"Transgender" = mentally ill

[Shredderbeam]

Tried all the.etcs and they weren't working :/
Proof is science

I disagree, I think science proves the opposite.

 

[Spyder69]

Not at all on the same level.

Don't you go see a doctor because you think something is wrong? I have plenty of friends that have been diagnosed.

Diagnosed with what specifically? We're discussing transgender in the form of a mental illness in which someone believes they are not what they've been born into.

I refuse, because their identities are valid. The clothes they wear is not what identifies them. Hell, I can have short hair and wear "guy clothes" and be called a dyke or butch, but the moment I say I am an actual boy, I'm told I'm wrong, that it's just a phase, or that it's a mental illness. Clothes and physical appearance aren't what dubs a gender. Identity and a feeling of what they are, is. Clothes do not have a gender. A trans woman can be trans without any hormones or surgery; those who choose to go this route have every right to, whether it be they don't feel like they will ever be "right" in their body because of what society says or because they feel more them that way. There are 101 reasons why people do and don't and they're all equally trans. Side note: "opposite" is invalid here, because M/F aren't the only two points on the spectrum.

Where exactly have I said that clothing is somehow the defining factor for gender? We're talking about the mental perception that you yourself are not male or female. You are what your chromosomes have assigned you to be, feeling anything else is a severe deviation from nature and biology itself. There is absolutely zero wiggle room. Again, the topic is not what we define as masculine and feminine, and which you side with more.

Hypothetical? Two spirit is a real thing, and transgender people have been around for hundreds of years. There are plenty of Indian tribes that believe in more than being one or just having two genders, and it is seen as an accepted norm rather than an unnatural or incorrect thing. (Try this: Colonialism, Two-Spirit Identity, and the Logics of White Supremacy).

Unsure if you read that paper, but I read the entire thing. I was unable to find anything on the credentials of the writer, so i'm going to assume this was written by some general college student. The majority of the paper talks about white supremacy, genocide and colonialism and their subjugation of anything that deviated from heterosexual acts. Sure, semi-legitimate arguments if it were laced with the attempt to portray all these people as transgender, which these peoples have never viewed it as such, they were still male or female. The whole idea of being "transgender" is a modern phenomenon, and nowhere in this paper does it use historical reference to back up the position you're trying to defend. It makes references with claims that there were supposedly 5, yet... for some reason they don't want to list the supposed 5 genders that were present, even on the two-spirit Wiki is it not listed.

Again, shedding light.

No, it was a semantical error and you know exactly what I meant by what I said.

Sure, maybe I lack in the argument department, but I do think that you are wrong and was just pointing out some things regardless of OP's direct argument.

I have heard of apotemnophilia before and will admit I don't know much about it, however, just because there are some basic same-sounding facts apparent, doesn't mean that they are actually a parallel fact. I think it is important to take chromosomes into account. If being transgender is anything besides just being transgender, I would think it was a womb chromosomal malfunction. A fetus is asexual for a little bit of time while in the womb; hormones are what develop the sexual organs. That being said, the presence or absence of the Y chromosome would determine female or male. What I want to know is, alternately, what if it's just about estrogen and testosterone levels? Or an imbalance? A chemical imbalance is known to cause something such as depression. Drugs to treat depression are usually chemical-based. Being given testosterone shots as a trans man will obviously change the body significantly over time. The prenatal part of our lives is very crucial to our development, so I'm more likely to believe that being transgender is due to an incorrect release of hormones while developing.

It seems like you're most people that want to attribute simple masculine and feminine traits with being full blown transgender. Personally, I see nothing wrong with someone being attracted more to certain gender specific traits. Men are more masculine for the overwhelming majority, there are biological reasonings to support this, and the few deviations from this do not act as nullification for what could be dubbed 'the rule.' Proclaiming that's it's all socially constructed is asinine, as for eons we in all cultures what is masculine and feminine have been specific to their respective sexes.

Getting back to what I do not see wrong, is if you find something more favorable. I knew a few tom boys growing up that didn't like all the girly things, by few, I mean two, yet they didn't believe they were a girl living in a boys body.

Returning to the original topic to get back on track, the topic is the believe people can be completely healthy, under the delusion that they are not what they were biologically assigned.

That's what this topic is about, not challenging social constructs.

This is also why I brought up apotemnophilia. Should we begin to assume that needing and having two healthy limbs is simply a social construct and if someone wants to have their perfectly healthy left arm amputated, they should be allowed to without question of their mental state?

That is the topic. If you are drawn to more socially feminine things, fine with me, just don't parade as "I am a girl in a man's body! remove my penis!" that is a mental illness.

 

[Spyder69]

Food for thought: You use a conservative-funded and in no way independent think tank for your source. With that in mind, your source is not all that unbiased and is there to fill an agenda.

List a university or research organization with as much experience as all those involved with these conclusions that refute them.

PS. A little bit of research on your end would enlighten you on "natural biology" that involves animals changing their sex and transgender practices through history. This isn't exactly a new thing, sex changes are just now possible due to medical and scientific advances.

tl;dr
Stop attempting to define every little thing someone does and let people do whatever makes them comfortable. Sex is biological, gender is artificial.

You have an utterly horrendous history of making claims without ever backing them up with research and facts that are analogous. Want me to revive the Israeli thread just to humiliate you again?

Animals that undergo a biological function specific to their species is not analogous to the human race. You're trying extremely hard to justify something that completely deviates from human biology. There is nothing normal about undergoing a "sex change" operation that merely mimics the opposite sex. Chopping off your penis does not magically make you a woman, it makes you quite literally, mentally ill.

I can understand why you're so adverse to defining a mental illness, as if a definition is also merely a social construct; please try not to run to such a defense in every instance when any form of legitimate rebuttal on your part is literally impossible with regards to this topic.

