Caitlyn Jenner

[Smallc]

No, you just have a problem with my intolerance

Yes, I do, but that's more your problem than mine, in the end.

[Big Guy]

I find it fascinating that the issue of being gay runs directly against all rules of evolution. The prime directive of all living things is to reproduce. It is generally accepted that different species have evolved or morphed or mutated into forms that either make it difficult to survive or impossible to survive. Consequently, the evolved or morphed or mutated forms die out and the productive form continues.

Humans reproduce through the natural association of male and female to reproduce through a biological interaction based on an attraction between males and females. If the majority of humans were gay then our species would not survive too many generations. It appears that about 5% of our population is gay - so I assume that the result of the copulation between heterosexual male and female members does result in a 5% creation of individuals with homosexual drives.

I do wonder why that uniqueness (some would call it an evolution or morphing or mutation and suffer the consequences) continues in our species? Is it because gays are using artificial insemination to have children and the gay DNA or RNA or whatever is reproduced into another generation or is the aspect of being gay more an environmental trigger then a genetic or biological one?

The transgender complex may be playing into that combination.

[Smallc]

I do wonder why that uniqueness (some would call it an evolution or morphing or mutation and suffer the consequences) continues in our species?

It actually occurs in many other species as well. Being gay is, it seems, quite natural.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Humans reproduce through the natural association of male and female to reproduce through a biological interaction based on an attraction between males and females. If the majority of humans were gay then our species would not survive too many generations. It appears that about 5% of our population is gay - so I assume that the result of the copulation between heterosexual male and female members does result in a 5% creation of individuals with homosexual drives.

This is a common misconception, as many homosexual people can and do "reproduce", and many heterosexual people do not for a variety of reasons. My "gay" brother-in-law has three lovely daughters.

[Moonlight Graham]

You're right on the last point, but I'm helping to facilitate (not bully) you by asking you to back up this fact that you posted:

"Because legislation protecting transgender people has been on the books for decades..."

You're usually much better at following the rules than this so I am a little surprised.

Requiring links/citations for every "fact" we claim will take so long it will bring the forums to a slow crawl. I don't see a problem with the way thing have always been. If you want to make your argument more convincing, provide links. If someone asks for a link on request, consider it, though it should never be necessary, only optional.

This forum has gone loopy the last couple of weeks. And if we're going to go by the book when it comes to the rules, you should be worrying a lot more about BC's perpetual trolling than lack of cites.

[bush_cheney2004]

...This forum has gone loopy the last couple of weeks. And if we're going to go by the book when it comes to the rules, you should be worrying a lot more about BC's perpetual trolling than lack of cites.

Alas, he needn't worry about my perpetual "trolling"...or yours.

[waldo]

This forum has gone loopy the last couple of weeks. And if we're going to go by the book when it comes to the rules, you should be worrying a lot more about BC's perpetual trolling than lack of cites.

trolling? I've been away for a tad... whether subjective, or not, is there a definition that has been provided... that now exists for member reference/guidance?

[Michael Hardner]

Moderation questions addressed in the Support & Questions forum:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24579-should-the-forum-facilitator-be-deleting-offensive-material/?p=1059816

[Boges]

So here's a question I have about this.

I can get with the idea the Sex and Gender are different. But is there a responsibility on the "Transgendered" to disclose their sex of birth if attempting entering into a romantic relationship?

And is it "bigoted" to not want to enter into such a relationship if all things being equal you would be interested if that person wasn't born with different plumbing.

People shouldn't be discriminated if their living as a gender of their choosing, but no matter how hard they try, they can't fully be that sex.

[cybercoma]

"Transgendered" is not a noun. The word "transgender" is an adjective. It's trasngender man or transgender woman.

As for your question about private relationships, is it bigoted when people don't date outside their race? It's a personal choice. If you don't want to be with a transgender person, then don't.

[Boges]

"Transgendered" is not a noun. The word "transgender" is an adjective. It's trasngender man or transgender woman.

As for your question about private relationships, is it bigoted when people don't date outside their race? It's a personal choice. If you don't want to be with a transgender person, then don't.

