Man to Man... or Woman

[nPeace]

That's just one example. I can go on. Amd it's no strawman. Had one language been broken into multiple languages at one place and time, we'd see the evidence of it. But instead the evidence we have suggests most of today's languages sprouted from a few languages that developed independently of each other.

What evidence would you expect to see, and what evidence do you see?

The flood, as there is no evidence to suggest a global flood, not all animals can survive the Middle East climate, and the ark wouldn't have been sea worthy and would have been far too small (per Biblical accounts describing the ark).

So, you are jumping to the conclusion that all animals were the same, and no changes occurred, and that the climate was the sane as today, yes?
You also conclude that there is nothing outside your scope... everything happens as you think it should, yes?

So, for example, unless you can see seas split apart, and stand for miles in the air, leaving a path of dry seabed, it never happened, right?
Nothing can happen that you don't believe, correct?

Many do. You yourself even did cite a Bible verse when discussing how physics works. The Bible will not and cannot teach science.

I don't recall that. Can you please quote my exact words, please?
If I did read a scripture that is in line with scientific discovery though, how does that equate to saying the Bible is a science book?

Science doesnt jump to conclusions and I have never suggested otherwise. Amd what I said was factually accurate.

So some things you believe are not science, but merely assumptions, reached by jumping to conclusions. Would you admit that?
For example, no one saw the universe form, the way scientists claim, yet you believe that it happened, the way they claimed, right?
You accept the conclusion - without verification - that no one created it, yet the universe began to exist, as is claimed 14 billion years in the past. You believe it created itself. Correct?
Can you please explain how that is not jumping to conclusions, and a created universe is?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Part of the 'gender studies still being in its infancy' thing.

And that's fine, but I still think a distinction should be made. That's all.

A distinction between non-binary and trans I agree with. Sort of. I see no problem with trans being an umbrella which includes all people whose identity doesn't match with their assigned sex at birth, which would include non-binary people. But I leave that up to the non-binary folks. Some identify as trans, some don't.
But that would be non-binary are trans but not all trans are non-binary.
Distinction between trans who do or don't experience dysphoria though? I don't think that warrants a sub-category.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So some things you believe are not science, but merely assumptions, reached by jumping to conclusions. Would you admit that?
For example, no one saw the universe form, the way scientists claim, yet you believe that it happened, the way they claimed, right?
You accept the conclusion - without verification - that no one created it, yet the universe began to exist, as is claimed 14 billion years in the past. You believe it created itself. Correct?
Can you please explain how that is not jumping to conclusions, and a created universe is?

Literally nobody believes this.
First of all science has no conclusion on how the universe formed. They have posits, but recognize them as possibilities, not definitive conclusions. Second, young-universe is actively contrast to the evidence science has (specifically radiometric dating). Third, nobody believes the universe created itself. Any more than rain creates itself. Heck, not even most posits believe the universe had a beginning.

 

[Rival]

Heck, not even most posits believe the universe had a beginning.

As far as I am aware, that the universe had a beginning is the current scientific consensus.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Part of the 'gender studies still being in its infancy' thing.

A distinction between non-binary and trans I agree with. Sort of. I see no problem with trans being an umbrella which includes all people whose identity doesn't match with their assigned sex at birth, which would include non-binary people. But I leave that up to the non-binary folks. Some identify as trans, some don't.
But that would be non-binary are trans but not all trans are non-binary.
Distinction between trans who do or don't experience dysphoria though? I don't think that warrants a sub-category.

Part of the reason I feel this way is because I don't view transness as an identity in of itself. I'm a man and "trans" only describes what sort of man I am. It's an adjective. So I don't understand people who want to identify as trans so much. Plus, when it's used as an umbrella term, it becomes confusing and vague, especially to most people looking in. Then we're thrown in with cross dressers and transvestites, which doesn't help us at all and most of us disdain being associated with as a category.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As far as I am aware, that the universe had a beginning is the current scientific consensus.

