Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9
Results 161 to 179 of 179

Thread: Gay/Transgender

  1. #161
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Don't get hung up on the idea of sophistry. My argument is that it is based on faulty logic, and not based on science.
    So I say it is more like sophistry then real science. If deception is the requirement you are zeroing in on, that is outside my current argument.



    To some extent you are right about the comparison. However the problem is you are comparing a "science" with observable data, and a "science" who's basic means of measure are not "scientific" at all.
    Take for example the suicide attempt data we are discussing here. All those numbers are "self reported", with no control group, no way to do a blind study, much less a double blind. For all we know, the actual number could be 90% or 20% because the people were lying. Does astronomy data lie? not be mistaken.. I mean Lie with the intent to deceive. Did Pluto lie to to the observers?

    So there is a disparity between psychology vs astronomy. Further, you are using the one issue of astronomy that is really more like sophistry then science. Ie, the only reason why Pluto was no longer called a planet was due to the PERSONAL PREFERENCE of the community at large, so as not have "to many" planets.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33462184


    Had the attitude been receptive of the idea of having 100 planets, then Pluto would be a planet.
    That is not "science" that is simple preference of branding. Now.. lets prescribe drugs, chemically castrate children and cut off penis' based on the same thing.. and call it "science", and you have a direct comparison to the state of psychology in regards to this topic.

    The point of contention, is why should we accept the opinion of "professionals" when it isn't based on science?



    False. It is not based on "known science" and I demonstrated that with the links and evidence I submitted. Rather it is in the absence of science, and the absence of data that the decisions are made. For example the long term effect of gender re assignment surgery is generally indicated to be bad, but is largely unknown.. yet that is what is being treated as though it is "based on science". Further, I challenged you to support this assertion, and show me the data that drove the change. I can be wrong, but you can't simply assume it is and act like you have support for it. Point is, if you are going to assert that the DSM was driven by the science, then you need to support that claim, it would be very informative to me and my position. I think your burden lay not only on some science, but compelling science. IE, not some single study, but multiple robust studies. From all I have read, that simply hasn't been done, and all the original science material I have quoted in this thread make note of the lack of science on this subject.
    So I feel that i have supported that it is not a decision based on science. Where have I failed in this point? Why are you not convinced by that support?


    I pointed out a serious logical problem with he way the field addresses a "disorder". (post 52) That under the definition and idea of a disorder I forwarded and quoted, it is a "disorder".
    So, not so much as a misunderstanding on my part I think. This is really a failure to engage the argument I forwarded. Easy to do, it's a big thread now.
    If the professionals are making this stuff up without science to back them up (which I have shown both) then how is it different from sophistry? Why should we elevate their opinion or accept it?
    Can't they be wrong?



    Is/ought fallacy.
    What you say here is true, however it does not address the arguments forwarded.


    This is a curious statement. What relevance is my personal desires to this debate?


    Should we be asking if it helps them in the way you suppose?
    I mean, should we give an anorexic a surgery to reduce their bodies ability to process foods and keep them at their desired weight?
    Do we treat any body dismorphia in that way?
    Also, the idea of "help" is subjective here. Are you talking Helping them to better align their thoughts with reality? or helping them perpetuate a delusion? or is it just fitting in with society that it?

    This is where the science meets the mind. If you have an x and y chromosome(expressed as having a penis) and you think you are a girl, then you are mistaken and hold an opinion opposite of any science.

    As to your suicide rate idea, you are free to establish it, but I am not aware of any science to support it, so I don't give it any weight and neither should you. Here the "If" is relevant.

    -edit---
    Final question, why would you think an "underlying disorder" is related to suicide rate? I mean, you have expressed skepticism here, why not there as well? I'm not sure it is consistently applied.
    1. We need to clarify. Are you withdrawing your claim that the DSM is based on sophistry? Illogical is not the same as deceptive. While you appear to withdraw this claim, you continue using the sophistry.
    2. I came in a bit late to this thread, so exactly what support you have that the DSM is not based on science and actual research is unknown to me. Here is where I believe there may be some grey area. The latest DSM has been criticized and is worthy of being criticized due to the input of the APA which has a fiduciary interest in the DSM and where it is claimed some decisions in the DSM were based on this interest instead of the science. I think this is a fair criticism. However, your claim is regarding a specific diagnosis and you must support that the diagnosis in question was politically or financially motivated. If you are positing that the entire DSM is simply political commentary and opinion... well that is simply ridiculous on its face. The amount of research done to define not just the concept of mental disorder, but on how to classify them has been ongoing for the past 90+ years. You claim that the DSM is not based on science is a denial of the existing research which has been conducted. The following link is to a paper which chronicles the development of the DSM and some of the accompanying research.
    http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.e..._2014_ARCP.pdf
    It also points out some of the flaws and criticisms which I repeated in this post.
    3. In post #52 you argue that psychology does not have a working definition of disorder. This, of course, is false. It is a definition which has evolved over time (due to research). The research began in the 1960's. It is silly to claim there is a Christian working definition as, from a scientific/academic view this makes as much sense as psychologists having a working definition of God.
    4. Finally, you begin to, at least, permit for the concept that trangderism is a treatment, not a condition. However, you believe you have the answers which is based on no science at all. Just your biological understanding of male and female. However, disorders are not merely organic. Nor are the treatments. To wit, I've never tried to claim transgender is a healthy solution for sexual identity disorders. What I have said is that transgenderism is not a mental disorder. I have no evidence that transgenderism is an effective strategy or is not. Neither do you.
    5. Finally, key to determining if transgenderism is healthy is understanding the definition of disorder (something you believe does not exist in psychology).
    "Each of the mental disorders is conceptualized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychologicalsyndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is typically associated with either a painfulsymptom (distress) or impairment in one or more important areas of functioning (disability). In addition,there is an inference that there is a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction, and that thedisturbance is not only in the relationship between the individual and the society. (Am. Psychiatr. Assoc.1980, p. 6)"
    http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.e..._2014_ARCP.pdf

    So, if a proposed treatment (i.e. transgenderism) has a positive result in the harm being done to the individual (i.e. suicidal ideation) or in their own behavior, then we can say the treatment is positive. Am I claiming transgenderism is a great treatment? No. I do not know of any research done which either supports nor undermines this theory. However, I suspect you do not either.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  2. #162
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by ibelsd
    1. We need to clarify. Are you withdrawing your claim that the DSM is based on sophistry? Illogical is not the same as deceptive. While you appear to withdraw this claim, you continue using the sophistry.
    So when you brought sophistry into this as a comparison, my focus may have been on something different than your focus. Mine was on the faulty logic, and people sitting around talking vs science. You seem to have focused in on the intent to decieve part.
    So my contention was that it is more like sophistry then science in regards specifically to trans gender as a disorder in the DSM.
    I guess you can take it as a withdrawl of the term.

