Why I think transgenderism is wrong and should not be popularized

[Microcosm]

Please tell me if these are good reasons. I think they are. Also, this isn't meant to offend transgender people personally. I don't think you're a bad person because of your gender. I'm merely saying that transgenderism is dangerous for various reasons that I will provide below. I hope no one is offended(although it will invariably happen).

Anyways, here's what I think.

1. This isn't a good reason logically speaking, but I think I speak for many people when I say it is just disturbing in general. A guy trying to act like a girl or vice versa just doesn't sit well with me. Again, this is mostly just a preference. I wouldn't draw any conclusions on this unless I have other reasons, which I do.
2. This whole paragraph:
He also reported on a new study showing that the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people. Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”
Source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

I don't doubt this at all. Our minds aren't accustomed to gender changes and react in extreme ways. This seems to me to indicate that it is mentally degrading and harmful.

3. Children with transgender feelings should not have these feelings cultivated and supported for their own sake. The study above shows that they will most likely lose the feelings. It could lead to self-harm, increased likelihood of mental disorder, and, in extreme cases, suicide. The media supporting transgenderism puts this idea into children's minds and into the minds of others, making us value(self-centerdly) our gender above other, more pressing matters like our education and future. It's another step in children and teens becoming more accustomed to the "Generation 'I'" mindset. This also goes right along with why lacking sexual integrity is bad(that is, because it makes people distracted by feelings they can't control).

I will add more if I think of anything else. Just thought I'd post this to see what you guys think. I think they are pretty valid reasons.

[West Coast Sheriff]

Yeah, I'm currently working on a research paper for my English class regarding transgenderism, genderqueer and the psychological/ sociological factors that play into it. It coincides with mental illness. Is there a correlation? You tell me. I've found a lot during my research about the suicides, regrets and negative consequences. It's all pretty heavy stuff to take in when you look at the facts from either view point.


Check this out:
http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

[Jinglebottom]

I don't see how mutilating the body you were given and trying to turn it into something it wasn't meant to be is beneficial in any way. I have nothing against transgender people, just the concept of altering your body in general.

[Exocet]

Transganderism,like Homosexuality are mental disorders and the people victim of it should be helped.

[Let Me Be a Pony]

Transganderism,like Homosexuality are mental disorders and the people victim of it should be helped.

There are some people that are seriously gonna get baited by this, lol.

[drhalsey1]

Transganderism,like Homosexuality are mental disorders and the people victim of it should be helped.
I'm not going to argue with this, just ask why it would need "helped" and how you would intend on it getting helped

[Kahn]

You're spot on, in my opinion. Nice writeup.

[Moriya]

Transganderism,like Homosexuality are mental disorders and the people victim of it should be helped.

Good thing you're not on Tumblr. You'd be doxxed the nanosecond you posted this.

But in relevance to the thread, I'm (or...I was) typically the person who encouraged Transgenderism. Now after reading this, I'm having second thoughts. But I don't want to beat myself up and self label myself as a "transphobe". But I'd like to see more sources, since info online isn't entirely correct.

[Abhorrence]

I'm just questioning the statistics of the suicide rate being higher for transgender people. There's a lot less transgender people than non-transgender people so surely if only a handful of transgender folk kill themselves then the percentage would be raised significantly higher than if the same amount of non-trans killed themselves?

[sqishy]

Please tell me if these are good reasons. I think they are. Also, this isn't meant to offend transgender people personally. I don't think you're a bad person because of your gender. I'm merely saying that transgenderism is dangerous for various reasons that I will provide below. I hope no one is offended(although it will invariably happen).

Always better that we set about this discussion this way (no sarcasm intended).

This isn't a good reason logically speaking, but I think I speak for many people when I say it is just disturbing in general. A guy trying to act like a girl or vice versa just doesn't sit well with me. Again, this is mostly just a preference. I wouldn't draw any conclusions on this unless I have other reasons, which I do.


It does go against your brain's automatic expectation of someone being either male or female, yes. Unexpected and outlying things can take on weird and strange appearances, I don't deny that.

He also reported on a new study showing that the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people.

I've never come across this before, which is not meaning I deny its existence; I only see this as being outlying - I will look more into it.

Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”

What does "over time" qualify as?

I take this as 'transgender feelings' in themselves being in fact due to getting used to gender expectations/stereotypes/etc, rather than manifestations of underlying deeper feelings for which are greater than just adapting to expectations.

I don't doubt this at all. Our minds aren't accustomed to gender changes and react in extreme ways. This seems to me to indicate that it is mentally degrading and harmful.

In my view, this presupposes a certain perspective on transgender, that (for example) a male has mental feelings of being female, rather than seeing it as a neurobiologically/etc female mind that is in a biologically (XY) body.

What I am seeing as 'degrading and harmful' is the mismatch between the gender of the mind and the sex of the body, rather than processes that are taken to lessen/remove this mismatch.


3. Children with transgender feelings should not have these feelings cultivated and supported for their own sake. The study above shows that they will most likely lose the feelings.