Not exactly. Currently there's still intense debate around the brainchild of Hawkings in the boundaryless universe. But even many of those critical of that still believe that the big bang just started expansion, not the information (be it in the form of matter or just energy) of the universe, or brane mechanics and other forces. https://www.quantamagazine.org/phys...-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Part of the reason I feel this way is because I don't view transness as an identity in of itself. I'm a man and "trans" only describes what sort of man I am. It's an adjective. So I don't understand people who want to identify as trans so much. Plus, when it's used as an umbrella term, it becomes confusing and vague, especially to most people looking in. Then we're thrown in with cross dressers and transvestites, which doesn't help us at all and most of us disdain being associated with as a category.

I really recommend watching the rest of that video if you haven't. It's a very dramatic video, and a half hour long, but it talks a lot about why I don't think transgender being an adjective eliminates it as an identity or that the adjective is only inclusive of one type of transperson.

Trying to eliminate ambiguity is a worthy goal. But making it reductive needlessly misses out on nuance. Gender studies is a complicated field, it SHOULN'T be easy for outsiders looking in, any more than any other study.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I really recommend watching the rest of that video if you haven't. It's a very dramatic video, and a half hour long, but it talks a lot about why I don't think transgender being an adjective eliminates it as an identity or that the adjective is only inclusive of one type of transperson.

Trying to eliminate ambiguity is a worthy goal. But making it reductive needlessly misses out on nuance. Gender studies is a complicated field, it SHOULN'T be easy for outsiders looking in, any more than any other study.

Speaking for myself, I'm not trying to be vague and I don't want outsiders confused when I try to talk to them about it. But even people like me, who have been involved with trans stuff for a decade now, are confused about a lot of stuff I come across.

 

[nPeace]

No. I can't give numbered data. All medical treatments by their nature are meant to relieve symptoms of illness.

If you have no data, then you are giving an opinion, as though it is fact, when it is not. True?
Medical treatment is given with intent to aid the ailing. That does not mean that it does.
We have many examples where the treatment failed. Doctors are not gods. Correct?

People do have better lives when the And their doctors choose the treatments best for their mental and physical health. It's not a moral thing but medical.

This is subjective opinions. We do not know how people really feel. They may tell us one thing, but the reality may be something else. Or they may feel one way now, and then feel another later.
The data, I presented to you shows this to be the case, and it also says, that without follow ups, there can be no way of knowing long-term results statistically.
I don't think you would recommend people follow trans around and ask them how they feel after every year.
They might not feel like celebrities pursued by Paparazzi.

But this does remind me of the psychopath comment. Do you only take data as validation and not people who suffered from this?

I listened to Rival, Shadow Wolf, and am willing to listen to you. as I told Rival, sometimes we are deceived by our own feelings. We may not want to call them feelings, but listening to all of you, and hearing what the experts are saying, we would be mistaken to push feelings under the carpet, or under the bed, like we do, when we don't want to cleanup, and we don't want others to see, what we are trying to hide.
I have an open mind. An open mind does not mean believing any and everything. Nor does it mean, closing one's mind to anything. It involves taking into consideration all things - good, and bad.
Would you recommend I ignore the data, while listening to other people? Why?
Is it not true, sometimes we think we are right, even when there are other factors that may say to the contrary?

What do you think of psychological and emotional issues affecting children by the thousands. Do you think early childhood problems do affect how one may think and feel growing into adulthood?

No doctor will ignore patients views and not take them accurate for appropriate treatment. Do you agree with them?

Do I agree with doctors, not listening to patients, you mean?
Did you hear what I said? Did I not say that doctors listen to patients, and ask leading questions, then carry out their own tests? What do you think my answer is?

What other options are there that will help them physically, mentally, and be able to function in society without feeling they are not themselves?

Physically? Is something hurting them in their body?
Mentally. I will again quote the articles...
It's important to remember that hormone therapy is only one of the treatments for gender dysphoria. Others include voice therapy and psychological support. The decision to have hormone therapy will be taken after a discussion between you and your clinic team.

A deeper analysis of mental illness and alternative gender identities is not undertaken, and common causal factors and confounders are not explored. This is worrying, as attempts to explore, formulate and treat coexisting mental illness, including that relating to childhood trauma, might then be considered tantamount to ‘conversion therapy’.