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    2. I came in a bit late to this thread, so exactly what support you have that the DSM is not based on science and actual research is unknown to me. Here is where I believe there may be some grey area. The latest DSM has been criticized and is worthy of being criticized due to the input of the APA which has a fiduciary interest in the DSM and where it is claimed some decisions in the DSM were based on this interest instead of the science. I think this is a fair criticism. However, your claim is regarding a specific diagnosis and you must support that the diagnosis in question was politically or financially motivated. If you are positing that the entire DSM is simply political commentary and opinion... well that is simply ridiculous on its face. The amount of research done to define not just the concept of mental disorder, but on how to classify them has been ongoing for the past 90+ years. You claim that the DSM is not based on science is a denial of the existing research which has been conducted. The following link is to a paper which chronicles the development of the DSM and some of the accompanying research.
    http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.e..._2014_ARCP.pdf
    It also points out some of the flaws and criticisms which I repeated in this post.
    So for clarity, I'm not talking about the entire DSM. The support was the various sited studies as well as personal experience (of all the studies I've read so far). That specifically state the lack of science on the isse.
    In other words, every study sited, and every study I have read so far specifically state that the science is limited, both in the study itself, and as a larger issue.
    I am very open to being shown anything official that would say otherwise. This all to support my claim that the DSM can not be based on a perponderance of evidence, because first the science simply hasn't been done to justify such a conclusion, and the science that has been done
    contradicts the conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    3. In post #52 you argue that psychology does not have a working definition of disorder. This, of course, is false. It is a definition which has evolved over time (due to research). The research began in the 1960's. It is silly to claim there is a Christian working definition as, from a scientific/academic view this makes as much sense as psychologists having a working definition of God.
    That is incorrect. I forwarded that without a working definition of what is order, any definition of disorder is going to be incoherent, and unjustified.
    My further contention was that he definition of disorder is inherently flawed (that is not a denial that they actually have a definition), because it does not take into account accurate perception of reality, which should be considered as necissary for any "normal" healthy mental state.
    That all as a summary. So you are incorrect about my position.

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    . Finally, you begin to, at least, permit for the concept that trangderism is a treatment, not a condition. However, you believe you have the answers which is based on no science at all. Just your biological understanding of male and female. However, disorders are not merely organic. Nor are the treatments. To wit, I've never tried to claim transgender is a healthy solution for sexual identity disorders. What I have said is that transgenderism is not a mental disorder. I have no evidence that transgenderism is an effective strategy or is not. Neither do you.
    I think there is some confusion here. Transgenderism is not a "treatment". Transgender surgery is a treatment. Transgender is defined a certain way, and that way inherently contradicts with reality.
    Such that, they think they are female when they are in fact male. Those are biological and definitional facts. So I'm not sure what you mean.
    I don't understand what you mean that disorders not not simply organic.

    We should agree that transgenderism is not a treatment as a definitional fact. Transgender surgery is used to address body dismorphia of transgenderism.

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    5. Finally, key to determining if transgenderism is healthy is understanding the definition of disorder (something you believe does not exist in psychology).
    "Each of the mental disorders is conceptualized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychologicalsyndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is typically associated with either a painfulsymptom (distress) or impairment in one or more important areas of functioning (disability). In addition,there is an inference that there is a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction, and that thedisturbance is not only in the relationship between the individual and the society. (Am. Psychiatr. Assoc.1980, p. 6)"
    http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.e..._2014_ARCP.pdf
    I think I have addressed this. First in 52, and here as to your misunderstanding of my position.


    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    So, if a proposed treatment (i.e. transgenderism) has a positive result in the harm being done to the individual (i.e. suicidal ideation) or in their own behavior, then we can say the treatment is positive. Am I claiming transgenderism is a great treatment? No. I do not know of any research done which either supports nor undermines this theory. However, I suspect you do not either.
    I think there is a lot wrong with this and I feel I have already addressed them here.
    However you conclusion is highly problematic, because if you appeal to he DSM as being based on science, then you should be aware of the research that supports it.
    You are not, not because you are ignorant, but because it does not exist.. per my argument and support. Plain and simply, your argument is not an appeal to science, it is an appeal to ignorance.

    Should we say we don't know if cutting dicks off and chemically castrating children is good or bad.. so lets just go right ahead. Is that how you expect professional medical treatment to work?
    Surely you can see a problem with that reasoning?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  3. #163
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So when you brought sophistry into this as a comparison, my focus may have been on something different than your focus. Mine was on the faulty logic, and people sitting around talking vs science. You seem to have focused in on the intent to decieve part.
    So my contention was that it is more like sophistry then science in regards specifically to trans gender as a disorder in the DSM.
    I guess you can take it as a withdrawl of the term.



    So for clarity, I'm not talking about the entire DSM. The support was the various sited studies as well as personal experience (of all the studies I've read so far). That specifically state the lack of science on the isse.
    In other words, every study sited, and every study I have read so far specifically state that the science is limited, both in the study itself, and as a larger issue.
    I am very open to being shown anything official that would say otherwise. This all to support my claim that the DSM can not be based on a perponderance of evidence, because first the science simply hasn't been done to justify such a conclusion, and the science that has been done
    contradicts the conclusion.


    That is incorrect. I forwarded that without a working definition of what is order, any definition of disorder is going to be incoherent, and unjustified.
    My further contention was that he definition of disorder is inherently flawed (that is not a denial that they actually have a definition), because it does not take into account accurate perception of reality, which should be considered as necissary for any "normal" healthy mental state.
    That all as a summary. So you are incorrect about my position.


    I think there is some confusion here. Transgenderism is not a "treatment". Transgender surgery is a treatment. Transgender is defined a certain way, and that way inherently contradicts with reality.
    Such that, they think they are female when they are in fact male. Those are biological and definitional facts. So I'm not sure what you mean.
    I don't understand what you mean that disorders not not simply organic.

    We should agree that transgenderism is not a treatment as a definitional fact. Transgender surgery is used to address body dismorphia of transgenderism.


    I think I have addressed this. First in 52, and here as to your misunderstanding of my position.




    I think there is a lot wrong with this and I feel I have already addressed them here.
    However you conclusion is highly problematic, because if you appeal to he DSM as being based on science, then you should be aware of the research that supports it.
    You are not, not because you are ignorant, but because it does not exist.. per my argument and support. Plain and simply, your argument is not an appeal to science, it is an appeal to ignorance.

    Should we say we don't know if cutting dicks off and chemically castrating children is good or bad.. so lets just go right ahead. Is that how you expect professional medical treatment to work?
    Surely you can see a problem with that reasoning?
    1. Your withdrawl of the term sophistry is accepted. We will consider your argument is an attack of the logic rather than an attempt to claim the opposition to your views are being willfully deceptive.
    2. The issue. So, it seems, you believe the act of accepting a transgender life is a form of mental illness. You mention the great bodily harm one must endure to fulfill this change and I'll address that shortly. The problem is two-fold. First, we already have two distinct mental disorders dealing with gender/sexual identity. I am simply not sure how the label transgender adds clarity or useful information from a mental health diagnostic standpoint other than to clarify that the person is actively dealing with the underlying disorders. If the underlying disorders result in depression and suicidal ideation (which they do) and the act of going through transition (trangenderism) reduces one or both, then it is a matter of cost benefit analysis. Let's be clear here, stating the illness is not the same as understanding the treatment. And, to your point about castration/surgery to undergo this transition, obviously, it carries its own set of negatives. However, if we are trading a penis for not being suicidal, then I suspect that will be appealing to many people. While you claim transgender is not a form of treatment, you specifically note that transgender surgery is used to address body dysmorphia. However, not all transgender people have this surgery. It is an option. A level, if you will. Just like a doctor may treat a schizophrenic with pills of varying strengths. No single treatment works for everyone. I should also, for the sake of clarity, note that having the full surgery makes someone transexual, not just transgendered.
    3. The fact is the DSM establishes a working definition of mental disorder and it is based on two prongs. One is harm/injury. Suicide is an example. The other is based on there being a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction. So, in the case of an gender identity disorder, the person believes they are the opposite sex and are unaware of the discongruency between their thoughts and reality. A transgender person is aware of the reality. They may suffer from one of the underlying disorders, but through the process of undergoing some form of transition, they are coming to terms with actual reality.
    4. I am not aware of the science regarding the efficacy of transgenderism and how it deals with the underlying issues. That isn't some assault on the DSM or the world of psychology. There are a great many things that lack research. However, we do know transitioning is a process which has helped some people in dealing with the underlying disorders. We also know it doesn't help everyone. Its nice that you go for the most extreme position to make your point, but your appeal to emotion does not strengthen your argument. If your argument is simply we shouldn't be allowing children to fully transition because we do not have enough evidence to support it as a helpful treatment, then we agree. However, if your argument is to claim all transitions for all people are bad and should be forbidden, then I think you are reaching a faulty conclusion.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  4. #164
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Well, we agree in that I'm arguing that there is not enough evidence to support that specific treatment on children.
    I think however your idea that transgender as a "treatment" is not the main point I am addressing. I am addressing transgender as a mental state.

