Is transgender a disease?

Seriously? I just get more entertained daily. Would that fall under science?

Gender Dysphoria

It's a disorder.

If someone tells you they are actually a cat trapped in a human body, would you:
a.) Expect their health insurance (or Medicaid) to pay for whisker transplants and tail implant, or..
b.) Send them to a shrink. Maybe their gay and don't know it?
Genetics don't lie, it's science. Are you a science denier?

DWags wrote:Seriously?  I just get more entertained daily.  Would that fall under science?

No.    You now choose your gender according to the PartyofScience™ - but you can''t choose your race because that would be racist.

Re-Release of Bill Nye's 1996 'Probability' Episode Deletes Male-Female Sex Determination Segment

In what can hardly be a coincidence, Daniel Payne at the Federalist.com reports that "someone cut from a re-release of the episode" a 76-second segment from Nye's original 1996 program on "Probability" explaining how a child's sex is determined at conception.

The full 1996 episode is here. The segment on male and female chromosomes and their role in sex determination follows a two-minute segment on bell-curve probability, and appears at the 7:54 mark.

But, as noted, The Federalist's Payne (HT Instapundit) says it's not there any more in the episode's re-release (bolds are mine throughout this post):

Last week The Federalist reported on an illuminating segment from a mid-1990s episode of “Bill Nye the Science Guy” that clashes directly with modern transgender ideology. It appears that someone cut this segment from a re-release of the episode.

Media Slam Rachel Dolezal for Comparing Gender and Race ‘Fluidity’ In New Book Interview

Just days after her book’s release, in a March 31 interview with Salon contributing editor Alli Joseph, Dolezal recalled that her story of identifying as a black woman broke around the same time as Caitlyn Jenner’s “transition.” Dolezal complained that race wasn’t accepted like gender in America.

“There’s more acceptance for gender fluidity than there is racial fluidity right now,” she insisted. “There was a time when we did call transgender or even gay and bisexual people crazy.”

“Maybe we will evolve and grow and racial fluidity will become a thing in 20 years,” Dolezal continued. “I don’t know. It’s not really up to me… I do hope inclusivity does expand to all people of all stripes.”

Many besides Dolezal have compared racial and gender fluidity. In an April 1 CNN segment, host Michael Smerconish told her: “I was thinking Caitlyn Jenner as I read the book. Is there an analogous situation here?”

Basically the PartyofScience™ wants you to ignore genetics completely.

It seems we've touched a nerve with the crew from the right.

At least we know transgender isn't a disease.

xsanguine wrote:Gender Dysphoria

It's a disorder.

Based on the social construct of gender assigned to someone at birth. Not a disorder of the mind of the trans person.

And I suppose you think there's nothing wrong with this guy, 'I consider myself trans-species'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4468954/Man-spends-25k-plastic-surgery-elf.html

Goose chiming in with his usual bullshittery. Care to explain your latest catch phrase you picked up? Or will you ignore this question like you do every other question that challenges you?

I.B. Fine wrote:And I suppose you think there's nothing wrong with this guy, 'I consider myself trans-species'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4468954/Man-spends-25k-plastic-surgery-elf.html

You're right, I don't.

The real question is, why do you? Has that person hurt someone? Do they have rights you don't have?

Live and let live man.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:Gender Dysphoria

It's a disorder.

Based on the social construct of gender assigned to someone at birth.  Not a disorder of the mind of the trans person.

The sperm determines the chromosomes (the female can only provide an X chromosome) and is able to be detected at conception (genitals come in 2-3 months later).

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

Based on the social construct of gender assigned to someone at birth. Not a disorder of the mind of the trans person.

The sperm determines the chromosomes and is able to be detected at conception (genitals come in 2-3 months later).

One of the great things about the young generation is that they allow the individual to define themselves and don't rely on how society tries to box people in to decide how they will interact with someone. I can't wait until that's the norm. I have a large array of friends that are all over the spectrum of identity. They are all good people. People need to stop being such tight asses about individual identity. If he wants to be a fucking elf, let him be a fucking elf.

Rocinante wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:And I suppose you think there's nothing wrong with this guy, 'I consider myself trans-species'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4468954/Man-spends-25k-plastic-surgery-elf.html

You're right, I don't.

The real question is, why do you? Has that person hurt someone? Do they have rights you don't have?

Live and let live man.

Agreed

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

The sperm determines the chromosomes and is able to be detected at conception (genitals come in 2-3 months later).

One of the great things about the young generation is that they allow the individual to define themselves and don't rely on how society tries to box people in to decide how they will interact with someone. I can't wait until that's the norm. I have a large array of friends that are all over the spectrum of identity. They are all good people. People need to stop being such tight asses about individual identity. If he wants to be a fucking elf, let him be a fucking elf.

What I just described is not society, it's biology.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

The sperm determines the chromosomes and is able to be detected at conception (genitals come in 2-3 months later).