WHO | Mental disorders

Mental disorders comprise a broad range of problems, with different symptoms. However, they are generally characterized by some combination of abnormal thoughts, emotions, behaviour and relationships with others.

And there you have it.

Like others, i'll ask you the same thing regarding apotemnophilia, is it a mental illness or not? Should someone not be challenged when they consciously desire to have a perfectly healthy limb amputated, for any reason whatsoever.

I've already made it glaringly clear the topic is not "social constructs," femininity vs masculinity. The topic is those, transgender, who "feel" as though they are a male/female in the opposite body/sex, and desire to change themselves physically.

A fish that has built-in biological function that serves a purpose is not the same as one's abnormal mental state that drives them to mutilate themselves to simply mimic the opposite sex. Furthermore, autosomal disorders and other mutations are not representative of examples of fish-like biology, sorry¯\_(˶′◡‵˶)_/¯

 

[Spyder69]

Well, you tried.

WHY are the other options a mental illness, though? It doesn't do much good to just say what you believe and not try to back it up at all.

Ironically, i've yet to in all my years see anything that resembles a so-called third gender and the litany of other mentally deranged options you can think of.

Here's a question, and i'm actually being quite serious when referencing this picture; if I want to identify as Attack Helicopter, can I identify as an Attack Helicopter.

 

[mage3158]

My question is even if it is considered a mental illness, what difference does it make?
"Treatments" would be the same as they are now.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Ironically, i've yet to in all my years see anything that resembles a so-called third gender and the litany of other mentally deranged options you can think of.

You've never met a genderfluid person? Are you speaking as a civilian, or as a professional?

Here's a question, and i'm actually being quite serious when referencing this picture; if I want to identify as Attack Helicopter, can I identify as an Attack Helicopter.

No, because you don't actually identify as one. You're repeating the ~2 year old meme and using it to mock people who actually identify as something other than male/female.

 

[Spyder69]

You've never met a genderfluid person? Are you speaking as a civilian, or as a professional?



No, because you don't actually identify as one. You're repeating the ~2 year old meme and using it to mock people who actually identify as something other than male/female.

So you've met the mysterious third gender? How'd you know? Looking at a human I'd assume there's male and female, how'd you know? Really curious.

Also, it's not a meme, who are you to tell me I can't identify as an Attack Helicopter?

Lastly, do you think we should allow those with perfectly healthy limbs to have any limb amputated simply because they "feel" as though it doesn't belong to them. Seeing as people who are under the literal delusion they are in the wrong body will take their mental illness so far as to mutilating their organs to mimic the opposite sex.

 

[tMoon]

So you've met the mysterious third gender? How'd you know? Looking at a human I'd assume there's male and female, how'd you know? Really curious.

There has never been just male and female. Roughly 1% of the population is born with sexual anomalies and cannot be labeled as either physical and sometime biologically as well. Do you just ignore these people?

List a university or research organization with as much experience as all those involved with these conclusions that refute them.

I do not really care enough about your post to go on a hunt for relevant research to refute a conservative think tank. Frankly, I think it is ridiculous you are using them as the basis of your source. This is further perpetuated by knowing how you argue due to previous conversations in SFA with you. Your mind is made up and you are not even open to changing your opinion; rather, you simply wish to be condescending and exclaims to the heavens you are right and everyone else is wrong.

It's like the interview with the likes of Bill Nye and a creationist.
"What will change your mind?"
Creationist: "Nothing."
Bill Nye: "Evidence."

You are the creationist.

You have an utterly horrendous history of making claims without ever backing them up with research and facts that are analogous. Want me to revive the Israeli thread just to humiliate you again?

Do I now? If I recall, I said I was done responding due to your inability to accept even a simple definition that a nation can exist both without a state and within a state (excluding nation-states themselves) alongside the extreme biasness that was seeping through your posts and your overall attempt at arguing with me through bias resources and ignoring anything you did not agree with (which seems to parallel this thread).

Animals that undergo a biological function specific to their species is not analogous to the human race. You're trying extremely hard to justify something that completely deviates from human biology. There is nothing normal about undergoing a "sex change" operation that merely mimics the opposite sex. Chopping off your penis does not magically make you a woman, it makes you quite literally, mentally ill.

Such a deviation excludes individuals that are actually born with mixed sexual organs and even if it is a deviation from biology, so what? Are biological deviations not evolution in the working (I realize transgender individuals are not literally changing their biology, but the point is there). Again with semantics, why does it make them mentally ill to desire to be a different way?

I can understand why you're so adverse to defining a mental illness, as if a definition is also merely a social construct; please try not to run to such a defense in every instance when any form of legitimate rebuttal on your part is literally impossible with regards to this topic.

You can feasibly argue everything in our society is a construct and that is not what I am doing; rather, I bring up definitions since they are particularly vulnerable and are constantly changing.

Like others, i'll ask you the same thing regarding apotemnophilia, is it a mental illness or not? Should someone not be challenged when they consciously desire to have a perfectly healthy limb amputated, for any reason whatsoever.

Yes they should be challenged and there should be a "why?", but they should be able to do what they want. I have no desire nor reason to attempt to control what others do to their bodies. I would argue you the same for transgender individuals; however, not in the "you're weird, there is something wrong with you fashion." Ask why, see what is going on, and if they want to proceed, let them. It's ridiculous you care so much about what other people do with their own bodies.

I've already made it glaringly clear the topic is not "social constructs," femininity vs masculinity. The topic is those, transgender, who "feel" as though they are a male/female in the opposite body/sex, and desire to change themselves physically.

Excuse me for not reading through 7 pages of information to respond to one post.