    As to my use of transgender vs some other term. Transgender is the term used in all the research, and they are never referred to as anything else as far as I can tell. So that seems to work against your point of not needing clarity.
    The papers have found it useful to identify the group that is committing suicide at some 50% rate. So, I guess I can understand how you think it isn't helpful, but apparently it is, as that is how they use it.
    My objection is that the conclusion of the DSM doesn't follow the evidence.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  5. #165
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, we agree in that I'm arguing that there is not enough evidence to support that specific treatment on children.
    I think however your idea that transgender as a "treatment" is not the main point I am addressing. I am addressing transgender as a mental state.

    As to my use of transgender vs some other term. Transgender is the term used in all the research, and they are never referred to as anything else as far as I can tell. So that seems to work against your point of not needing clarity.
    The papers have found it useful to identify the group that is committing suicide at some 50% rate. So, I guess I can understand how you think it isn't helpful, but apparently it is, as that is how they use it.
    My objection is that the conclusion of the DSM doesn't follow the evidence.
    The problem with your definition of transgender and claiming it is a mental disorder is that it does not meet the criteria of a mental disorder. There are two components to be addressed. One is harm. Certainly, suicide can be considered harm. However, the other component is based on behavior, psychological or biological dysfunction. Transgender does not meet that component of a mental disorder even if we agree that suicide is prevalent among transgendered people. You have offered no evidence that transgender people meet this second component as they do understand they are biologically created as a specific gender/sex. Where they do not understand this, such a condition is covered by the gender identity disorder classification. So, you are adding a mental disorder which isn't a mental disorder as it is currently defined and where other mental disorders fill the role. The mere desire to live life as a different gender isn't a mental disorder. When you say that the DSM doesn't follow the evidence, you are mistaken. You are simply choosing to ignore the actual working definition of a mental disorder in the field of psychology. Now, perhaps, Christians believe being transgender is a mental disorder. However, Christianity isn't psychology and does not get to decide how the field of psychology develops its terminology nor does the Christian view replace the diagnostics created to identify such things.

    Let me revisit the definition of depression in the DSM. In defining depression, someone who only meets the criteria of suicidal isn't classified as having a major depressive disorder.
    http://www.psnpaloalto.com/wp/wp-con...ity-Rating.pdf

    There are other symptoms which must be present to make the diagnosis. So, the question I am re-asking is simple. What would you list as the criteria for someone who is transgender? If you are going to claim some condition is a disorder, then you must explain how you get there.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  6. #166
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    The problem with your definition of transgender and claiming it is a mental disorder is that it does not meet the criteria of a mental disorder. There are two components to be addressed. One is harm. Certainly, suicide can be considered harm. However, the other component is based on behavior, psychological or biological dysfunction. Transgender does not meet that component of a mental disorder even if we agree that suicide is prevalent among transgendered people. You have offered no evidence that transgender people meet this second component as they do understand they are biologically created as a specific gender/sex. Where they do not understand this, such a condition is covered by the gender identity disorder classification. So, you are adding a mental disorder which isn't a mental disorder as it is currently defined and where other mental disorders fill the role. The mere desire to live life as a different gender isn't a mental disorder. When you say that the DSM doesn't follow the evidence, you are mistaken. You are simply choosing to ignore the actual working definition of a mental disorder in the field of psychology. Now, perhaps, Christians believe being transgender is a mental disorder. However, Christianity isn't psychology and does not get to decide how the field of psychology develops its terminology nor does the Christian view replace the diagnostics created to identify such things.
    Is ought fallacy.
    That it is not currently listed as a mental disorder, is not evidence against my case that it SHOULD be. Also, I have based my case at least in part with the idea that accurately perceiving reality is should be considered relevant to mental health. This all goes back to my point about having an order to appeal to to start with, before you establish what is a "disorder". I don't see any of that addressed.

    As for the DSM not following the evidence, you say I am mistaken, but I see no reason to accept that assessment. What evidence did they follow that says the transgender are not?
    As you said suicide is harm, and I think we should agree that I have established that half. If your appealing to the social side of the definition, apok(can't remember where) also pointed out that transgender also are homeless, jobless etc. IE they are not really functioning in society as a whole. Granted, I have spent most of my time on the suicide as harm side, because people don't seem willing to connect the two.

    Finally, I'm confused as to the other classification your talking about, or rather how it is distinguished from transgender. I don't see a definition difference in the terminology.

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    There are other symptoms which must be present to make the diagnosis. So, the question I am re-asking is simple. What would you list as the criteria for someone who is transgender? If you are going to claim some condition is a disorder, then you must explain how you get there.
    I believe I did that in post 52.
    I established the definition I was using and why, I established Trans as failing to fall into the definition of Order so as to be disordered, I supported trans as a distorted normal growth, I supported the harm that result from this distorted view and why a comparison to other body dismorphic such as bulimia, anorexia is proper.

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    Now, perhaps, Christians believe being transgender is a mental disorder. However, Christianity isn't psychology and does not get to decide how the field of psychology develops its terminology nor does the Christian view replace the diagnostics created to identify such things.
    What is this going to be a word fight? Who has the right to coin terms, society as a whole, or a small group in a field? So then we can have two definitions, and be confusing as we interchange them?
    Or are you saying that Christians can't have a valid point because they are too biased (like mican did)? .. I'm sure you can guess as to what you can do with that opinion.
    Or are you saying that The DSM is inherently by definition correct? Because that is just all kinds of fallacies. Circular, question begging, is/ought.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  7. #167
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As you said suicide is harm, and I think we should agree that I have established that half. If your appealing to the social side of the definition, apok(can't remember where) also pointed out that transgender also are homeless, jobless etc. IE they are not really functioning in society as a whole.
    That is not true at all. I can point to many examples of successful transgendered people who, by all available evidence, have no signs of a serious dysfunction. To name a couple:

    Danica Roem was elected to the Virginia State legislature

    Eddie Izzard is a very successful comedian and actor.

    If transgenderism itself is a disorder, then Danica and Eddie have a disorder. But I've seen no evidence that they are less functional than anyone else. In fact, Eddie Izzard is incredibly successful in his career. As there is no evidence that certain transgendered people have a disorder, it cannot be reasonably forwarded that ALL transgendered people have a disorder and that means that transgenderism itself cannot be considered a disorder.

