse me as it was a bit far-fetched, but I'm trying new arguments on certain subjects as I'm finding the most rational of arguments that are made are dismissed quickly rather than countered, and I wanted to try and use an argument that, while extreme, might help to advocate my position a little more.

I am not advocating that we don't allow SRS, I am saying that I don't believe it is up to me to pay for SRS. SRS is a surgery designed to make you feel better, as it does not fix any problem other than your attitude of wanting to be the opposite sex. It is no different than that of plastic surgery, which is designed to help you look the way you want to look. Should we also have our tax dollars fund those who wish that their nose wasn't as large? No; I don't think we should.


As to the surgery, as I stated before it has been shown to provide benefit and have more positive outcomes for many of them (even if there is room for further scientific inquiry and debate, that is what is available). Without surgery there is a higher incidence of suicide attempts and successes, institutionalization, etc. and other costs for tax dollars for those whose medical is supported by taxes. When insurance companies are footing the bill it becomes a diffused cost in the premiums and deductibles equations, but it is still going to result in other increases from the same population's derived problems as with taxes. I am not a "warm fuzzies" kind of human. It is a bit challenging for me to engage others emotionally, doing it for strangers that I cannot relate to isn't in my wheelhouse. I cannot relate to transgenders aside from the "outsider" identity, which isn't exactly a great starting point for any attempt at empathy so I have little emotional stake. For those reasons I prefer to look at the issue in terms of how best to solve attendant problems.
Yah, but I have also heard of and seen statistics that would advocate the opposite of what you are saying here. I don't know which statistics are more true and less biased, so I can't really make a judgement call here.

I do know that there are a hell of a lot of people saying that they are some off-standard gender and it's been shown that at least 90% of them are bull shit. So, that's not helping the cause at all. It's also one of the main reasons that I have the stance that I have. I'm not going to subject myself to the fantasies (and I really do hate saying it like that as I know it is an actual problem to some people) of those who are going to claim to be female, one day, and then male the next, whereas the entire time, their body is functioning as either male or female.

Also, to my knowledge, we are just now starting to discover that transgenderism is a real issue and the mechanisms behind it, so neither side really knows more than the other about it. There is still plenty of research to be had that can change my or your viewpoint.


It seems to me that your position is that: "regardless of data and qualified scientific and professional opinion, surgery should not be covered as a medical expense for those suffering gender dysmorphic disorders." Feel free to correct me if that is inaccurate, but please do clarify further.
I have already covered this earlier, but since you want me to clarify, I don't think I should have to help pay for some non-life threatening disorder that many people claim to have.

Not only that, we are only just now discovering the designs of the disorder, but it's not like it's something new that just fell upon humanity. It's always been around, or it's been around for a really long time, and people have gotten by without it for (likely) thousands of years. Can you possibly justify how something, that has never been a problem, needs my tax money to not help them, but make them feel better for themselves? If your answer is sufficient, you can change my mind. But given the circumstances of my stance, I don't think there is anything that you can really say that will be sufficient to change my mind. I'm a person who has always idolized realism over idealism, and I think that helping these people is all fine and dandy morally, but realistically, if we were to change where tax dollars go to or just increase taxes in general, there are a lot of more important things that they can go to. Places, people, and things that actually need it.


The pronoun issue is simple for me; I don't have a particular investment. I also don't find it especially silly if they are in fact identifying as that gender (the bearded individual listed above would not qualify). I do not find the helicopter example to be comparable really. The argument presented doesn't really persuade me to change my methods and in fact seems like it will require more effort on my part. I'm not big on extra effort for small or no returns. You can call them as you wish in a free society, I'll employ the same freedom and stick with my method.
The pronoun issue is also simple to me. It's just a language really, so if you're getting offended that I'm calling you a pronoun which is derivative from the physical characteristics that you have (observatory andbiologically) then you are getting offended over trivial matters, and your offense isn't really much of a concern for me. It's like being bothered because you said something true and it offended someone. Actually, it's exactly that.

I find the attack helicopter example overused, yes, but it is an excellent example when used properly. Placing a propeller on one's back makes them just as much a helicopter as giving someone fake boobs and a simulated vagina makes them a woman.

Finally, to close off, I do not expect to change your opinion, but I was simply asserting mine. I was not and have not been writing to change your opinion because I, personally, value different opinions as it is the keystone to progression. If we all agreed, then there would be no reason or room to study, and that would mean there would, as consequence, be no progression.

