A critique of transgenderism

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Some key excerpts, but the whole thing is a good read. And I have a hard time finding fault with it.

...Consider the following analogies. Suppose that a Caucasian man from Finland—call him Gunther—suddenly decided that he identifies as being of Sub-Saharan African descent. Suppose further that, in light of this, Gunther undergoes unusual procedures to have his skin darkened and his skull’s bone structure re-shaped so as to resemble that of individuals of Sub-Saharan descent. Would we think that such a person has suddenly become of Sub-Saharan descent through such procedures? Of course not, and his identifying as such does nothing to change this. His appearance as someone of Sub-Saharan descent might be very convincing. But, again, this doesn’t change the fact that he is not of Sub-Saharan descent.

Similarly, suppose that a seventy-year-old man—call him Bob—comes to identify as a sixteen-year-old. Wouldn’t we think it absurd if people considered it “rude” or “bigoted” to tell the man: “You are not sixteen years old. Your identifying as such doesn’t change this fact, and we will not indulge you in your strange delusions by not calling attention to your old age and by pretending that you really are sixteen years old”?

The cases of Gunther and Bob and the situations of individuals who believe themselves to be transgender are perfectly analogous. In the case of the transgender individual, he identifies as something he is not—someone of the opposite sex—and seeks to undergo harmful surgeries and hormonal treatments in order to have his physical state match his identity of himself as someone of the opposite sex.

Our mental faculties, like our physical ones, are ordered toward various ends. Among these ends is the attainment of truth. To this extent, it is perfective of our mental faculties to recognize how we truly are (and thus apprehend a truth). It is for this reason that we can make sense of mental disorders such as anorexia nervosa as disorders: they involve persons' having persistent, false beliefs about their identity or how they really are. In the case of the anorexic, someone who is dangerously underweight believes falsely (but tenaciously) that he is really overweight. It would be a proper procedure of medicine, then, for a therapist to help an anorexic individual to do away with his anorexia, restoring the individual’s mental faculties to their properly functioning state...

...Finally, the LGBT activist might retort by asking: “but how will a man identifying as a woman affect you?” If these were simply private issues, this might be a valid point (though a concern for the physical and mental well-being of individuals struggling with their gender might obligate us to reach out to them in such a case). But, alas, LGBT activists are actively working to make it the case that the state and private businesses cover “gender-reassignment” surgeries, that men who identify as women be able to use women’s restrooms, that girls who identify as boys be able to play on male sports teams, that we consider it immoral to refer to infants as male or female lest we insidiously impose upon them a “gender” they might not identify with, that we ban therapy to treat gender dysphoria, and that we generally co-opt language and social norms to reflect pernicious falsehoods about the human body.

How a man’s identifying as a woman will personally affect me, you, or John Doe is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether we will make public policy and encourage social norms that reflect the truth about the human person and sexuality, or whether we will obfuscate the truth about such matters and sow the seeds of sexual confusion in future generations for years to come.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14305/

[DKW 86 7,419]

This is a subject i can just not understand at all...so i will shut up.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Pandora's Box is wide open. Who knows where all this will end.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

Great analogies. Thank you for sharing.

[WarTim 3,456]

Pandora's Box is wide open. Who knows where all this will end.

What a strange strange world. Up is down. And some would argue THAT is normal.....

[homersapien 11,367]

Some key excerpts, but the whole thing is a good read. And I have a hard time finding fault with it.

...Consider the following analogies. Suppose that a Caucasian man from Finland—call him Gunther—suddenly decided that he identifies as being of Sub-Saharan African descent. Suppose further that, in light of this, Gunther undergoes unusual procedures to have his skin darkened and his skull’s bone structure re-shaped so as to resemble that of individuals of Sub-Saharan descent. Would we think that such a person has suddenly become of Sub-Saharan descent through such procedures? Of course not, and his identifying as such does nothing to change this. His appearance as someone of Sub-Saharan descent might be very convincing. But, again, this doesn’t change the fact that he is not of Sub-Saharan descent.

Similarly, suppose that a seventy-year-old man—call him Bob—comes to identify as a sixteen-year-old. Wouldn’t we think it absurd if people considered it “rude” or “bigoted” to tell the man: “You are not sixteen years old. Your identifying as such doesn’t change this fact, and we will not indulge you in your strange delusions by not calling attention to your old age and by pretending that you really are sixteen years old”?

The cases of Gunther and Bob and the situations of individuals who believe themselves to be transgender are perfectly analogous. In the case of the transgender individual, he identifies as something he is not—someone of the opposite sex—and seeks to undergo harmful surgeries and hormonal treatments in order to have his physical state match his identity of himself as someone of the opposite sex.

Our mental faculties, like our physical ones, are ordered toward various ends. Among these ends is the attainment of truth. To this extent, it is perfective of our mental faculties to recognize how we truly are (and thus apprehend a truth). It is for this reason that we can make sense of mental disorders such as anorexia nervosa as disorders: they involve persons' having persistent, false beliefs about their identity or how they really are. In the case of the anorexic, someone who is dangerously underweight believes falsely (but tenaciously) that he is really overweight. It would be a proper procedure of medicine, then, for a therapist to help an anorexic individual to do away with his anorexia, restoring the individual’s mental faculties to their properly functioning state...