That's not my question. Is the onus on the Trans gender man or woman to disclose their sex of birth before even attempting to enter into a personal relationship?

[TimG]

Some thoughts by a psychiatrist on the transgender question:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120

When children who reported transgender feelings were tracked without medical or surgical treatment at both Vanderbilt University and London's Portman Clinic, 70%-80% of them spontaneously lost those feelings. Some 25% did have persisting feelings; what differentiates those individuals remains to be discerned.

A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population.

This psychiatrist says things that intuitively make sense: there is nothing wrong with encouraging children to accept their biological sex since many do anyways and that sex re-assignment surgery does not address the underlying psychological problems that led to the person questioning their gender in the first place.

Edited June 4, 2015 by TimG

[GostHacked]

That's not my question. Is the onus on the Trans gender man or woman to disclose their sex of birth before even attempting to enter into a personal relationship?

If one decides to raise a family I think it would be a good idea. A man who turns into a woman won't ever have children.

[Black Dog]

Some thoughts by a psychiatrist on the transgender question:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120

This psychiatrist says things that intuitively make sense: there is nothing wrong with encouraging children to accept their biological sex since many do anyways and that sex re-assignment surgery does not address the underlying psychological problems that led to the person questioning their gender in the first place.

We've been through this before: there's no evidence that transgendered feelings are a psychological issue as opposed to a biological one.

A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population.

Not sure what this is supposed to prove. The study itself says this:

It is therefore important to note that the current study is only informative with respect to transsexuals persons health after sex reassignment; no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism. In other words, the results should not be interpreted such as sex reassignment per se increases morbidity and mortality. Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment. As an analogy, similar studies have found increased somatic morbidity, suicide rate, and overall mortality for patients treated for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.This is important information, but it does not follow that mood stabilizing treatment or antipsychotic treatment is the culprit.

Also worth nothing that Paul McHugh is a conservative Catholic and well known as a virulent homophobe who continues to push the idea that homosexuality is a choice. He's also backed pedo priests in the Cathiolic Church, which kinda puts his "won't someone please think of the childeren!" stance in a bit of a different light.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Black Dog

[Shady]

It's natural. It actually falls outside the range of normal variation, as it isn't common in percentage terms.

Exactly. I don't know why it's so hard to understand for some people. Anybody that values science and evolution should be able to grasp the concept. In Jenner's case I think mental illness could be a distinct possibility. in terms of homosexuality, there's no illness, however, it is a type of defect. There's nothing wrong with it though.

[Black Dog]

Exactly. I don't know why it's so hard to understand for some people. Anybody that values science and evolution should be able to grasp the concept. In Jenner's case I think mental illness could be a distinct possibility. in terms of homosexuality, there's no illness, however, it is a type of defect. There's nothing wrong with it though.

And the difference is?

[poochy]

And the difference is?

That human beings have all kinds of defects, and it doesn't matter because they are still human beings. I think we would all be better off not pretending that everything is normal just because it happens to some degree, very small or otherwise, if so then is every outcome that ever happens to anyone always normal? That makes no sense, I think we would be much better served by agreeing that all people regardless of what part of the bell curve their personality or sexuality rests on are still equal humans and deserving of all respect that should come with.

Are we going to say that this is now normal?

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/becoming-disabled-by-choice-not-chance-transabled-people-feel-like-impostors-in-their-fully-working-bodies

All that said, maybe the problem here is that I am as indifferent to homosexuals as i am to most people, i really just don't care, do what works for you, but don't tell me its normal, no more normal than a man who thinks he is a woman, yes it happens, and i don't care, it's just what you are. Maybe the real problem is there just aren't enough people out there who can accept this reality without treating people badly for those differences, and therefore words like normal are used against the people who fall outside of the norm. It would be nice if that wasn't the case, but in lieu of everyone just treating all humans with the same respect, which we know will never happen, maybe getting too hung up on the definition of what is normal or needing to point it out even if you aren't personally bothered by homosexuality or what not, is really a pointless endeavor that ultimately does more harm than good.

