A critique of transgenderism

[AUDub 11,147]

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.

Part of what set me off about the copypasta was that it referenced NARTH. If you've never heard of them, NARTH claims homosexuality can be fully cured though "conversion therapy", and that homosexuality is a choice, and worse, a disease that should be cured.

In essence, they basically teach you to hate who you are and make an effort to repress it rather than accept it. Not exactly a healthy way to go through life.

The rationalwiki and Wikipedia articles are a good place to start your research on transgender. Lot of useful information.

I was just enjoying reading and your comment raised another question.

Can any support for transgenderism be seen as teaching someone to hate who they actually are? Especially to the point of physically changing it rather than accepting it.

I suppose you could put it that way if you really wanted to stretch the definition, but it would be kind of hard for you and myself, and I assume you're cisgender like me, to put ourselves in their shoes. Who are we to say who they actually are?

Recent research has indicated a biological component, and many of these folks seem to be wired more like the gender they identify with rather than what sex they were born.

[aubfaninga 16]

I suppose you could put it that way if you really wanted to stretch the definition, but it would be kind of hard for you and myself, and I assume you're cisgender like me, to put ourselves in their shoes. Who are we to say who they actually are?

Recent research has indicated a biological component, and many of these folks seem to be wired more like the gender they identify with rather than what sex they were born.

The sex they were born with is biological as well. Observable biology at that. What a person does is there business but in the name of, "accepting who you are", I can't see any action by a second party being beneficial.

I don't know enough to decide either way but the question just popped in my head.

[AUDub 11,147]

The sex they were born with is biological as well. Observable biology at that. What a person does is there business but in the name of, "accepting who you are", I can't see any action by a second party being beneficial.

I don't know enough to decide either way but the question just popped in my head.

The biological component I brought up is observable as well, you just can't observe it with your eyes. As an example, blood type isn't obvious from outward appearances. It requires a test.

[Weegle777 78]

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.

Part of what set me off about the copypasta was that it referenced NARTH. If you've never heard of them, NARTH claims homosexuality can be fully cured though "conversion therapy", and that homosexuality is a choice, and worse, a disease that should be cured.

In essence, they basically teach you to hate who you are and make an effort to repress it rather than accept it. Not exactly a healthy way to go through life.

The rationalwiki and Wikipedia articles are a good place to start your research on transgender. Lot of useful information.

I was just enjoying reading and your comment raised another question.

Can any support for transgenderism be seen as teaching someone to hate who they actually are? Especially to the point of physically changing it rather than accepting it.

I suppose you could put it that way if you really wanted to stretch the definition, but it would be kind of hard for you and myself, and I assume you're cisgender like me, to put ourselves in their shoes. Who are we to say who they actually are?

Recent research has indicated a biological component, and many of these folks seem to be wired more like the gender they identify with rather than what sex they were born.

What you describe as "wired" is behavioral. When babies are conceived, they either get the X or the Y. They are male or female. Biologically they are one or the other. How they feel or perceive themselves is behavioral.

[AUDub 11,147]

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.

Part of what set me off about the copypasta was that it referenced NARTH. If you've never heard of them, NARTH claims homosexuality can be fully cured though "conversion therapy", and that homosexuality is a choice, and worse, a disease that should be cured.

In essence, they basically teach you to hate who you are and make an effort to repress it rather than accept it. Not exactly a healthy way to go through life.

The rationalwiki and Wikipedia articles are a good place to start your research on transgender. Lot of useful information.

I was just enjoying reading and your comment raised another question.

Can any support for transgenderism be seen as teaching someone to hate who they actually are? Especially to the point of physically changing it rather than accepting it.

I suppose you could put it that way if you really wanted to stretch the definition, but it would be kind of hard for you and myself, and I assume you're cisgender like me, to put ourselves in their shoes. Who are we to say who they actually are?

Recent research has indicated a biological component, and many of these folks seem to be wired more like the gender they identify with rather than what sex they were born.

What you describe as "wired" is behavioral. When babies are conceived, they either get the X or the Y. They are male or female. Biologically they are one or the other. How they feel or perceive themselves is behavioral.

Wrong. It's also neurological and hormonal.

[Weegle777 78]

Well link it then.

[AUDub 11,147]

Well link it then.