However, you are basing your opinion off of limited research and jumping to moralized conclusions way before any conclusive findings have been made, whereas I am saying that there is not enough advancement in the field to say that a man can become a woman per the result of a surgery, and, therefore, I do not recognize SRS to be any different than a modification to your body in favor of appearance rather than functionality.
Member
3228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/4/16 , edited 2/4/16

LordDust wrote:

So are the two of you advocating that surgical intervention makes sense when okayed by a qualified professional who has seen the patient for an appropriate amount of time? Just making sure I am getting from your posts what I think I am.


No, not really at all what I was getting at.

I don't "advocate" or "disadvocate" for cosmetic surgery. I don't care if a "qualified professional" (too undefined/subjective a term to really be taken seriously) that has seen the patient "for an appropriate amount of time" (again, too undefined/subjective). Their body, their choice.

If you are talking "to receive funds for their cosmetic surgery," then yeah, somewhat. First of all, the subjective bit above would have to be defined, and secondly I'd have to say the person needs to be treated for what they really are: psychologically disturbed. And that includes all the baggage that comes with that, including regular visits to and checkups from state departments regulating mental health.



LordDust wrote:

As to the pronouns, I'm not especially bothered. If it makes them more comfortable and they politely make it clear I will address them as preferred. it doesn't really cost me anything nor cause me any trouble. If they are rude and obnoxious I won't need to use pronouns in their presence since I will likely just refuse to deal with them if that is an option. The bearded fellow seems rather dissonant. Why would you choose to identify as female and then sport the single manliest symbol available outside of male genitalia? That is a very inconsistent choice and I would have to question it without sufficient coherent rationale.


The man in my anecdote wasn't exactly "rude" about it. A bit forceful, but not rude. Despite him not being an ass, though, I will not accept to perverting my reality, what I can clearly see with my own eyes, just to make him feel better.

I apply that to pretty much every single transgender person. It may sound rude, it may sound "transphobic," but the reality of it is that I accept reality and I do not accept fantasy being able to over-write that reality just because someone's feelings might get hurt.

Do you know who we do that too? Do you know who we lie to in order to make the world seem happier/better/nicer?

Children. Retards. People we look down on for not being as wise/intelligent/capable of processing harsh reality. If people cannot accept reality, then that's exactly how we should treat them.



LordDust wrote:

There are also humans born intersexed and those who have genetic complications of their biological sex (xyy, xxy, xxx to xxxxx, and even xo). We don't have proper pronouns to cover some of these individuals really, so I am fine with them choosing what fits best. A portion of the trans community were gender assigned at birth to a gender that does not match their chromosomes or ends up not fitting the way they turn out. Heck, there is a community called Salinas in the Dominican Republic where some individuals they were raising as daughters (who under a standard medical physical exam appear female) then hit puberty and a scrotum forms, testicles drop, and a penis grows. Ta-da, your daughter was really a son all along! This community accepts the change happened and moves on.


Let's stop right there. "intersexed" or non-normal chromosomes are abnormalities. They are NOT genders. They are not even Transgendered (which itself is NOT a gender).

The "gender assigned at birth" crap I consider utter crap. The mutations you speak of are not only exceedingly rare, but again are mutations. We don't need another word or species to describe conjoined twins and kids born without a limb or two. The exact same thing goes for genetic deformities that cause the gender-related abnormalities you mention.

Also, Salinas is either less than third world, or these "daughters" you're talking about are some of the weirdest fucking abnormalities out there. Your genitals develop while you are still in the womb. Here's a link you can read up on that gives some great pictures to help you understand how the genitals develop (in the FIRST trimester), and how the folds of skin down there develop into your scrotum and penis versus your labia and clitoris:

http://www.baby2see.com/gender/external_genitals.html




[EDIT] I have not read the responses after this yet, but I'm busy watching anime.
Member
698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 2/5/16

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


My reason for debating issues is sometimes to attempt to educate, sometimes an attempt to persuade, and most often an attempt to better understand others' stances while refining my own views. Most people hold the views they do for reasons that have little to do with facts so persuasion is often a lost cause anyway.