    And as far as some of the negative effects of transgenderism that you mentioned, you seem to operating on the completely unsupported assumption that external factors, such as bigotry against trans, doesn't play a significant role. If transgendered young people are more likely to be kicked out of their house for being transgendered (which is obviously an external factor) then it stands to reason that they are more likely to be homeless. Again, you've provided no support that external factors aren't significant but instead (at least in the debate with me) seem to be operating on the notion that because no one has nailed down how much or how little external factors play in their problems, it is supported that these external factors are not significant which is engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy (indicating that lack of evidence that X is significant is evidence that X is not significant).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Or are you saying that Christians can't have a valid point because they are too biased (like mican did)?
    I did not say that. We were talking about agendas when I made my comment. A christian can certainly have the agenda of promoting valid scientific points of view so I am not saying that someone who is a Christian cannot promote valid science. What I do say is that when someone is promoting the biblical viewpoint, then at that moment they are not promoting a valid scientific viewpoint because clearly the unbiased scientific viewpoint and the biblical viewpoint are two different things.

    So if a site is dedicated to promoting the biblical viewpoint, then it is not dedicated to promoting unbiased science and therefore is not a valid source of scientific information. Even if such a site does feature some information from a valid scientific source, it cannot necessarily be trusted to not cherry pick or misrepresent the information.


    And we don't really need to appeal to the DSM. A disease/disorder causes a person harm 100% of the time because by definition a disease/disorder is harmful on some level. So logically if X is a disease/disorder then EVERYONE, with NO exceptions, who has X is being harmed in some way. So if transgenderism is a disease, that means that every single transgendered person is being harmed on some level by being transgendered (which would not include being harmed by external circumstances due to the outsiders view of transgenderism). So if, for example, Eddie Izzard is not being harmed by being transgendered, then he has no disorder due to transgenderism and therefore transgenderism cannot be considered a disorder. So really, if transgenderism is a disorder, then you will need to show that Eddie Izzard has a disorder due to being transgendered (so if you can show that he has a non-transgender related birth defect or some chronic disease that would not count).
    Last edited by mican333; December 4th, 2017 at 06:38 PM.

  8. #168
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Is ought fallacy.
    That it is not currently listed as a mental disorder, is not evidence against my case that it SHOULD be. Also, I have based my case at least in part with the idea that accurately perceiving reality is should be considered relevant to mental health. This all goes back to my point about having an order to appeal to to start with, before you establish what is a "disorder". I don't see any of that addressed.

    As for the DSM not following the evidence, you say I am mistaken, but I see no reason to accept that assessment. What evidence did they follow that says the transgender are not?
    As you said suicide is harm, and I think we should agree that I have established that half. If your appealing to the social side of the definition, apok(can't remember where) also pointed out that transgender also are homeless, jobless etc. IE they are not really functioning in society as a whole. Granted, I have spent most of my time on the suicide as harm side, because people don't seem willing to connect the two.

    Finally, I'm confused as to the other classification your talking about, or rather how it is distinguished from transgender. I don't see a definition difference in the terminology.


    I believe I did that in post 52.
    I established the definition I was using and why, I established Trans as failing to fall into the definition of Order so as to be disordered, I supported trans as a distorted normal growth, I supported the harm that result from this distorted view and why a comparison to other body dismorphic such as bulimia, anorexia is proper.


    What is this going to be a word fight? Who has the right to coin terms, society as a whole, or a small group in a field? So then we can have two definitions, and be confusing as we interchange them?
    Or are you saying that Christians can't have a valid point because they are too biased (like mican did)? .. I'm sure you can guess as to what you can do with that opinion.
    Or are you saying that The DSM is inherently by definition correct? Because that is just all kinds of fallacies. Circular, question begging, is/ought.
    You say it; accurately perceiving reality should be considered. And it is. TG people are not having a break from reality. They understand their birth gender. They recognize their gender parts. They simply wish to represent as the opposite gender. That is not a break from reality.

    In terms of disorder needing order, this is just word games and gimmicks. For instance, you are asking how the DSM offers evidence that TG is not a disorder. The DSM doesn't explicitly state why E.T. isn't a disorder. Nor does it explain why they left MVP's off the list. Things in the DSM are conditions the medical community agreed could be diagnostically defined. For the third time, if you believe TG is a mental disorder, then define it. Tell us which diagnostic criteria you believe would define a person who is TG. Someone who is TG lives life based on their non birth gender (and we don't really have a legal definition for it). However, being TG does not mean someone is unaware of their birth identity. Again, TG does not define someone who has broken with reality. Again, someone who is TG may have an underlying mental disorder dealing with gender identity, but it is not a qualification. This is why being TG isn't a mental disorder and it makes no sense to label it as such. All you have so far is that being TG correlates with higher rates of suicide. This, alone, does not meet the criteria of a mental disorder because, as you noted, there is no indication of a break from reality.

    Finally, you have defined order as not unique. You have called TG people mentally disordered for the simply reason that they are different. However, from a psychological perspective, this isn't useful nor meaningful. There is no reason to treat people who think differently unless those thoughts are contributing to some harm AND those thoughts are irrational (ie. break from reality). Yes, this is a word fight because words have meaning and alter the way we treat situations. If a TG person has a mental disorder then they need treatment and, perhaps, hospitalization. So, yes, it is a big deal who gets to define these types of terms. Should Christians get to define other medical terms too? How about physics? Should Christians define gravity or should we allow a small group within the profession of physics determine what gravity means? I am saying here that Christians can have any opinion they please, but you are falsely appealing to authority in claiming that a Christian's definition of mental disorder matters. For what its worth, I wouldn't go to my psychologist to get the definition for god either.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  9. Likes mican333 liked this post
  10. #169
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    You say it; accurately perceiving reality should be considered. And it is. TG people are not having a break from reality. They understand their birth gender. They recognize their gender parts. They simply wish to represent as the opposite gender. That is not a break from reality.
    That is not what it is defined as.
    It is defined as them thinking they are a gender that does not correspond with their actual gender.
    That is the definition of a break from reality. A man with a penis, thinks he is a woman. And you say that isn't a break from reality?
    Maybe we are defining reality different? Or maybe your still defining TG different?
    It should be no question that their perception of who they are is objectively no lined up with reality, I'm a bit confused as to how you think it does.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  11. #170
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is not what it is defined as.
    It is defined as them thinking they are a gender that does not correspond with their actual gender.
    That is the definition of a break from reality. A man with a penis, thinks he is a woman. And you say that isn't a break from reality?
    I would say it's not a break from objective reality but instead a semantic disagreement.

    If you want to define a "man" as someone who is born with a penis and say that transgendered females (those born with a penis but identify as female) fail to recognize the reality that they are "men", then you are saying that they fail to recognize that they are born with a penis. But that is clearly not the case. Transgendered females DO recognize the REALITY that they were born with a penis. So they don't disagree with any aspect of physical reality that you have identified.

    What they may disagree with is the use of a certain word. They recognize that they were born with a penis and yet would like to use the term "woman" to describe themselves based on other characteristics of themselves. And you can point to the dictionary or other experts and argue that the only appropriate term to describe one who was born with a penis is "man". But then the disagreement is purely a matter of semantics.