I respond to this as with the "over time" quote before.


It could lead to self-harm, increased likelihood of mental disorder, and, in extreme cases, suicide.

I assume this is meant if one keeps the 'transgender feelings'. With that, I prefer statistics (which I will still look at, as I always would) in addition to this.



The media supporting transgenderism puts this idea into children's minds and into the minds of others, making us value(self-centerdly) our gender above other, more pressing matters like our education and future.

I don't use the term 'transgenderism' as it makes it sound like a viewpoint system, rather than as a phenomenon.


It's another step in children and teens becoming more accustomed to the "Generation 'I'" mindset.

I have come across similar views that anticipate an increase in egocentric trends and such, but I (personally) don't equate or see similarities between allowing oneself more space metaphorically, and allowing your ego excessive space with decreased respect of other people's space, etc (i.e going too far).

This also goes right along with why lacking sexual integrity is bad(that is, because it makes people distracted by feelings they can't control).


If we cannot control feelings, then we cannot use different reasoning viewpoints to change them. This goes along with my view of transgender being a phenomenon, not a viewpoint.

I'm not going discuss 'sexual integrity' on the grounds of being specific to this topic.

I'm just questioning the statistics of the suicide rate being higher for transgender people. There's a lot less transgender people than non-transgender people so surely if only a handful of transgender folk kill themselves then the percentage would be raised significantly higher than if the same amount of non-trans killed themselves?


I get you here - hopefully we don't have intentional incorrect statistical presentation going on with these views.

[Vlerchan]

He also reported on a new study showing that the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people.
Either poor paper or poor reporting. It's the suicide rate of post-op vis-á-vis the suicide rate of pre-op people that can be meaningfully discussed. Being transgender in the first place is a massive confounding factor and needs to be controlled for.

The studies that control for that tend to indicate that the difference is non-statistically significant.

Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”
Please note the use of the word 'children'.

This isn't a meaningful reporting until we can determine what proportion children make up of all people that are transgender - and further determine what percentage later re-identified with the other gender. The latter is important because there's a good chance that some statistically significant number report not being transgender on grounds of social pressures.

It could lead to self-harm, increased likelihood of mental disorder, and, in extreme cases, suicide.
I'm sceptical that gender dysphoria causes high rates of mental illness.

I presume you mean that people that report gender dysphoria have a higher rate of the following. In the same vein Greek seamen of the Classical Athenian Empire that reported praying to Poseidon as their ship went down tended to have a much higher likelihood to have a much higher rate of survival . The identification issue is more obvious in the latter case but contained in both.

The media supporting transgenderism puts this idea into children's minds and into the minds of others, making us value(self-centerdly) our gender above other, more pressing matters like our education and future.
The actual effect here is going to be - in fact - quite difficult to determine.

Consider the first thought in your mind when you come across someone that's Transgender. For most people it's the other person is Transgender. In a lot of cases the non-transgender person is quite mean. In fact considerable number of transgender people are in constant fear of their well-being. If you were transgender beforehand then it was at the forefront of your mind regardless. In this case it might be arguable that the media eases this discomfort and thus diminished somewhat the gender-centric approach.

It's possible that the media might 'create' transgender people but that needs to be demonstrated. You can go demonstrate that if you want.

I'm just questioning the statistics of the suicide rate being higher for transgender people. There's a lot less transgender people than non-transgender people so surely if only a handful of transgender folk kill themselves then the percentage would be raised significantly higher than if the same amount of non-trans killed themselves?
In the paper it will pose a confidence interval (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval). Most studies tend to report a confidence interval of 0.95 which means the true score varies at about 2.5% each side.

---

For reference [i]Transgenderism tends to be considered a slur.

[phuckphace]

I believe the correct term is "autogynephilia"

[sqishy]

I believe the correct term is "autogynephilia"

Before anything else, I don't understand why, of gender and sexual attraction, one should be understood through the other.

[Vlerchan]

For those interested the McHughs op-ed referred to in the OP can be found in the WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120). In it he reports:

The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120

Here's the paper:

The overall mortality for sex-reassigned persons was higher during follow-up (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 1.8–4.3) than for controls of the same birth sex, particularly death from suicide (aHR 19.1; 95% CI 5.8–62.9). Sex-reassigned persons also had an increased risk for suicide attempts (aHR 4.9; 95% CI 2.9–8.5) and psychiatric inpatient care (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 2.0–3.9). Comparisons with controls matched on reassigned sex yielded similar results. Female-to-males, but not male-to-females, had a higher risk for criminal convictions than their respective birth sex controls.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

The first point is that Abhorrence's intuition seems to be correct. Even at a 0.95 CI the rate of suicide is somewhere between 5.8 to 62.9 higher. That's quite a large divergence. The second point is that McHugh's reporting is still misleading in that it needs to correct for the massive confounding factor of being Transgender. One of the author's echoes this in an interview she takes part in (http://www.transadvocate.com/fact-check-study-shows-transition-makes-trans-people-suicidal_n_15483.htm).