Sorry if it seems pedantic to you, but I am rather specific about most things when I have a choice. The way I categorize things requires that I correct issues in my schema as I find them. This tends to carry over into most things. The helicopter example makes no sense because in my mind it isn't even related. Functional sex organs are not a requirement for being male or female unless you declare everyone without them to be gender neutral. A propeller doesn't make one a helicopter, but functional sex organs are not a requirement to be a woman or a man medically or even biologically. Women have been born such that they have vaginas that do not produce lubricant. Some are not born with a properly formed vagina and have surgery to correct this. Not all women have functional ovaries. I find classifying the way you do inconsistent rather than accurate, for me it is a bit like a sore tooth. You try to pay it no mind, but it is mildly irritating. Please don't take that as any sort of reflection on you though, it is just how my brain works grating against something that doesn't jive with it.

The bit about a male developing secondary sex characteristics can indeed happen. Some men produce a little too much estrogen, but this doesn't impact them much day to day. If they lose one or both testicles due to injury or cancer they can develop breasts. For a fictional example of a real world thing think "Bitch Tits Bob" from Fight Club. In the real world though, guys that suffer that usually looked a pinch more feminine to start with.

There is still research that needs to be done, but in the meantime we need to work with what we have. The only moral position I take is the prevailing and accepted medical one. Depression is about feelings. Those feelings can affect your health and result in very poor decisions or pervasive apathy due to an inability to cope. I don't see that as being significantly different from how gender dysmorphic disorder impacts these people in terms of outcomes. In both cases the disorders are "just feelings". Depression too was around long before we medically identified it and studied it. There was a time when people were expected to just get by with that as well. We obviously do not have data from before either disorder was medically studied outside of anecdotal things. I do think that based on what we know it is likely that most people simply either led worse and less productive lives as they struggled with it, committed suicide, or were killed (for both disorders outside of certain cultures, some native peoples for example supported transgenders). I do not see why we should treat them differently. Generally the same standard of care is applied across the field. If there were a surgical intervention that improved outcomes for two thirds of depression sufferers that were not treatable through medication and therapy it would most likely be approved. This wouldn't give this sort of thing to the 90% you are speaking of. Only those who have been seen by a psychologist or psychiatrist for the mandated period (a year in most jurisdictions, some areas already have rules and some insurance companies cover it) would be able to qualify and only if said professional approved them for it. They would have to be medically qualified, they couldn't just ask for it.

I think that I understand your position for the most part now, so thank you for taking the time to explain your views more fully. As to taxes in general, that morass is horrifying and in desperate need of redress. The amounts already wasted on far less worthy causes than mental health and quality of life are stratospheric, but that would be an entirely new topic.
Member
3228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/5/16

LordDust wrote:

There is still research that needs to be done, but in the meantime we need to work with what we have. The only moral position I take is the prevailing and accepted medical one. Depression is about feelings. Those feelings can affect your health and result in very poor decisions or pervasive apathy due to an inability to cope. I don't see that as being significantly different from how gender dysmorphic disorder impacts these people in terms of outcomes. In both cases the disorders are "just feelings". Depression too was around long before we medically identified it and studied it. There was a time when people were expected to just get by with that as well. We obviously do not have data from before either disorder was medically studied outside of anecdotal things. I do think that based on what we know it is likely that most people simply either led worse and less productive lives as they struggled with it, committed suicide, or were killed (for both disorders outside of certain cultures, some native peoples for example supported transgenders). I do not see why we should treat them differently. Generally the same standard of care is applied across the field. If there were a surgical intervention that improved outcomes for two thirds of depression sufferers that were not treatable through medication and therapy it would most likely be approved. This wouldn't give this sort of thing to the 90% you are speaking of. Only those who have been seen by a psychologist or psychiatrist for the mandated period (a year in most jurisdictions, some areas already have rules and some insurance companies cover it) would be able to qualify and only if said professional approved them for it. They would have to be medically qualified, they couldn't just ask for it.

I think that I understand your position for the most part now, so thank you for taking the time to explain your views more fully. As to taxes in general, that morass is horrifying and in desperate need of redress. The amounts already wasted on far less worthy causes than mental health and quality of life are stratospheric, but that would be an entirely new topic.


You are stating blatantly unfactual issues in your conclusion.

There is no surgical operation that can cure 2/3rds of depression.

You are insinuating that the operation cures clinical depression, and that's not true at all. There have been absolutely ZERO studies (much less peer-reviewed formal studies) on the comparison of post-op trannies depression lifting, and indeed they still are often noted for committing suicide, and/or suicide attempts.

YOur argument stems from this premise, and this premise is completely false, and therefore I can't accept it.

There are other logical inconsistencies in your argument as well.