...Finally, the LGBT activist might retort by asking: “but how will a man identifying as a woman affect you?” If these were simply private issues, this might be a valid point (though a concern for the physical and mental well-being of individuals struggling with their gender might obligate us to reach out to them in such a case). But, alas, LGBT activists are actively working to make it the case that the state and private businesses cover “gender-reassignment” surgeries, that men who identify as women be able to use women’s restrooms, that girls who identify as boys be able to play on male sports teams, that we consider it immoral to refer to infants as male or female lest we insidiously impose upon them a “gender” they might not identify with, that we ban therapy to treat gender dysphoria, and that we generally co-opt language and social norms to reflect pernicious falsehoods about the human body.

How a man’s identifying as a woman will personally affect me, you, or John Doe is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether we will make public policy and encourage social norms that reflect the truth about the human person and sexuality, or whether we will obfuscate the truth about such matters and sow the seeds of sexual confusion in future generations for years to come.

http://www.thepublic.../2015/02/14305/

IMO, this is a simple argument from authority. The question it begs is who determines what a trans-gender person "really is" and on what basis? I would say the answer goes beyond whatever physical characteristics one is born with, or transgenders would not exist to start with.

So that opens up the can of worms of what exactly determines one's sexuality?

It opens the question of where the individual resides. I submit it resides in the "big head" rather than the "little head" (although my wife might disagree )

This is not an issue of what equipment you have as much as it is of your self-identity. And sexuality is a very old function so it probably resides deep in the brain.

Beyond this major flaw, his argument includes some faulty analogies, but they are secondary IMO.

[homersapien 11,367]

Great analogies. Thank you for sharing.

Really?

[AUFAN78 3,894]

Great analogies. Thank you for sharing.

Really?

I found them intriguing. Immediately, Bruce Jenner came to mind. Ponder his case and reflect on the analogies given. Draw any parallel?

[Weegle777 78]

Some key excerpts, but the whole thing is a good read. And I have a hard time finding fault with it.

...Consider the following analogies. Suppose that a Caucasian man from Finland—call him Gunther—suddenly decided that he identifies as being of Sub-Saharan African descent. Suppose further that, in light of this, Gunther undergoes unusual procedures to have his skin darkened and his skull’s bone structure re-shaped so as to resemble that of individuals of Sub-Saharan descent. Would we think that such a person has suddenly become of Sub-Saharan descent through such procedures? Of course not, and his identifying as such does nothing to change this. His appearance as someone of Sub-Saharan descent might be very convincing. But, again, this doesn’t change the fact that he is not of Sub-Saharan descent.

Similarly, suppose that a seventy-year-old man—call him Bob—comes to identify as a sixteen-year-old. Wouldn’t we think it absurd if people considered it “rude” or “bigoted” to tell the man: “You are not sixteen years old. Your identifying as such doesn’t change this fact, and we will not indulge you in your strange delusions by not calling attention to your old age and by pretending that you really are sixteen years old”?

The cases of Gunther and Bob and the situations of individuals who believe themselves to be transgender are perfectly analogous. In the case of the transgender individual, he identifies as something he is not—someone of the opposite sex—and seeks to undergo harmful surgeries and hormonal treatments in order to have his physical state match his identity of himself as someone of the opposite sex.

Our mental faculties, like our physical ones, are ordered toward various ends. Among these ends is the attainment of truth. To this extent, it is perfective of our mental faculties to recognize how we truly are (and thus apprehend a truth). It is for this reason that we can make sense of mental disorders such as anorexia nervosa as disorders: they involve persons' having persistent, false beliefs about their identity or how they really are. In the case of the anorexic, someone who is dangerously underweight believes falsely (but tenaciously) that he is really overweight. It would be a proper procedure of medicine, then, for a therapist to help an anorexic individual to do away with his anorexia, restoring the individual’s mental faculties to their properly functioning state...

...Finally, the LGBT activist might retort by asking: “but how will a man identifying as a woman affect you?” If these were simply private issues, this might be a valid point (though a concern for the physical and mental well-being of individuals struggling with their gender might obligate us to reach out to them in such a case). But, alas, LGBT activists are actively working to make it the case that the state and private businesses cover “gender-reassignment” surgeries, that men who identify as women be able to use women’s restrooms, that girls who identify as boys be able to play on male sports teams, that we consider it immoral to refer to infants as male or female lest we insidiously impose upon them a “gender” they might not identify with, that we ban therapy to treat gender dysphoria, and that we generally co-opt language and social norms to reflect pernicious falsehoods about the human body.

How a man’s identifying as a woman will personally affect me, you, or John Doe is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether we will make public policy and encourage social norms that reflect the truth about the human person and sexuality, or whether we will obfuscate the truth about such matters and sow the seeds of sexual confusion in future generations for years to come.

http://www.thepublic.../2015/02/14305/

IMO, this is a simple argument from authority. The question it begs is who determines what a trans-gender person "really is" and on what basis? I would say the answer goes beyond whatever physical characteristics one is born with, or transgenders would not exist to start with.

