Preferred pronouns and non-binary gender movement

[Traveller55]

I'm confused as to what you mean by "nobody in their right minds has a problem with kids running around naked as a part of life growing up". I dont know about you but if i see random kids running around naked then i would definitely see it as a problem.


If you tell children to not wear "sexy clothing" then you are doing your level best to not make them a target of sexual predators. I dont see what's wrong with that. There can be an arguement about the 2 extremes but generally if it prevents harm from sexual predators then it's a relatively good thing.

So a 7-8 year old running out from the washroom naked to 'get something' and back has never happened in your household or is punished ?
That's sick.

You are correct- telling children not to wear sexy clothing, is protection from sexual predators. Just as hiding children in a sexualized clothing like Burqa is sending the message 'this kid is too sexy to be seen in normal clothing' to the predator and ' you must hide your body from adults' to the children.
Burqa, by definition, is a sexualized clothing.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Chelsea Elizabeth Manning, born Bradley Edward Manning, still has XY chromosomes. As per science Chelsea Elizabeth Manning remains a male.

Anyone saying otherwise is clutching to pseudoscience.

 

[Traveller55]

http://waltheyer.com/transgenders-4-studies-say-its-mental-disorders/ check the references at the bottom of these documents. Should be enough evidence for my side of the arguement.



The most succint articles and studies imo for my case https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...atrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf

The youtube links are good civil discussions on the topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkONHNXGfaM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdjdNgvF42o


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUOjuiAikrU

Last link is from a transgender activist saying how transgenderism is objectively a mental disorder, but an interesting video nonetheless

Seriously ?
YouTube crackpot videos ? Feelings of a former transgender person ?
This constitutes scientific evidence of trans-genderism not existing ?!? In what world, exactly ??

I am drawing attention to your comment where on one hand you say it has been definitely proven to not be a mental condition, then you say it isn't a scientific fact.
We have hard, biological evidence of it being a fact- specifics are provided in endocrinology article, where it details the hormonal differences between transgender and cis-gendered people.

Ie, it is empirically documented as a fact. Now, whether its an illness or a different state of being or what not- I am not a judgemental person when it comes to self-identification of sexuality and gender. It may be a disorder- it may not be. But it doesn't take away from the fact that it objectively, materially, exists and can be proven to exist.

So your statement 'transgenderism is not a scientific fact' is categorically false. It is a scientific fact.

So sure, if you want to consider it an illness- go ahead. Most humans don't need much reason to judge non-mainstream sexuality as an illness anyways. But then, just like how you'd refer to a blind person as a blind person, it behooves you to refer to a transgender as a trans person.

 

[Traveller55]

Chelsea Elizabeth Manning, born Bradley Edward Manning, still has XY chromosomes. As per science Chelsea Elizabeth Manning remains a male.

Anyone saying otherwise is clutching to pseudoscience.

As per physiology she is a male. As per brain chemistry, she is a woman. Anyone saying otherwise is categorically ignoring empirical scientific evidence from expert biologists on the topic.

Genitals does not make gender, though genitals do overlap largely with gender.

The fact that you are clutching at nonsense, is proven by the fact that you are yet to address the endocrine expert biologist or present a single article from expert biologists who claim trans-genderism has no basis in biology.

Ie, you are simply running your mouth with no evidence.

 

[R3verse Swing]

As per biology she is a male.

Game over.

 

[Traveller55]

Game over.

Brain chemistry is also biology.
Evidence cited to support my position.
Zero citation from you.
Game has been over before it even began, as your position is baseless ignorance.

 

[Traveller55]

Too bad this board doesn't allow edits past a point because what you meant and I should've corrected, was as per PHYSIOLOGY she is a male. As per Brain chemistry, she is a female. And Both are part of biology.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Brain chemistry is also biology.
Evidence cited to support my position.
Zero citation from you.
Game has been over before it even began, as your position is baseless ignorance.

I do not need any citation when you have conceded your point and have ended up agreeing with my initial point in this thread. There is no amount of sugar-coating that can save you now.

No worries mate, maybe next time, but if my pet Goldfish had 4 tyres it we be a bus according to your ignorance.

Love it!

 

[Traveller55]

I do not need any citation when you have conceded your point and have ended up agreeing with my initial point in this thread. There is no amount of sugar-coating that can save you now.

No worries mate, maybe next time, but if my pet Goldfish had 4 tyres it we be a bus according to your ignorance.

Love it!

You need citation to support a scientific position. That's how science works- evidence based claims. Since neither you, nor I are presenting empirical evidence, we both have to cite.

As I said, you can jump up and down regarding a typo correction as victory - because as everyone can see, that's all you have, as you have done nothing more than package your ignorant opinion in this thread as fact, while I have presented objective, scientific evidence to support mine.

So you have zero case, till you can back up your claims via science.

I have made no unfounded claims, you have. Everyone can see that despite asking repeatedly for you to address the medical paper or present counter evidence, you have not done so. So your position = baseless.

 

[R3verse Swing]

You need citation to support a scientific position. That's how science works- evidence based claims. Since neither you, nor I are presenting empirical evidence, we both have to cite.

As I said, you can jump up and down regarding a typo correction as victory - because as everyone can see, that's all you have, as you have done nothing more than package your ignorant opinion in this thread as fact, while I have presented objective, scientific evidence to support mine.

So you have zero case, till you can back up your claims via science.

I have made no unfounded claims, you have. Everyone can see that despite asking repeatedly for you to address the medical paper or present counter evidence, you have not done so. So your position = baseless.

I sometimes drink Redbull, does this mean I have wings and can go head-to-head with a Boeing 747?

 

[Traveller55]

I sometimes drink Redbull, does this mean I have wings and can go head-to-head with a Boeing 747?

If you presented objective, scientific evidence like I did, then the answer is yes.
If you just run a claim like you have with no substantiation. then its a no.

Fairly straightforward way in science.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Fairly straightforward way in science.

You mean like this :

As per biology she is a male.

 

[Traveller55]

You mean like this :

No, I mean like this:
http://www.eulabs.eu/Downloads/gooren06.pdf

Cited objective biological evidence from expert.