Gladly.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/85/5/2034.full

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html

[homersapien 11,369]

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." (This is a completely erroneous interpretation of the experiment. If homosexuality had no genetic component, then the percent of homosexuals in the opposing twin would be no more than what occurs naturally and randomly (2-4%?). Thus the outcome is definitive proof of a genetic or biological component.)

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. (ditto)

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. (irrelEven 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

Well, I don't really care to dissect this, so I will take the lazy way out. The stuff I highlighted in blue is more or less accurate. Everything else is crap.

And seriously, the lack of a gay gene - or a pedophile gene - is a total red herring.

[homersapien 11,369]

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?

How is the side that believes transgenderism to be a real thing that should be affirmed rather than treated as a disorder not subject to the same critique and questions?

I don't understand your point. This guy is making an argument that assumes his position that sexuality is determined by ones sexual anatomy. Therefore, it's clearly an argument from authority.

Transgenderism is obviously a "real" thing, ipso facto. I don't know what you mean by "affirmed" but the reason it's not treated as a disorder is multi. One, it doesn't victimize anyone (such as pedophilia). Two, transgenders cannot be "cured". They are what they are. If a transgender is happy with their "true" sex and are otherwise psychologically well adjusted, where is the pathology?

Now the reasons they are transgender get complex because human sexuality is complex. But as I said earlier, one's self-identity is apparently determined by more than simply anatomy. The "self" resides in the mind.

[homersapien 11,369]

Which tells me that it is more behavioral than biological.

The propensity to be sexually attracted to either men or women has no less of a biological component than the propensity to act exclusively as one or the other.

[homersapien 11,369]

I think nature gives us excellent clues 99% of the time. I don't think we should just accept at face value claims that someone "feels" like they are something other than what nature clearly tells us they are. There are entire and completely sincere communities of people online in places like tumblr of "otherkin": people who literally believe that though they were born with the body of a human being, their 'true self', what they identify as on the inside is some other species. Some believe they are a wolf, others some sort of plant.

The brain and the mind are no less a part of nature than one's sexual organs.

[TitanTiger 20,476]

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?

How is the side that believes transgenderism to be a real thing that should be affirmed rather than treated as a disorder not subject to the same critique and questions?

I don't understand your point. This guy is making an argument that assumes his position that sexuality is determined by ones sexual anatomy. Therefore, it's clearly an argument from authority.

Actually, both are making positive claims. THIS guy is making the point you mention above, but those arguing against it are also putting forth a positive claim: that sex and gender are separate things and that it's perfectly reasonable and ok for a person to have the chromosomes of one sex, their body to completely have the equipment of that sex but somehow because they 'feel' like the other sex, that's normal. It suffers the same deficiencies that you say THIS guy's argument does.

Transgenderism is obviously a "real" thing, ipso facto. I don't know what you mean by "affirmed" but the reason it's not treated as a disorder is multi. One, it doesn't victimize anyone (such as pedophilia). Two, transgenders cannot be "cured". They are what they are. If a transgender is happy with their "true" sex and are otherwise psychologically well adjusted, where is the pathology?

It victimizes themselves. They are believing something that is objectively untrue about themselves (just as those with body dysmorphic issues do) and then often being allowed or even encouraged to mutilate their bodies to fit this distorted picture. When we see someone who thinks they are horribly ugly and goes to extreme lengths to change their appearance, we don't consider such a person to be healthy and well-adjusted. And we don't encourage them in their quest to change so many aspects of themselves. We pity them. And we try to help them. And while you may never completely "cure" someone who has that problem, you can speak truth to them instead of encouraging the delusion.

As far as not being "cured" that seems to fly in the face of research that says that 70-80% of children who reported transgender feelings and did not have any medical or surgical treatment spontaneously lost those feelings. So it appears that it isn't as simple as "they are what they are."

Furthermore, studies at Johns Hopkins concluded after studying outcomes for people who had sex-reassignment surgery were no happier or well-adjusted on average than those who did not, even though they say they were "satisfied" with the results. So they "stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a "satisfied" but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs."

Another interesting bit:

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 disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.

That seems to fly in the face of being otherwise psychologically well-adjusted too. Consider that we are talking about people who went 'all the way' on this. They aren't just claiming to feel like the opposite sex and getting appropriate haircuts and clothing to fit in. They're taking hormones, getting breast implants, having their genitalia surgically removed/altered. As far as most people know, they are the sex that they appear to be on the outside. But they aren't improving psychologically. That should give some pause as to whether this is something we should affirm and encourage or give treatment for similar to how we'd treat someone with anorexia or bulimia, or some other body dysmorphic disorder.