The author further cites [1] this HuffPost (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/myths-about-transition-regrets_b_6160626.html) article that cites large tracks of research clearing up the various claims [2] this meta-analysis (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2265.2009.03625.x/abstract) which claims that 'very low quality' research suggests better mental health (reduced gender dysphoria) and a higher quality of life [3] and a host of further studies corroborating this (Heylens et al. 2014 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24344788); Johansson et al. 2010 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-009-9551-1); Murad et al. 2010 (https://mayoclinic.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/hormonal-therapy-and-sex-reassignment(8e0020c1-2f99-49e4-92ea-869b25ccd85a).html); Jogic-Bejik et al. 2014 (http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/960745/); Ruppin and Pfäfflin 2015 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-014-0453-5); Weyers et al. 2009 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23553588_Long-term_Assessment_of_the_Physical_Mental_and_Sexual_Health_among_Transsexual_Women )). I haven't read the studies but the likelihood is that it underestimates continued-unhappiness as expressed through suicide.

[Microcosm]

To me, thinking your another gender is just the result of a teenage whim that goes away after you get older. That's my opinion and I don't think parents should support their kids in transgender feelings because of that.

It makes sense too given that teenagers are prone to think they're wolves and shit. I hope they don't see themselves as wolves in thirty years. It's the same logic. If they progress in those feelings, it just hurts them in the end.

[Desuetude]

To me, thinking your another gender is just the result of a teenage whim that goes away after you get older. That's my opinion and I don't think parents should support their kids in transgender feelings because of that
Its not just teenagers that come out as trans though, by far. 6 years ago one of my teachers, she must be around 50, came out as trans having struggled with feelings of dysphoria her whole life. How is it that middle age people are coming out and experiencing the same thing if it's just a 'teenage whim'?

[Vlerchan]

To me, thinking your another gender is just the result of a teenage whim that goes away after you get older.
It quite clearly persists with people that aren't teenagers.

The difference between forging an identification with a wolf and forging an identification with the opposite gender is that as of the moment we can allocate the latter the differences in brain structuring. In the former we cannot.

[DoodleSnap]

Please tell me if these are good reasons. I think they are. Also, this isn't meant to offend transgender people personally. I don't think you're a bad person because of your gender. I'm merely saying that transgenderism is dangerous for various reasons that I will provide below. I hope no one is offended(although it will invariably happen).

Anyways, here's what I think.

1. This isn't a good reason logically speaking, but I think I speak for many people when I say it is just disturbing in general. A guy trying to act like a girl or vice versa just doesn't sit well with me. Again, this is mostly just a preference. I wouldn't draw any conclusions on this unless I have other reasons, which I do.
2. This whole paragraph:

Source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

I don't doubt this at all. Our minds aren't accustomed to gender changes and react in extreme ways. This seems to me to indicate that it is mentally degrading and harmful.

3. Children with transgender feelings should not have these feelings cultivated and supported for their own sake. The study above shows that they will most likely lose the feelings. It could lead to self-harm, increased likelihood of mental disorder, and, in extreme cases, suicide. The media supporting transgenderism puts this idea into children's minds and into the minds of others, making us value(self-centerdly) our gender above other, more pressing matters like our education and future. It's another step in children and teens becoming more accustomed to the "Generation 'I'" mindset. This also goes right along with why lacking sexual integrity is bad(that is, because it makes people distracted by feelings they can't control).

I will add more if I think of anything else. Just thought I'd post this to see what you guys think. I think they are pretty valid reasons.
Hey Dan, how are you doing? Long time, no speak.

Anyhow.

As for argument number 1, I agree with you that this isn't a valid argument. In fact, it's not an argument, it's just a statement proclaiming your discomfort.

As for argument number two, this is an argument, yes. However, I would bring to light the existence of transgenderism and the concept of non binary genders existing in many societies unaffected by the spread of external colonialism, and how these people were in fact just as much a part of everyday society as anyone else and how they weren't reported to have had a suicide rate greater than anyone else. Quick research into the subject on Wikipedia can make the existence of these people very apparent.

We can also consult any reputable medical organisation and find that transgenderism is a medically recognised condition that is not just a 'feeling', but in fact caused by a number of measurable conditions, such as hormone imbalances.
It may seem obvious to state, but I must make it clear that raising awareness to transgenderism is not going to make everyone become transgender, in the same way that teaching people about sexualities other than hetero is not going to spread the 'gay disease'.
We must also take into account the fact that, biologically speaking, there aren't two sexes, due to the fact that intersex people exist.

As for the 'wolf-kin teenager' argument, we have consistently seen people from all over the world come out and transition well into middle and older age. Also it is clear that someone really liking wolves and thinking they are one is completely different from having a hormonal and psychological condition that means that you identify as a human as well, just a slightly different one, with the same personality, mental capacity, and memories as the human that you were before. A wolf can't share these things with humans, thus it is a false-equivalency.