[On Guard for Thee]

Exactly. I don't know why it's so hard to understand for some people. Anybody that values science and evolution should be able to grasp the concept. In Jenner's case I think mental illness could be a distinct possibility. in terms of homosexuality, there's no illness, however, it is a type of defect. There's nothing wrong with it though.

Umm..I think you just contradicted yourself.

[TimG]

It is therefore important to note that the current study is only informative with respect to transsexuals persons health after sex reassignment; no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism. In other words, the results should not be interpreted such as sex reassignment per se increases morbidity and mortality. Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment.

ROTFL. The authors of the paper clearly realized that the data would undermine their political cause and felt the need to make the completely unsubstantiated assertion that "it could have been worse". Well the data says a 20% higher rate of suicide which clearly shows that whatever problems they have they could not be resolved by hacking up the body in many cases. This should be of no surprise to anyone since the problems are entirely psychological and surgical fixes cannot possibly resolve them beyond a possible placebo effect. Edited June 4, 2015 by TimG

[Black Dog]

ROTFL. The authors of the paper clearly realized that the data would undermine their political cause and felt the need to make the completely unsubstantiated assertion that "it could have been worse". Well the data says a 20% higher rate of suicide which clearly shows that whatever problems they have they could not be resolved by hacking up the body in many cases. This should be of no surprise to anyone since the problems are entirely psychological and surgical fixes cannot possibly resolve them beyond a possible placebo effect.

This response shows you're simply not to be taken seriously on this. Do you understand the correlation isn't causation and that there's a great many other factors that could contribute to the higher rate of suicide? Do you understand that a better control group would have been to compare outcomes to a group that didn't undergo SRS? Of course you don't: you're blinded by your inexplicable distaste for these people and will disregard any evidence that doesn't support your baseless bigotry.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Black Dog

[TimG]

Do you understand the correlation isn't causation?

I understand and I did not say the authors were wrong to say 'it could have been worse'. I simply said it was an unsupported assertion. But even if there is data to show that the suicide rate is even higher for transgender who don't get SRS it does not change the main point I made: the data supports the argument that transgender problems are psychological and require a psychological resolution. Surgeries are no magic bullet and if they are effective in some cases if may be nothing more than a placebo effect.

Frankly, it is quite tiresome the way zealots like you try to de-legitimize people that disagree with you by labeling them bigots. It is simply shows that you don't really care about the science or data and you only care about pushing your pre-conceived notions.

Edited June 4, 2015 by TimG

[Black Dog]

I understand and I did not say the authors were wrong to say 'it could have been worse'. I simply said it was an unsupported assertion. But even if there is data to show that the suicide rate is even higher for transgender who don't get SRS it does not change the main point I made: the data supports the argument that transgender problems are psychological and require a psychological resolution. Surgeries are no magic bullet and if they are effective in some cases if may be nothing more than a placebo effect.

The data does nothing of the sort.

[TimG]

The data does nothing of the sort.

20% higher rate of suicide after SRS. That data does support that argument and refutes the notion that people are "born in the wrong body" and problems can be corrected by "fixing" the body.

[Black Dog]

20% higher rate of suicide after SRS. That data does support that argument and refutes the notion that people are "born in the wrong body" and problems can be corrected by "fixing" the body.

All the data says is that the suicide rate is higher. That's it. It's completely silent on the rest, as the study's authors point out, an other fact you ignore to push your transphobia.

I mean it says so right here:

no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism.

Do you understand what that means?

Edited June 4, 2015 by Black Dog

[TimG]

no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism.

This statement is clearly false. You can infer from the data that SRS is not a "cure" since the data shows problems clearly persisted long after the SRS. You could possibly argue that SRS is better than nothing which would make SRS a clinically effective "treatment". But it is not a "cure".

And there you go again: attempting to de-legitimatize people who disagree with you. Sorry, believing that transgender problems are purely psychological issues is not bigotry or any other insult that you care to hurl. It just means that I think that certain treatments are not as effective as proponents claim and this particular study supports my position.

Edited June 4, 2015 by TimG