Now the reasons they are transgender get complex because human sexuality is complex. But as I said earlier, one's self-identity is apparently determined by more than simply anatomy. The "self" resides in the mind.

I agree to an extent. But the mind can lie to us. It can make us think things that just aren't so.

[TitanTiger 20,476]

I think nature gives us excellent clues 99% of the time. I don't think we should just accept at face value claims that someone "feels" like they are something other than what nature clearly tells us they are. There are entire and completely sincere communities of people online in places like tumblr of "otherkin": people who literally believe that though they were born with the body of a human being, their 'true self', what they identify as on the inside is some other species. Some believe they are a wolf, others some sort of plant.

The brain and the mind are no less a part of nature than one's sexual organs.

So are these "otherkin" people correct...they are really some sort of non-human animal or plantlife rather than a human being? If you were a psychologist and had opportunity to have such an individual in therapy, would you encourage this perception or see it as a mental disorder that should receive treatment?

[homersapien 11,369]

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.

I honestly don't know. I do know these two are gifted intelligent people. I'd imagine they'd know as much as a man who thinks he has a woman living inside his body. Which begs to question, how could said man be sure of that?

You'll have to explain what you mean here. It makes no sense to me. Are you saying that one's intelligence plays a role in determining one's sexuality? Are you comparing their "ability" to know their own sexuality to a transgender?

As for your question, I would imagine a transgender man "knows" his true sexuality the same way you or I do.

[homersapien 11,369]

I'm not hiding from you Titan and Weegs.

I was busy yesterday and had a root canal this morning which is really bothering me. I'm going to take some narcotics and go to bed.

Best wishes dude!

Did we determine the term "dude" was prejudicial?

jk. I am quite comfortable with being a "dude".

(Although a pretty weird looking dude now with half my face is swollen up.)

[homersapien 11,369]

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.

Part of what set me off about the copypasta was that it referenced NARTH. If you've never heard of them, NARTH claims homosexuality can be fully cured though "conversion therapy", and that homosexuality is a choice, and worse, a disease that should be cured.

In essence, they basically teach you to hate who you are and make an effort to repress it rather than accept it. Not exactly a healthy way to go through life.

The rationalwiki and Wikipedia articles are a good place to start your research on transgender. Lot of useful information.

I was just enjoying reading and your comment raised another question.

Can any support for transgenderism be seen as teaching someone to hate who they actually are? Especially to the point of physically changing it rather than accepting it.

I suppose you could put it that way if you really wanted to stretch the definition, but it would be kind of hard for you and myself, and I assume you're cisgender like me, to put ourselves in their shoes. Who are we to say who they actually are?

Recent research has indicated a biological component, and many of these folks seem to be wired more like the gender they identify with rather than what sex they were born.

What you describe as "wired" is behavioral. When babies are conceived, they either get the X or the Y. They are male or female. Biologically they are one or the other. How they feel or perceive themselves is behavioral.

Not necessarily. It's possible to be born with different combinations of sex chromosomes.

And one's sexual identity is just as biological as anything else.

[homersapien 11,369]

I suppose you could put it that way if you really wanted to stretch the definition, but it would be kind of hard for you and myself, and I assume you're cisgender like me, to put ourselves in their shoes. Who are we to say who they actually are?

Recent research has indicated a biological component, and many of these folks seem to be wired more like the gender they identify with rather than what sex they were born.

The sex they were born with is biological as well. Observable biology at that. What a person does is there business but in the name of, "accepting who you are", I can't see any action by a second party being beneficial.

I don't know enough to decide either way but the question just popped in my head.

You don't see therapy as being beneficial?

[homersapien 11,369]

I'm not hiding from you Titan and Weegs.

I was busy yesterday and had a root canal this morning which is really bothering me. I'm going to take some narcotics and go to bed.

Don't blame you man, get well. Root canals suck.

Well, not compared to the alternative.

I first went to this endodontist after watching the movie "Castaway". There was a scene in that movie where Tom Hank's character used an ice skate to knock out an abscessed tooth.

I mentioned to him at the time that this certainly beats that! (He pointed out that when Hanks character returned to civilization, he found his girl friend had gotten married - to an endodontist no less. I had missed that.)