Still don't see you countering it with any citation or refutation . Just picking on a typo like I already admitted. Because when you lose an argument, that's all you can do- pick on typos. Otherwise, you'd have long since addressed the evidence presented.

We can all see,your position is unscientific, unsubstantiated nonsense. Mine has been backed up by hard biological evidence.

 

[R3verse Swing]

No, I mean like this:
http://www.eulabs.eu/Downloads/gooren06.pdf

Cited objective biological evidence from expert.

Still don't see you countering it with any citation or refutation . Just picking on a typo like I already admitted. Because when you lose an argument, that's all you can do- pick on typos. Otherwise, you'd have long since addressed the evidence presented.

We can all see,your position is unscientific, unsubstantiated nonsense. Mine has been backed up by hard biological evidence.

You are repeating yourself.

No need to counter when you concede and agree with my original scientific point. XX=Female, XY-Male.

Your argument is based on a mental status. Next you will be telling addiction to Cricket is a genetic disorder.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Ladies and gentlemen, the following is a typo according to Traveller55

As per biology she is a male.

Forget Typo, it's a full blown sentence!

Someone who doesn't understand a typographical error, doesn't understand science.

 

[Traveller55]

You are repeating yourself.

No need to counter when you concede and agree with my original scientific point. XX=Female, XY-Male.

Your argument is based on a mental status. Next you will be telling addiction to Cricket is a genetic disorder.

no concession has been made, since I already corrected it as a typo.
Brain chemistry has been provided.

My argument is based on hormonal analysis. Ie, its not a thought, its a chemical difference.

If you can prove chemical or genetic basis to cricket, then sure. Otherwise, you are just showing your ignorance.

Look dude , repeating your nonsense without evidence is only going to demonstrate how your mind is made up without any evidence or knowledge.

If your position was correct, you'd be able to cite evidence or refute mine. Like any normal discussion.

 

[Traveller55]

Ladies and gentlemen, the following is a typo according to Traveller55



Forget Typo, it's a full blown sentence!

Someone who doesn't understand a typographical error, doesn't understand science.

Typos can occur in entire sentences. As I said, the word biology should be replaced with physiology.

ladies and gentlemen, reverse swing wishes to counter a doctor's opinion presented to support my position....with a bunch of hot air.
Case dismissed.

The only person here who doesn't understand science, is the person presenting zero evidence or citation. Simple.Back to school for you.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Typos can occur in entire sentences. As I said, the word biology should be replaced with physiology.

Except correcting the typo in your sentence (what ever the typo maybe) doesn't change the fact you agree with my original point. Clutching at straws it seems.

Though, now you are saying Biology should be replaced with physiology. What next? Physics should be replaced with Cartography? No wonder you replace males, with females and vice versa. Indicative of a Psychological problem.

Do you feel like you are 55 or are you 55? LOL!

 

[Traveller55]

Except correcting the typo in your sentence (what ever the typo maybe) doesn't change the fact you agree with my original point. Clutching at straws it seems.

I don't agree with you, because as i said, biochemistry is part of biology and we have objective, empiric proof of hormonal factors that determine transgender.
Ergo, it is empirically and scientifically evidenced. Backed up by biology experts themselves.

What have you presented, except your own personal opinion ??

Though, now you are saying Biology should be replaced with physiology. What next? Physics should be replaced with Cartography? No wonder you replace males, with females and vice versa. Indicative of a Psychological problem.

Do you feel like you are 55 or are you 55? LOL!

Again, biochemistry IS biology. I have presented evidence, from expert in biology, who have objectively & empirically substantiated the basis of transgender. ie, its proven to be real.
You have presented nothing, except logical fallacies and fallacious comparisons, have cited no science, no experts,presented no evidence for your position.

So your position is dismissed as unscientific opinions only. Pretty straightforward how science works - present evidence or be labelled unscientific.

 

[R3verse Swing]

How many typos in your response this time?

 

[Traveller55]

How many typos in your response this time?

Let me worry about correcting my typos and you can worry about finding scientific evidence for your unsubstantiated nonsensical opinion.

No need to be salty because i called you out for peddling unscientific nonsense.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Let me worry about correcting my typos and you can worry about finding scientific evidence for your unsubstantiated nonsensical opinion.

No need to be salty because i called you out for peddling unscientific nonsense.

I think you are upset since you agreed with me. Freudian slip? Hmmm.

However your excuse is you made a typo.

As you agreed, gender is a biological fact.

I don't know why you are arguing now, but you can have the last word.

Go!

 

[Traveller55]

I think you are upset since you agreed with me. Freudian slip? Hmmm.

How can i agree with you, when science said otherwise and i proved my case ?

However your excuse is you made a typo.

As you agreed, gender is a biological fact.

I don't know why you are arguing now, but you can have the last word.

Go!

Thats all you got- jumping up and down over a typo. Which would've been corrected if the board didn't have a 2 minute edit window only.

I don't agree with unscientific opinions that are backed up by nothing but hot air.
We can all see who is making a case based on evidence and expert analysis and who is just making it up as they go along.

Gender and transgender are both biological facts, which i have proven and you have been unable to counter.

 

[faraz39]

Only proven to yourself by citing random scientific papers.
And when I cited a scientific paper for trans-racial people, that "wasn't science" because you didn't agree with it.

As I said, make your own rules, then shift the goal post.

 

[Traveller55]

Only proven to yourself by citing random scientific papers.
And when I cited a scientific paper for trans-racial people, that "wasn't science" because you didn't agree with it.

As I said, make your own rules, then shift the goal post.

I cited a paper from a biologist (endocrinologist) who presented MATERIAL EVIDENCE for trans-sexuality.

You presented a paper from a Sociologist who failed to provide material evidence and thus, was nothing more than opinion.

I suggest you educate yourself on what is hard science and what is soft science:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/soft-science
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hard-science?s=t

I have no problem with any data-driven analysis done within parameters of the study specified.
I didn't agree with it, because it presents no data. Not because i don't like it.

Present data that fits the hypothesis and i will accept practically anything. Thats what scientific objectivity means.

I have said from the very beginning of this thread - present material evidence of the position you hold, or else its nothing more than an opinion. And i have met the said benchmark, while you and rest of the 'trans is nonsense' crowd has not.