Finally, the meat of my argument, excuse the pun, is that it seems very clear to me that the high suicide rates are caused by the societal attitudes towards transgenderism and the potential violence and intimidation that they will often end up facing. Clichéd this argument may be, but if a robber stole lots of money from an old person, would you blame the old person for having lots of money, or you would you blame the robber?

Now, if it were personally up to me, no gender roles would exist, no activities or behaviours would be associated with a sex (and it's pretty clear that these behaviours aren't, otherwise we wouldn't have to constantly guide children towards playing with 'boys' toys' or 'girls' toys'), and instead of judging people based on what they were born with, they would be encouraged to choose what they like and do it, irrespectively. I believe that in this utopian, genderless world, that we wouldn't have dysphoria (but this is conjecture), but instead people would do what they like and that would be that. But unfortunately, we do not live in this sort of world; instead we live in a world where pink is 'girly' and boys don't cry. Because we live in this world, I believe that transgenderism (in the way we see it) is bound to occur.

As for the actual medical connotations of transition, I am sure that it can have some adverse effects, but that is a risk that some are willing to take to be the person that the hormones within them tell them that they are.

I'd be interested to hear some more of your thoughts.

[sqishy]

To me, thinking your another gender is just the result of a teenage whim that goes away after you get older.

Even if transgender were just made up of teenagers (which it isn't), it still would not devaluate any gender.

If it were a whim, then there wouldn't be so many mental health problems associated with it (and I mean associated in the way in previous responses I made).


It makes sense too given that teenagers are prone to think they're wolves and shit. I hope they don't see themselves as wolves in thirty years. It's the same logic. If they progress in those feelings, it just hurts them in the end.


Thinking you're a wolf is not relevant to gender, at least by how we define it. The phenomenon of people thinking/feeling/etc they are another animal is, in my opinion, not part of transgender or gender overall. I know you don't do this, but I'm saying that treating these things as part of gender is a step too far.

With seeing it as not relevant to this topic, that's all I'll say about it.

[Living For Love]

The thing that bugs me about gender dysphoria and transgenderism (sorry if I offend anyone by using this word, I'm not a native English speaker and I had no idea this word was actually a slur) is that I can't understand what can possibly make someone go through such a long, difficult and physiologically/physically painful process in order to change their biological sex. I don't think one being dissatisfied with their body is a strong enough reason. About all those suicide statistics, I guess suicide is a personal option and anyone who has ever thought about it should seek some kind of professional help. About the media supporting transgenderism, the truth is that media (unfortunately) supports a lot of bad things, but honestly, I really doubt someone would feel remotely influenced by what the media says to the point of changing their sex.

[Microcosm]

DoodleSnap,

I personally believe transgender people are more likely to commit suicide mostly because of the intense conflict they experience between what they are and what they want to be. That is dangerous.

Also, why is it so bad to say that it is best for all people to be either male or female and keep the transgender folks in a treated minority? I'd prefer a world in which we don't care so much about ourselves, our gender, etc. and we focused on more important things.

Living For Love,

People are influenced by the media all the time, especially children and teens. Generation "I" will take opportunities to get attention if they can. They won't go getting sex reassignment surgery, but they might start experimenting with the idea which then gets them caught in this depressive cycle of being unsure who they are. Who needs that?

I'd also like to add that perhaps the media doesn't make people transgender, but it fosters these feelings and makes people think they're harmless when they clearly are harmful.

[Vlerchan]

I personally believe transgender people are more likely to commit suicide mostly because of the intense conflict they experience between what they are and what they want to be. That is dangerous.
Like I mentioned in the last post it's not that Transgender people want to be Transgender. The most current research suggests it's connected to brain structures (http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956(10)00158-5/abstract)*. The likelihood is that this is based in some genetic influence (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1019724712983).

Furthermore Paul et al. (2002: Table 1) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447240/) documents that homosexuals that preferred to identify as heterosexual had a 1% higher chance of attempted suicide rate as those that identified as homosexual. That would seem to indicate the identity crisis hypothesis is negligible amongst some portion of the LGBT. I couldn't get individual statistics for Transgender people but I see no reason it wouldn't generalise.

Nonetheless Clements and Katz (2008) (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v51n03_04) reports that "depression, a history of substance abuse treatment, a history of forced sex, gender-based discrimination, and gender-based victimization were independently** associated with attempted suicide". Moody and Smith (2013) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722435/) report that "[s]ocial support from friends, social support from family, and optimism significantly and negatively predicted 33 % of variance in participants’ suicidal behavior after controlling for age" which would seem to support the hypothesis of greater positive exposure in the media being helpful.

That's also just a quick glance at the literature. I'm not to comfortable with the area. But at the least I'm finding no support for the hypothesis detailed in the quote cited.

---

* I even opened up GoogleScholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=transsexual+brain&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3) for people.

** I'll add that I'll be shocked if these happen to be independent variables and not have significant correlations with each other [sociologists can't do statistics it seems].

Though I imagine there's some reinforcement effect I can't be sure.