So that opens up the can of worms of what exactly determines one's sexuality?

It opens the question of where the individual resides. I submit it resides in the "big head" rather than the "little head" (although my wife might disagree ;)/> )

This is not an issue of what equipment you have as much as it is of your self-identity. And sexuality is a very old function so it probably resides deep in the brain.

Beyond this major flaw, his argument includes some faulty analogies, but they are secondary IMO.

Found this interesting.

http://bible-truths.com/homosex.htm

I WAS BORN THIS WAY

[in search of the elusive homosexual gene]

Numerous homosexuals have written me stating that God made them homosexuals, seeing that they were "born this way."

Much of this research has been done by gays that have a vested interest in the outcome. Hence much of their research is in fact biased, as is admitted by those who favor homosexuality. Is there a homosexual gene which causes homosexuality, and has any such thing ever been scientifically proven?

There are hundreds and hundreds of web sites on this one aspect of homosexuality alone. Here are some quotations from the NARTH web site:

Volunteers from gay groups may only participate if they have a gay brother or sister. Even gay advocates such as J. Michael Bailey (in Bailey & Dawood, 1998) admit: "If, for example, a gay twin who sees an advertisement for a [twin] study may be less likely to call if his twin is heterosexual, this would cause concordance-dependent bias" (p. 10).

The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature? No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

Occasionally you may read about a scientific study that suggests that homosexuality is an inherited tendency, but such studies have usually been discounted after careful scrutiny or attempts at replication. No one has found a single heredble genetic, hormonal or physical difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals - at least none that is replicable.While the absence of such a discovery doesn't prove an inherited sexual tendencies aren't possible, it suggests that none has been found because none exists

What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.

From the American Psychological Association:

"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."

From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay:

"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:

"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg:

"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."

[Above quotations from NARTH web site (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) All bold emphasis are theirs, not mine]

Here are a few quotations from THE NATIONAL VALUES COALITION:

Homosexual researchers Bailey and Pillard conducted the famous "twins study" quoted by homosexual activist groups to promote the idea that being "gay" is genetic. The study found that among those twins studied, the researchers found a rate of homosexuality of 52% (both twins homosexuals); 22% among non-identical twins; and a 9.2% rate among non-twins.

This was hailed by homosexual activists groups and by the media as supposedly proving that homosexuality is genetic. The study actually proved the opposite. As Byrd, et al, note: "This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual."

In short, the three most famous studies in recent years that homosexual activists use to claim that homosexuality is genetic prove no such thing. In fact, two of the authors of these studies admit their research has not proven a genetic basis to homosexuality. [bold is emphasis of The National Values Coalition-traditional values.org, Article: "Homosexual Urban Legends-BORN GAY"]

The Catholic Medical Association web site is helping to debunk the notion that individuals are "born gay."

"There is no verifiable evidence that same-sex attraction is genetically determined. If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, identical twins would always have the same sexual attraction pattern. Numerous studies of twins have shown that this is not the case. And there are numerous studies documenting change of sexual attraction patterns." (bold emphasis is by 'Homosexuality and Hope,' available at cathmed.org.

Although there are some agencies that still adhere to the "born gay" theory, some of their own advocates are not admitting error--there is no known gay gene. Even the Catholic Church who has had to deal with an un-surmountable plethora of sexual sins within their priesthood of recent years, cannot and do not attempt to blame such sexual perversion on genes or heredity which would lighten their burden in this matter enormously.

Interestingly I could find no web-page which discussed whether or not there is a reported gene for child molesters. Not one. And yet some of them also contend that they were "born pedophiles," and at a very young age fantasized over having sex with little children. Homosexuality is not even in the same ball park with the gross perversion of pedophilia, yet both claim to be "born that way." Should we lighten the burden; lighten the sentence; lighten the moral perspective of pedophiles because they CLAIM to be "born that way?" Nonsense. It is not a defense for the pedophile, and neither it is a defense for the homosexual

[DKW 86 7,419]

Jenner really confuses me. Why wait till you are 65yo for reassignment?

[AUFAN78 3,894]

Some key excerpts, but the whole thing is a good read. And I have a hard time finding fault with it.

...Consider the following analogies. Suppose that a Caucasian man from Finland—call him Gunther—suddenly decided that he identifies as being of Sub-Saharan African descent. Suppose further that, in light of this, Gunther undergoes unusual procedures to have his skin darkened and his skull's bone structure re-shaped so as to resemble that of individuals of Sub-Saharan descent. Would we think that such a person has suddenly become of Sub-Saharan descent through such procedures? Of course not, and his identifying as such does nothing to change this. His appearance as someone of Sub-Saharan descent might be very convincing. But, again, this doesn't change the fact that he is not of Sub-Saharan descent.