 

[faraz39]

143 page study by two Doctors specializing in Psychiatry, Epidemiology, and Biostatistics at John Hopkins School of medicine concluded:

"This report presents a careful summary and an up-to-date explanation of research — from the biological, psychological, and social sciences — related to sexual orientation and gender identity. The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are “born that way” — is not supported by scientific evidence"

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/executive-summary-sexuality-and-gender

I'm sure you'll find something wrong with this study too or its authors or the institution they work or the location of publication. Anything to shift the goal post.

 

[Traveller55]

143 page study by two Doctors specializing in Psychiatry, Epidemiology, and Biostatistics at John Hopkins School of medicine concluded:

"This report presents a careful summary and an up-to-date explanation of research — from the biological, psychological, and social sciences — related to sexual orientation and gender identity. The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are “born that way” — is not supported by scientific evidence"

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/executive-summary-sexuality-and-gender

I'm sure you'll find something wrong with this study too or its authors or the institution they work or the location of publication. Anything to shift the goal post.

Once again, soft sciences does not overrule hard sciences but its the other way round.

The authors- Lawrence S. Mayer, Paul R. McHugh- are psychologists and statisticians. Not biologists.

They even put caveats in their own study,in the SECOND point you selectively chose not to quote:

"While there is evidence that biological factors such as genes and hormones are associated with sexual behaviors and attractions,there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation."

There you have it. There is no compelling causal biological explanation for why we are heterosexual either. So again, your own sexuality has exactly the same amount of evidence as that of a trans-sexual: no compelling objective evidence, yet evidence of biological & genetic factors for both situations.


Furthermore, I have said for the umpteenth time - evidence presented from a biologist, who presented direct, empiric, hard-proof of endocrine systemic difference between trans and cis-gendered people, cannot be overruled by psychologists or statisticians.

If it can be, you are required to explain, what empiric data from psychology overrides empiric data from material biology.


The only one shifting goalposts, is you - when trying to counter hard biological data, from simple statistical surveys of behaviour patterns.

 

[faraz39]

The two psychiatrists at John Hopkins Medical School are just "psychologists and sociologists."

*Only* biologists can be believed.

One random paper by an *approved biologist* outweighs everything.

Ok folks, don't waste your time here.

 

[Traveller55]

The two psychiatrists at John Hopkins Medical School are just "psychologists and sociologists."

*Only* biologists can be believed.

One random paper by an *approved biologist* outweighs everything.

Ok folks, don't waste your time here.

Ofcourse, since biology deals in objective,material evidence, while Psychologists & psychiatrists deal in purely symptomatic analysis.

One paper from a biologist, on biological evidence, overrules all the psychologists, psychiatrists etc. in the world.
However, if you think its a random paper, feel free to quote other biologists who claim the opposite of what i am stating.

How on earth does a psychologist/psychiatrist overrule biologists, on biology, is yet to be explained by you..
Do you or do you not understand the difference between the two sciences ???

PS: Your own psychologist and sociologist that you quoted, said that there is no hard basis to human sexuality- which means you being a heterosexual is just as evidentially validated as someone else being a transsexual. Ergo, they just made MY point !!!

Next time, proof-read your own citations lest they undermine you.

 

[faraz39]

Make up your own rules and keep shifting the goal post.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

Seriously ?
YouTube crackpot videos ? Feelings of a former transgender person ?
This constitutes scientific evidence of trans-genderism not existing ?!? In what world, exactly ??

Wow. Not reading the links i sent for scientific studies is one thing. Not even acknowledging them is a whole other level of ignorance.

Were you not able to read the part where i said "succint articles and studies" followed by 2 links. The youtube links were attached incase you wanted to inform yourself about different opinions. If you have trouble understanding that, then i'm wasting my time here.

I am drawing attention to your comment where on one hand you say it has been definitely proven to not be a mental condition, then you say it isn't a scientific fact.
We have hard, biological evidence of it being a fact- specifics are provided in endocrinology article, where it details the hormonal differences between transgender and cis-gendered people.

Clearly you are missing the whole point or are just plain ignoring it. What i said is some studies say that it is a mental condition, and some say that it isn't. There is no objective answer to it, so stop with this rubbish of "hard, biological evidence". People choose what side to be on, either pro-trans or anti-trans.It is still very much up for debate since there is no mainstream scientific consensus. Transgenderism is in no way, shape or form healthy for the mental state of being who suffer from it. One look at the links i sent to you would've cleared it up. When i say transgenderism isn't a scientific fact, I imply that it is not scientifically possible to change your sex magically just because you get a sex-change operation. A male is born with XY chromosomes and females are born with XX. No amount of therapy and mental conditioning can change the fact that you will remain to be the same sex all your life.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

The two psychiatrists at John Hopkins Medical School are just "psychologists and sociologists."

*Only* biologists can be believed.

One random paper by an *approved biologist* outweighs everything.

Ok folks, don't waste your time here.

Clearly he doesnt seem to be aware that many psychologists and sociologists work in tandem to arrive at conclusions for scientific studies. You can't just dismiss one's findings and just follow the other one's. Need to keep an open mind for everything.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

So a 7-8 year old running out from the washroom naked to 'get something' and back has never happened in your household or is punished ?

If you want to covey this point then perhaps be more clear about it. When you said , "nobody in their right minds has a problem with kids running around naked as a part of life growing up" one would assume through your ambiguous wording that you are advocating that it's okay for kids to run around naked on the streets because they are "growing up".

Running out from the bathroom to get something definitely isn't a sin but insead of being okay with it a responsible parent would warn their kids to atleast have a towel on next time or tell them to ensure they have everything they need before they go in.

You are correct- telling children not to wear sexy clothing, is protection from sexual predators. Just as hiding children in a sexualized clothing like Burqa is sending the message 'this kid is too sexy to be seen in normal clothing' to the predator and ' you must hide your body from adults' to the children.
Burqa, by definition, is a sexualized clothing.

Burqa is a sexualized clothing but it's main intent is to hide one's body from sexual predators. I can see why parents would want their kids to wear burqas in public as it's a way to show modesty and not expose yourself unnecessarily to the wrong people. It's up to the parents to decide what they want their kids to wear. Wearing "sexy clothing" isnt the same as wearing "burqas" as "sexy clothing" is more likely to attract the attention of sick men as compared to burqas. Burqas don't encourage sexual assault but obviously some people will get the wrong ideas when they see a woman or a little girl in a burqa. It's more to do with the society we live in as a whole rather than just the clothing people wear.