    So this does not boil down to transgendered failing to recognize any aspect of physical reality but just a semantic disagreement on terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Maybe we are defining reality different?
    Nope. You are just defining certain words differently.
    Last edited by mican333; December 9th, 2017 at 12:10 PM.

  12. #171
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I would say it's not a break from objective reality but instead a semantic disagreement.
    Semantics and reality aren't independent--that's the whole point of semantics. We use language to describe reality, and language is nothing but a tool to convey information.

    When the semantics get garbled or intentionally redefined based on subjective wishes, it loses its utility to convey meaning. Furthermore, you can't eschew the semantics of something while simultaneously appealing to that same understanding to redefine yourself ("I'm a man who feels like a woman, so please think of me as a woman"). It's contradictory.
    "Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves." --Bill Hicks

  13. Likes MindTrap028, Belthazor liked this post
  14. #172
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I would say it's not a break from objective reality but instead a semantic disagreement.
    It seems a common theme for any argument you disagree with.

    ---------- Post added at 06:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    Semantics and reality aren't independent--that's the whole point of semantics. We use language to describe reality, and language is nothing but a tool to convey information.

    When the semantics get garbled or intentionally redefined based on subjective wishes, it loses its utility to convey meaning. Furthermore, you can't eschew the semantics of something while simultaneously appealing to that same understanding to redefine yourself ("I'm a man who feels like a woman, so please think of me as a woman"). It's contradictory.
    Semantics should not be used to cloud an argument, but to clarify. When the particular words become the point of contention (intentionally) instead of the thought or idea being expressed, most meaning is lost...

  15. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  16. #173
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    Semantics and reality aren't independent--that's the whole point of semantics.
    But semantics and objectivity (and therefore objective reality) are different. We can't decide that objective facts are different than what they currently are (like we can't decide that gravity no longer exists) but we can decide to change the definition of words. If the whole world decided that "dog" means "cat" and vice versa and then we all switched those words, then "dog" would mean "cat" just the same as "dog" means "dog" now.

    Just be clear - you do acknowledge that words means what people think they mean, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    We use language to describe reality, and language is nothing but a tool to convey information.
    Absolutely.

    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    When the semantics get garbled or intentionally redefined based on subjective wishes, it loses its utility to convey meaning.
    Not really. While semantic disagreements may decrease the efficiency of language, it does not "kill" it. If a transgendered female who clearly looks like a man says that she is a "women", people generally know what she is communicating even if they disagree with her use of the word "woman". And beyond that, whether transgendered women are to semantically be considered "women" is up to the individual.

    The dictionary is not a law book written by some external authority who determines what words REALLY mean. The dictionary records the definitions that people use and the definitions change over time as people change their word usage (compare a dictionary from today and one from a century ago and you will see significant differences in definitions).

    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    Furthermore, you can't eschew the semantics of something while simultaneously appealing to that same understanding to redefine yourself ("I'm a man who feels like a woman, so please think of me as a woman"). It's contradictory.
    They aren't eschewing semantics. They are using semantics.

    Really, it's just a semantic debate on what specifically defines gender. Is it based on the genitals at birth or is it based on gender identity? Or some other criteria? And btw, there is often more than one definition of a word as one can confirm by looking at most dictionary definitions.

    And let's be clear about this issue in the context of the argument that MT is forwarding - while one can reasonably argue that one side is wrong in this semantic debate, would you say that whichever side is wrong about this issue has a mental disorder because they are one the wrong side of a semantic disagreement? I will assume the answer is "no". Therefore one cannot argue that transgendered woman have a disorder because they use the term "woman" to define themselves.

    So I'm not actually arguing about what is the semantically correct use of the word nor am I arguing that semantics don't matter. I'm saying that a semantic disagreement is not a sign of a mental disorder. I assume you agree with that (that it's not a disorder)?

    ---------- Post added at 11:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It seems a common theme for any argument you disagree with.
    That's a silly comment. The notion that I willy-nilly call an argument that has nothing to do with semantic "semantic" is ridiculous. I'd suggest not making comments about me and just stick to attacking my arguments if you want to respond to me.

    Attack the argument, not the person.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Semantics should not be used to cloud an argument, but to clarify. When the particular words become the point of contention (intentionally) instead of the thought or idea being expressed, most meaning is lost...
    And more to the point, one should not just use a certain word or term as a method of attacking a position without clearly defining what the word/term means. To use vague terminology is to equivocate. That's why I sometimes press people on what they mean when they use a certain word.
    Last edited by mican333; December 10th, 2017 at 08:53 AM.

  17. #174
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But semantics and objectivity (and therefore objective reality) are different. We can't decide that objective facts are different than what they currently are (like we can't decide that gravity no longer exists) but we can decide to change the definition of words. If the whole world decided that "dog" means "cat" and vice versa and then we all switched those words, then "dog" would mean "cat" just the same as "dog" means "dog" now.
    We can change the definitions of words, but that isn't the issue here. Switching the definitions of "dog" and "cat" is not the same thing as altering the meaning of what a "dog" or "cat" is, regardless of what word you use to describe them. In the transgender context, we aren't just calling some dogs cats, but assuming some canines can be feline.

    Just be clear - you do acknowledge that words means what people think they mean, right?
    Words can mean what people consensually agree they mean, or they can mean whatever any one person wants them to mean to them. In the latter case, of course, they are at risk of being devoid of all utility in using them.

    Not really. While semantic disagreements may decrease the efficiency of language, it does not "kill" it. If a transgendered female who clearly looks like a man says that she is a "women", people generally know what she is communicating even if they disagree with her use of the word "woman". And beyond that, whether transgendered women are to semantically be considered "women" is up to the individual.
    But what is it that people would generally "know" is being communicated here? When the semantics are in question, then the interpretation of the words being used must necessarily be subjective, since they no longer correspond to the discrete, understood concept in reality they have heretofore referred to. You state that this semantic disagreement doesn't imply a mental disorder, and yet that is precisely the information that is conveyed to many people when they hear a man calling himself a woman. The semantics are destroyed because there is too much possible noise in the signal.

    And of course it's not up to the individual to determine the semantics of how they are to be considered by others. Information conveyance requires at least 2 parties, so there must be some agreement on words, and semantics, between all parties, in order for that information to have any meaning.

    They aren't eschewing semantics. They are using semantics.
    They are actually cherry-picking it: it's an appeal to put aside your conventional understanding of what they are in order to consider them as you conventionally would were they not. You can't logically redefine a binary system such that x becomes y without losing the conventional meaning of y in the process.

    What's the point in calling yourself a woman if you have to redefine what "woman" means? The answer to that in this case is that you actually want to retain the meaning of "woman"--you just want to change the qualifications such that you can be included in that classification.

    would you say that whichever side is wrong about this issue has a mental disorder because they are one the wrong side of a semantic disagreement? I will assume the answer is "no". Therefore one cannot argue that transgendered woman have a disorder because they use the term "woman" to define themselves.
    I would not say that, but only because I don't agree with you that this is just a matter of semantic disagreement. I think if you believe you are something that you objectively are not, that is a form of a disorder. The medical term for that is gender dysmorphia. Even the word "transgender" belies this is just about semantic disagreements....a transgendered person moves across genders, from one discrete thing to another. This necessitates that what you're moving from and what you're moving to both have distinct meaning.