Similarly, suppose that a seventy-year-old man—call him Bob—comes to identify as a sixteen-year-old. Wouldn't we think it absurd if people considered it "rude" or "bigoted" to tell the man: "You are not sixteen years old. Your identifying as such doesn't change this fact, and we will not indulge you in your strange delusions by not calling attention to your old age and by pretending that you really are sixteen years old"?

The cases of Gunther and Bob and the situations of individuals who believe themselves to be transgender are perfectly analogous. In the case of the transgender individual, he identifies as something he is not—someone of the opposite sex—and seeks to undergo harmful surgeries and hormonal treatments in order to have his physical state match his identity of himself as someone of the opposite sex.

Our mental faculties, like our physical ones, are ordered toward various ends. Among these ends is the attainment of truth. To this extent, it is perfective of our mental faculties to recognize how we truly are (and thus apprehend a truth). It is for this reason that we can make sense of mental disorders such as anorexia nervosa as disorders: they involve persons' having persistent, false beliefs about their identity or how they really are. In the case of the anorexic, someone who is dangerously underweight believes falsely (but tenaciously) that he is really overweight. It would be a proper procedure of medicine, then, for a therapist to help an anorexic individual to do away with his anorexia, restoring the individual's mental faculties to their properly functioning state...

...Finally, the LGBT activist might retort by asking: "but how will a man identifying as a woman affect you?" If these were simply private issues, this might be a valid point (though a concern for the physical and mental well-being of individuals struggling with their gender might obligate us to reach out to them in such a case). But, alas, LGBT activists are actively working to make it the case that the state and private businesses cover "gender-reassignment" surgeries, that men who identify as women be able to use women's restrooms, that girls who identify as boys be able to play on male sports teams, that we consider it immoral to refer to infants as male or female lest we insidiously impose upon them a "gender" they might not identify with, that we ban therapy to treat gender dysphoria, and that we generally co-opt language and social norms to reflect pernicious falsehoods about the human body.

How a man's identifying as a woman will personally affect me, you, or John Doe is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether we will make public policy and encourage social norms that reflect the truth about the human person and sexuality, or whether we will obfuscate the truth about such matters and sow the seeds of sexual confusion in future generations for years to come.

http://www.thepublic.../2015/02/14305/

IMO, this is a simple argument from authority. The question it begs is who determines what a trans-gender person "really is" and on what basis? I would say the answer goes beyond whatever physical characteristics one is born with, or transgenders would not exist to start with.

So that opens up the can of worms of what exactly determines one's sexuality?

It opens the question of where the individual resides. I submit it resides in the "big head" rather than the "little head" (although my wife might disagree ;)/> )

This is not an issue of what equipment you have as much as it is of your self-identity. And sexuality is a very old function so it probably resides deep in the brain.

Beyond this major flaw, his argument includes some faulty analogies, but they are secondary IMO.

Found this interesting.

http://bible-truths.com/homosex.htm

I WAS BORN THIS WAY

[in search of the elusive homosexual gene]

Numerous homosexuals have written me stating that God made them homosexuals, seeing that they were "born this way."

Much of this research has been done by gays that have a vested interest in the outcome. Hence much of their research is in fact biased, as is admitted by those who favor homosexuality. Is there a homosexual gene which causes homosexuality, and has any such thing ever been scientifically proven?

There are hundreds and hundreds of web sites on this one aspect of homosexuality alone. Here are some quotations from the NARTH web site:

Volunteers from gay groups may only participate if they have a gay brother or sister. Even gay advocates such as J. Michael Bailey (in Bailey & Dawood, 1998) admit: "If, for example, a gay twin who sees an advertisement for a [twin] study may be less likely to call if his twin is heterosexual, this would cause concordance-dependent bias" (p. 10).

The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature? No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

Occasionally you may read about a scientific study that suggests that homosexuality is an inherited tendency, but such studies have usually been discounted after careful scrutiny or attempts at replication. No one has found a single heredble genetic, hormonal or physical difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals - at least none that is replicable.While the absence of such a discovery doesn't prove an inherited sexual tendencies aren't possible, it suggests that none has been found because none exists

What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.

From the American Psychological Association:

"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."

From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay:

"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:

"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg:

"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."

[Above quotations from NARTH web site (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) All bold emphasis are theirs, not mine]

Here are a few quotations from THE NATIONAL VALUES COALITION:

Homosexual researchers Bailey and Pillard conducted the famous "twins study" quoted by homosexual activist groups to promote the idea that being "gay" is genetic. The study found that among those twins studied, the researchers found a rate of homosexuality of 52% (both twins homosexuals); 22% among non-identical twins; and a 9.2% rate among non-twins.

This was hailed by homosexual activists groups and by the media as supposedly proving that homosexuality is genetic. The study actually proved the opposite. As Byrd, et al, note: "This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual."

In short, the three most famous studies in recent years that homosexual activists use to claim that homosexuality is genetic prove no such thing. In fact, two of the authors of these studies admit their research has not proven a genetic basis to homosexuality. [bold is emphasis of The National Values Coalition-traditional values.org, Article: "Homosexual Urban Legends-BORN GAY"]

The Catholic Medical Association web site is helping to debunk the notion that individuals are "born gay."