A fish that has built-in biological function that serves a purpose is not the same as one's abnormal mental state that drives them to mutilate themselves to simply mimic the opposite sex. Furthermore, autosomal disorders and other mutations are not representative of examples of fish-like biology, sorry¯\_(˶′◡‵˶)_/¯

Could I not argue the biological function of such a transition is to ease a transgender individuals mental state and allow them to live in peace and fulfill whatever they find their purpose to be? I'm sorry that comparing biology of other animals on the only planet we know has life is in no way representative as a possible comparison.

PS.
You never responded to my comparison of earrings and tattoos aka harming your body for physical changes. How about much more painful techniques used throughout the world that alter the human body whether now or in the past? Neck rings in the like of Africa? Painful piercings going through the body in a variety of ways and so forth?

 

[Spyder69]

There has never been just male and female. Roughly 1% of the population is born with sexual anomalies and cannot be labeled as either physical and sometime biologically as well. Do you just ignore these people?

"Anomalies"/mutations are simply that, further down you claim it's evolution, which is quite hysterical, considering evolution would imply some form of usefulness to be had. All-things transgender serve absolutely no purpose to the human race.

I do not really care enough about your post to go on a hunt for relevant research to refute a conservative think tank. Frankly, I think it is ridiculous you are using them as the basis of your source. This is further perpetuated by knowing how you argue due to previous conversations in SFA with you. Your mind is made up and you are not even open to changing your opinion; rather, you simply wish to be condescending and exclaims to the heavens you are right and everyone else is wrong.

What a great argument. /s

It's like the interview with the likes of Bill Nye and a creationist.
"What will change your mind?"
Creationist: "Nothing."
Bill Nye: "Evidence."

You are the creationist.

You want to bring up science... yet... science doesn't support transgenders as something legitimate.

Do I now? If I recall, I said I was done responding due to your inability to accept even a simple definition that a nation can exist both without a state and within a state (excluding nation-states themselves) alongside the extreme biasness that was seeping through your posts and your overall attempt at arguing with me through bias resources and ignoring anything you did not agree with (which seems to parallel this thread).

And you couldn't even grasp the simple fact that the borrowed name they use has only been use for 4,000 years to denote a region. Not only that, but their national identity and movement was born literally in the mid 20th century. You never provided a shred of evidence to support the argument that they are a unique group, set aside from their Arab brothers in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, etc, seeing as the overwhelming majority of Arabs in the Levant during their magical national identity were all migrants from neighboring regions. If your claim that a nation can exist without a state, there should be some evidences of that, feel free to go back through that thread and link me to a single piece of evidence you came up with. I can 100% guarantee you you never posted a single piece of evidence.

Such a deviation excludes individuals that are actually born with mixed sexual organs and even if it is a deviation from biology, so what? Are biological deviations not evolution in the working (I realize transgender individuals are not literally changing their biology, but the point is there). Again with semantics, why does it make them mentally ill to desire to be a different way?

Do you have any academic source that would support your opinion that an autosomal disorder is evolution. "So what" isn't an argument.

You attempted to make the comparison between species that possess a legitimate biological function and human disorders, which you then back peddled, attempting to claim it's evolution...

In your deluded mind, you find it perfectly healthy that should an individual want to mutilate their organs to mimic the opposite sex, they should be able to do so without question, which is very similar to those who want to amputate limbs.

Yes they should be challenged and there should be a "why?", but they should be able to do what they want. I have no desire nor reason to attempt to control what others do to their bodies. I would argue you the same for transgender individuals; however, not in the "you're weird, there is something wrong with you fashion." Ask why, see what is going on, and if they want to proceed, let them. It's ridiculous you care so much about what other people do with their own bodies.

Nothing you just said is a legitimate argument, other than "b-but it's their body!" So you're advocating we ignore someone's mental instability and chalk it up as perfectly healthy. You say they should be challenged, yet you're obviously flirting with the it not being a mental illness, so which is it.

Is wanting to have perfectly healthy limbs amputated because you "feel" like it doesn't belong to you a mental illness, or is the individual perfectly sane. Very simple question.

Could I not argue the biological function of such a transition is to ease a transgender individuals mental state and allow them to live in peace and fulfill whatever they find their purpose to be? I'm sorry that comparing biology of other animals on the only planet we know has life is in no way representative as a possible comparison.

>biological function

wut? You're using outside means to achieve something unnatural to that individual's sex. Species with these built in functions have them for specific reasons and don't need the aid of a doctor to mutilate their organs and undergo hormone therapy. There is no comparison, stop comparing the two when they share not a single common trait that is natural and comparative to humans.

PS.
You never responded to my comparison of earrings and tattoos aka harming your body for physical changes. How about much more painful techniques used throughout the world that alter the human body whether now or in the past? Neck rings in the like of Africa? Painful piercings going through the body in a variety of ways and so forth?

ctrl + F where exactly did you say this I found it nowhere in page 7 or 8.

The two aren't analogous. You're trying to compare jewelry/cosmetics and distinct cultural practices to those who share a common delusion that they aren't what they were born into, and have to seek means to mimic the opposite to the best of their ability. Or are we toying with the idea that somehow it's a mental illness to get tattoos and earrings that aren't strictly distinct to one sex.

 

[Shredderbeam]

So you've met the mysterious third gender? How'd you know? Looking at a human I'd assume there's male and female, how'd you know? Really curious.

Well, I've met people who don't identify as male or female. I know because...they told me. Bear in mind, we're talking about gender, not biological sex. Gender is not the same as genitals.

Also, it's not a meme, who are you to tell me I can't identify as an Attack Helicopter?

It is a meme, though.

Lastly, do you think we should allow those with perfectly healthy limbs to have any limb amputated simply because they "feel" as though it doesn't belong to them.

Well, yeah. What are you going to do, stop them? It's their body, and it's not my business.