    I understand that gender and biological sex are now to be considered separate things, but this itself is too thorny an issue, too riddled with internal contradictions, to merit much value in my eyes. Virtually every argument that makes such a distinction suffers from one logical contradiction or another, and virtually every expression or identification of gender falls back on at least some physical characteristic. The broad majority of transgenders express themselves physically in line with both the biological and cultural interpretation of that gender. How many transgendered women are indistinguishable from a Wall Street banker? How many transgendered men who look like soccer moms?
    Last edited by thrashee; December 10th, 2017 at 12:26 PM.
    "Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves." --Bill Hicks

  18. #175
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    We can change the definitions of words, but that isn't the issue here. Switching the definitions of "dog" and "cat" is not the same thing as altering the meaning of what a "dog" or "cat" is, regardless of what word you use to describe them. In the transgender context, we aren't just calling some dogs cats, but assuming some canines can be feline.
    Actually, we are assuming that with some people, nailing down the gender isn't as black and white like it is for most people. In those situations, one has to ask the question "what is it that makes a man a man and a woman a woman?". If we go by genitals at birth, we get one answer. If we go by gender identity and/or one's current genitalia, we may get a different answer.

    And personally, if someone who was born with boy parts identifies as a female and a likewise has an operation to where she has lady parts, takes on a girl's name and wants to be referred to as a woman, I'm fine calling that person a woman (and in fact I have a friend who transitioned from female to male and lives as a male). I'm not saying that you, or anyone else in particular, has to agree with me but I can't think of anything particularly wrong with my decision to define gender by that criteria.


    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    Words can mean what people consensually agree they mean, or they can mean whatever any one person wants them to mean to them. In the latter case, of course, they are at risk of being devoid of all utility in using them.
    But in this case, there really is no risk. Assuming transgendered people are 1% of the population (and I'm guessing it's lower than that), that means that for 99% of us, our gender is of absolutely no controversy which means that for the most part, the word "male" and "female" will be applied as it always has been and therefore there is no risk of the term losing meaning despite whatever disagreement there is regarding the transgendered.



    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    But what is it that people would generally "know" is being communicated here? When the semantics are in question, then the interpretation of the words being used must necessarily be subjective, since they no longer correspond to the discrete, understood concept in reality they have heretofore referred to. You state that this semantic disagreement doesn't imply a mental disorder, and yet that is precisely the information that is conveyed to many people when they hear a man calling himself a woman. The semantics are destroyed because there is too much possible noise in the signal.
    As I argued above, the "noise" is minimal and therefore the semantics of gender terms will not be destroyed. Again, for a VAST MAJORITY of gender references, people will have absolutely no confusion about what is being referred to. People will think your daughter is female and your son is male and the times such an issue would be unclear will be minimal.



    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    And of course it's not up to the individual to determine the semantics of how they are to be considered by others. Information conveyance requires at least 2 parties, so there must be some agreement on words, and semantics, between all parties, in order for that information to have any meaning.
    And typically there will be agreement. And really the only time there would even be a disagreement when referring to a transgendered person is if the two people communicating hold a different OPINION on whether someone should be identified by their physical birth gender or their current gender identity. Really, the times when a miscommunication of this sort may arise would be a tiny, tiny fraction of the time that a reference to gender is made.

    I mean for lack of clarity to exist, not only does the person have to be amongst the small fraction of people who are transgendered, the two communicators have to hold differing opinions on how to define gender when it comes to transgendered. Like I said, I have a transgendered friend (born female, now male) and amongst his friends and family, we all agree to refer to him by his new name and to use male pronouns. So even in the instance of an actual transgendered person, there doesn't seem to be much of an issue of semantic noise muddying up the language.


    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    They are actually cherry-picking it: it's an appeal to put aside your conventional understanding of what they are in order to consider them as you conventionally would were they not. You can't logically redefine a binary system such that x becomes y without losing the conventional meaning of y in the process.

    What's the point in calling yourself a woman if you have to redefine what "woman" means? The answer to that in this case is that you actually want to retain the meaning of "woman"--you just want to change the qualifications such that you can be included in that classification.
    And I see no reason why they should not be able to do it. First off, conventional understanding should not be adhered to just because it's conventional understanding (to say otherwise is to engage in the appeal to tradition fallacy). So a new understanding does warrant some changes in the language. And I don't agree that transgendered people are basically cherry-picking. I refer to myself as a male for a variety of reasons and one of them is because I identify as a male. If I happened to have a female body but still felt like a male, I would obviously have reason to identify as a male and use male pronouns for myself. Really, it's being honest about how one feels about themselves.

    And I wouldn't forward that as the only reason why a transgendered person self-identifies as a particular gender but the notion that it's basically to forward some agenda is really just an assumption.






    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    I would not say that, but only because I don't agree with you that this is just a matter of semantic disagreement. I think if you believe you are something that you objectively are not, that is a form of a disorder.
    And if you can show that transgendered people believe they are something that they objectively are not, you might be able to make a case for them having a disorder. So what objective reality are they ignoring? And again, definitions of words are subjective so the answer can't be that they disagree with a certain word being applied to them (like "male") but some aspect of observable, physical reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    The medical term for that is gender dysmorphia.
    No it's not. Gender dysphoria is basically experiencing stress due to being transgendered. But for those transgendered people who do not feel that kind of stress, they do not suffer from dysphoria.

    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    Even the word "transgender" belies this is just about semantic disagreements....a transgendered person moves across genders, from one discrete thing to another. This necessitates that what you're moving from and what you're moving to both have distinct meaning.
    That's not true. Not all transgendered people make physical changes to themselves and pretty much stay "at the same place" their whole lives. Probably the most famous transgendered person is the comic Eddie Izzard and he's not making any changes - he just identifies as a female in a man's body.


    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    I understand that gender and biological sex are now to be considered separate things, but this itself is too thorny an issue, too riddled with internal contradictions, to merit much value in my eyes.
    But then they have no need to impress you. The friend I mentioned identifies as and is now physically a male (although I would respect his wishes to be identified as male if he didn't have the surgery) so I will consider him a male and call him by his new masculine name. I see no flaw or contradiction in my choice to do that.


    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    Virtually every argument that makes such a distinction suffers from one logical contradiction or another, and virtually every expression or identification of gender falls back on at least some physical characteristic. The broad majority of transgenders express themselves physically in line with both the biological and cultural interpretation of that gender. How many transgendered women are indistinguishable from a Wall Street banker? How many transgendered men who look like soccer moms?
    I don't understand what you are getting at here.
    Last edited by mican333; December 13th, 2017 at 08:02 AM.

  19. #176
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Actually, we are assuming that with some people, nailing down the gender isn't as black and white like it is for most people. In those situations, one has to ask the question "what is it that makes a man a man and a woman a woman?".
    "With some people, nailing down dog or cat isn't black and white like it is for most people. In those situations, one has to ask the question 'what is it that makes a dog a dog and a cat a cat?'"

    See how untenable that is? We know precisely what makes a dog a dog and a cat a cat, just as we know precisely what makes a man a man and a woman a woman.

    And I see no reason why they should not be able to do it. First off, conventional understanding should not be adhered to just because it's conventional understanding (to say otherwise is to engage in the appeal to tradition fallacy). So a new understanding does warrant some changes in the language.
    They can do whatever they like. The problem comes in what expectations they place on the outside world in order to cater to that. And it's not an appeal to convention for convention's sake, but rather for the sake of an objective fact.