One of the great things about the young generation is that they allow the individual to define themselves and don't rely on how society tries to box people in to decide how they will interact with someone. I can't wait until that's the norm. I have a large array of friends that are all over the spectrum of identity. They are all good people. People need to stop being such tight asses about individual identity. If he wants to be a fucking elf, let him be a fucking elf.

This. Well said.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Goose chiming in with his usual bullshittery. Care to explain your latest catch phrase you picked up? Or will you ignore this question like you do every other question that challenges you?

The Dems calling themselves the PartyofScience™ is nothing new. It's usually rolled out during global warming discussions, I'm thinking they want to avoid it during discussions of gender and race.

I do agree with you, Roc, that people shouldn't be harassed or teased or on the more harsh end, arrested if they want to be an elf or a different sex or a different race.

I have a friend that is going through the transformation period right now, just started his hormone replacement therapy the beginning of this month. His intention is to go all the way. I've never told him whether I agreed or disagreed (not my place) but, privately, I am concerned for him based on the suicide rates of post-op individuals.

Having said all that... a simple test can tell all.

The younger generation isn't as eager to let the individual "define themselves" if it doesn't suit their broader agenda.

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Goose chiming in with his usual bullshittery. Care to explain your latest catch phrase you picked up? Or will you ignore this question like you do every other question that challenges you?

The Dems calling themselves the PartyofScience™ is nothing new.    It's usually rolled out during global warming discussions, I'm thinking they want to avoid it during discussions of gender and race.

I'm not sure how this makes any sense. What's the discussion exactly? Which bathroom they should shit in? What else is there? Which bathroom they shit in has nothing to do with science. Beyond that I'm not even sure what argument were even having regarding transgendered persons.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

The Dems calling themselves the PartyofScience™ is nothing new.    It's usually rolled out during global warming discussions, I'm thinking they want to avoid it during discussions of gender and race.

I'm not sure how this makes any sense. What's the discussion exactly? Which bathroom they should shit in? What else is there? Which bathroom they shit in has nothing to do with science. Beyond that I'm not even sure what argument were even having regarding transgendered persons.

The question presented was "is transgender a disease?".

xsanguine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
I'm not sure how this makes any sense. What's the discussion exactly? Which bathroom they should shit in? What else is there? Which bathroom they shit in has nothing to do with science. Beyond that I'm not even sure what argument were even having regarding transgendered persons.

The question presented was "is transgender a disease?".

Well then what does that have to do with democrats if we're not talking about a political issue? That's like the dude going on a rant about libs in a sports conversation.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

The question presented was "is transgender a disease?".

Well then what does that have to do with democrats if we're not talking about a political issue? That's like the dude going on a rant about libs in a sports conversation.

It's just the way these conversations tend to go. People get nutty.

Goose = Dude sometimes most of the time.

xsanguine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Well then what does that have to do with democrats if we're not talking about a political issue? That's like the dude going on a rant about libs in a sports conversation.

It's just the way these conversations tend to go. People get nutty.

Oh yeah I guess I get that.

To answer the question, this is one of those times where I don't pretend to be an expert. I really don't fuckin know and I'm not a sciencmatician. What I do know is that prior to sex change procedures an individual has to go through lengthy conversations with therapists doctors etc and it isn't done all willy nilly. If those people all determine that it's for the best for that person then I'm good with it.

Also I still don't care where they shit.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

The Dems calling themselves the PartyofScience™ is nothing new.    It's usually rolled out during global warming discussions, I'm thinking they want to avoid it during discussions of gender and race.

I'm not sure how this makes any sense. What's the discussion exactly? Which bathroom they should shit in? What else is there? Which bathroom they shit in has nothing to do with science. Beyond that I'm not even sure what argument were even having regarding transgendered persons.

Secretary of the army claims its a disease.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

It's just the way these conversations tend to go. People get nutty.

Oh yeah I guess I get that.

To answer the question, this is one of those times where I don't pretend to be an expert. I really don't fuckin know and I'm not a sciencmatician. What I do know is that prior to sex change procedures an individual has to go through lengthy conversations with therapists doctors etc and it isn't done all willy nilly. If those people all determine that it's for the best for that person then I'm good with it.

Also I still don't care where they shit.

That's only if the physician doing the surgery requires it (or if your insurance is paying for it, they will require you to seek therapy first).

An anecdote, my friend doesn't have to see anyone for the HRT (hormone replacement) and already has a surgeon in mind that doesn't require any therapy for the physical portion. Some surgeons won't do it unless a therapist signs off on it, as well.

Rocinante wrote:
You're right, I don't.

The real question is, why do you? Has that person hurt someone? Do they have rights you don't have?

Live and let live man.

As long as he's paying for his own surgeries and treatments, doesn't want me to set aside an 'Elfs only' bathroom. I'm cool. but if he expects people not to stare at him he's crazier than I think.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Goose = Dude sometimes most of the time.

I'll bet I'm closer to the middle of America than you.

Most people believe the science that there are 2 genders. I really don't care which one you want to belong to but science tells me you're one or the other. There are no free martin humans that I'm aware of.

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Goose = Dude sometimes most of the time.

I'll bet I'm closer to the middle of America than you.

Most people believe the science that there are 2 genders. I really don't care which one you want to belong to but science tells me you're one or the other. There are no free martin humans that I'm aware of.

False. The middle of America is Lebanon, Kansas. Mason is closer to that than Mio.

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Goose = Dude sometimes most of the time.

I'll bet I'm closer to the middle of America than you.

Most people believe the science that there are 2 genders.  I really don't care which one you want to belong to but science tells me you're one or the other.   There are no free martin humans that I'm aware of.

I was going to correct you on the difference between biological sex and gender then I recall a podcast I had just watched that caused me to realize post-modernists actually do mean 'biological' when referring to gender...

If you really want to get confused, check out post-modernist professor Thaddeus Russell...

I don't have any idea what it's like to feel like you're the wrong gender. I was born a male, and I've always been fine with that. I wouldn't say that I've always "felt male," because I don't know what that means. I've never felt that there is a disconnect between my outward and inward selves. So, on some level, transgender issues are issues that I will never really understand. I feel like I understand issues of sexuality (on some level), being that I feel affirmatively heterosexual. But I don't feel affirmatively "male," really, I just feel like a person with a dick.

I have read compelling accounts of people who have consistently and persistently identified with the gender opposite their chromosomal identity from a very young age. I have also encountered statistics that indicate that the very high suicide rate among trans people is virtually identical in those who undergo surgical procedures and those who do not, which seems to me to indicate some additional/other problem/issue at work in such cases.

My (somewhat provisional) position is that science has yet to fully understand all the biochemical mechanisms at work here, and there is not yet any one size fits all determination about what the right course of action may be. It sounds somewhat insensitive (at least to my ear) to say that trans people need to be further studied, but, frankly, I think that's the truth.

Cameron wrote:I don't have any idea what it's like to feel like you're the wrong gender. I was born a male, and I've always been fine with that. I wouldn't say that I've always "felt male," because I don't know what that means. I've never felt that there is a disconnect between my outward and inward selves. So, on some level, transgender issues are issues that I will never really understand. I feel like I understand issues of sexuality (on some level), being that I feel affirmatively heterosexual. But I don't feel affirmatively "male," really, I just feel like a person with a dick.

I have read compelling accounts of people who have consistently and persistently identified with the gender opposite their chromosomal identity from a very young age. I have also encountered statistics that indicate that the very high suicide rate among trans people is virtually identical in those who undergo surgical procedures and those who do not, which seems to me to indicate some additional/other problem/issue at work in such cases.

My (somewhat provisional) position is that science has yet to fully understand all the biochemical mechanisms at work here, and there is not yet any one size fits all determination about what the right course of action may be. It sounds somewhat insensitive (at least to my ear) to say that trans people need to be further studied, but, frankly, I think that's the truth.

The fear is this... psychiatrists have figured it out and gender dysphoria is the conclusion they've come to. Considering the extremely low numbers of people that experience this coupled with, like you even pointed to, the high rate of suicide among pre and post op individuals seems to indicate psychiatrists have been right about this... but that this push to re-designate things like gender dysphoria from a disorder to just something natural is a cultural one, not a scientific one, based on the fact that people don't want to hear that something is "wrong" with them.

Cam, have you heard of Jordan Peterson? He's been one of the more outspoken clinical psychologists and specifically how this whole cultural movement to redefine science is affecting academia; He's a tenured professor at the University of Toronto. He's no Bill Nye, of course...

Anyways, I caught him on the Rogan podcast a few months ago...



And also on Dave Rubin's...



He's going to be on Rubin's podcast again, tomorrow (5/5) and then again on Rogan's on the 9th. Dr. Peterson has been one of the more interesting guests I've seen on those podcasts.

xsanguine wrote:Cam, have you heard of Jordan Peterson? He's been one of the more outspoken clinical psychologists and specifically how this whole cultural movement to redefine science is affecting academia; He's a tenured professor at the University of Toronto. He's no Bill Nye, of course...

Anyways, I caught him on the Rogan podcast a few months ago...



And also on Dave Rubin's...



He's going to be on Rubin's podcast again, tomorrow (5/5) and then again on Rogan's on the 9th. Dr. Peterson has been one of the more interesting guests I've seen on those podcasts.

I've seen a couple short clips of him on Rogan's podcast before. I'm definitely with him in pushing back against the language police and the endless proliferation of new pronouns.

It's good to see people in those positions push back against the policing of language. I'm nervous about academia allowing itself to be fused with pseudoscience because of how people feel rather than what the biology, or actual science, is. The flip side is if you raise your hand and actually utter "Guise, that's not... accurate. Biology is actually real....." then you're practicing hate speech.

Science is the collection of hate facts.

Bill Maher is right... the left has turned to book burning in order to maintain their ideologies.

JFC, X, you and that fucking Joe Rogan shit.

Jordan Peterson is another in a long line of people who are uncomfortable with letting people define their own identities.  Everything has to boil down to these societal constructs.  The question, I think, shouldn't be why is there a proliferation of pronouns to describe the spectrum of human identity, sexual and otherwise.  The question should be why isn't there a general pronoun that rejects these boxes we are being put in? Why isn't there a gender/race neutral pronoun?  Why are we so caught up on categorizing people?

I think the language of separateness (Sir, Ma'am, Her, Him, Mr., Ms.,) is as much the source of why so many of us can't wrap our heads around the reality of the spectrum that we all observe in our everyday lives.  Gender fluidity is real.  You know this.  You know "butch" women, or "effeminate" men.  That's why people made those words up.  to put people in boxes.  Do people go overboard with parsing and defining the small nuances of identity?  Sure.  But it's only a reaction to what I describe.  It's push back against gender repression, which is real.  I think we will come up with gender neutral pronouns sooner than we think, and they will become the norm faster than bigots are comfortable with, but that's reality.

And your push against "pseudoscience" is unfair. Social science changes rapidly as data is amassed, and people are just trying to act according to the data they have. It will evolve rapidly in the next decade or so. Academia is finally looking into the realities of gender fluidity and how language is an unwitting tool often of oppression. Simple minds call it "language policing" or "pseudoscience" because they are unable or unwilling to grasp that. Don't be simple.

How is Jordan Peterson not letting someone define themselves?

I do know "butch" women and "effeminate" men. You say you don't want to categorize people... so why create more arbitrary categories? That seems contradictory to me. A "butch" woman and an "effeminate" woman are still women based on their chromosomes.

I'm not sure what the problem was with referring to someone based on their chromosomes besides "PATRIARCHY!!"

So, again, how is Jordan Peterson not allowing someone to define their own identity? No one gives a shit if you wish you were a woman or a man or a Tyranosaurus Rex and I haven't heard anyone say someone should be punished for it (unlike free speech on this board)...

All Jordan Peterson has said, as a clinical psychologist, is that he's not going to play this game of fantasy land. He's not going to allow his employer, a government institution, to threaten his firing for not playing along with rich, spoiled kid's fantasies.

Rocinante wrote:JFC, X, you and that fucking Joe Rogan shit.

Jordan Peterson is another in a long line of people who are uncomfortable with letting people define their own identities.  Everything has to boil down to these societal constructs.  The question, I think, shouldn't be why is there a proliferation of pronouns to describe the spectrum of human identity, sexual and otherwise.  The question should be why isn't there a general pronoun that rejects these boxes we are being put in? Why isn't there a gender/race neutral pronoun?  Why are we so caught up on categorizing people?

I think the language of separateness (Sir, Ma'am, Her, Him, Mr., Ms.,) is as much the source of why so many of us can't wrap our heads around the reality of the spectrum that we all observe in our everyday lives.  Gender fluidity is real.  You know this.  You know "butch" women, or "effeminate" men.  That's why people made those words up.  to put people in boxes.  Do people go overboard with parsing and defining the small nuances of identity?  Sure.  But it's only a reaction to what I describe.  It's push back against gender repression, which is real.  I think we will come up with gender neutral pronouns sooner than we think, and they will become the norm faster than bigots are comfortable with, but that's reality.

And your push against "pseudoscience" is unfair. Social science changes rapidly as data is amassed, and people are just trying to act according to the data they have. It will evolve rapidly in the next decade or so. Academia is finally looking into the realities of gender fluidity and how language is an unwitting tool often of oppression. Simple minds call it "language policing" or "pseudoscience" because they are unable or unwilling to grasp that. Don't be simple.

You used gender fluidity and pseudoscience on opposite sides in the same post.

words mean things, x. Language can be (and often is) a tool of oppression. I would debate you, but your flippant dismissal of real issues like "PATRIARCHY!!" and calling gender fluidity fantasy land show me that that effort would be wasted. There was a time that I was like "Dick = Man, Vagina = Woman" anything else is stupid. Then I began talking with people and thinking about what they said and holy shit, I changed my mind. Learning stuff and being open that you might be wrong helps us grow. Don't idolize rigid thinking people. In my experience, anyone who says they have the answer is usually a self-promoting douchecanoe.

How is Jordan Peterson not allowing other people to define themselves?

LooseGoose wrote:You used gender fluidity and pseudoscience on opposite sides in the same post.

exhibit A