Seeing as people who are under the literal delusion they are in the wrong body will take their mental illness so far as to mutilating their organs to mimic the opposite sex.

If a person has a belief that they're in the wrong body, an utterly unshakeable belief that can't be changed by medication or therapy, and surgery helps them cope with that - what's the issue?

 

[Spyder69]

If a person has a belief that they're in the wrong body, an utterly unshakeable belief that can't be changed by medication or therapy, and surgery helps them cope with that - what's the issue?

So you legitimately do not see anything wrong with a male or female living under the delusion that they are not their own sex. Does that also mean you don't see anything wrong with someone believing their own perfectly healthy limb doesn't belong to them and we should allow them to have it amputated.

Both are a mental illness, only one is seen as completely irregular because the idea that it's perfectly mentally healthy has been pushed by the transgender quack community.

 

[Shredderbeam]

So you legitimately do not see anything wrong with a male or female living under the delusion that they are not their own sex. Does that also mean you don't see anything wrong with someone believing their own perfectly healthy limb doesn't belong to them and we should allow them to have it amputated.

Nope. If the person wants their limb cut off, and medication and therapy don't help, and they're completely miserable to the point of suicide, then I don't see the problem. What would you suggest?

Both are a mental illness, only one is seen as completely irregular because the idea that it's perfectly mentally healthy has been pushed by the transgender quack community.

Nobody said it's mentally healthy - it's even listed in the DSM as a disorder (not a delusion). I think what you're not understanding is that surgery is the treatment, because no other treatment works. Unless you have a better idea?

 

[Spyder69]

Nope. If the person wants their limb cut off, and medication and therapy don't help, and they're completely miserable to the point of suicide, then I don't see the problem. What would you suggest?

Psychiatric hospitals exist for a reason. Under no circumstance should our medical institution begin giving into mental illnesses simply because the amount of currently available treatment is limited. Appeasement does not lead to solving the problem.

Nobody said it's mentally healthy - it's even listed in the DSM as a disorder (not a delusion). I think what you're not understanding is that surgery is the treatment, because no other treatment works. Unless you have a better idea?

Wrong. Giving into someone's mental instability is not a "treatment." Your suggestion still errs on the side of it not being a mental illness that doesn't need treatment to correct the illness. At no point in the history of medicine has appeasement and acceptance of someone's illness been a legitimate form of practice.

Also, really? You want to play with semantics or just generally improperly challenge a definition?

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

These people are under strong delusion that they are perfectly normal, when in fact there is not a single thing about their mental state that is normal. These people are perfect opportunities for the medical institution to study, treat and experiment.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Psychiatric hospitals exist for a reason. Under no circumstance should our medical institution begin giving into mental illnesses simply because the amount of currently available treatment is limited. Appeasement does not lead to solving the problem.

Wrong. Giving into someone's mental instability is not a "treatment." Your suggestion still errs on the side of it not being a mental illness that doesn't need treatment to correct the illness. At no point in the history of medicine has appeasement and acceptance of someone's illness been a legitimate form of practice.

Also, really? You want to play with semantics or just generally improperly challenge a definition?

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

These people are under strong delusion that they are perfectly normal, when in fact there is not a single thing about their mental state that is normal. These people are perfect opportunities for the medical institution to study, treat and experiment.

People have tried to treat it with medication and therapy. It doesn't work. The only thing that works is surgery/hormone treatment. This is symptomatic treatment, and contrary to your belief, it's a widely accepted form of treatment in cases where treating the underlying cause is impossible.

Symptomatic treatment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reason I call it by its proper name, a delusion, is to remove any connotations for anybody reading this that a transgender person can somehow "snap out" of their delusion.

 

[tMoon]

The most important question: WHY DOES IT MATTER?

Why?

Also I do not know if I'll respond to your next post. Frankly, the condescending tone and overall "well I know I am righ

"Anomalies"/mutations are simply that, further down you claim it's evolution, which is quite hysterical, considering evolution would imply some form of usefulness to be had. All-things transgender serve absolutely no purpose to the human race.

Yeah, anomalies and mutations are that and that is what propels evolution?.. Evolution is not some instant moment, mutations are literally the stepping-stones to evolution.

No purpose? Dual-sex could be plenty purposeful and would make conceiving significantly easier. I would hardly argue that has no purpose to the human race.

What a great argument. /s

It wasn't an argument as much as an explanation.

You want to bring up science... yet... science doesn't support transgenders as something legitimate.

Because science is so settled on the matter. I presume that conservative think tank is the only research that needs to ever be done into transgender individuals.

And you couldn't even grasp the simple fact that the borrowed name they use has only been use for 4,000 years to denote a region. Not only that, but their national identity and movement was born literally in the mid 20th century. You never provided a shred of evidence to support the argument that they are a unique group, set aside from their Arab brothers in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, etc, seeing as the overwhelming majority of Arabs in the Levant during their magical national identity were all migrants from neighboring regions. If your claim that a nation can exist without a state, there should be some evidences of that, feel free to go back through that thread and link me to a single piece of evidence you came up with. I can 100% guarantee you you never posted a single piece of evidence.

/states and nations aren't limited to when they can form
/doesn't even matter if it was born in the 20th century
/them all claiming they are a unique group makes them a unique group
/A nation is quite literally defined as a group of people with a characteristic that unifies them. If you have taken any university political science course or talked to any political scientist they KNOW a nation is a group of people. There are a variety of nations within every country and there is a reason some countries delegate more autonomy to different areas of their country. Why? Because there is a group of people there (a nation) who want more say in how they run themselves. Ex: Quebec in Canada

Do you have any academic source that would support your opinion that an autosomal disorder is evolution. "So what" isn't an argument.