 

[faraz39]

Clearly he doesnt seem to be aware that many psychologists and sociologists work in tandem to arrive at conclusions for scientific studies. You can't just dismiss one's findings and just follow the other one's. Need to keep an open mind for everything.

The irony is these two are psychiatrists (ie: medically trained doctors) and also epidemioligists (those who study distribution and determinants of health conditions in defined populations which in this case are transgenders) and biostatisticians (those who analyze data and statistics on living things collected during medical research studies to draw conclusions or make predications). Plus they are professors at John Hopkins Medical School (one of best in the world).

In other words, these are the people with the right credentials to look at a master set of data, analyze it, and make conclusions because they have the different expertise to do so. And that's exactly what they did here even pointing out in their summary they looked at biological research of sexual orientation (in addition to environmental factors).

 

[Traveller55]

Clearly he doesnt seem to be aware that many psychologists and sociologists work in tandem to arrive at conclusions for scientific studies. You can't just dismiss one's findings and just follow the other one's. Need to keep an open mind for everything.

Its not about picking and choosing what to believe. Its about relevance. If someone says ' XYZ is a real thing in species homo sapiens', it means finding material evidence - find the gland/the protein/the hormone that is XYZ.

How on earth is a psychologist/psychiatrist supposed to be an authority in that field ? Its the field of biology- doesn't matter if its genetic biology or biochemistry or whatever.

Hence I straight-away presented evidence from a biologist, who has precisely pointed out the material evidence. To override that, we are going to need a counter from a fellow biologist.

 

[Traveller55]

The irony is these two are psychiatrists (ie: medically trained doctors) and also epidemioligists (those who study distribution and determinants of health conditions in defined populations which in this case are transgenders) and biostatisticians (those who analyze data and statistics on living things collected during medical research studies to draw conclusions or make predications). Plus they are professors at John Hopkins Medical School (one of best in the world).

In other words, these are the people with the right credentials to look at a master set of data, analyze it, and make conclusions because they have the different expertise to do so. And that's exactly what they did here even pointing out in their summary they looked at biological research of sexual orientation (in addition to environmental factors).

a) What your sources pointed out, is that there is no precise biological basis for ANY sexual orientation. That includes heterosexuality as well. ie, heterosexuality has exactly the same material evidence as homosexuality or trangenderism. That proves my point, not yours.

b) All the analysis of the data-sets or epidemiology does not make them authority in finding and analyzing physical evidence- ie, protiens, genes, hormones etc. That is the domain of biologists. How hard is that to understand ??

And if you are so convinced, find us a biologist that refutes the findings I posted. I will be happy to accept the said conclusion, if provided.
But quoting a psychiatrist, about endocrinology is as asinine as quoting a mechanic on thermodynamics.

 

[Traveller55]

If you want to covey this point then perhaps be more clear about it. When you said , "nobody in their right minds has a problem with kids running around naked as a part of life growing up" one would assume through your ambiguous wording that you are advocating that it's okay for kids to run around naked on the streets because they are "growing up".

Running out from the bathroom to get something definitely isn't a sin but insead of being okay with it a responsible parent would warn their kids to atleast have a towel on next time or tell them to ensure they have everything they need before they go in.

So 7-8 year old kids taking their trunks off in a swimming pool zone or changing on the fly on the beach is not ok ?
Sorry but no. We didn't grow up that way, neither did my kids. There is nothing to be ashamed of or sinful of or any such thing about human nakedness before puberty. There is no desire in the kids, so it is not their burden.
Asking them to cover up, is the product of 'weak-men' syndrome, where you have to change something so you don't offend my senses. Its sexualizing children, period.

Burqa is a sexualized clothing but it's main intent is to hide one's body from sexual predators. I can see why parents would want their kids to wear burqas in public as it's a way to show modesty and not expose yourself unnecessarily to the wrong people. It's up to the parents to decide what they want their kids to wear. Wearing "sexy clothing" isnt the same as wearing "burqas" as "sexy clothing" is more likely to attract the attention of sick men as compared to burqas. Burqas don't encourage sexual assault but obviously some people will get the wrong ideas when they see a woman or a little girl in a burqa. It's more to do with the society we live in as a whole rather than just the clothing people wear.

Doesn't change the fact that Burqa is a sexualized clothing and imposing it on children pre-puberty is sexualizing children.

The Burqa and the 'sexy clothing' has the same effect on the child in concern : to make them aware that their bodies are objects of shame (to be hidden) or objects that are coveted by others.
Either way, its a detrimental effect ON THE CHILD, by sexualizing them before they are ready (pre-puberty).

Clothing does not encourage sexual assault and has no correlation with it, as the largest % of sexual assault is done by people who already know the victim (friends or family). In the vast majority of cases, what clothing they wear, is irrelevant.

 

[Traveller55]

Make up your own rules and keep shifting the goal post.

The rule has been stated very clearly - quote a biologist who denies the role of biology in trangenderism.
Go!

You clearly cannot find evidence to refute my position from authorities in the field of biology, hence you obfuscate with psychiatrists ,sociologists and various other soft-science peddlers.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Wow. From Biologist, to Physiologist (alleged typo), now back to Biologist - Biology.

Definite shift in goalposts.

To the rest of the readers, hard science says XX = Female, XY = Male - regardless of how one feels/orientation.

As per Biology, she is a male

 

[Traveller55]

Wow. From Biologist, to Physiologist (alleged typo), now back to Biologist - Biology.

Definite shift in goalposts.

To the rest of the readers, hard science says XX = Female, XY = Male - regardless of how one feels/orientation.

THe rest of the readers can see the citation I posted where hard science shows gender is a matter of chemicals in the brain, not what junk you carry. The rest of the readers can also see, that you are just running your mouth and have presented zero evidence to substantiate your position or counter mine.

XX and XY can both feel male and female according to chemistry of the brain. Already proven.

Go find evidence to support your position and if you can't just accept the fact that you are just spreading ignorant opinions, that's all.