"Depression" is not merely about feeling. If you honestly feel that way, you have no clue that depression is a medical condition that results from imbalances in your brain chemically, and the negative feelings that result thereof. That is why with medication and sometimes therapy we are able to overcome depression most of the time, but without those things we are NOT able to.

This is also why an operation cannot cure depression. In fact, it would likely be a stressor for relapse a hell of a lot of the time. We're talking about doing to an emotionally and mentally unstable person, changing one of the things that makes them who they are, something that's not reversible.

And worse yet, we're even advocating it for children, since some Californian (of course) women have already decided that they're son is a girl and are prepping him for transitioning. Remarkably, his little brother *gasp* is also trans! Gee, what are the odds, eh? Yeah, I think you can see where I'm going with that. Poor kids are six and nine.

(Also, just putting it on chemical imbalances, too, is a bit shaky, I admit; some very rare and severe cases are quite a bit more complex, but that's a whole 'nother story.)
Moderator
33510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 2/5/16

LordDust wrote:

My reason for debating issues is sometimes to attempt to educate, sometimes an attempt to persuade, and most often an attempt to better understand others' stances while refining my own views. Most people hold the views they do for reasons that have little to do with facts so persuasion is often a lost cause anyway.
I agree with the last bit about reasons for debate. I don't try to educate or persuade people as I know that is usually a lost cause.


Sorry if it seems pedantic to you, but I am rather specific about most things when I have a choice. The way I categorize things requires that I correct issues in my schema as I find them. This tends to carry over into most things. The helicopter example makes no sense because in my mind it isn't even related.
It is actually very related as it is adding non-functional parts to the body with the sole purpose of changing the appearance of said individual. The reason you do not see the connection is because you will not see the connection.

Functional sex organs are not a requirement for being male or female unless you declare everyone without them to be gender neutral.
False. I'm going to try to not have to result to yelling fallacy left and right, but I'm going to need you to either level with me or try to understand what I'm saying more. I don't believe that the concept of transgenderism is as black and white as male, female, and gender neutral. So don't tell me that that is what I said.

I said, and all I said, was that Sexual Reassignment Surgery is not currently advanced enough to do anything more than make someone feel more like the opposite sex. I am also not going to refer to a man as a woman simply because that is his wish; however many emotional spins you take on each situation is not going to change that.

A propeller doesn't make one a helicopter, but functional sex organs are not a requirement to be a woman or a man medically or even biologically.
Actually, yes they are. I'll go ahead and dumb this down for the sake of clarity. Males have copulated with females to procreate since the beginning of the male/female dichotomy on this planet. Aside from rare cases, this is how it has always been.

Now that this has been clarified, I am glad that you agree with me that adding a non functional part is not going to change what that individual is or was born as.

Women have been born such that they have vaginas that do not produce lubricant. Some are not born with a properly formed vagina and have surgery to correct this. Not all women have functional ovaries. I find classifying the way you do inconsistent rather than accurate, for me it is a bit like a sore tooth.
Once again, case by case situation. I'm not going to declare someone who was born a female a man simply because they were also born barren. There is no set of rules that one can just lay down to determine one's sex. I simply gave you a simplified list and you are taking it far above what I tried to convey.

You try to pay it no mind, but it is mildly irritating. Please don't take that as any sort of reflection on you though, it is just how my brain works grating against something that doesn't jive with it.
Then, despite what you say, you are clearly not taking my side too seriously. And that's fine, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend that there is enough advancement in the field to be more correct than the other end of the spectrum. You can take the moral high road all that you like, if that makes you feel superior, but I'm not going to make any changes to my line of thought simply because for right now it just makes other people feel better.


The bit about a male developing secondary sex characteristics can indeed happen. Some men produce a little too much estrogen, but this doesn't impact them much day to day. If they lose one or both testicles due to injury or cancer they can develop breasts. For a fictional example of a real world thing think "Bitch Tits Bob" from Fight Club. In the real world though, guys that suffer that usually looked a pinch more feminine to start with.
And once again, I will clarify that it is a case by case situation. To say that people with this condition are in the minorities is an understatement.


There is still research that needs to be done, but in the meantime we need to work with what we have. The only moral position I take is the prevailing and accepted medical one.
Except you are taking your position too far and prematurely declaring the other side to be wrong.

As I have said, I know just about as much of it as you do; I have maybe not as much (if you actively looked into this) but at least a solid amount of knowledge to go on. I came by my decision and you came by yours. My, your, or both of our stances can change with a single breakthrough.