You attempted to make the comparison between species that possess a legitimate biological function and human disorders, which you then back peddled, attempting to claim it's evolution...

In your deluded mind, you find it perfectly healthy that should an individual want to mutilate their organs to mimic the opposite sex, they should be able to do so without question, which is very similar to those who want to amputate limbs.

No, I am arguing based on logic not scouring google looking for some think tank in an attempt to fulfill my thoughts.

"So what" is very much an argument. Why does it matter if sexual organs deviate from the norm? If there is no reason to care, then there is no reason for any of this.

Yet again with the condescending words. My deluded mind suggests that if a person going through therapy and other measures is not satisfied with the result, then they should be able to take the steps necessary to find peace. I never said without question, it comes down to it practically being the treatment for the issue they are facing.

Nothing you just said is a legitimate argument, other than "b-but it's their body!" So you're advocating we ignore someone's mental instability and chalk it up as perfectly healthy. You say they should be challenged, yet you're obviously flirting with the it not being a mental illness, so which is it.

Well, "it's their body" is a VERY legitimate argument. No one has the right to impede me in what I want to do with my body providing it does no harm to other beings. I am arguing you do not have the right to stop someone from wanting to be transgender and that it is the treatment to their "problem." I do think they should be challenged, because it is a big decision with big ramifications and while I think it currently meets the definition of a mental illness I do not find it appropriate. It does not compare to actual mental illnesses like bipolar.

Is wanting to have perfectly healthy limbs amputated because you "feel" like it doesn't belong to you a mental illness, or is the individual perfectly sane. Very simple question.

Mental illness is too broad. I think there are things going on, but I do think they are perfectly sane; albiet, needing to work out whatever it is. I am not in the position to judge how another one feels about their own body and if after treatment per-say (do not play semantics) they still feel like it needs to be gone, then it should be gone. I

>biological function

wut? You're using outside means to achieve something unnatural to that individual's sex. Species with these built in functions have them for specific reasons and don't need the aid of a doctor to mutilate their organs and undergo hormone therapy. There is no comparison, stop comparing the two when they share not a single common trait that is natural and comparative to humans.

>ignores a genuine point because you don't like it

"Unnatural means." Well I'll be damned, air condition is "unnatural." Practically everything humans do is unnatural, we have a consciousness and the ability to engineer and change a variety of things including our surroundings and our bodies.

There is no comparison because you say there is no comparison. They are different, but they can be compared. Life is concentrated on earth as are we, there is your single common trait.

The two aren't analogous. You're trying to compare jewelry/cosmetics and distinct cultural practices to those who share a common delusion that they aren't what they were born into, and have to seek means to mimic the opposite to the best of their ability. Or are we toying with the idea that somehow it's a mental illness to get tattoos and earrings that aren't strictly distinct to one sex.

I am trying to compare other acts that physically alter and change the human body often through means that harm it as well. "Distinct cultural practices" does not change what occurs in any manner, it just adds an extra layer. You are physically harming a human body and going against its biology with "unnatural" additions to the body. Is this not a mental illness to you?

They do not feel at home in their own body, I do not see the problem with trying to make that body feel like home.


PS. Pretty good chance I am not going to respond if your post reeks with the general "I know I am right, I am going to ignore topics I find ridiculous, and I'm going to be as condescending as possible" tone your SFA posts all-too-often seem to have. Mainly because I don't think it'll be constructive to the conversation and believe we won't move anywhere with it.

 

[Spyder69]

Frankly, the condescending tone and overall "well I know I am righ

Good lord you're a crybaby, why do you even try.

Yeah, anomalies and mutations are that and that is what propels evolution?.. Evolution is not some instant moment, mutations are literally the stepping-stones to evolution.

No purpose? Dual-sex could be plenty purposeful and would make conceiving significantly easier. I would hardly argue that has no purpose to the human race.

Congratulations, you literally pulled a bogus theory out of thin air that is supported by......... oh, literally nothing. Do you base all your arguments off loose theories? Don't answer that, because I already know your answer.

Because science is so settled on the matter. I presume that conservative think tank is the only research that needs to ever be done into transgender individuals.

Still waiting on a medical institution that doesn't recognize it as a mental illness. Or is "c-c-conservative think-tank!!!!11" going to be your copy/paste deflective answer for the rest of the thread?

/states and nations aren't limited to when they can form
/doesn't even matter if it was born in the 20th century
/them all claiming they are a unique group makes them a unique group
/A nation is quite literally defined as a group of people with a characteristic that unifies them. If you have taken any university political science course or talked to any political scientist they KNOW a nation is a group of people. There are a variety of nations within every country and there is a reason some countries delegate more autonomy to different areas of their country. Why? Because there is a group of people there (a nation) who want more say in how they run themselves. Ex: Quebec in Canada

Oh, so you're one of those individuals who took a single class in high school or college and assume they fully understand a subject, congratulations, you are quite literally the average Liberal moron who knows very little on the topics being discussed; i'll also further prove this with regards to biology further down.

The Palestinians are not a unique peoples, simply claiming "look, we're unique!" is not concrete. Why? Because you are being stupidly ignorant of where they come from, so allow me to educate you for the umpteenth time. Prior to the British Mandate and Arafat, "Palestine" for millennia was the name used to identify a region. Hence why for 4,000 years you have never, and will never, be able to find a peoples identifying as "Palestinians." There is literally not a single unique identifier to the Arabs in the WB and Gaza.

Claims are backed by supportive evidence, you, Arafat, and every other quack "political science" student has not the slightest clue how you should go about supporting your argument; why? Because the evidence does not exist. Getting back to the point, prior to the Mandate and Arafat, all Arabs identified as simply *Arab.* This is supported by the words of Emir Faisal who lead the Arab revolt in the Levant; all Arabs identified with what was known as Southern Syria (Palestine/Levant), part of Greater Syria. I'd wager you didn't know the Arab states boycotted "Palestinians" goods when Palestinians were regarded as Jews during the mid-20th century.