    And I don't agree that transgendered people are basically cherry-picking. I refer to myself as a male for a variety of reasons and one of them is because I identify as a male.
    I will speak out of turn here, but I know for a fact that never once have you "identified" as a male. You grew up as a little boy, knowing you're a boy because you are, and hence you "identify" as a male. The only people who consciously "identify" as any gender are those whose gender does not match their sex.

    No one gives a hoot what anyone else "identifies" as. It's such a blatant notion of self-absorption that the obvious extremes manifest themselves eventually: Rachel Dolezal "identifies" as black and Richard Hernandez "identifies" as not just a woman but a dragon lady (for real). South Park was spot on when they parodied this issue and Kyle's dad became a dolphin. If you have to "identify" as something, you're admitting that what you identify as is not what you already are.

    If I happened to have a female body but still felt like a male, I would obviously have reason to identify as a male and use male pronouns for myself. Really, it's being honest about how one feels about themselves.
    I am often so frustrated by coworkers that I could scream at them over the phone. But I don't do it, because my feelings don't govern my behavior nor how the external world should function. Where exactly people became convinced that how you feel dictates how the external world should perceive you, or even affect what you really are, is beyond me.

    Indeed, a lot of psychological disorders stem from a disconnect between how people feel both about themselves and others, and reality. That's why they're disorders. For some reason we have decided wholesale to give this particular one a pass.

    And I wouldn't forward that as the only reason why a transgendered person self-identifies as a particular gender but the notion that it's basically to forward some agenda is really just an assumption.
    I didn't say anything about an agenda. What agenda are you referring to?

    And if you can show that transgendered people believe they are something that they objectively are not, you might be able to make a case for them having a disorder. So what objective reality are they ignoring? And again, definitions of words are subjective so the answer can't be that they disagree with a certain word being applied to them (like "male") but some aspect of observable, physical reality.
    XY = male
    XX = female

    No it's not. Gender dysphoria is basically experiencing stress due to being transgendered. But for those transgendered people who do not feel that kind of stress, they do not suffer from dysphoria.
    That's actually not true. Simply feeling like you are a gender that's different than your biological ("assigned") sex is enough to qualify.

    That's not true. Not all transgendered people make physical changes to themselves and pretty much stay "at the same place" their whole lives. Probably the most famous transgendered person is the comic Eddie Izzard and he's not making any changes - he just identifies as a female in a man's body.
    I'm just talking about the literal interpretation of the word. Trans means to cross.

    But then they have no need to impress you. The friend I mentioned identifies as and is now physically a male (although I would respect his wishes to be identified as male if he didn't have the surgery) so I will consider him a male and call him by his new masculine name. I see no flaw or contradiction in my choice to do that.
    Firstly, I'm not asking for them to impress me. They are perfectly free to live their lives without the slightest bit of interference from me. Secondly, the contradictions aren't with your choice to honor or dishonor them, but rather with the arguments made about gender.
    a
    I don't understand what you are getting at here.
    My point is to illustrate one such contradiction as mentioned above: gender is supposedly a psycho-social construct independent of biological sex, but the large majority of transgenders present themselves using both gender-based and sexual physical characteristics. By admission, what it means to feel like a particular gender is what it means to look like the normal representation of that gender. Which is precisely why I call it cherry-picking. Disregard what "woman" conventionally means to you so that you might consider me a woman; but once you do, think of me like you would a conventional woman.

    In other words, how many soccer moms do you know who identify as male? How many lumberjacks identify as women?
    "Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves." --Bill Hicks

  20. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  21. #177
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    See how untenable that is? We know precisely what makes a dog a dog and a cat a cat, just as we know precisely what makes a man a man and a woman a woman.
    No, I'd say we know some people's opinions on what makes a man a man.


    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    They can do whatever they like. The problem comes in what expectations they place on the outside world in order to cater to that. And it's not an appeal to convention for convention's sake, but rather for the sake of an objective fact.
    No definition is objectively true.




    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    I will speak out of turn here, but I know for a fact that never once have you "identified" as a male. You grew up as a little boy, knowing you're a boy because you are, and hence you "identify" as a male. The only people who consciously "identify" as any gender are those whose gender does not match their sex.
    I identify as a male right now. Ask me my gender and I will say "male". That's the very definition of identifying as a male.

    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    No one gives a hoot what anyone else "identifies" as. It's such a blatant notion of self-absorption that the obvious extremes manifest themselves eventually: Rachel Dolezal "identifies" as black and Richard Hernandez "identifies" as not just a woman but a dragon lady (for real). South Park was spot on when they parodied this issue and Kyle's dad became a dolphin. If you have to "identify" as something, you're admitting that what you identify as is not what you already are.
    Wrong. Again, I'm a male. Just by saying that I have identified as a male. And whether someone cares what I identify with has no bearing on the fact that that is how I identify myself.

    You seem to be engaging in a very different view of what it means to identify as something. It just means that that is how you idenfity yourself.



    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    I am often so frustrated by coworkers that I could scream at them over the phone. But I don't do it, because my feelings don't govern my behavior nor how the external world should function. Where exactly people became convinced that how you feel dictates how the external world should perceive you, or even affect what you really are, is beyond me.
    The notion that that is what it's about is a false premise. Identifying as a specific gender requires no appeal to the external world for recognition of one's identified gender.

    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    Indeed, a lot of psychological disorders stem from a disconnect between how people feel both about themselves and others, and reality. That's why they're disorders. For some reason we have decided wholesale to give this particular one a pass.
    When you identify the aspect of objective reality that transgender people deny is when you begin to make the case that they have a disorder.

    The fact is that it's not technically a disorder because it does not fit the definition of a disorder.




    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    I didn't say anything about an agenda. What agenda are you referring to?
    I'm responding to your statement "The answer to that in this case is that you actually want to retain the meaning of "woman"--you just want to change the qualifications such that you can be included in that classification."

    Wanting to change something is an agenda.




    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    XY = male
    XX = female
    That is a semantic position, not an objective fact. Physical reality is something that one can observe. For example, if a transgendered person is born with a penis, then it's an objective fact that they were born with a penis and if they did not believe that they were born with a penis, then they are denying objective reality. But using a word differently than others is not a denial of objective reality.


    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    That's actually not true. Simply feeling like you are a gender that's different than your biological ("assigned") sex is enough to qualify.
    Wrong. You will need to support that assertion before it is accepted. I can support that dysphoria does require distress.

    "Gender dysphoria (GD), or gender identity disorder (GID), is the distress a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria



    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    Firstly, I'm not asking for them to impress me. They are perfectly free to live their lives without the slightest bit of interference from me. Secondly, the contradictions aren't with your choice to honor or dishonor them, but rather with the arguments made about gender.
    The only thing my arguments contradicts is your argument. I have contradicted no objective facts.




    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    My point is to illustrate one such contradiction as mentioned above: gender is supposedly a psycho-social construct independent of biological sex, but the large majority of transgenders present themselves using both gender-based and sexual physical characteristics. By admission, what it means to feel like a particular gender is what it means to look like the normal representation of that gender. Which is precisely why I call it cherry-picking. Disregard what "woman" conventionally means to you so that you might consider me a woman; but once you do, think of me like you would a conventional woman.
    But this argument assumes that it is about an agenda - that they primarily care what you think. Transgenderism is about how they see themselves. While some may care about what others think, such concerns is not part of transgenderism just like being gay does not include caring what others think about you.

  22. #178
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, I'd say we know some people's opinions on what makes a man a man.
    "No, I'd say we know some people's opinions on what makes a dog a dog."