[sqishy]

I personally believe transgender people are more likely to commit suicide mostly because of the intense conflict they experience between what they are and what they want to be. That is dangerous.

(I know this is not a response for me, but I am taking the liberty to respond to this in itself.)

Apart from the 'that is dangerous' part, I would say the same thing, but I know we are on metaphorical opposite sides by what we mean by it. You already know mine, and vice versa.


Also, why is it so bad to say that it is best for all people to be either male or female and keep the transgender folks in a treated minority?

I don't understand what you mean by 'treated minority'. A minority, yes. I don't understand the 'treated' part though (further explanation would help).


I'd prefer a world in which we don't care so much about ourselves, our gender, etc. and we focused on more important things.

Gender as a whole is not viewed as an end in itself with living, but it is very important in how we express ourselves in living. Crudely, it could be said that gender is a tool for achieving an intended/anticipated result, not the result itself (please don't quote me on this alone, as it is only meant for picturing my point in a crude way).

Transgender is unhappy simply because a fundamental aspect of how one can go about living life is not present, of the feeling of misplacement in a different kind of body. If you disagree, then you should not have any significant problems with your life if you find yourself in a female body tomorrow.


People are influenced by the media all the time, especially children and teens.

No doubting this - innocence in youth has greater capacity for impressionability, before one thinks about it. (Also, not doubting the influencing power of media in general.)


Generation "I" will take opportunities to get attention if they can.

They can and they will, and sometimes it is just part of being young and energetic. However, lots of it is serious and does deserve some attention. I don't ever want to generalise youth (me included ofc) as being needy and inconsiderate, which I hope this is not leaning towards. (Many youth already do this to themselves in depression, I add.)


[...] I can't understand what can possibly make someone go through such a long, difficult and physiologically/physically painful process in order to change their biological sex.

Leaving disputed (in this thread) psychological pain of transitioning aside, what makes many want to do it is because of how much of an issue it is. I know I would want to transition if I had secondary female sexual characteristics.

In addition and analogy to this, I can say that I cannot understand why some people won't leave their houses due to anxiety or PTSD (as example), but I am sure it's a powerful force going on that I simply have not experienced enough to understand the actions taken. I certainly do not understand from experience, so no reasoning appealing to my experience can work for questioning theirs. We cannot ground arguments based on experience, if we're using it to reject the grounding of certain experiences we have never been part of.

However, having said that, we can still debate on it, as we got the power of imagination/thought experimenting/etc to use in 'reaching across' as it were - but only if we don't do what I said above.

I don't think one being dissatisfied with their body is a strong enough reason.

I extend what I just said above, to this.


[...] I really doubt someone would feel remotely influenced by what the media says to the point of changing their sex.

The power of the media is unparalleled in some ways, but does not in itself cause and maintain transgender feelings/etc in someone. It can influence one's impression of anticipation of how other would react to transitioning, however, but that will only happen if the person is transgender in the first place.

[Stronk Serb]

The thing that bugs me about gender dysphoria and transgenderism (sorry if I offend anyone by using this word, I'm not a native English speaker and I had no idea this word was actually a slur) is that I can't understand what can possibly make someone go through such a long, difficult and physiologically/physically painful process in order to change their biological sex. I don't think one being dissatisfied with their body is a strong enough reason. About all those suicide statistics, I guess suicide is a personal option and anyone who has ever thought about it should seek some kind of professional help. About the media supporting transgenderism, the truth is that media (unfortunately) supports a lot of bad things, but honestly, I really doubt someone would feel remotely influenced by what the media says to the point of changing their sex.

The biological sex can't be changed yet, unless the liberals have their way and work in medicine to do it. A transvestite cannot bear/make children. Widely popularizing this makes a problem legally. Since in some US states, transgender people were allowed to use changing rooms of their desired sex and then you have weirdos going into women changing rooms and jacking off with immunity because they say they are transgender and the law can't do anything about it. It's a genetic disorder, instead of popularizing their disorder, we should damn work on helping them.

[sqishy]

The biological sex can't be changed yet, unless the liberals have their way and work in medicine to do it.


Depends on how we define 'biological sex', but I assume you mean XX or XY chromosomes. I don't think that technology could get to the stage of fundamental alteration of these chromosomes in sufficiently many of all the cells of one's body, and even if they could, we already have hormones and hormone inhibitors that alter secondary sex characteristics enough for most. With respects to that, technology can go further (and be better at changing the sex characteristics), but medicine cannot go to the fundamental cellular level you (I assume) anticipate.

I also assume you say this in viewing the technological ability to change biological sex means making biological sex a contingent aspect of oneself, and therefore devalues it or something. I do not see why this should be the case. Contingency of something does not inherently make that thing inferior or lesser, etc.


A transvestite cannot bear/make children.


I point out that 'transvestite' and 'transgender' are different, but I feel that your perspective does not see an effective difference, so I realise that.

Yes, except for (I think) only a few cases so far, all transgender are infertile with at least the target gender.