If you reply to this comment, I want you to provide evidences of their uniqueness, and sorry, but no, their collective urge to wipe Israel off the map is not what makes them "unique." Support your argument, you have failed to do so in every single instance that you've attempted to debate this topic with me.

The Jews proclaimed their independence and became an autonomous entity because they had a shared identity that was grounded in this thing called "reality." The reality being cultural uniqueness and heritage; things that are greatly lacking in the "Palestinian" camp.

No, I am arguing based on logic not scouring google looking for some think tank in an attempt to fulfill my thoughts.

So you're telling me you won't even make the effort because you can't find a Liberal "think tank." You really love that phrase don't you.

"So what" is very much an argument.

Next time instead of taking your political pseudo-science course, take a debate course. "So what" is not an argument, and repeating it a second time doesn't make it any more legitimate. Try again.

Why does it matter if sexual organs deviate from the norm? If there is no reason to care, then there is no reason for any of this.

How many people need to care for it to matter then? I can just as easily claim that the "rights" of "transgender" don't matter because they don't even register as a percentage of our population. Also, rewording "so what" to "what does it matter" doesn't constitute an argument either. Try again part deux.

Yet again with the condescending words. My deluded mind suggests that if a person going through therapy and other measures is not satisfied with the result, then they should be able to take the steps necessary to find peace. I never said without question, it comes down to it practically being the treatment for the issue they are facing.

Do you let your girlfriend fuck you with a strap-on? I'm legitimately curious since you reply with the "condescending wurds muh feelingz."

Incorrect, if treatment is ineffective it is the perfect opportunity to explore new approaches. As I told shredder, giving into their delusion is not going to fix the problem and is not a valid form of "treatment."

Well, "it's their body" is a VERY legitimate argument. No one has the right to impede me in what I want to do with my body providing it does no harm to other beings. I am arguing you do not have the right to stop someone from wanting to be transgender and that it is the treatment to their "problem." I do think they should be challenged, because it is a big decision with big ramifications and while I think it currently meets the definition of a mental illness I do not find it appropriate. It does not compare to actual mental illnesses like bipolar.

Yes, it falls under the category of a delusion/mental illness, it affects their behavior and thinking, deviating from what is the biological norm. Your "but it's my body!" argument falls flat on its face when considering you require the intervention of our medical institution. It's the same argument used in favor of euthanasia. Should we allow assisted suicide? No, and there's a reason why the majority of all our states outlaw it. Even in the states where it is legal, a psychological exam is required; gee, I wonder why, hmmm.

Sure, if you want to mutilate yourself and run the risks, by all means, hack away.

Mental illness is too broad. I think there are things going on, but I do think they are perfectly sane; albiet, needing to work out whatever it is. I am not in the position to judge how another one feels about their own body and if after treatment per-say (do not play semantics) they still feel like it needs to be gone, then it should be gone.

If I legitimately believe my left arm doesn't belong to me and I want it amputated, you'll then dub me perfectly sane, correct? This is why I call you delusional, because you are beyond incapable of seeing the irony and how backwards your very own argument is. Nothing about being born male/female and then believing "I am actually a girl," is sane, that is the prime definition of a mental illness.

>ignores a genuine point because you don't like it

>too fucking retarded to realize he made no "genuine" point

"Unnatural means." Well I'll be damned, air condition is "unnatural." Practically everything humans do is unnatural, we have a consciousness and the ability to engineer and change a variety of things including our surroundings and our bodies.

There is no comparison because you say there is no comparison. They are different, but they can be compared. Life is concentrated on earth as are we, there is your single common trait.

You're still attempting to compare the biological purposes of other species to something that doesn't exist within our own for good reason, you should discontinue from peddling the asinine idea that it's evolution in the making.

Simultaneous hermaphroditism; cost and benefit

It is suggested that hermaphrodites suffer an energetic cost because they maintain two reproductive systems and a cost due to the reduced number or viability of offspring which may result from accidental self-fertilization. These costs will result in a disadvantage to hermaphroditism (compared to gonochorism) when reproductive contacts are frequent. However, even in widely dispersed or sluggish organisms behavioural mechanisms may exist which increase the frequency of reproductive contacts, favouring gonochorism instead of hermaphroditism.
It is argued that externally fertilizing species should as a rule be gonochoric and that species which brood their young may often be hermaphroditic. Hermaphroditism in species which form permanent male/female pairs in the breeding season could result in more zygotes being produced. However, where parental care of the young is important, it is suggested that gonochorism and sexual dimorphism (AKA: Humans) may result in more progeny being reared.

Furthermore, true hermaphrodites don't exist, all are born sterile or incapable of reproducing. Such a mutation is of the same as green or blue eyes, it's a mutation, not a step forward in human evolution. To even add onto this, such variation among species exists for specific purposes, ie: survival/reproduction. Your theories can't, and don't hold water.

I'll gladly await an accepted stance among the evolutionary biology or medical institution that treats it as something to be revered.

I am trying to compare other acts that physically alter and change the human body often through means that harm it as well. "Distinct cultural practices" does not change what occurs in any manner, it just adds an extra layer. You are physically harming a human body and going against its biology with "unnatural" additions to the body. Is this not a mental illness to you?

What do cosmetics have to do with biology and mental stability, go ahead, please, do tell; I'm genuinely interested to know what possible factor cosmetic choices have to do with human biology.

They do not feel at home in their own body, I do not see the problem with trying to make that body feel like home.

I don't feel like my perfectly healthy left arm belongs to me, I should just have it amputated. Do you see a problem with that, yes or no.