PS: Typo has been fixed by the mods.

 

[R3verse Swing]

XX and XY can both feel male and female according to chemistry of the brain. Already proven.

Feeling is not the same as being.

As per Biology, she is a male

As for evidence, there is plenty. The trouble is when you are refuted (just like you were when attacking Islam in the other thread) you then change the subject or the direction of the conversation. Even in this thread, by your own admission (above quote), you are now arguing for the sake of it. To make matters worse you are back-peddling on the grounds of a typo even though you repeated the claim a few posts above, again.

You FEEL like you have a leg to stand on but the reality is you do not.

 

[Traveller55]

Feeling is not the same as being

It is the same as being, if the feelings are governed by different balance of chemicals.
You don't just 'feel' horny. Its a chemical reaction. Same with gender. Already proven.

As for evidence, there is plenty.

So go ahead and present us a biological paper that denies biology of transgenderism. I have asked you many times to provide evidence and you've failed.

The trouble is when you are refuted (just like you were when attacking Islam in the other thread) you then change the subject or the direction of the conversation.

Nothing has been changed. I've quoted a biologist, regarding a biological phenomena (chemicals in the brain).
The only ones changing the conversation, are the ones quoting a psychiatrist on a topic to do with biology.

Even in this thread, by your own admission (above quote), you are now arguing for the sake of it. To make matters worse you are back-peddling on the grounds of a typo even though you repeated the claim a few posts above, again.

Nothing has been backpedalled, since I have said from the very first, that there is biological evidence of transgenderism and have provided said evidence.

As I said earlier, since you have no evidence and your claim is **, all you can do, is hang on to a (now corrected) typo.

You FEEL like you have a leg to stand on but the reality is you do not.

Says the person who is running his mouth and presenting zero evidence, to the person who has supplied all the biological facts necessary.
Ironic.

 

[R3verse Swing]

You don't just 'feel' horny. Its a chemical reaction. Same with gender. Already proven.

There we have it, another shift. From Biology now to Chemistry.

The rest of your post is drivel.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

Can you just stay on topic? You conveniently chose to ignore my links to scienitific studies again and instead continue to talk about topics not relevant with this thread. You like to bash certain ideologies and practices as evident from your posts on other threads, which is fine. Just do them on the relevant threads.

So 7-8 year old kids taking their trunks off in a swimming pool zone or changing on the fly on the beach is not ok ?

As for your comment, I never said that 7-8 year olds taking their trunks off isn't okay, and neither did i say it's a sin. You can twist this discussion all you want but it's not going to work. All i said is a good parent would avoid situations in which their kids are unnecessarily naked in public, or even in private.

Sorry but no. We didn't grow up that way, neither did my kids. There is nothing to be ashamed of or sinful of or any such thing about human nakedness before puberty. There is no desire in the kids, so it is not their burden.

That's okay. You raise your kids the one you want to. But there are societal standards and letting your kids expose their genitals isn't my idea of good parenting.

Asking them to cover up, is the product of 'weak-men' syndrome, where you have to change something so you don't offend my senses. Its sexualizing children, period.

Asking them to cover up is not "weak-men" syndrome. Clothing is what seperates us humans from animals. There is a big difference between making them wear burqas and telling them not to expose their genitals in a public place. No one wants to see a kid's genitals in public. It's gross and disturbing.

Doesn't change the fact that Burqa is a sexualized clothing and imposing it on children pre-puberty is sexualizing children.

The Burqa and the 'sexy clothing' has the same effect on the child in concern : to make them aware that their bodies are objects of shame (to be hidden) or objects that are coveted by others.
Either way, its a detrimental effect ON THE CHILD, by sexualizing them before they are ready (pre-puberty).

Clothing does not encourage sexual assault and has no correlation with it, as the largest % of sexual assault is done by people who already know the victim (friends or family). In the vast majority of cases, what clothing they wear, is irrelevant.

Clothing has no correlation with it? Oh dear lord....

What clothing they wear might not be relevant in case of the molester being a friend or family, but it definitely does matter when the person guilty is a stranger you have never seen in your life. It obviously matters on a case by case basis, but the average male molester will have more sexual ideas about a person wearing "sexy-clothing" as opposed to a burqa.

 

[Traveller55]

There we have it, another shift. From Biology now to Chemistry.

The rest of your post is drivel.

Chemistry of the brain is biochemistry. Your ignorance of science is not a 'shift'.
The only person spreading drivel is you since you have not presented any corroboration of your position. I have.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Chemistry of the brain is biochemistry.

Yet you were citing links from Biologists and conceded *she* was a male.

Sleep tight!

 

[Traveller55]

Can you just stay on topic? You conveniently chose to ignore my links to scienitific studies again and instead continue to talk about topics not relevant with this thread. You like to bash certain ideologies and practices as evident from your posts on other threads, which is fine. Just do them on the relevant threads.

You didn't present anything from biology. I pointed out there is hard, biological proof of transgenderism in the hormones. So yes, if you can counter hard biological proof with other biological experts, I will consider it.

As for your comment, I never said that 7-8 year olds taking their trunks off isn't okay, and neither did i say it's a sin. You can twist this discussion all you want but it's not going to work. All i said is a good parent would avoid situations in which their kids are unnecessarily naked in public, or even in private.

And I made the point that good parents don't care if their children are naked in public or private below a certain age, unless its a matter of comfort for the kid (too cold or raining for eg).

That's okay. You raise your kids the one you want to. But there are societal standards and letting your kids expose their genitals isn't my idea of good parenting.

And sexualizing children isn't good parenting in my books.

Asking them to cover up is not "weak-men" syndrome. Clothing is what seperates us humans from animals. There is a big difference between making them wear burqas and telling them not to expose their genitals in a public place. No one wants to see a kid's genitals in public. It's gross and disturbing.

Ofcourse it is 'weak men' syndrome, because the implication is, men cannot control themselves in front of nudity. Clothing seperates us from animals is because our skin and hairs are not good enough to protect us from the elements like they can for the animals.
And in places (like equatorial forests for eg) where our skin and hair is sufficient, people are almost completely naked.

There is nothing gross or disturbing about seeing a kid being a kid and running around naked. We've seen plenty of kids running around naked in our villages in the past, nobody found it disturbing or gross.