Depression is about feelings. Those feelings can affect your health and result in very poor decisions or pervasive apathy due to an inability to cope. I don't see that as being significantly different from how gender dysmorphic disorder impacts these people in terms of outcomes. In both cases the disorders are "just feelings". Depression too was around long before we medically identified it and studied it. There was a time when people were expected to just get by with that as well. We obviously do not have data from before either disorder was medically studied outside of anecdotal things. I do think that based on what we know it is likely that most people simply either led worse and less productive lives as they struggled with it, committed suicide, or were killed (for both disorders outside of certain cultures, some native peoples for example supported transgenders).
Except the two conditions are incomparable.

Yes, depression has been found to coexist along side with people struggling with transgenderism, but that does not mean everybody with the condition also suffers from depression. The main difference is that many people are faking transgenderism as it is currently the status quo to do so. Yes, people fake depression but it's generally pretty easy to tell if someone is actually depressed or not.

I do not see why we should treat them differently. Generally the same standard of care is applied across the field. If there were a surgical intervention that improved outcomes for two thirds of depression sufferers that were not treatable through medication and therapy it would most likely be approved. This wouldn't give this sort of thing to the 90% you are speaking of. Only those who have been seen by a psychologist or psychiatrist for the mandated period (a year in most jurisdictions, some areas already have rules and some insurance companies cover it) would be able to qualify and only if said professional approved them for it. They would have to be medically qualified, they couldn't just ask for it.
And that's fine by me, but that's treatment of depression. I still do not care to pay for someone to surgically alter their body to make them look like what they want to look like.


I think that I understand your position for the most part now, so thank you for taking the time to explain your views more fully. As to taxes in general, that morass is horrifying and in desperate need of redress. The amounts already wasted on far less worthy causes than mental health and quality of life are stratospheric, but that would be an entirely new topic.
On this, I can pretty much agree.

Sorry if my views do, indeed, offend you or anybody reading this. Once again, I am not claiming to know more than anybody and I am not trying to hurt the feelings of anyone who might have to do with the topic. It's just my view on things, right now, with what little I do know.

Think I'm going to withdraw for now. Was a great talk though, Dust.
Member
698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 2/5/16

sarteck wrote:


The Salinas cases would likely be mistaken here in the USA or most modern nations. They appear fully female externally, so without a more detailed exam than is typical there would be no reason to believe otherwise. There is no reason to perform sufficient exams to discover that there are undescended testes in their abdomen. They do not customarily do a very extensive investigation of a female infant's vaginal cavity. Their bodies are somewhat similar to those who suffer androgen insensitivity. The difference is that it only affects them in the womb. This means that when puberty hits they do actually grow a penis and their testes descend into a forming scrotum, the "vaginal cavity" inverts. I don't need help for understanding fetal development, I have plenty of college credit that includes human development. Thank you for taking the time to post the link anyway. The thing is, it seldom goes fully to plan but most variations are minor and don't have enough impact to be worth noticing or detailing. Occasionally those differences are whoppers though, like the conjoined twins you cite. These differences can be caused by genetics, in womb hormonal differences (these can have myriad causes), physical events, and teratogens. Brief tangent: A very interesting oddity is a chimera. Two separate and genetically distinct zygotes form and either exchange a portion of one another or actually fuse into one and develop normally. The resultant child in the second case has two distinct sets of DNA and which you will see depends on where you take a sample (it depends on which parts developed form which portion). I have not heard of it producing true hermaphrodites in humans, but it apparently has in animals. In the case where they remain two it can manifest a few ways but the most common is that they each possess blood cells from the other. Biology has a lot of interesting "mistakes".

The reason I listed those mutations is because some of them do not present with normal sex organs at birth. Doctors typically assign them a gender and surgically "fix" them. Many of them either find out later that they are partially becoming the other (around puberty) or suffer gender dysphoric disorder. They are very pertinent to this conversation. They may be a small part of the general population, but so are those who suffer gender dysphoric disorder to begin with. Their complicated biological sex directly impacts their gender identities.

Qualified professionals are psychologists or psychiatrists in good standing with their board. I don't think there is any state in the USA that does it differently than that (I would expect it would be similar in Canada). The length of time varies based on jurisdiction, but the medical recommendation in the states was a minimum of one year last time I checked. Generally they attempt to treat gender dysphoria with therapy and medication first. If that doesn't work they usually try to see if something less drastic than surgery is sufficient to alleviate the symptoms. Surgery is typically the last resort and part of the requirements are usually that the patient attempts to live as much as possible as their new gender for a period of time before surgery is approved. It isn't like the mental health professionals throw around approval for this surgery like candy. I don't think you can even get this surgery in the USA without such a recommendation.