"There is no verifiable evidence that same-sex attraction is genetically determined. If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, identical twins would always have the same sexual attraction pattern. Numerous studies of twins have shown that this is not the case. And there are numerous studies documenting change of sexual attraction patterns." (bold emphasis is by 'Homosexuality and Hope,' available at cathmed.org.

Although there are some agencies that still adhere to the "born gay" theory, some of their own advocates are not admitting error--there is no known gay gene. Even the Catholic Church who has had to deal with an un-surmountable plethora of sexual sins within their priesthood of recent years, cannot and do not attempt to blame such sexual perversion on genes or heredity which would lighten their burden in this matter enormously.

Interestingly I could find no web-page which discussed whether or not there is a reported gene for child molesters. Not one. And yet some of them also contend that they were "born pedophiles," and at a very young age fantasized over having sex with little children. Homosexuality is not even in the same ball park with the gross perversion of pedophilia, yet both claim to be "born that way." Should we lighten the burden; lighten the sentence; lighten the moral perspective of pedophiles because they CLAIM to be "born that way?" Nonsense. It is not a defense for the pedophile, and neither it is a defense for the homosexual

While I claim no expertise on the subject, I will restate claims of two individuals i consider friends.

Male and female, both were previously admitted gay. Today they are both happily married to the opposite sex in loving relationships with children. When queried about their respective "prior gay lives" they emphatically state it was simply a sexual choice at the time. No inborn trait, no gene, but rather a simple choice.

I imagine the same could be said of Bruce Jenner.

[AUDub 11,147]

Some key excerpts, but the whole thing is a good read. And I have a hard time finding fault with it.

...Consider the following analogies. Suppose that a Caucasian man from Finland—call him Gunther—suddenly decided that he identifies as being of Sub-Saharan African descent. Suppose further that, in light of this, Gunther undergoes unusual procedures to have his skin darkened and his skull’s bone structure re-shaped so as to resemble that of individuals of Sub-Saharan descent. Would we think that such a person has suddenly become of Sub-Saharan descent through such procedures? Of course not, and his identifying as such does nothing to change this. His appearance as someone of Sub-Saharan descent might be very convincing. But, again, this doesn’t change the fact that he is not of Sub-Saharan descent.

Similarly, suppose that a seventy-year-old man—call him Bob—comes to identify as a sixteen-year-old. Wouldn’t we think it absurd if people considered it “rude” or “bigoted” to tell the man: “You are not sixteen years old. Your identifying as such doesn’t change this fact, and we will not indulge you in your strange delusions by not calling attention to your old age and by pretending that you really are sixteen years old”?

The cases of Gunther and Bob and the situations of individuals who believe themselves to be transgender are perfectly analogous. In the case of the transgender individual, he identifies as something he is not—someone of the opposite sex—and seeks to undergo harmful surgeries and hormonal treatments in order to have his physical state match his identity of himself as someone of the opposite sex.

Our mental faculties, like our physical ones, are ordered toward various ends. Among these ends is the attainment of truth. To this extent, it is perfective of our mental faculties to recognize how we truly are (and thus apprehend a truth). It is for this reason that we can make sense of mental disorders such as anorexia nervosa as disorders: they involve persons' having persistent, false beliefs about their identity or how they really are. In the case of the anorexic, someone who is dangerously underweight believes falsely (but tenaciously) that he is really overweight. It would be a proper procedure of medicine, then, for a therapist to help an anorexic individual to do away with his anorexia, restoring the individual’s mental faculties to their properly functioning state...

...Finally, the LGBT activist might retort by asking: “but how will a man identifying as a woman affect you?” If these were simply private issues, this might be a valid point (though a concern for the physical and mental well-being of individuals struggling with their gender might obligate us to reach out to them in such a case). But, alas, LGBT activists are actively working to make it the case that the state and private businesses cover “gender-reassignment” surgeries, that men who identify as women be able to use women’s restrooms, that girls who identify as boys be able to play on male sports teams, that we consider it immoral to refer to infants as male or female lest we insidiously impose upon them a “gender” they might not identify with, that we ban therapy to treat gender dysphoria, and that we generally co-opt language and social norms to reflect pernicious falsehoods about the human body.

How a man’s identifying as a woman will personally affect me, you, or John Doe is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether we will make public policy and encourage social norms that reflect the truth about the human person and sexuality, or whether we will obfuscate the truth about such matters and sow the seeds of sexual confusion in future generations for years to come.

http://www.thepublic.../2015/02/14305/

IMO, this is a simple argument from authority. The question it begs is who determines what a trans-gender person "really is" and on what basis? I would say the answer goes beyond whatever physical characteristics one is born with, or transgenders would not exist to start with.

So that opens up the can of worms of what exactly determines one's sexuality?

It opens the question of where the individual resides. I submit it resides in the "big head" rather than the "little head" (although my wife might disagree )

This is not an issue of what equipment you have as much as it is of your self-identity. And sexuality is a very old function so it probably resides deep in the brain.