Widely popularizing this makes a problem legally. Since in some US states, transgender people were allowed to use changing rooms of their desired sex and then you have weirdos going into women changing rooms and jacking off with immunity because they say they are transgender and the law can't do anything about it.

If people abuse this system, then I don't see why supporting papers of evidence from a professional psychologist in the field cannot be used as 'qualification' of sorts for the transgender people. Legal issues regarding abuse of the system are not justification for saying the whole system should be taken down. At the least, that sounds like giving up and allowing the abusers of the system to metaphorically win.

It's a genetic disorder, instead of popularizing their disorder, we should damn work on helping them.

It may be so, yes. Of course we should be helping them - though it's clear you are seeing the help in a totally different way than I am seeing it.

[everlong]

I think all that "pangender" and "bigender" nonsense is when it goes way too far

[Uniquemind]

DoodleSnap,

I personally believe transgender people are more likely to commit suicide mostly because of the intense conflict they experience between what they are and what they want to be. That is dangerous.

Also, why is it so bad to say that it is best for all people to be either male or female and keep the transgender folks in a treated minority? I'd prefer a world in which we don't care so much about ourselves, our gender, etc. and we focused on more important things.

Living For Love,

People are influenced by the media all the time, especially children and teens. Generation "I" will take opportunities to get attention if they can. They won't go getting sex reassignment surgery, but they might start experimenting with the idea which then gets them caught in this depressive cycle of being unsure who they are. Who needs that?

I'd also like to add that perhaps the media doesn't make people transgender, but it fosters these feelings and makes people think they're harmless when they clearly are harmful.


Most children aren't influenced by the media to the same degree we think they are.

Many families control bedtime before the news airs on TV, and many kids don't give any cares, they're just playing footsie or arguing with siblings or calling for dessert early.

If a kid that young inherently feels something off about their own self-identification homeostasis, I'd tend to believe them.


Pansexual I learned recently is someone who can feel and hold a attraction and relationship to someone who is trans.

Because apparently being trans places one in a weird category of neither being a male or female, a new category for society was established.

At the end of the day though I think it's best that we not care about this topic as much. Just let people do their own business, and face their own consequences. It isn't an earth-shattering topic, it's more of a personal one for people. Leave em be.


That being said I am curious about this topic in terms of how it relates to reincarnation and spirituality.

My interest peaked when I read about cases of reincarnation, where very young kids tell their current parents or rather ask them why they are a certain gender now, when they weren't before and cite information about their past life recounting how they died.

There's just very little on the subject.

[Stronk Serb]

Depends on how we define 'biological sex', but I assume you mean XX or XY chromosomes. I don't think that technology could get to the stage of fundamental alteration of these chromosomes in sufficiently many of all the cells of one's body, and even if they could, we already have hormones and hormone inhibitors that alter secondary sex characteristics enough for most. With respects to that, technology can go further (and be better at changing the sex characteristics), but medicine cannot go to the fundamental cellular level you (I assume) anticipate.

I also assume you say this in viewing the technological ability to change biological sex means making biological sex a contingent aspect of oneself, and therefore devalues it or something. I do not see why this should be the case. Contingency of something does not inherently make that thing inferior or lesser, etc.




I point out that 'transvestite' and 'transgender' are different, but I feel that your perspective does not see an effective difference, so I realise that.

Yes, except for (I think) only a few cases so far, all transgender are infertile with at least the target gender.




If people abuse this system, then I don't see why supporting papers of evidence from a professional psychologist in the field cannot be used as 'qualification' of sorts for the transgender people. Legal issues regarding abuse of the system are not justification for saying the whole system should be taken down. At the least, that sounds like giving up and allowing the abusers of the system to metaphorically win.



It may be so, yes. Of course we should be helping them - though it's clear you are seeing the help in a totally different way than I am seeing it.

Ok, so about legally regulating it:
How about you use the mens' changing room if you were born male (sex) and use womens' changing room if you were born female (sex). Same goes for restrooms. It's not like someone is going to be groping them or something.

Now about help:
Acknowledge you have a disorder instead of flashing it around while sayibg it is normal. Talk with a counselor/psychologist about your disorder. With counselling and psychological therapy without medication, I think it can be helped, not so sure about cured, but since it's genetic, I'm pretty sure it can't really be cured.

Also, the more I delwe into it, the more I think it's a social construct that evolved from ine genetic disorder and people actively promoting it as normal.

[Vlerchan]

The biological sex can't be changed yet, unless the liberals have their way and work in medicine to do it.
I hope this isn't an argument that Medicine has a liberal bias.

A transvestite cannot bear/make children.
I had forgotten that people that were infertile weren't actually people. Neat that.

Since in some US states, transgender people were allowed to use changing rooms of their desired sex and then you have weirdos going into women changing rooms and jacking off with immunity because they say they are transgender and the law can't do anything about it.
Both indecent exposure and indecent assault are crimes regardless of what gender you identify as.

Now about help.
I presume you have a host of articles describing how your prescription actually helps Transgender people. Like the ones I linked close to the top of this page. I would appreciate if you linked to them all.