As there is evidence that many psychiatric disorders persist despite positive affirmation and medical transition, it is puzzling why transition would come to be seen as a key goal rather than other outcomes, such as improved quality of life and reduced morbidity.

There is a danger that poor-quality data are being used to support gender affirmation and transition without the strength of evidence that would normally determine pathways of care. One 20-year Swedish longitudinal cohort study showed persisting high levels of psychiatric morbidity, suicidal acts and completed suicide many years after medical transition.

I hope you see my answer in there.
I surely would never recommend things that are harmful to individuals, whether it be physical - such as drugs (like puberty blockers), or extreme discomforting measure like wearing things that squeeze body parts, etc., emotionally - going through life focused on one's physical appearance (which add to more emotional pain, and frustrations), worrying about other issues related to that - including acceptance, nor spiritually.

That said, I must say this:
The world is in a mess, in the first place, because of persons leaving the creator's standards of right and wrong.
People are groaning in pain - the whole creation, actually.
Sometimes... Oftentimes, we make things more difficult for ourselves - for a number of reasons. One of those reasons involves our birth. We don't get to choose where we are born, or with what. So trauma can hit us, and in most cases, do hit us - sometimes quite hard, and that can affect the rest of our lives.
The thing is, we don't have to remain on that path. We have the choice to a life that we really need, but may think otherwise, or not realize it.
Jesus offers us the opportunity to relieve our burden. (Matthew 11:28-30)
I think that's the best choice.
Did you by any chance get invited to our "Always Rejoice" Convention, this year?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They do, otherwise they're not trans. I personally identify as a transsexual man and don't like how "transgender" is being used as a vague umbrella term for everyone from transsexuals who have full SRS to tomboys. We are not the same at all. Non-binary people, gender fluid, etc. should be considered as their own thing, really.

Exactly. We are trans because we have dysphoria over our birth sex not katching our identified sex, amd we typically take steps to alter and adjust our appearances, legal name, and our entire lifestyle in regards to how we socialize so we can have a shot at elevating our dysphoria and possibly achieving euphoria. In other words, we are trans largely because we transition roles, to permanent ends.
Without that dysphoria its reckless and irresponsible to transition. Amd, of course, cross dressers, non-binary, deag queens, and transvestite/fetishists are not trans but something else entirely. They aren't transitioning, they may not even identify as the opposite sex.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you have no data, then you are giving an opinion, as though it is fact, when it is not. True?
Medical treatment is given with intent to aid the ailing. That does not mean that it does.
We have many examples where the treatment failed. Doctors are not gods. Correct?


This is subjective opinions. We do not know how people really feel. They may tell us one thing, but the reality may be something else. Or they may feel one way now, and then feel another later.
The data, I presented to you shows this to be the case, and it also says, that without follow ups, there can be no way of knowing long-term results statistically.
I don't think you would recommend people follow trans around and ask them how they feel after every year.
They might not feel like celebrities pursued by Paparazzi.


I listened to Rival, Shadow Wolf, and am willing to listen to you. as I told Rival, sometimes we are deceived by our own feelings. We may not want to call them feelings, but listening to all of you, and hearing what the experts are saying, we would be mistaken to push feelings under the carpet, or under the bed, like we do, when we don't want to cleanup, and we don't want others to see, what we are trying to hide.
I have an open mind. An open mind does not mean believing any and everything. Nor does it mean, closing one's mind to anything. It involves taking into consideration all things - good, and bad.
Would you recommend I ignore the data, while listening to other people? Why?
Is it not true, sometimes we think we are right, even when there are other factors that may say to the contrary?

What do you think of psychological and emotional issues affecting children by the thousands. Do you think early childhood problems do affect how one may think and feel growing into adulthood?


Do I agree with doctors, not listening to patients, you mean?
Did you hear what I said? Did I not say that doctors listen to patients, and ask leading questions, then carry out their own tests? What do you think my answer is?


Physically? Is something hurting them in their body?
Mentally. I will again quote the articles...
It's important to remember that hormone therapy is only one of the treatments for gender dysphoria. Others include voice therapy and psychological support. The decision to have hormone therapy will be taken after a discussion between you and your clinic team.

A deeper analysis of mental illness and alternative gender identities is not undertaken, and common causal factors and confounders are not explored. This is worrying, as attempts to explore, formulate and treat coexisting mental illness, including that relating to childhood trauma, might then be considered tantamount to ‘conversion therapy’.

As there is evidence that many psychiatric disorders persist despite positive affirmation and medical transition, it is puzzling why transition would come to be seen as a key goal rather than other outcomes, such as improved quality of life and reduced morbidity.

There is a danger that poor-quality data are being used to support gender affirmation and transition without the strength of evidence that would normally determine pathways of care. One 20-year Swedish longitudinal cohort study showed persisting high levels of psychiatric morbidity, suicidal acts and completed suicide many years after medical transition.

I hope you see my answer in there.
I surely would never recommend things that are harmful to individuals, whether it be physical - such as drugs (like puberty blockers), or extreme discomforting measure like wearing things that squeeze body parts, etc., emotionally - going through life focused on one's physical appearance (which add to more emotional pain, and frustrations), worrying about other issues related to that - including acceptance, nor spiritually.

That said, I must say this:
The world is in a mess, in the first place, because of persons leaving the creator's standards of right and wrong.
People are groaning in pain - the whole creation, actually.
Sometimes... Oftentimes, we make things more difficult for ourselves - for a number of reasons. One of those reasons involves our birth. We don't get to choose where we are born, or with what. So trauma can hit us, and in most cases, do hit us - sometimes quite hard, and that can affect the rest of our lives.
The thing is, we don't have to remain on that path. We have the choice to a life that we really need, but may think otherwise, or not realize it.
Jesus offers us the opportunity to relieve our burden. (Matthew 11:28-30)
I think that's the best choice.
Did you by any chance get invited to our "Always Rejoice" Convention, this year?

Jesus offered me no help, no relief, no hope. You keep posting highly selective data without all the points, you want to say its a mess, you mention trauma, that people make thi gs harder for themselves, but science and medicine support none of that. Even your wiki article doesn't support your positions once we include the entirety of that article.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Exactly. We are trans because we have dysphoria over our birth sex not katching our identified sex, amd we typically take steps to alter and adjust our appearances, legal name, and our entire lifestyle in regards to how we socialize so we can have a shot at elevating our dysphoria and possibly achieving euphoria. In other words, we are trans largely because we transition roles, to permanent ends.
Without that dysphoria its reckless and irresponsible to transition. Amd, of course, cross dressers, non-binary, deag queens, and transvestite/fetishists are not trans but something else entirely. They aren't transitioning, they may not even identify as the opposite sex.

Well said!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What evidence would you expect to see, and what evidence do you see?

Had the Tower story been true, we'd see all the world's languages branch out from there. But most languages today come from a few base-roots. Europe itself has two trees, many languages branching out from the ancient proto-Indo-European and some having origins in Uralic.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, you are jumping to the conclusion that all animals were the same, and no changes occurred, and that the climate was the sane as today, yes?

No. I am not. I am saying--because of differences--many cant survive in the Middle East. Most wouldn't even be able to get there. No koalas, no dingos, no opposums, no polar bears,no penguins.

So, for example, unless you can see seas split apart, and stand for miles in the air, leaving a path of dry seabed, it never happened, right?

There would be evidence. There is none.

I don't recall that. Can you please quote my exact words, please?
If I did read a scripture that is in line with scientific discovery though, how does that equate to saying the Bible is a science book?

You did mention a Bible verse with science. It was pages ago. I looked it up to verofy that you had before I posted that.

For example, no one saw the universe form, the way scientists claim, yet you believe that it happened, the way they claimed, right?
You accept the conclusion - without verification - that no one created it, yet the universe began to exist, as is claimed 14 billion years in the past. You believe it created itself. Correct?
Can you please explain how that is not jumping to conclusions, and a created universe is?

More assumptions on you. We can see evidence of the Big Bang. We can evidence and measure this evidence to know it was billions of years ago.
However, I do not outright reject the possibility of a creator. I just don't assume this entity must be a god of it exist. That seems a rather arbitray and short-sighted conclusion.

 

[nPeace]

Hate those limits. I won't be able to address every point but it'll take me a min

Take your time, no prob'.

I don't think that was it. It was a reply to Rival about how many surgical treatments have not worked for transgender or many detransition. It was in the first few pages (assuming) in this thread.

I did not mention detransitioning anywhere else, in the thread.. I'm sure.

As for memory. I usually pat myself on the back when I have good memory because I'm always told that I have bad memory. In one sense, I don't feel I do (well, by neuropsychological testing) just processing skills issues. Once the info makes its way there, there, it stuck. Transmission issues not retaining ones.

...but it doesn't excuse that detransitioning implies surgery isn't the best option for transgender. It just means each person has different options to relieve their symptoms. Like Rival (or Shadow?) said, each person is different and not all transition and can transition.

That was not my argument. No please. I think you latched on to that for your own purposes.
Since you insist on it though, and you made that point, why can't each person transition?

I'm still stuck on this "how is it wrong" thing in the back of my head. You mentioned data (with the comment above) that said many people detransition. Is that a counter argument of why it's wrong or not beneficial for transgender (assuming you're going by data only and not the people who experience it?)?

Sorry to say this, but I think you are "stuck" on your own here, fighting your imaginary detransition argument.
You got the wrong guy.

I haven't read your two long posts yet, so I don't know if you answered these statements till I read it.



I know this isn't what you meant, by why rapists as a comparison? just curious.

Aren't rapist people too? They also have childhood issues don't they? They also have reasons why they feel as they do, don't they?

Listening means, though, not using bias to decipher what he or she says is true or mentally healthy.

True. Do you think I am using bias... On what basis?

That's a generalization. It doesn't matter if it's gender dysphoria, depression, cancer, or a swollen toe, doctors usually ask patients to ascertain appropriate treatment not just books.

I've met tons of doctors for my illness. The thing is, I don't see gender dysphoria and my neurological and other people's illnesses any different in regards to whether they need treatment or not. If it's detrimental to their physical, psychological, and emotional health doctors tend to not only look at the books but ask patients what they experience and both go through the best treatments to relieve and/or cure those symptoms and illnesses.

I don't see a problem with this.

It was in reference to the other comment in the post of detransitioning data as a counter argument for Rival saying many people benefit from transitioning. Though Shadow said it wasn't appropriate for all, so I'd have to dig to find that statement. I honestly don't feel it's a memory thing. You may recall things I said that you can't find in a post but we take as is because of conversation. Trust in accuracy. It's not saying you're mislead or anything. It's just what I read from your post.

There is an easy way to find things you want to on RF. Just think of what you know I said, and use the search bar, and select the user as nPeace.
If you don't find it, then it's not there. If you find it, we are good to go.

No. It's not a bad thing to have a counter argument (or stating a fact or opinion that may disagree or devalue the person's your speaking with). That's the nature of conversations like this. Unless you're indifferent or agree with the other person, of course there will be counter arguments both in formal debates (which is a criteria) and informal debates.



It's in one of the first few pages. I'd have to dig it out but after so many pages, the points mix and match so its best to address what recall. I usually take your word for what I said unless it's something more of an insult than a statement or opinion.

Search bar is your friend.

You are indeed getting mixed up, and moreover, it is leading you to ask me questions that are equivalent to.... "Um. What is grass to you? Do you know the difference between grass and trees?" (706)

This comment. Disregard the other quote.

There is nothing special about this question. It's not like the Bible, you know



Of course. I'm certainty not fluent in Greek and Hebrew, I haven't lived their culture, and don't know their definitions and point of view. So, if I were christian and read the bible, I'd be going off my cultural bias (my subjective experience, interpretation etc) to derive truth that is totally personal not objective.

I'm not sure what homosexuality meant back then, for example. But we finally got a sense of it in the 1970s and finally today don't see it as an illness and don't arrest people for saying they are homosexuals.

In other words, yes, christians (and other religious) do go by cultural bias when they interpret their experiences, scriptures, Practice, whatever the case may be. It's not a bad thing just not when talking about any topic from the bible, it's best that one express it as opinion or belief (from me) not a statement of fact as many christians do the latter to prove their point of what the bible says about a given topic.

Changing values do not determine what's morally right.

Against the bible, no. I'm saying cultural bias influences christians interpretations of what they read in the bible and in other cases acts as a confirmation bias to topics we know more about today. I can't think of another less controversial example than homosexuality. Christians judge homosexuality by cultural biases in the bible not what we know of today. My issue isn't that, though, just the actions and consequences people have based on their views.

Can you please explain what you mean by cultural bias... if you mean it this way.
Among some peoples going clothes-less is the norm.
Among other people going clothes-less is considered public indecency.
Many of those who formally considered going clothes-less public indecency, now accept it, as normal. Some with a few restrictions.
Are you saying that those who formally viewed it, as public indecency, and those who continue to view it that way, have a cultural bias?
Do the ones who do not view it as public indecency also have a cultural bias against those who clothe?

Sexual immorality or homosexuality was just an example, though. I know you disagree with the action but that isn't homosexuality. We know that now, but people who believe in the bible are still stuck on that word.

What is homosexuality to you?
I see they give it some new definitions...

• Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
• Sexual activity with another of the same sex.
• Perverted sexual desire for one of the same sex.

I don't suppose you believe that because adjustments have been made to the term that people should automatically apply the first, and eliminate the others. At least I hope you don't believe that. Do you?

English terms are always changing. For example, a** is no longer a donkey, and many other terms don't mean what they formally did.
In that case, when you speak to persons, it's important to make clear what you mean.
How would you use homosexuality in a sentence to mean a sexual orientation?

Transgenderism isn't sexual immorality. How did you connect the two?

Did I? Where?

The last part about helping people you care about, what do you mean by that?

Not sure what you want to know, apart from what's written.

We're talking about gender dysphoria and surgical treatments to relieve those symptoms and how you feel the latter is wrong and (by another post) there were other options better than the surgery. I was wondering why was the surgery wrong and what other options are there that both doctor and patient would better benefit from.

You need to address the "long" posts. They are not longer than this one.

 

[nPeace]

I don't know if it was. The comment I replied to wasn't addressed to me.



Gosh. Um. I've been in the hospital for going on 20 some odd years with various doctors who need to use what I say (and what my family and strangers etc say) to diagnose my illnesses. If I went to the doctor and said "doc. I'm falling out. Diagnose me" he'd say, what are your symptoms. Then he'd use his book or so have you (from what he is skilled) and cross reference if my symptoms also meets criteria for a said probable diagnosis. He would do tests, ask more questions, and order treatments and so have you.

That's good/ That's very good. It's important for the doctors to talk to both you and your relatives.

I hope-truly hope-we're talking pass each other. Complaints are used for diagnosis. Without patients complaint of symptoms, diagnosis would be more fuzzy. I thought this was common knowledge.

I think someone is not understanding the other. It looks like.

Yes. This helps with diagnosis etc. I'm confused with this comment and your last one. Do you feel patients have some say in their diagnosis?

See? Please elaborate on that question. it's too broad.

Gender dysphoria is an illness just as other mental and physical illnesses. So they go by the same "rules" for diagnosis and treatment as every other illness. Doctors do listen to patients complaints, use their own skills, and discover treatments that work best not just for the doctor's results from tests and observations but from the patients themselves.



Based on this question, if you haven't experienced an illness you can gain insight from outside perspective. For example, I don't know what it feels like to have gender dysphoria but I get a sense of it based on my knowledge and close personal experiences when finding out who I am both gender and sex as many kids do when they learn about themselves before being culturally conditioned to male/female cultural norms. So, I have some personal insight based on my personal bias but that's not the same as asking someone who has experienced these things all of their life rather than being a growing phase.

From what you're saying, it seems like you put more credence to doctors and data and not the patients complaints and opinions.

I think sometimes listening to others rather than yourself, often proves to be beneficial to you, as it often reveals something that is being suppressed, or avoided. in other words, sometimes people can bring out more than what a person is willing to admit, or reveal about themselves. That's why there are people called psychologists, and psychiatrists, etc.
Sometimes people strongly believe something, because they have made it a reality in their mind, and so, they can only say, what they know.
A person with extensive knowledge, is in a better position to bring out what that person has suppressed for most of their life, and may be able to help that one... if they want it.
The physician may not force the individual to accept anything they don't want, and they may avoid what they think may trigger reactions that the person may be more susceptible to.
That's the nature of choice.

Still stuck with the psychopath thing. The idea was why ask someone who is mentally ill about their symptoms, if their symptoms may or may not be true. I never heard or read (or even heard testimony) that gender dysphoria is a delusion or an illness that leads them to think and believe in things they experience doesn't exist.

If the above does not help, then I recommend, let's move along.

 

[nPeace]

Here is a great source for info. It's backed by tons of research (all of which is cited) and it gives a decent picture of where studies into trans people really is lacking.
Standards of Care - WPATH World Professional Association for Transgender Health

Will look at it later. Thanks

 

[PearlSeeker]

Transitioning to the degree needed by the individual client is the only one to have consistently shown to improve things.

Yes but not always. Detransitions show otherwise.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Take your time, no prob'.


I did not mention detransitioning anywhere else, in the thread.. I'm sure.


That was not my argument. No please. I think you latched on to that for your own purposes.
Since you insist on it though, and you made that point, why can't each person transition?


Sorry to say this, but I think you are "stuck" on your own here, fighting your imaginary detransition argument.
You got the wrong guy.


Aren't rapist people too? They also have childhood issues don't they? They also have reasons why they feel as they do, don't they?


True. Do you think I am using bias... On what basis?



I don't see a problem with this.


There is an easy way to find things you want to on RF. Just think of what you know I said, and use the search bar, and select the user as nPeace.
If you don't find it, then it's not there. If you find it, we are good to go.


Search bar is your friend.


Changing values do not determine what's morally right.


Can you please explain what you mean by cultural bias... if you mean it this way.
Among some peoples going clothes-less is the norm.
Among other people going clothes-less is considered public indecency.
Many of those who formally considered going clothes-less public indecency, now accept it, as normal. Some with a few restrictions.
Are you saying that those who formally viewed it, as public indecency, and those who continue to view it that way, have a cultural bias?
Do the ones who do not view it as public indecency also have a cultural bias against those who clothe?


What is homosexuality to you?
I see they give it some new definitions...

• Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
• Sexual activity with another of the same sex.
• Perverted sexual desire for one of the same sex.

I don't suppose you believe that because adjustments have been made to the term that people should automatically apply the first, and eliminate the others. At least I hope you don't believe that. Do you?

English terms are always changing. For example, a** is no longer a donkey, and many other terms don't mean what they formally did.
In that case, when you speak to persons, it's important to make clear what you mean.
How would you use homosexuality in a sentence to mean a sexual orientation?


Did I? Where?


Not sure what you want to know, apart from what's written.


You need to address the "long" posts. They are not longer than this one.

I think some of the words arent familar to you. I can't remember who, but whoever did define a word most don't use including me.

Detransitioned or transgender deciding that the surgery and HRT etc isn't benefitial to them may choose to go back (not sure how far they can). Maybe for medical reasons or other.

It may not have been a counter argument but I don't mind if you don't take my word for it. Maybe another way to put it is "why transition of there are other options and/or X many people dont stay with their transition anyway." I think you were pointing out that even though most prefer surgery, you were saying there were other more healthier )and maybe moral) options.

It's not really an argument. Unless you agree surgery is the best treatment for transgender, I think what I read you said did have a point but not very good at saying why surgery isn't the best option.

But you'd got to briefly clarify if you agree with surgery as the best option. If so I may have read you wrong. If not, it will take awhile to find it so it's up to you to take my word for it.

Will get back to you later

 

[PearlSeeker]

Of feeling they don't belong to the same gender and/or sexual category that they were assigned with at birth.

Why "assigned at birth"?

Sex is biological. It's discerned at birth - not assigned.

Gender is a mental category - how someone feels/identifies. It's also not assigned and it can be recognized later (definitely not at birth).