Beyond this major flaw, his argument includes some faulty analogies, but they are secondary IMO.

Found this interesting.

http://bible-truths.com/homosex.htm

I WAS BORN THIS WAY

[in search of the elusive homosexual gene]

Numerous homosexuals have written me stating that God made them homosexuals, seeing that they were "born this way."

Much of this research has been done by gays that have a vested interest in the outcome. Hence much of their research is in fact biased, as is admitted by those who favor homosexuality. Is there a homosexual gene which causes homosexuality, and has any such thing ever been scientifically proven?

There are hundreds and hundreds of web sites on this one aspect of homosexuality alone. Here are some quotations from the NARTH web site:

Volunteers from gay groups may only participate if they have a gay brother or sister. Even gay advocates such as J. Michael Bailey (in Bailey & Dawood, 1998) admit: "If, for example, a gay twin who sees an advertisement for a [twin] study may be less likely to call if his twin is heterosexual, this would cause concordance-dependent bias" (p. 10).

The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature? No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

Occasionally you may read about a scientific study that suggests that homosexuality is an inherited tendency, but such studies have usually been discounted after careful scrutiny or attempts at replication. No one has found a single heredble genetic, hormonal or physical difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals - at least none that is replicable.While the absence of such a discovery doesn't prove an inherited sexual tendencies aren't possible, it suggests that none has been found because none exists

What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.

From the American Psychological Association:

"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."

From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay:

"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:

"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg:

"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."

[Above quotations from NARTH web site (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) All bold emphasis are theirs, not mine]

Here are a few quotations from THE NATIONAL VALUES COALITION:

Homosexual researchers Bailey and Pillard conducted the famous "twins study" quoted by homosexual activist groups to promote the idea that being "gay" is genetic. The study found that among those twins studied, the researchers found a rate of homosexuality of 52% (both twins homosexuals); 22% among non-identical twins; and a 9.2% rate among non-twins.

This was hailed by homosexual activists groups and by the media as supposedly proving that homosexuality is genetic. The study actually proved the opposite. As Byrd, et al, note: "This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual."

In short, the three most famous studies in recent years that homosexual activists use to claim that homosexuality is genetic prove no such thing. In fact, two of the authors of these studies admit their research has not proven a genetic basis to homosexuality. [bold is emphasis of The National Values Coalition-traditional values.org, Article: "Homosexual Urban Legends-BORN GAY"]

The Catholic Medical Association web site is helping to debunk the notion that individuals are "born gay."

"There is no verifiable evidence that same-sex attraction is genetically determined. If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, identical twins would always have the same sexual attraction pattern. Numerous studies of twins have shown that this is not the case. And there are numerous studies documenting change of sexual attraction patterns." (bold emphasis is by 'Homosexuality and Hope,' available at cathmed.org.

Although there are some agencies that still adhere to the "born gay" theory, some of their own advocates are not admitting error--there is no known gay gene. Even the Catholic Church who has had to deal with an un-surmountable plethora of sexual sins within their priesthood of recent years, cannot and do not attempt to blame such sexual perversion on genes or heredity which would lighten their burden in this matter enormously.

Interestingly I could find no web-page which discussed whether or not there is a reported gene for child molesters. Not one. And yet some of them also contend that they were "born pedophiles," and at a very young age fantasized over having sex with little children. Homosexuality is not even in the same ball park with the gross perversion of pedophilia, yet both claim to be "born that way." Should we lighten the burden; lighten the sentence; lighten the moral perspective of pedophiles because they CLAIM to be "born that way?" Nonsense. It is not a defense for the pedophile, and neither it is a defense for the homosexual

I made it about 5 paragraphs before I realized this would be so fractally wrong it wasn't worth refuting.

Please expand your knowledge on the subject, Weegs. That copypasta is garbage.

[Weegle777 78]

It's not really. You just don't agree so you dismiss it. Typical.

[Weegle777 78]

It's okay, I dismiss a lot of what you post as ridiculousness as well so I guess it's fair.

[AUDub 11,147]

It's okay, I dismiss a lot of what you post as ridiculousness as well so I guess it's fair.

No. I'm serious, Weegs. Research it. It's so mind-numbingly wrong it bugs the crap out of me.

I'll dissect it after my wife goes to sleep, if you want. It's a lot of ignorance and outright falsehood to sort through.

[Weegle777 78]

Here's the thing though, when you state things like you do, you come off as a jerk. Did I say that it was gospel? I said it was interesting. I see things posted by many people here that I laugh at, but I don't belittle them by calling their post garbage.

[AUDub 11,147]

Here's the thing though, when you state things like you do, you come off as a jerk. Did I say that it was gospel? I said it was interesting. I see things posted by many people here that I laugh at, but I don't belittle them by calling their post garbage.

Well, I apologize, but could you point out where I did that? I called the copypasta garbage.

And it is. Loaded with pseudoscientific nonsense and deceptively mined quotes.

[homersapien 11,367]

Great analogies. Thank you for sharing.