Thank you.

---
I think all that "pangender" and "bigender" nonsense is when it goes way too far
I would be interested if someone could help me understand what separates this from multiple personality disorder.

[sqishy]

Widely popularizing this makes a problem legally. Since in some US states, transgender people were allowed to use changing rooms of their desired sex and then you have weirdos going into women changing rooms and jacking off with immunity because they say they are transgender and the law can't do anything about it.

Ok, so about legally regulating it:
How about you use the mens' changing room if you were born male (sex) and use womens' changing room if you were born female (sex).

This will make it apparent for other present at/around the changing room of your biological sex, which is something transgender do not want to go through without a choice in the matter.

Let us also remember intersex people, which are of a greater number than many think.

You say that there are "weirdos going into women changing rooms" - does that not still apply to your idea of biological sex-specific changing rooms, if you have trans men going into womens' changing rooms?

Same goes for restrooms. It's not like someone is going to be groping them or something.

I argue against there being sex-specific restrooms at all. Sex/gender-neutral.



Now about help:
Acknowledge you have a disorder instead of flashing it around[...]

It is not flashed around, only demanding of appropriate attention with regards to help, and so on.

[...] while sayibg it is normal. Talk with a counselor/psychologist about your disorder. With counselling and psychological therapy without medication,[...]

This is not a type of obsessive disorder, compulsive, or related.

[...] I think it can be helped, not so sure about cured, but since it's genetic, I'm pretty sure it can't really be cured.

It can be helped maybe by allowing the person to act on their thoughts with regards transition.


Also, the more I delwe into it, the more I think it's a social construct that evolved from ine genetic disorder and people actively promoting it as normal.

In so far as gender is a social construct (depending on your perspective), then transgender would be too, as it is a subset of gender identity.

It can be normal socio-culturally, even though it is just outlying biologically. I do not see a necessity to have one reflect the other in this case, or even equate 'outlying' with 'not normal'.



I would be interested if someone could help me understand what separates this from multiple personality disorder.

I'm not sure if you are sarcastic or not (I apologise for the lack of my clarity in reading what you mean), so I temporarily will not respond to this.

[Vlerchan]

I'm not sure if you are sarcastic or not (I apologise for the lack of my clarity in reading what you mean), so I temporarily will not respond to this.
Being serious. I'm really not versed in this at all.

[sqishy]

Being serious. I'm really not versed in this at all.

Alright.

I don't know enough of psychopathology to give a proper specific response on this, but what I know generally is that multiple personality disorders involved discontinuations of consciousnesses, disjunct memories, and disconnected personalities to each other.

This is different to pangender and bigender, in that what I hear from those identifying within these is they feel multiple 'genders' (e.g. feeling male and female) either at the same time, or at separate times but in metaphorical close-knit succession. Mental states/etc with respect to gender are going on 'as usual people', but such that more than one gender descriptive element is needed to fully explain what is going on - an analogy can be how yellow presented on our RGB LCD screens is best explainable by us explaining how the screen has both red and green colour components active.

People identifying as bigender or pangender (and so on) do not have personality disorder criteria. Wording this better, there is no reason not to say that bigender/pangender/etc people can have personality disorders too, but they are different entities that do not cause each other. These 'multiple gender' people have their brain/mind as integrated into one structure with respect to memory and consciousness, just as much as everyone else (without the personality disorders).

Hope I have explained this well enough.

[Uniquemind]

Alright.

I don't know enough of psychopathology to give a proper specific response on this, but what I know generally is that multiple personality disorders involved discontinuations of consciousnesses, disjunct memories, and disconnected personalities to each other.

This is different to pangender and bigender, in that what I hear from those identifying within these is they feel multiple 'genders' (e.g. feeling male and female) either at the same time, or at separate times but in metaphorical close-knit succession. Mental states/etc with respect to gender are going on 'as usual people', but such that more than one gender descriptive element is needed to fully explain what is going on - an analogy can be how yellow presented on our RGB LCD screens is best explainable by us explaining how the screen has both red and green colour components active.

People identifying as bigender or pangender (and so on) do not have personality disorder criteria. Wording this better, there is no reason not to say that bigender/pangender/etc people can have personality disorders too, but they are different entities that do not cause each other. These 'multiple gender' people have their brain/mind as integrated into one structure with respect to memory and consciousness, just as much as everyone else (without the personality disorders).

Hope I have explained this well enough.

I googled this and also did some quick reading and discovered that brain scans of one person (physical body), were done, on different alternate personas they have, the brain scans are all different.

It does seem the brain partitions itself, and certain triggers cause a person to alternate and reboot to different personas.

Very strange, and a very sticky legal predicament where law is concerned, and how you hold someone accountable for certain things or not.

They call it Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) now, instead of multiple personality disorder.

It usually appears in extreme cases of abuse, specifically sexual abuse, especially in childhood, as a defense coping mechanism.

[sqishy]

I googled this and also did some quick reading and discovered that brain scans of one person (physical body), were done, on different alternate personas they have, the brain scans are all different.