Clothing has no correlation with it? Oh dear lord....

What clothing they wear might not be relevant in case of the molester being a friend or family, but it definitely does matter when the person guilty is a stranger you have never seen in your life. It obviously matters on a case by case basis, but the average male molester will have more sexual ideas about a person wearing "sexy-clothing" as opposed to a burqa.

If clothing had any correlation, then beaches and streets around the beaches would be rape-central. yet they are not.
A stranger doesn't randomly rape people either in overwhelming majority of cases, as rape is not a crime driven by lust, but driven by power.

 

[Traveller55]

Yet you were citing links from Biologists and conceded *she* was a male.

Sleep tight!

I didn't concede, I made a typo, which I corrected.

Your position has been dismissed long since, due to lack of substantiation. the whole forum can see who backs up their claims and who just makes empty claims supported by nothing.

 

[R3verse Swing]

I didn't concede, I made a typo, which I corrected.

Whatever. One point, there is no such thing as proof in science, only evidence, hence falsification - so stop using the word proof.

Please stop pretending you understand science.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

You didn't present anything from biology. I pointed out there is hard, biological proof of transgenderism in the hormones. So yes, if you can counter hard biological proof with other biological experts, I will consider it.



And I made the point that good parents don't care if their children are naked in public or private below a certain age, unless its a matter of comfort for the kid (too cold or raining for eg).



And sexualizing children isn't good parenting in my books.




Ofcourse it is 'weak men' syndrome, because the implication is, men cannot control themselves in front of nudity. Clothing seperates us from animals is because our skin and hairs are not good enough to protect us from the elements like they can for the animals.
And in places (like equatorial forests for eg) where our skin and hair is sufficient, people are almost completely naked.

There is nothing gross or disturbing about seeing a kid being a kid and running around naked. We've seen plenty of kids running around naked in our villages in the past, nobody found it disturbing or gross.






If clothing had any correlation, then beaches and streets around the beaches would be rape-central. yet they are not.
A stranger doesn't randomly rape people either in overwhelming majority of cases, as rape is not a crime driven by lust, but driven by power.

You can keep harping on about biological evidence but the whole argument is debunked in the pdf link I have attached and the john Hopkins psychiatrist link which both conclude that due to several factors such as depression,anxiety and suicide rates, transgenderism is nothing short of a mental illness. A biologist won't come to a conclusion that a certain group of people are mentally ill, a psychiatrist will. And there is no such thing as transgenderism in the hormones [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]. You are either born a male or female, unless you have some defect at birth that blurs the line such as klinefelters syndrome.

Whatever it may be, you have your opinion, and I have mine. No point in arguing any further.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[R3verse Swing]

I really don't understand Traveller55's POV here.

1 minute he says :

As I said, the word Biology should be replaced with physiology.

The next minute he demands evidence from a Biologist.

You didn't present anything from biology. I pointed out there is hard, biological proof of transgenderism in the hormones. So yes, if you can counter hard biological proof with other biological experts, I will consider it.

Then throws in this chestnut

Chemistry of the brain is biochemistry.

I think Google is toying with him!

 

[faraz39]

And apparently only biologists are the ultimate authority on sexual orientation scientific papers; a rule made up because he found a scientific paper (written by a biologist) supporting his view.

 

[Traveller55]

Whatever. One point, there is no such thing as proof in science, only evidence, hence falsification - so stop using the word proof.

Please stop pretending you understand science.

Wordplay, nothing more.
You have not presented any evidence, just ran your mouth for all to see. I have presented evidnce from the very beginning.

As for pretending, its pretty obvious here who is pretending - the guy who is a 30 year professional in a field of science and quoting scientific authorities in relevant field, or a kid who is just running his/her mouth.

 

[Traveller55]

And apparently only biologists are the ultimate authority on sexual orientation scientific papers; a rule made up because he found a scientific paper (written by a biologist) supporting his view.

Bilogists are the authority about biological evidence. Duh. You find a purpose for a gene, hormone, organ, etc and that is the field of biology.

The rule wasn't made up, the evidence of biologists is being considered because they are the only experts in field of genetics, hormones, organ functions, cell functions etc. Not psychiatrists.

 

[Traveller55]

]I really don't understand Traveller55's POV here.
[/B]
1 minute he says :



The next minute he demands evidence from a Biologist.



Then throws in this chestnut



I think Google is toying with him!

First honest comment from you I've seen. Your lack of understanding, is due to lack of education in science. Rectifying it will solve your problem.

 

[Traveller55]

You can keep harping on about biological evidence but the whole argument is debunked in the pdf link I have attached and the john Hopkins psychiatrist link which both conclude that due to several factors such as depression,anxiety and suicide rates, transgenderism is nothing short of a mental illness.

You are confused. Something can be mental illness, yet something can also be real. Azheimers is a mental illness, yet it is empirically validated by neuropeptides.

Same applies for trangenderism. Whether its an illness or not, I am not interested. What I am interested in, is proving that it IS REAL. And that proof must come via biology, as biology is the domain of material evidence related to the body. Not psychiatry.

A biologist won't come to a conclusion that a certain group of people are mentally ill, a psychiatrist will. And there is no such thing as transgenderism in the hormones [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]. You are either born a male or female, unless you have some defect at birth that blurs the line such as klinefelters syndrome.

Yet I have presented the evidence of hormones determining transgenderism MULTIPLE TIMES by quoting a PhD biologist in the matter. So your claim that it isn't hormonal, has already been proven false in this thread.

Whatever it may be, you have your opinion, and I have mine. No point in arguing any further.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

The only difference is, my opinion is based on scientific fact, yours isn't. Which is showing in your confusion, where one minute you admit it exists both as an illness and not (your original comment), then you think its all made up, then you think it doesn't exist in endocrinology, despite having been provided evidence.

And whats telling, is that not a SINGLE ONE OF YOU has read the link provided by me.
Even Faraz- blindly quoting from key-words, tucked tail and ran away from the fact that HIS OWN CITATION says there is no hard proof of ANY sexual orientation or gender idea.