PS. Pretty good chance I am not going to respond if your post reeks with the general "I know I am right, I am going to ignore topics I find ridiculous, and I'm going to be as condescending as possible" tone your SFA posts all-too-often seem to have. Mainly because I don't think it'll be constructive to the conversation and believe we won't move anywhere with it.

I want you to go through every last sentence you write, sober, and then tell me you believe mimicking the opposite sex by means of surgically mutilating yourself and undergoing any number of other therapies to alter your physiology is by definition, perfectly mentally healthy.

 

[Spyder69]

People have tried to treat it with medication and therapy. It doesn't work. The only thing that works is surgery/hormone treatment. This is symptomatic treatment, and contrary to your belief, it's a widely accepted form of treatment in cases where treating the underlying cause is impossible.

How many examples can you give me? Even when I have looked for extensive amounts of time i'm unable to come up with anything recent with regards to treatment.

Symptomatic treatment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as stated, it doesn't address the cause, and going immediately to the end-game should not be considered proper practice.

Delusional Disorder Treatment | Psych Central

As i've stated prior, giving into their delusion, reinforcing it, does us no good. We have medical institutions for the mentally unstable and hopefully in the near future new treatments will be developed; just like many diseases that lack proper treatment, so to can this mental illness have treatments developed.

The reason I call it by its proper name, a delusion, is to remove any connotations for anybody reading this that a transgender person can somehow "snap out" of their delusion.

People use the word "delusion" quite loosely and don't understand the context in medicine. The above linked phrase "delusion disorder" in no way implies something that can easily be treated. If you personally prefer to imply something else then that's your preference. I don't see this as a topic worthy of debate anyways. At the end of the day, their illness could be treatable, should this field properly develop.

To add onto this

Mental Health Care for People Who Identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and (or) Queer

This is another reason why giving into their demands should not be an option...

(full blood count, urea and electrolytes, liver function test, cholesterol, triglycerides, thyroid function tests) undertaken. If these are within normal limits then hormones can be started on the condition that blood pressure and blood tests must be done every 4–5 months, assuming all is well. A simple rule is “no blood, no drugs”, as patients will need to continue on hormones for the rest of their lives to prevent conditions such as osteoporosis arising.

Management of the transgender adolescent. - PubMed - NCBI

While not all transgender adolescents desire phenotypic transition to match their gender and physical body, most do. The process of transitioning is complex and requires the involvement of both a mental health therapist specializing in gender and a physician. Finding comprehensive medical and mental health services is extremely difficult for these youth, who are at risk for multiple psychosocial problems including family and peer rejection, harassment, trauma, abuse, inadequate housing, legal problems, lack of financial support, and educational problems.

I consider these consequences. We are not made to live under unhealthy mental states, as is stated above, they are life changing implications that you must follow for the rest of your life. Not only that, but not everyone can even partake of their desired transitions due to health complications. There will be individuals who are physically incapable of undergoing transitional treatment.

 

[Shredderbeam]

How many examples can you give me? Even when I have looked for extensive amounts of time i'm unable to come up with anything recent with regards to treatment.

The only published example I can find is here:

Gender dysphoria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, even if you don't want to take a transgendered persons word for it, it looks like the medical community doesn't even consider it to be a disorder:

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

And as stated, it doesn't address the cause, and going immediately to the end-game should not be considered proper practice.

Why not? If it keeps the patient happy and able to function, and nothing else has been demonstrated to work, it's a perfectly legitimate treatment.

Delusional Disorder Treatment | Psych Central

That would be great if it worked.

As i've stated prior, giving into their delusion, reinforcing it, does us no good. We have medical institutions for the mentally unstable and hopefully in the near future new treatments will be developed; just like many diseases that lack proper treatment, so to can this mental illness have treatments developed.

It absolutely does do good. It enables them to lead normal lives without wanting to commit suicide!

Do you suggest that transgender people should either be institutionalized, or should just wait for a "cure" that may never come?

People use the word "delusion" quite loosely and don't understand the context in medicine. The above linked phrase "delusion disorder" in no way implies something that can easily be treated. If you personally prefer to imply something else then that's your preference. I don't see this as a topic worthy of debate anyways. At the end of the day, their illness could be treatable, should this field properly develop.

No, just making sure you know what you're talking about.

To add onto this

Mental Health Care for People Who Identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and (or) Queer

This is another reason why giving into their demands should not be an option...

I'm not sure which part you're referring to, but from the article:

"The CPA recognizes the efficacy, benefit and medical necessity of gender transition treatments for appropriately evaluated people and calls upon Provincial Health Insurance Plans to cover these medically necessary treatments."

And

"The CPA opposes the use of reparative or conversion therapy, given that such therapy is based on the assumption that LGBTQ identities indicate a mental disorder and (or) the assumption that the person could and should change their sexual orientation and (or) their gender identity and gender expression."

Seems to be making the opposite point that you're making.

 

[Spyder69]

The only published example I can find is here:

Gender dysphoria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, even if you don't want to take a transgendered persons word for it, it looks like the medical community doesn't even consider it to be a disorder:

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

Historically they have

WHO | Proposed declassification of disease categories related to sexual orientation in the <em>International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems</em> (ICD-11)


As has happened with other areas of medicine, definitions change and the reasoning for their change needs to be looked at. The reclassification of disorders has often been political. Transgenderism/sex is wholly political.

Why not? If it keeps the patient happy and able to function, and nothing else has been demonstrated to work, it's a perfectly legitimate treatment.

As i've said, appeasement doesn't lead to legitimate cures and treatment. The argument could and is used in favor of euthanasia, which i'm against. If there aren't individuals to undergo treatment in the occurrence of some ailment that currently lacks treatment, we should use the opportunity to advance the field.

That would be great if it worked.

Trial and error are parts of medicine.

It absolutely does do good. It enables them to lead normal lives without wanting to commit suicide!

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/09540261.2015.1115753?needAccess=true&redirect=1

Something to note is this...

Although many studies were methodologically weak, and included people at different stages of transition within the same cohort of patients, overall this review indicates that trans people attending transgender health-care services appear to have a higher risk of psychiatric morbidity (that improves following treatment), and thus confirms the vulnerability of this population.

The reason why I asked on your part for evidences regarding attempted treatment is because actual data is limited. Even on my part there are aspects that I can't support using actual studies because they don't exist. However, what has been noted is the latter, psychiatric morbidity. If anything, it's roundabout admittance that it is a mental disorder, and that the only treatment for the mental disorder is transitioning when all things considered.

The argument that it isn't a mental illness is self-refuting.

Do you suggest that transgender people should either be institutionalized, or should just wait for a "cure" that may never come?

Indeed they should. I believe our entire medical industry has become far too relaxed with how forceful and strict it has been in treating and managing symptoms rather than looking for root causes and cures. We have institutions for a reason.

I'm not sure which part you're referring to, but from the article:

"The CPA recognizes the efficacy, benefit and medical necessity of gender transition treatments for appropriately evaluated people and calls upon Provincial Health Insurance Plans to cover these medically necessary treatments."

And

"The CPA opposes the use of reparative or conversion therapy, given that such therapy is based on the assumption that LGBTQ identities indicate a mental disorder and (or) the assumption that the person could and should change their sexual orientation and (or) their gender identity and gender expression."

Seems to be making the opposite point that you're making.

To get back around to what I said in the beginning of this post, definitions change, and the reasoning for such change has motive. Changing many of the applicable definitions regarding the LGBTQ community has been completely political, homosexuality is among the greatest examples of such changes being purely politically influenced.

Is the definition of transgenderism/sexism being loosened due to politics? Yes. I would associate this with the campaign to eradicate polio. The applicable definition of polio had changed, regardless of the fact that we still have dozens and dozens of polio-like cases popping up every year, all sharing the over one-hundred enteroviruses responsible for polio's crippling effect, acute flaccid myelitis being one of the greatest examples of this. Is it polio? It is essentially polio entirely, yet we're unwilling to accept the fact polio hasn't been eradicated due to the political aims of certain people in our medical institutions.

Long story short, altering the definition to suit political aims does nothing for us. Moving on...

Some researchers, including Robert Spitzer and Paul J. Fink, contend that the behaviors and experiences seen in transsexualism are abnormal and constitute a dysfunction

Oddly enough, (from the Wiki article you linked) this is actually the very argument I was going to use. It is completely a dysfunction of a severe kind. I would make the comparison between anorexia and any "ism" you'd like. The ill individual assumes an identity that is based on that delusion/disorder. Should we support those who seek starvation because it's a personal choice that leads to their happiness? No, because it deviates from normalcy and health. Should a trans individual undergo therapy to cope with their illness, you run a multitude of risks.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Historically they have

WHO | Proposed declassification of disease categories related to sexual orientation in the <em>International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems</em> (ICD-11)


As has happened with other areas of medicine, definitions change and the reasoning for their change needs to be looked at. The reclassification of disorders has often been political. Transgenderism/sex is wholly political.

Okay, so you think you know better than they do, but given taking your opinion, and taking theirs, I'm more inclined to take theirs. Unless you have solid evidence to the contrary?

As i've said, appeasement doesn't lead to legitimate cures and treatment. The argument could and is used in favor of euthanasia, which i'm against.

That's not very convincing, since I'm comfortable using that argument in favor of euthanasia.

If there aren't individuals to undergo treatment in the occurrence of some ailment that currently lacks treatment, we should use the opportunity to advance the field.

Agreed. I see no problem with transgender patients volunteering for experimental treatments.

Trial and error are parts of medicine.

Yes, and the treatments that don't work, the "errors", are thrown out.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/09540261.2015.1115753?needAccess=true&redirect=1

Something to note is this...

The reason why I asked on your part for evidences regarding attempted treatment is because actual data is limited. Even on my part there are aspects that I can't support using actual studies because they don't exist. However, what has been noted is the latter, psychiatric morbidity. If anything, it's roundabout admittance that it is a mental disorder, and that the only treatment for the mental disorder is transitioning when all things considered.

The argument that it isn't a mental illness is self-refuting.

From the article:

"...overall this review indicates that trans people attending transgender health-care services appear to have a higher risk of psychiatric morbidity (that improves following treatment), and thus confirms the vulnerability of this population."

Nowhere does that say that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. All it states is that transgender patients are at higher risk for psychiatric disorders, which doesn't prove your point at all.

Indeed they should. I believe our entire medical industry has become far too relaxed with how forceful and strict it has been in treating and managing symptoms rather than looking for root causes and cures. We have institutions for a reason.

I don't know what the requirements for involuntary commitment are where you live, but in most of the Western world, the patient must be an immediate danger to themselves or others, or have an impaired reasoning ability to the point that decisions must be made for them by the state or a guardian. Transgendered people, unless about to commit suicide, do not even remotely come close to this requirement.

Oddly enough, (from the Wiki article you linked) this is actually the very argument I was going to use. It is completely a dysfunction of a severe kind. I would make the comparison between anorexia and any "ism" you'd like. The ill individual assumes an identity that is based on that delusion/disorder. Should we support those who seek starvation because it's a personal choice that leads to their happiness? No, because it deviates from normalcy and health. Should a trans individual undergo therapy to cope with their illness, you run a multitude of risks.

Well of course some researchers will have differing opinions. After all, there are scientists who insist that the world is 6,000 years old. In science, what generally matters more is consensus.