Lastly, the guy in your example may not have been rude, but if he is identifying as female then I would expect him to make some effort to be female. If he makes no effort, I see no reason why I should use those pronouns in that case. If someone dresses feminine, shaves the facial hair, and makes an effort to be female and asks me to use feminine pronouns, that isn't a burden for me. It also has no impact on my reality at all, it simply isn't that fragile. I see where you are coming from, I just can't see it as that significant or burdensome myself.
Member
698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 2/5/16

sarteck wrote:


LordDust wrote:

There is still research that needs to be done, but in the meantime we need to work with what we have. The only moral position I take is the prevailing and accepted medical one. Depression is about feelings. Those feelings can affect your health and result in very poor decisions or pervasive apathy due to an inability to cope. I don't see that as being significantly different from how gender dysmorphic disorder impacts these people in terms of outcomes. In both cases the disorders are "just feelings". Depression too was around long before we medically identified it and studied it. There was a time when people were expected to just get by with that as well. We obviously do not have data from before either disorder was medically studied outside of anecdotal things. I do think that based on what we know it is likely that most people simply either led worse and less productive lives as they struggled with it, committed suicide, or were killed (for both disorders outside of certain cultures, some native peoples for example supported transgenders). I do not see why we should treat them differently. Generally the same standard of care is applied across the field. If there were a surgical intervention that improved outcomes for two thirds of depression sufferers that were not treatable through medication and therapy it would most likely be approved. This wouldn't give this sort of thing to the 90% you are speaking of. Only those who have been seen by a psychologist or psychiatrist for the mandated period (a year in most jurisdictions, some areas already have rules and some insurance companies cover it) would be able to qualify and only if said professional approved them for it. They would have to be medically qualified, they couldn't just ask for it.

I think that I understand your position for the most part now, so thank you for taking the time to explain your views more fully. As to taxes in general, that morass is horrifying and in desperate need of redress. The amounts already wasted on far less worthy causes than mental health and quality of life are stratospheric, but that would be an entirely new topic.


You are stating blatantly unfactual issues in your conclusion.

There is no surgical operation that can cure 2/3rds of depression.

You are insinuating that the operation cures clinical depression, and that's not true at all. There have been absolutely ZERO studies (much less peer-reviewed formal studies) on the comparison of post-op trannies depression lifting, and indeed they still are often noted for committing suicide, and/or suicide attempts.

YOur argument stems from this premise, and this premise is completely false, and therefore I can't accept it.

There are other logical inconsistencies in your argument as well.

"Depression" is not merely about feeling. If you honestly feel that way, you have no clue that depression is a medical condition that results from imbalances in your brain chemically, and the negative feelings that result thereof. That is why with medication and sometimes therapy we are able to overcome depression most of the time, but without those things we are NOT able to.

This is also why an operation cannot cure depression. In fact, it would likely be a stressor for relapse a hell of a lot of the time. We're talking about doing to an emotionally and mentally unstable person, changing one of the things that makes them who they are, something that's not reversible.

And worse yet, we're even advocating it for children, since some Californian (of course) women have already decided that they're son is a girl and are prepping him for transitioning. Remarkably, his little brother *gasp* is also trans! Gee, what are the odds, eh? Yeah, I think you can see where I'm going with that. Poor kids are six and nine.

(Also, just putting it on chemical imbalances, too, is a bit shaky, I admit; some very rare and severe cases are quite a bit more complex, but that's a whole 'nother story.)

I think you may have misunderstood me. My statement was that IF an operation existed that had positive outcomes for 2/3rds of those suffering untreatable depressions. I did not assert that it does exist. Depression is caused by chemical imbalances for the most part. These imbalances result in feelings. These feelings affect quality of life and can lead to very drastic results since they can become unbearable. Feelings resulting from other disorders can cause clinical depression as well. The data from several reputable sources shows that 2/3rds have positive outcomes for post op transexuals. I do not see how the comparison is illogical at all absent the misunderstanding.

For the youths, surgical intervention also requires the age of eighteen to even begin that path in every jurisdiction I am aware of. Parents don't get to unilaterally decide that. The current system doesn't allow for it and I would not support changes to make that possible.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.