I often think about how much better our lives are than the lives of previous generations, say before modern dentistry. Hot and cold water on tap, modern medicine.....

We live far better than the Kings of old.

[Strychnine 1,802]

I'm not hiding from you Titan and Weegs.

I was busy yesterday and had a root canal this morning which is really bothering me. I'm going to take some narcotics and go to bed.

Don't blame you man, get well. Root canals suck.

Well, not compared to the alternative.

I first went to this endodontist after watching the movie "Castaway". There was a scene in that movie where Tom Hank's character used an ice skate to knock out an abscessed tooth.

I mentioned to him at the time that this certainly beats that.

I often think about how much better our lives are than the lives of previous generations, say before modern dentistry. Hot and cold water on tap, modern medicine.....

We live far better than the Kings of old.

And the most relevant thing in the south: air-conditioning.

[homersapien 11,369]

I don't understand your point. This guy is making an argument that assumes his position that sexuality is determined by ones sexual anatomy. Therefore, it's clearly an argument from authority.

Actually, both are making positive claims. THIS guy is making the point you mention above, but those arguing against it are also putting forth a positive claim: that sex and gender are separate things and that it's perfectly reasonable and ok for a person to have the chromosomes of one sex, their body to completely have the equipment of that sex but somehow because they 'feel' like the other sex, that's normal. It suffers the same deficiencies that you say THIS guy's argument does.

No that's wrong. First, the "positive claim" in the second case is based on scientific understanding. The claim in the first case is based on nothing more than opinion, an opinion which reflects an ignorance of the science.

Secondly, no one is make a value judgment of whether or not it's "OK". It just "is".

And the reason a transgender "feels" the way they do is because of their biology. "Feelings" don't exist independent of biology.

[homersapien 11,369]

It victimizes themselves. They are believing something that is objectively untrue about themselves (just as those with body dysmorphic issues do) and then often being allowed or even encouraged to mutilate their bodies to fit this distorted picture. When we see someone who thinks they are horribly ugly and goes to extreme lengths to change their appearance, we don't consider such a person to be healthy and well-adjusted. And we don't encourage them in their quest to change so many aspects of themselves. We pity them. And we try to help them. And while you may never completely "cure" someone who has that problem, you can speak truth to them instead of encouraging the delusion.

As far as not being "cured" that seems to fly in the face of research that says that 70-80% of children who reported transgender feelings and did not have any medical or surgical treatment spontaneously lost those feelings. So it appears that it isn't as simple as "they are what they are."

Furthermore, studies at Johns Hopkins concluded after studying outcomes for people who had sex-reassignment surgery were no happier or well-adjusted on average than those who did not, even though they say they were "satisfied" with the results. So they "stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a "satisfied" but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs."

It seems that my arguments are going right past you.

What do you mean by "objectively untrue"? We are right back at one's sexual organs defining one's sexuality.

What is subjective about brain physiology? Nothing. It is just as "objective" as ones sexual organs.

For that matter all of the elements that go to make up one's sexual indentity are just as real as ones sexual organs.

And your characterization of sexuality and self-identification as an illness clearly is bestowing a value judgment that is subjective and unnecessary. It brings to mind the coercion of left-handed children to use their right hands (as an example).

[homersapien 11,369]

I think nature gives us excellent clues 99% of the time. I don't think we should just accept at face value claims that someone "feels" like they are something other than what nature clearly tells us they are. There are entire and completely sincere communities of people online in places like tumblr of "otherkin": people who literally believe that though they were born with the body of a human being, their 'true self', what they identify as on the inside is some other species. Some believe they are a wolf, others some sort of plant.

The brain and the mind are no less a part of nature than one's sexual organs.

So are these "otherkin" people correct...they are really some sort of non-human animal or plantlife rather than a human being? If you were a psychologist and had opportunity to have such an individual in therapy, would you encourage this perception or see it as a mental disorder that should receive treatment?

I think that is a fanciful extrapolation.

Human sexuality has nothing to do with delusional fantasies. There are well-adjusted mentally sane transexuals. And it's not the job of psychologists to force anyone into some preconceived notion of what is normal as long as they don't represent a danger to themselves or other. Even then the emphasis should be on helping the patient to cope, including helping them to change if they want to change.

The idea of curing (changing) someone's self identity without their cooperation is barbaric IMO.

[TitanTiger 20,476]

I don't understand your point. This guy is making an argument that assumes his position that sexuality is determined by ones sexual anatomy. Therefore, it's clearly an argument from authority.