Really?

I found them intriguing. Immediately, Bruce Jenner came to mind. Ponder his case and reflect on the analogies given. Draw any parallel?

No.

[homersapien 11,367]

Some key excerpts, but the whole thing is a good read. And I have a hard time finding fault with it.

...Consider the following analogies. Suppose that a Caucasian man from Finland—call him Gunther—suddenly decided that he identifies as being of Sub-Saharan African descent. Suppose further that, in light of this, Gunther undergoes unusual procedures to have his skin darkened and his skull's bone structure re-shaped so as to resemble that of individuals of Sub-Saharan descent. Would we think that such a person has suddenly become of Sub-Saharan descent through such procedures? Of course not, and his identifying as such does nothing to change this. His appearance as someone of Sub-Saharan descent might be very convincing. But, again, this doesn't change the fact that he is not of Sub-Saharan descent.

Similarly, suppose that a seventy-year-old man—call him Bob—comes to identify as a sixteen-year-old. Wouldn't we think it absurd if people considered it "rude" or "bigoted" to tell the man: "You are not sixteen years old. Your identifying as such doesn't change this fact, and we will not indulge you in your strange delusions by not calling attention to your old age and by pretending that you really are sixteen years old"?

The cases of Gunther and Bob and the situations of individuals who believe themselves to be transgender are perfectly analogous. In the case of the transgender individual, he identifies as something he is not—someone of the opposite sex—and seeks to undergo harmful surgeries and hormonal treatments in order to have his physical state match his identity of himself as someone of the opposite sex.

Our mental faculties, like our physical ones, are ordered toward various ends. Among these ends is the attainment of truth. To this extent, it is perfective of our mental faculties to recognize how we truly are (and thus apprehend a truth). It is for this reason that we can make sense of mental disorders such as anorexia nervosa as disorders: they involve persons' having persistent, false beliefs about their identity or how they really are. In the case of the anorexic, someone who is dangerously underweight believes falsely (but tenaciously) that he is really overweight. It would be a proper procedure of medicine, then, for a therapist to help an anorexic individual to do away with his anorexia, restoring the individual's mental faculties to their properly functioning state...

...Finally, the LGBT activist might retort by asking: "but how will a man identifying as a woman affect you?" If these were simply private issues, this might be a valid point (though a concern for the physical and mental well-being of individuals struggling with their gender might obligate us to reach out to them in such a case). But, alas, LGBT activists are actively working to make it the case that the state and private businesses cover "gender-reassignment" surgeries, that men who identify as women be able to use women's restrooms, that girls who identify as boys be able to play on male sports teams, that we consider it immoral to refer to infants as male or female lest we insidiously impose upon them a "gender" they might not identify with, that we ban therapy to treat gender dysphoria, and that we generally co-opt language and social norms to reflect pernicious falsehoods about the human body.

How a man's identifying as a woman will personally affect me, you, or John Doe is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether we will make public policy and encourage social norms that reflect the truth about the human person and sexuality, or whether we will obfuscate the truth about such matters and sow the seeds of sexual confusion in future generations for years to come.

http://www.thepublic.../2015/02/14305/

IMO, this is a simple argument from authority. The question it begs is who determines what a trans-gender person "really is" and on what basis? I would say the answer goes beyond whatever physical characteristics one is born with, or transgenders would not exist to start with.

So that opens up the can of worms of what exactly determines one's sexuality?

It opens the question of where the individual resides. I submit it resides in the "big head" rather than the "little head" (although my wife might disagree ;)/> )

This is not an issue of what equipment you have as much as it is of your self-identity. And sexuality is a very old function so it probably resides deep in the brain.

Beyond this major flaw, his argument includes some faulty analogies, but they are secondary IMO.

Found this interesting.

http://bible-truths.com/homosex.htm

I WAS BORN THIS WAY

[in search of the elusive homosexual gene]

Numerous homosexuals have written me stating that God made them homosexuals, seeing that they were "born this way."

Much of this research has been done by gays that have a vested interest in the outcome. Hence much of their research is in fact biased, as is admitted by those who favor homosexuality. Is there a homosexual gene which causes homosexuality, and has any such thing ever been scientifically proven?

There are hundreds and hundreds of web sites on this one aspect of homosexuality alone. Here are some quotations from the NARTH web site:

Volunteers from gay groups may only participate if they have a gay brother or sister. Even gay advocates such as J. Michael Bailey (in Bailey & Dawood, 1998) admit: "If, for example, a gay twin who sees an advertisement for a [twin] study may be less likely to call if his twin is heterosexual, this would cause concordance-dependent bias" (p. 10).

The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature? No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

Occasionally you may read about a scientific study that suggests that homosexuality is an inherited tendency, but such studies have usually been discounted after careful scrutiny or attempts at replication. No one has found a single heredble genetic, hormonal or physical difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals - at least none that is replicable.While the absence of such a discovery doesn't prove an inherited sexual tendencies aren't possible, it suggests that none has been found because none exists

What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.

From the American Psychological Association:

"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."