Less arguing and more educating would save this debate that is stemming from pre-conceived ignorance.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

You are confused. Something can be mental illness, yet something can also be real. Azheimers is a mental illness, yet it is empirically validated by neuropeptides.

Same applies for trangenderism. Whether its an illness or not, I am not interested. What I am interested in, is proving that it IS REAL. And that proof must come via biology, as biology is the domain of material evidence related to the body. Not psychiatry.

What i'm interested in is proving that it's a mental illness, which i have done. For someone who claims to be an expert in the field of science, you sure don't seem to understand the point i'm trying to make.

The only difference is, my opinion is based on scientific fact, yours isn't. Which is showing in your confusion, where one minute you admit it exists both as an illness and not (your original comment), then you think its all made up, then you think it doesn't exist in endocrinology, despite having been provided evidence.

I have said countless times that there have been studies that show that it can be classified as a mental disease, and studies that show that it shouldn't be. There is no confusion on my side, just your inability to comprehend simple words and sentences.

 

[R3verse Swing]

First honest comment from you I've seen. Your lack of understanding, is due to lack of education in science. Rectifying it will solve your problem.

So you agree again, Google is throwing up random links and you are basing your POV on Google search results hence why you are all over the place.

Also save the understanding Science malarky. You refuse to accept XX is female and XY is a male. This is hard biological evidence and if you demand a link demonstrating this fact then you are pretty much desperate to look smart.

Anyway, please continue to entertain us with your puesdoscience and fake understanding of science.

Looking forward to when you shift from Chemistry to Physics. Lol!

 

[Traveller55]

What i'm interested in is proving that it's a mental illness, which i have done. For someone who claims to be an expert in the field of science, you sure don't seem to understand the point i'm trying to make.

There is a vast difference between a medical illness (if it is so) and whimsical thinking. My objective was to demonstrate that transsexuality has been proven to have a basis in biology. Which I did like 50 posts ago.
'Mental illness' is not an empiric term, its a value judgement. I can quote you plenty of literature from 50 years ago that considered homosexuality as a mental illness. And no credible doctor or biologist (or psychiatrist) thinks so today.

I have said countless times that there have been studies that show that it can be classified as a mental disease, and studies that show that it shouldn't be. There is no confusion on my side, just your inability to comprehend simple words and sentences.

Your post came, as a challenge to my position that it is REAL, based on actual, verifiable biological facts.

You also challenged the fact that the basis of transsexuality is in endocrinology ( in simple words, hormones). Do you concede that point or should I have to quote the expert in the field of endicronology AGAIN ?

And further, you are saying you've 'proven' its an illness, yet state that studies show that it can be classified as a mental illness as well as the opposite.

So all you have proven, is that the ambiguity of transsexuality as a disease. What you have failed to challenge, is that there is objective, empirical evidence of transsexuality being based on biological factors.

If you notice reading this whole thread, there are under-educated fellows here who are comparing trans-sexuality with whims of fancy, like thinking you are white or blue or a potato or a carrot.
Ie, most people here are ignorant to the fact that transsexuality is evidenced in biology as much as puberty or any other neuro-biological development under the influence of hormones, peptides, etc.

 

[Traveller55]

So you agree again, Google is throwing up random links and you are basing your POV on Google search results hence why you are all over the place.

Show me where I said 'I agree' for you to make such a strawman argument.

I have stuck to quoting a biologist on the biological evidence.

Also save the understanding Science malarky. You refuse to accept XX is female and XY is a male. This is hard biological evidence and if you demand a link demonstrating this fact then you are pretty much desperate to look smart.

No such refusal has come from me. You are the one refusing to accept the biological evidence that XX and XY can be both men or women conceptually, based on their brain chemistry.
And you've presented ZERO evidence to support your position or dispute mine.

Science works via citation of sources. You are batting at 0 there, sonny.

Anyway, please continue to entertain us with your puesdoscience and fake understanding of science.

Looking forward to when you shift from Chemistry to Physics. Lol!

The only pseudoscientific understanding demonstrated, is by the one who cannot present a single SHRED of citation to support his/her viewpoint.
We can all see who is citing experts and who is just spouting hot air.

PS: Whatever happened to you being 'done' ?? I guess ignorance has its compulsions.

 

[R3verse Swing]

No such refusal has come from me. You are the one refusing to accept the biological evidence that XX and XY can be both men or women conceptually based on their brain chemistry.

LoL! So now you concede your POV is nothing but a concept.

That's right folks, Traveller55 ignoring hard biological evidence and clinging on to a concept.

Pseudoscience indeed.

 

[humzy]

I will call anyone whatever they like as long as it doesn't get too weird. But the idea that they would dare put this into law as a hate crime is bloody ridiculous.

This disorder is low risk to society as a whole (compared to something like psychopath). However it has a massive effect on the individual who suffers from the disorder.

Therefore it should be dealt with in a manner where the individual is helped to find their place in society through psychological treatment, mentoring, and as a last resort, surgical treatment.

In terms of the surgical treatment there needs to be an age restriction put in place as i am sick and tired of hearing 10 year olds going through gender reassignment.

 

[WC-Passion]

I like to think that there are only 3 genders, male, female and other. The other category are the people who are born without female and male genitalia, and that's about it.

 

[Traveller55]

LoL! So now you concede your POV is nothing but a concept.

That's right folks, Traveller55 ignoring hard biological evidence and clinging on to a concept.

Pseudoscience indeed.

You need comprehension skills if you think that's what it means.
I've proven my point by quoting biologists that show men's brain can see themselves as women and vice versa, due to hormones.
You have presented zero evidence to back up your claim and we can see who is spreading pseudo-scientific nonsense.

For someone who keeps harping on science, you have presented ZERO supporting facts. Ie, you have no facts, your POV is non-factual nonsense, which is why despite asking repeatedly to quote a biologist to support your view, you have failed.

 

[R3verse Swing]

You need comprehension skills if you think that's what it means.
I've proven my point by quoting biologists that show men's brain can see themselves as women and vice versa, due to hormones.
You have presented zero evidence to back up your claim and we can see who is spreading pseudo-scientific nonsense.

For someone who keeps harping on science, you have presented ZERO supporting facts. Ie, you have no facts, your POV is non-factual nonsense, which is why despite asking repeatedly to quote a biologist to support your view, you have failed.