Actually, both are making positive claims. THIS guy is making the point you mention above, but those arguing against it are also putting forth a positive claim: that sex and gender are separate things and that it's perfectly reasonable and ok for a person to have the chromosomes of one sex, their body to completely have the equipment of that sex but somehow because they 'feel' like the other sex, that's normal. It suffers the same deficiencies that you say THIS guy's argument does.

No that's wrong. First, the "positive claim" in the second case is based on scientific understanding.

Scientific understanding based on what someone tells you.

The claim in the first case is based on nothing more than opinion, an opinion which reflects an ignorance of the science.

There is nothing objective about what's going on in someone's mind because you cannot actually see or read it. It's entirely subjective and dependent on what they tell you they feel.

Secondly, no one is make a value judgment of whether or not it's "OK". It just "is".

Of course they are. We don't tell an anorexic person that believes they are fat when they are near skin and bones and weigh 90 lbs soaking wet that their feelings are ok and what they think it true about themselves. We don't tell someone who looks like a normal person that their belief that all their various body parts are ugly and need to be surgically altered. We try to get them to align their mind with what the mirror and we can see objectively is true. Except with transgenderism. Suddenly we flip into this notion that whatever reality they've created or their mind has concocted on its own is true and encourage them to pursue it, even to the point of mutilating their bodies to align their body with what their head is telling them. That's crazy. And apparently ineffective.

And the reason a transgender "feels" the way they do is because of their biology. "Feelings" don't exist independent of biology.

You could literally say the same thing about someone that believes they are a styrofoam packing peanut. The difference is, we don't look at that person and think it's a good thing for them to go have their body hacked up so they are shaped like one. We try to get them help to see what's objectively true: they are a human being.

[TitanTiger 20,476]

I think nature gives us excellent clues 99% of the time. I don't think we should just accept at face value claims that someone "feels" like they are something other than what nature clearly tells us they are. There are entire and completely sincere communities of people online in places like tumblr of "otherkin": people who literally believe that though they were born with the body of a human being, their 'true self', what they identify as on the inside is some other species. Some believe they are a wolf, others some sort of plant.

The brain and the mind are no less a part of nature than one's sexual organs.

So are these "otherkin" people correct...they are really some sort of non-human animal or plantlife rather than a human being? If you were a psychologist and had opportunity to have such an individual in therapy, would you encourage this perception or see it as a mental disorder that should receive treatment?

I think that is a fanciful extrapolation.

Human sexuality has nothing to do with delusional fantasies. There are well-adjusted mentally sane transexuals.

And the studies suggest that overall, there is no increase in said sanity and being well adjusted...which if the supposed science about this is true, should not be the case. We should see a great increase in mental health.

It is no more a delusional fantasy to believe in one's mind that you're really another species than it is to believe that despite your chromosomes and a complete working set of genitalia of the sex your chromosomes say you are, that you're really the other sex.

And it's not the job of psychologists to force anyone into some preconceived notion of what is normal as long as they don't represent a danger to themselves or other. Even then the emphasis should be on helping the patient to cope, including helping them to change if they want to change.

You don't even believe that....except for this one thing. Any other situation where a person is clearly not thinking correctly about what they see in the mirror you would expect a psychologist to help them align their mind with physical reality, not the other way around.

The idea of curing (changing) someone's self identity without their cooperation is barbaric IMO.

No one's suggesting holding them at gunpoint and forcing them to try to change. But if they seek help and they come to a psychologist, part of that job is to help someone 'get their mind right' with reality, not encourage them in their delusions.

[homersapien 11,369]

I don't understand your point. This guy is making an argument that assumes his position that sexuality is determined by ones sexual anatomy. Therefore, it's clearly an argument from authority.

Actually, both are making positive claims. THIS guy is making the point you mention above, but those arguing against it are also putting forth a positive claim: that sex and gender are separate things and that it's perfectly reasonable and ok for a person to have the chromosomes of one sex, their body to completely have the equipment of that sex but somehow because they 'feel' like the other sex, that's normal. It suffers the same deficiencies that you say THIS guy's argument does.

No that's wrong. First, the "positive claim" in the second case is based on scientific understanding.

Scientific understanding based on what someone tells you.

Come on Titan. :-\ Scientific understanding is based on what the science tells you, via scientific publications. You know that.