From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay:

"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:

"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg:

"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."

[Above quotations from NARTH web site (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) All bold emphasis are theirs, not mine]

Here are a few quotations from THE NATIONAL VALUES COALITION:

Homosexual researchers Bailey and Pillard conducted the famous "twins study" quoted by homosexual activist groups to promote the idea that being "gay" is genetic. The study found that among those twins studied, the researchers found a rate of homosexuality of 52% (both twins homosexuals); 22% among non-identical twins; and a 9.2% rate among non-twins.

This was hailed by homosexual activists groups and by the media as supposedly proving that homosexuality is genetic. The study actually proved the opposite. As Byrd, et al, note: "This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual."

In short, the three most famous studies in recent years that homosexual activists use to claim that homosexuality is genetic prove no such thing. In fact, two of the authors of these studies admit their research has not proven a genetic basis to homosexuality. [bold is emphasis of The National Values Coalition-traditional values.org, Article: "Homosexual Urban Legends-BORN GAY"]

The Catholic Medical Association web site is helping to debunk the notion that individuals are "born gay."

"There is no verifiable evidence that same-sex attraction is genetically determined. If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, identical twins would always have the same sexual attraction pattern. Numerous studies of twins have shown that this is not the case. And there are numerous studies documenting change of sexual attraction patterns." (bold emphasis is by 'Homosexuality and Hope,' available at cathmed.org.

Although there are some agencies that still adhere to the "born gay" theory, some of their own advocates are not admitting error--there is no known gay gene. Even the Catholic Church who has had to deal with an un-surmountable plethora of sexual sins within their priesthood of recent years, cannot and do not attempt to blame such sexual perversion on genes or heredity which would lighten their burden in this matter enormously.

Interestingly I could find no web-page which discussed whether or not there is a reported gene for child molesters. Not one. And yet some of them also contend that they were "born pedophiles," and at a very young age fantasized over having sex with little children. Homosexuality is not even in the same ball park with the gross perversion of pedophilia, yet both claim to be "born that way." Should we lighten the burden; lighten the sentence; lighten the moral perspective of pedophiles because they CLAIM to be "born that way?" Nonsense. It is not a defense for the pedophile, and neither it is a defense for the homosexual

Just read through this briefly. One obvious problem I noted is emphasis on the lack of a "homosexual gene", which is a red herring. A biological causation does not depend on a gene.

On the other hand, there are statements that are perfectly valid. Other stuff which is just flat out wrong. I'd like to review it in detail claim-by-claim, only later.

Anyway, thanks for the "fodder". There's a lot here to chew on. Fortunately, I have dealt with most of it before.

[homersapien 11,367]

Jenner really confuses me. Why wait till you are 65yo for reassignment?

Good question. Perhaps it's never too late to act on one's true identity.

[homersapien 11,367]

It's okay, I dismiss a lot of what you post as ridiculousness as well so I guess it's fair.

No. I'm serious, Weegs. Research it. It's so mind-numbingly wrong it bugs the crap out of me.

I'll dissect it after my wife goes to sleep, if you want. It's a lot of ignorance and outright falsehood to sort through.

We should divide it.

But I just realized that I no longer have my old bookmarks on homosexuality - which is a different topic that transgenderism. I did a scientific literature review of homosexuality hopefully I can recover my references instead of repeating the research.

There's a lot of misinformation out there being actively promoted, particularly from the "reformation" crowd. Weegs touched on a lot of it.

Frankly I am more interested in trans-gender research as I haven't really searched for it.

[alexava 6,973]

Jenner really confuses me. Why wait till you are 65yo for reassignment?

Good question. Perhaps it's never too late to act on one's true identity.

jenner is himself confused. this reminds me, did anyone watch "Sons of Anarchy"?

[Weegle777 78]

To be really honest, I believe that we do have tendencies when we are born to move toward things in the environment that we are raised in. Influences in our early years can push us in certain directions. For example, a child that grows up in an abusive home has a tendency to become abusive as an adult. A child that grows up in a home where alcoholism is an issue, has the tendency to migrate toward alcoholism. A child that grows up in a home where the father was absent or abusive might have the tendency to seek male affection or love when he is older. A female child that grows up in a home where the father was abusive might have the tendency to hate men and migrate toward women to seek affection. Our environment and situations play a huge role in how we are shaped and the things we seek when we get older. Of course there are no absolutes.

[homersapien 11,367]

While I claim no expertise on the subject, I will restate claims of two individuals i consider friends.

Male and female, both were previously admitted gay. Today they are both happily married to the opposite sex in loving relationships with children. When queried about their respective "prior gay lives" they emphatically state it was simply a sexual choice at the time. No inborn trait, no gene, but rather a simple choice.

I imagine the same could be said of Bruce Jenner.

How can they be sure of that?

Regardless, it's possible for otherwise heterosexual people to engage in consensual homosexual acts. It happens all the time in prisons (for example).

It's also possible for people to identify both - or either - way. It's called bisexuality.

[Weegle777 78]

Which tells me that it is more behavioral than biological.