    It's still patently untenable.

    No definition is objectively true.
    Definitions simply define things. If they define objective truths, then they could be said to represent objective truths.

    I identify as a male right now. Ask me my gender and I will say "male". That's the very definition of identifying as a male.
    The definition of "identifying" as something is not the same thing as the definition of that something you're identifying with. Hence my point.

    Wrong. Again, I'm a male. Just by saying that I have identified as a male. And whether someone cares what I identify with has no bearing on the fact that that is how I identify myself.
    No one cares about the "fact" of how you, or anyone else, identifies. You could identify as a tree and the act of self-identification would carry the same practical import. So?

    You seem to be engaging in a very different view of what it means to identify as something. It just means that that is how you idenfity yourself.
    So, a tautology in other words. Hence why it's devoid of any meaning to the outside world.

    The notion that that is what it's about is a false premise. Identifying as a specific gender requires no appeal to the external world for recognition of one's identified gender.
    It does when public bathrooms come into play. It does when pronoun usage comes into play. And make no mistake, these aren't trivial issues. This issue of identification is permeating the public sphere in all sorts of interesting ways.

    When you identify the aspect of objective reality that transgender people deny is when you begin to make the case that they have a disorder.
    XY = male
    XX = female

    The fact is that it's not technically a disorder because it does not fit the definition of a disorder.
    It is technically a disorder. The DSM still considers it a disorder, they've just changed the name of it. See George Carlin's bit on euphemisms.

    Wanting to change something is an agenda.
    Then it looks like you're claiming, by definition, transgenders have a very clear agenda.

    That is a semantic position, not an objective fact. Physical reality is something that one can observe. For example, if a transgendered person is born with a penis, then it's an objective fact that they were born with a penis and if they did not believe that they were born with a penis, then they are denying objective reality. But using a word differently than others is not a denial of objective reality.
    It's not a denial of objective reality, it's an appeal to simply ignore it so that we might still qualify men as women, and vice versa.

    Wrong. You will need to support that assertion before it is accepted. I can support that dysphoria does require distress.

    "Gender dysphoria (GD), or gender identity disorder (GID), is the distress a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth."
    From the American Psychiatric Association:

    Gender dysphoria involves a conflict between a person's physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/they identify. People with gender dysphoria may be very uncomfortable with the gender they were assigned....The gender conflict affects people in different ways. It can change the way a person wants to express their gender and can influence behavior, dress and self-image.
    (emphasis mine)



    The only thing my arguments contradicts is your argument. I have contradicted no objective facts.
    And again, I didn't claim you did.

    But this argument assumes that it is about an agenda - that they primarily care what you think. Transgenderism is about how they see themselves. While some may care about what others think, such concerns is not part of transgenderism just like being gay does not include caring what others think about you.
    Clearly you haven't spent any time listening to transgender activists. They make it very clear that refusing to use the right pronouns, or shirking at the idea of sharing bathrooms, isn't just disrespectful, it's downright hateful and liable to cause psychological damage to the transgender community as a whole. I won't spam link you here...just do a quick Google survey of such discussions to get a taste for it.

    If this has nothing to do with how we think, then why the need to "identify" in the first place? Why "identify" when all that matters is how you see yourself?
    Last edited by thrashee; Today at 06:42 AM.
    "Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves." --Bill Hicks

  23. #179
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    "No, I'd say we know some people's opinions on what makes a dog a dog."

    It's still patently untenable.
    If the debate was about a controversy regarding what defines a dog, that statement makes perfect sense. A canine is referred to as a "dog" because the common opinion is that that is the correct word to use.



    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    Definitions simply define things. If they define objective truths, then they could be said to represent objective truths.
    Which in no way rebuts my argument that definitions are not objective. Words mean what people think they mean and therefore all definitions are subjective.


    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    The definition of "identifying" as something is not the same thing as the definition of that something you're identifying with.
    Did I say otherwise? This sounds like a straw man argument.

    But nonetheless, I DO identify as a male. The fact that I likewise fit the traditional definition of a male does not disallow me from identifying as one.


    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    No one cares about the "fact" of how you, or anyone else, identifies. You could identify as a tree and the act of self-identification would carry the same practical import. So?
    Actually, the very fact that many people have a problem with transgendered people does show that people care how someone identifies themselves.

    I would argue that no one should care if someone identifies as male and female and not go saying that they have a disorder or worry about which bathroom they use.


    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    It does when public bathrooms come into play. It does when pronoun usage comes into play. And make no mistake, these aren't trivial issues. This issue of identification is permeating the public sphere in all sorts of interesting ways.
    While those are issues related to transgenderism, they are not part of being transgendered. One does not need to make any appeals to bathrooms and language in order to be transgendered.

    Let's limit the debate to transgenderism itself.


    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    XY = male
    XX = female
    That is no more an objective fact than:

    Identify as male = male
    Identify as female = female

    To debate which is the correct definition of "male" (is it chromosome or the identity?) is to engage in a semantic debate and therefore both positions are subjective.

    Aspects of physical reality are something that one can observe. Again, if a transgendered female was born with a penis and yet believes she wasn't, THEN she would be denying an aspect of physical reality.

    So until you can show an aspect of physical reality, something that is objectively true, that ALL transgendered people deny, it cannot be supported that they routinely deny reality.



    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    It is technically a disorder. The DSM still considers it a disorder, they've just changed the name of it. See George Carlin's bit on euphemisms.
    You will need to support that statement before it will be accepted. I have provided support that dysphoria requires distress. IF one is not feeling distressed over being transgendered, then they aren't suffering from dysphoria.


    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    Then it looks like you're claiming, by definition, transgenders have a very clear agenda.
    Since it's not true that all transgendered people want some kind of change, they likewise do not by definition have an agenda.


    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    It's not a denial of objective reality, it's an appeal to simply ignore it so that we might still qualify men as women, and vice versa.
    Until you identify the aspect of reality that they are ignoring, this argument fails.




    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    I see nothing in there that contradicts the position that a transgendered person needs to feel stress in order to have a dysphoria.

    And we don't even need to appeal to how a particular organization has defined it. In layman's terms, a disease/disorder, must cause the person who suffers from it some kind of harm. Hence the notion that one must feel distress to have the disease of dysphoria. If a person's transgenderism does not cause them any harm, then it cannot be considered a disorder.



    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    Clearly you haven't spent any time listening to transgender activists. They make it very clear that refusing to use the right pronouns, or shirking at the idea of sharing bathrooms, isn't just disrespectful, it's downright hateful and liable to cause psychological damage to the transgender community as a whole. I won't spam link you here...just do a quick Google survey of such discussions to get a taste for it.

    If this has nothing to do with how we think, then why the need to "identify" in the first place? Why "identify" when all that matters is how you see yourself?
    You seem to be conflating with how SOME transgendered people think with how ALL transgendered people think. Of course there are transgendered activists who have a very clear agenda. And there are others who want no attention at all and ask nothing of anyone.

    So just being transgendered does not mean that one has an agenda.

    And within any large group of people, there will be those who are wrong on some level but that says nothing about the group as a whole. White racists exist but it's a flawed argument to say that those people are indicative of whites in general. Likewise I don't consider those transgendered people who are obnoxious to be indicative of transgendered in general. They are pretty much a non-issue in a general discussion of the transgendered.
    Last edited by mican333; Today at 08:45 AM.

 

 
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •