We Never Know
No Slack
Not necessarily. The 95% is a general reference. I think it has a +/- of 1.2%.Like people with type AB blood
So at 4%, AB blood type falls in the range.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not necessarily. The 95% is a general reference. I think it has a +/- of 1.2%.Like people with type AB blood
I have looked honestly at myself and I have no disorders but you do you. Meanwhile, gender dysphoria only accounts for under 1 percent of disorders, thankfully. I won't repost the link.Sadly, Gender Dysphoria is just one out of 200+ mental disorders. Which means that those other 99% probably fit in one of the other disorders
Which means that we all might find some kind of disorder, when we dare to honestly look at ourselves
Oh I have found the beauty in commonality and even mild boredom!I never thought that "very common" was going to be just fine with me
Alrighty then.Statistically if anything falls out of 95% of the population its considered abnormal.
yeah i use facts and you really have a problem with thoseI believe you're propagating dangerous lies, and my experience is that - for whatever reasons - you and I cannot have a logical civil debate on this topic.
you must be dizzy from all that spinningNot necessarily. The 95% is a general reference. I think it has a +/- of 1.2%.
So at 4%, AB blood type falls in the range.
you cherry pick. you've demonstrated to everyone your misuse or misunderstanding of math, medicine and stats.yeah i use facts and you really have a problem with those
Lol facts are facts. Google is your friend.you must be dizzy from all that spinning
you keep saying that but never demonstrating ityou cherry pick. you've demonstrated to everyone your misuse or misunderstanding of math, medicine and stats.
in statistics when a data point or value significantly deviates from the typical pattern or central tendency of a dataset it is considered statistically uncommon or rare, often identified as an outlier. There no dividing line between "normal" and "abnormal" Your numbers are meaningless, or put another way "90% of statistics are made up on the spot"Lol facts are facts. Google is your friend.
Apologists for GAC (such as yourself), often attempt to shift the burden of proof on to the critics. That's not how science works.This is a common claim but not one supported by evidence
You're the expert, it seems you are the expert on everything... especially at telling people they are wrong lol.in statistics when a data point or value significantly deviates from the typical pattern or central tendency of a dataset it is considered statistically uncommon or rare, often identified as an outlier. There no dividing line between "normal" and "abnormal" Your numbers are meaningless, or put another way "90% of statistics are made up on the spot"
IT doesn't need apologists.Apologists for GAC (such as yourself),
Actually when you make the claim that almost all kids identified as trans "outgrow" this by the time they reach adult hood you re making a claim and the burden of proof falls on you.often attempt to shift the burden of proof on to the critics. That's not how science works.
what extraordinary claims?Extraordinary claims (like the ones GAC rely on), require extraordinary evidence.
you asked for it.So where's YOUR evidence that GAC improves the mental health outcomes of those people who suffer from GD?
and you are wrong...oftenYou're the expert, it seems you are the expert on everything... especially at telling people they are wrong lol.
Cheers
The reason why I like the idea is, it is logical and reasonable. But, obviously this depends on what meaning we give to the word "gender". If there is more than 2 genders, I think the word gender has no reasonable use or meaning.The idea that there are only 2 genders is
just that...an idea....
there is no logical reason to limit it to just two.The reason why I like the idea is, it is logical and reasonable. But, obviously this depends on what meaning we give to the word "gender". If there is more than 2 genders, I think the word gender has no reasonable use or meaning.
I have thousands of years of evidence to back up my assertion. We haven't even tiptoed into the social contagion aspect of this situation yet, but ultimately the apologists have to answer the question: why do we see such a huge surge in GD and only in certain areas and mostly with adolescent girls...Actually when you make the claim that almost all kids identified as trans "outgrow" this by the time they reach adult hood you re making a claim and the burden of proof falls on you.
he principle of onus probandi, which comes from the Latin maxim Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat, meaning "The burden of proof lies on the one who declares, not on one who denies".
we still await your definition and the defense thereof - bring it...there is no logical reason to limit it to just two.
No, this is from medicine and science. If your idea were true we'd find a high amount of trans people among those who suffer from trauma, but we don't.As far as you know
And science doesn't even know the exact root cause.
That's absurd. If you were going by thousands of years you'd see people we'd call trans and you'd know there absolutely nothing new about trans care. But all you keep giving is the same debunked rubbish.I have thousands of years of evidence to back up my assertion.
Then don't hold this stance.Guilt feeling for hurting others is much worse
Let the individual and health care providers guide and decide these things. That is the only appropriate response to healthcare, especially when it's other people.That's why my stance on GD remains:
"I don't suggest GD treatment"