Yes, I think debating other peoples medical treatment is dangerous and unethical. If I convince someone to stop taking their heart medication, they could die.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let's re-think South Carolina ban on gender-affirming care
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
Perhaps if we'd all been debating the use of opioids several years ago thousands fewer people would have died.
And again, what I'm saying is that countries with less politicized, profit-driven healthcare systems are abandoning GAC.
Over and over again I've asked for science 101 on this topic, and it does not exist. Are we supposed to say "move along, nothing to see here folks" ?
And yet, there are differences. They may not point directly to gender identity, but there are differences.
The male brain is 10% larger than the female, though this appears to have nothing to do with intelligence.
The male brain has strong front-to-back connections.
The mail brain is more organized for motor skills.
The female brain has stronger side-to-side connections.
The female brain is optimized for intuitive thinking.
The female bfain has more grey matter.
Males are more likely to develop alcohol dependence, three times more likely to be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, four times more likely to have autism, and twice as likely to develop Parkinson's disease.
Females are twice as likely to have depression, twice as likely to develop Alzheimer's (in the U.S.), four times more likely to develop multiple sclerosis, and more likely to have a stroke.
Then we have to consider how some areas of the brain are responsible for certain tasks: language for example is located in Wernicke's area, a critical language area in the posterior superior temporal lobe, which connects to Broca's area via a neural pathway. Other small areas are responsible for object association, or differentiating self from non-self.
So I think it is not yet clear where (or even if) gender identity is located, but certainly we should expect it is somewhere -- because pretty much most humans do tend to identify as either male or female. That this is usually the same as natal sex, the very existence of transgendered people suggests that this might not always be the case.
I recall reading, some years ago, of a European study that found that women are sensitive to some male-produced pheromones, and so are male homosexuals. Since you can't really smell pheromones, this is directly brain-chemical function. I'll have to look that up, but again, it suggests strongly that all the answers are not yet in.
I do not believe that the opinion of uninformed lay people would have benefited that discussion in anyway.
You're right that it has nothing to do with intelligence, it has to do with size. Male brains are not 10% larger natally, but after development with more androgen hormones. Which I have, far more than most women, and am larger with more muscle and I wouldn't be shocked to know my brain also had those indicators because of how I was socialized and how my hormone development pathways went. But I'm still very much female and a woman.
And again, my point was that these things aren't shown to be innate characteristics, since they don't exist natally, but with exposure to environmental stimuli which can absolutely effect brain and body and even genetics (epigenetics specifically.)
We have a very erroneous tendency to look at 'nature' as immutable from nurture that just isn't the case.
I don't think there's any point in me contributing further. Not interested in playing doctor, I am going to defer to the doctors and not the republican party.
The fact of the matter is that the people going through GAC are overwhelmingly happy with the results. They do not believe that their lives are being destroyed, that is a projection of your own feelings in the form of stigmatized language.
At the current time the scientific establishment in Canada and the US does not agree with the zealots, which is why this anti-science ban exists.
If the doctors are wrong, they should be proved wrong with science, rather than having laws imposed on them based on the feelings of anti-gac organizations and activists who do not have experiences with these treatments, the patients or the parents and are just going down a misinformation rabbit hole.
That you need to allude to a future reckoning that we are to believe is coming is itself a concession that the stats do not at the present time support your argument.
The fact of the matter is that the people going through GAC are overwhelmingly happy with the results. They do not believe that their lives are being destroyed, that is a projection of your own feelings in the form of stigmatized language.
At the current time the scientific establishment in Canada and the US does not agree with the zealots, which is why this anti-science ban exists.
If the doctors are wrong, they should be proved wrong with science, rather than having laws imposed on them based on the feelings of anti-gac organizations and activists who do not have experiences with these treatments, the patients or the parents and are just going down a misinformation rabbit hole.
That you need to allude to a future reckoning that we are to believe is coming is itself a concession that the stats do not at the present time support your argument.
And again, why didn't David Reimer "socialize" as female, since he was surgically and hormonally altered -- and carefully brought up to be female? He remained strongly male in his own mind until his suicide.
GAC was rammed into existence by advocates. There is no high quality evidence that GAC is any more effective than talk therapy alone.
I think a lot of those happy people would have been even happier if they hadn't damaged their bodies along the way.
The same way people who are socialized heterosexual can be homosexual or bisexual despite there being no such thing as a 'gay gene.' Because complex behaviors and identities come from multiple interdisciplinary sources that include biology, culture and psychology. And trying to reduce to just biology does a disservice to the nature of that complexity, purely to try and dissuade bigots from thinking it's a choice.
Socialization, hormones, culture, genetics and other factors likely all have a strong influence on our concept of gender. But 'pink brain' 'blue brain' is reductive and unevidenced. Because, again, male female brain differences have not shown to be natal but after developmental and environmental factors *and* are not consistent with the majority of studied population.
Thank you, I think that is pretty correctly said. The only thing I would hope you'd agree with is that, while there may not be such a thing as a "female brain" (or a "male brain"), there are biological components (including genes, epigenetics, hormones, in utero environment, etc.) that contribute. How strongly those may play out against the environmental factors may be arguable (I have no idea), but I think that they play a role.
I think we should not forget that part of our socialization is our own internal feelings -- about ourselves and about how others see and treat us. So if a very young boy actually "feels" like a girl, part of that child's socialization will be its own reaction to its treatment by family and others. Complex indeed.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Good thing that's not what it is then,
What are "pole results"?Good thing that's not what it is then,
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Post# 30....
If Transgenderism is based on dishonesty, actors and actresses living in character 24/7, demanding that society accept the roles they play, then the pole results are what should be expected when surveying the pro-trans community.
This is a great example of you doing nothing but throwing noise and obfuscation into the conversation. Why would you do that?
Thank you.