Hard biological evidence has been presented.

Not my fault you are losing your mind in defending a concept.

 

[Traveller55]

Hard biological evidence has been presented.

Not my fault you are losing your mind in defending a concept.

No evidence has been presented by you. Just empty words on a message-board.
You are not an authority here. Nobody is (its the anonymous internet). So your claim, without citation,is just an empty claim. Not evidence.


Feel free to counter my biology citation with a citation of your's.

Until then, my evidence stands. Thats how science works- evidence determines validity, not empty claims.

 

[R3verse Swing]

XY/XX destroys your conceptual evidence.

You have no idea how science works.

 

[Traveller55]

XY/XX destroys your conceptual evidence.

You have no idea how science works.

And biologist destroys your unsubstantiated claims by proving hormones have a role to play.
You have no idea how science works and making stuff up as you go along, which is why despite repeated requests, you cannot cite your claim.
The entire board can see, you are just talking out of your pre-conceived notion, while I've presented biological authority that presents biological proof of transsexuality.

 

[R3verse Swing]

And biologist destroys your unsubstantiated claims by proving hormones have a role to play.
You have no idea how science works and making stuff up as you go along, which is why despite repeated requests, you cannot cite your claim.
The entire board can see, you are just talking out of your pre-conceived notion, while I've presented biological authority that presents biological proof of transsexuality.

Repeating yourself doesn't add any validly or intelligence to your argument.

The fact your pathetic evidence has changed from Biological to Physiological to Biological to Biochemistry, then back to Biological - exposes your understanding of science and weakness in your argument - worse case you do not read the links you cite in dispair.

XX & XY chromosomes refute your claim, Biologically. If you are demanding evidence for this, then the joke is on you. The fact of the matter is unless you can provide evidence of YY - or what ever the conceptual horse-pukky you aspire to - you are at worse desperate, and at best, entertaining.

3...2...1...Go!

 

[Traveller55]

Repeating yourself doesn't add any validly or intelligence to your argument.

Take your own advice, because all you are doing is repeating yourself with zero substantiation or citation.

The fact your pathetic evidence has changed from Biological to Physiological to Biological to Biochemistry, then back to Biological - exposes your understanding of science and weakness in your argument - worse case you do not read the links you cite in dispair.

My evidence comes from biology expert, who has identified specific hormonal differences between trans and cis-gendered people.

I am not responsible for your ignorance if you think 'brain chemistry/bio-chemistry' are not specific subsets of biology. Keep exposing yourself.
That constitutes overwhelming superiority over your innane words with zero substantiation.

XX & XY chromosomes refute your claim, Biologically. If you are demanding evidence for this, then the joke is on you. The fact of the matter is unless you can provide evidence of YY - or what ever the conceptual horse-pukky you aspire to - you are at worse desperate, and at best, entertaining.

3...2...1...Go!

XY and XX does not refute my claim, as explained by a biological expert.
If you think XY and XX cannot have brain-chemistry (which is subset of biology) of men and women, then refute the paper i presented.

The only desperation and pathetic-ness, is coming from you, who is simply running his/her mouth from a position of ignorance and zero substantiation.

As i said, if you had a case, you'd have long since shut me up with a citation that refutes the biological evidence of transgenderism.
The fact that you cannot and have not, despite being asked multiple times, shows that you are simply speaking from agenda, not knowledge and do not know how science works.

 

[MenInG]

Do not get personal with each other or we will remove your access to TimePass & Sports

 

[R3verse Swing]

People should note that Endocrinology is the study of physiology and medicine concerned with endocrine glands and hormones. So when someone says "Substantiate that XX cannot have Endocrinology of XX and XY (and vice versa)" it essentially means they are bluffing, because XX and XY are Chromosomes, not Hormones.

Best!

 

[Traveller55]

People should note that Endocrinology is the study of physiology and medicine concerned with endocrine glands and hormones. So when someone says "Substantiate that XX cannot have Endocrinology of XX and XY (and vice versa)" it essentially means they are bluffing, because XX and XY are Chromosomes, not Hormones.

Best!

No, it means that men can have the hormone balance of women, thus behave like women and vice versa.
You'd know this, if you read the article presented, where i quote a PhD in biology.
So far, we are still waiting for your citation to show that there is no biological basis to trans.

 

[R3verse Swing]

So now you are denying Endocrinology is the study of physiology and medicine concerned with endocrine glands and hormones? Are you for real?

XX and XY are chromosomes NOT hormones!

In simple terms, DNA determines the gender of a human being, not a concept!

 

[Traveller55]

So now you are denying Endocrinology is the study of physiology and medicine concerned with endocrine glands and hormones? Are you for real?

I am denying no such thing. I have provided proof that men can have endocrine systems of women, that makes them behave like women and vice versa.
Hence its a biological proof of transgender.

XX and XY are chromosomes NOT hormones!

In simple terms, DNA determines the gender of a human being, not a concept!

DNA does not determine gender. DNA determines sex. Gender is determined by hormonal balances.
Directly quoted from expert in Biology, where he notes that if i were to change your hormone balance to a woman's, you will act like a woman and thus, be a trans (assuming your sex is male).

 

[R3verse Swing]

Hormone levels can be induced, XX/XY cannot change through out the life of a human.

This simply means that a Male who feels like a Women, needs to visit a doctor for hormones - and vice versa. In other words - a mental condition.

 

[MenInG]

Do not get personal with each other or we will remove your access to TimePass & Sports

Note this if you have missed it.

 

[R3verse Swing]

You are now redefining English terms to suit your argument, Traveller55.

 

[Traveller55]

Hormone levels can be induced, XX/XY cannot change through out the life of a human.

Irrelevant. Induced or not, its still physical, empiric proof of difference, thus real.

This simply means that a Male who feels like a Women, needs to visit a doctor for hormones - and vice versa. In other words - a mental condition.

Its a physical difference in hormones, thus a real thing.

Again, your words are meaningless without citation- you are not an expert in the topic.
Show evidence or accept you are wrong. Simple.

 

[Traveller55]

You are now redefining English terms to suit your argument.

Nope.
I quoted a PhD in biology who says the same thing. You are engaging in wordplay because we are still waiting for your citation.