It does seem the brain partitions itself, and certain triggers cause a person to alternate and reboot to different personas.

Very strange, and a very sticky legal predicament where law is concerned, and how you hold someone accountable for certain things or not.

They call it Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) now, instead of multiple personality disorder.

It usually appears in extreme cases of abuse, specifically sexual abuse, especially in childhood, as a defense coping mechanism.


All I can say is yes in response to this - the terms have been updated.

Vlerchan

Thinking of a computer that has more than one operating system bootable on it, but that does so in glitchy ways, is a good analogy to this.

[Uniquemind]

I'll just post this for now and you can watch this video, it is a bit dated.


https://youtu.be/QUc7PcGErDU

I don't know how to embed it sorry guys.

[Vlerchan]

Hope I have explained this well enough.
That explanation was perfect. Thank you.

[Sir Suomi]

Transgenderism is a slur now? For Christ's sake...

Anyways, on to my opinion.

Personally, I regard transgenderism as something that I'm not fond of, but as long as its something that I don't have to deal with, I don't care. Want to be a woman? Sure, as long as you pay for the procedures yourself and respect the other normal people around you, i;e, don't make a huge deal out of it. In my opinion, one must understand that if you wish to delve outside of social norms, one must be prepared for the consequences that will follow. For example, I don't believe in a trans-man being able to be in the same locker room/bathroom as I, and the same goes for a trans-woman. For the vast majority of people, including myself, we aren't going to be comfortable with a trans-person in a private location like that. What's worse is when they try and make a huge deal out of the ordeal. As I said, if you're going to go outside of social norms, be prepared for the backlash.

[lliam]

Transganderism,like Homosexuality are mental disorders and the people victim of it should be helped.


both things aren't just mental but physical too. IMO, the only ones who really need help are transgenderphobic and homophobic folks who thus classify such things as a disease.


However, I also think we shouldn't make a fuss of such a thing in public ... if it involves individuals, espacially kids, who are transgender or think they are.


But it sure can generally be the subject of a public discussion.


Concealing it, doesn't mean that it disappears. It must be named. Cause under certain circumstances, this tactic will only increase the suffering of those who are affected because they don't even get to assess from what they suffer.

[sqishy]

Transgenderism is a slur now? For Christ's sake...

I personally do not take it as offensive (at least immediately), but as an inherently misrepresentative term, taking the phenomenon that it is being used for. However, if it is used excessively and with emotive intention, then I understand why people take offence.

I draw analogy to the term 'atheism', which I feel is being used for people with such views that actually make the term 'antitheism' better applicable, and technically correct.

I do not intend to go to a PC model - I only intend to make sure we got the language used right, so we already get things cleared up with how we handle a certain phenomenon, before we talk about it. Let's get the 'concept handling rules' through language at least coherent.

Otherwise, it's like we are doing something similar to chemistry lab work for a certain investigation, when all involved don't agree of what names are used for what chemical, and apparent similarities between chemicals are generalised to the chemicals being identical (another analogy).

Hope I made sense - if not I can re-word this.

For example, I don't believe in a trans-man being able to be in the same locker room/bathroom as I, and the same goes for a trans-woman. For the vast majority of people, including myself, we aren't going to be comfortable with a trans-person in a private location like that.

I regard locker rooms to be public, not private. Keeping expected social norms for the locker room (as a public place), there should not be any issues.

Bathrooms, though used privately, are public locations as well. I doubt that awareness of anyone else's sexual parts are apparent enough in a bathroom such that it becomes awkward for only transgender, especially keeping in mind how most bathroom use is out of sight. If it was awkward for transgender, then it would be for everyone not transgender too.

If I don't direct attention towards others any more than I regard their presence in the room (personally I see that it should be that way, not much to it), then I find no issues. Even indirect appearance of one's parts (e.g. with the urinal for men), requires attention to keep being aware of it. Let us remember that everyone doesn't make aware their parts when using the urinal (as in nobody flaunts anything).

I am arguing this from a non-emotive POV.

[Irishperson15]

Please tell me if these are good reasons. I think they are. Also, this isn't meant to offend transgender people personally. I don't think you're a bad person because of your gender. I'm merely saying that transgenderism is dangerous for various reasons that I will provide below. I hope no one is offended(although it will invariably happen).

Anyways, here's what I think.

1. This isn't a good reason logically speaking, but I think I speak for many people when I say it is just disturbing in general. A guy trying to act like a girl or vice versa just doesn't sit well with me. Again, this is mostly just a preference. I wouldn't draw any conclusions on this unless I have other reasons, which I do.
2. This whole paragraph:

Source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

I don't doubt this at all. Our minds aren't accustomed to gender changes and react in extreme ways. This seems to me to indicate that it is mentally degrading and harmful.

3. Children with transgender feelings should not have these feelings cultivated and supported for their own sake. The study above shows that they will most likely lose the feelings. It could lead to self-harm, increased likelihood of mental disorder, and, in extreme cases, suicide. The media supporting transgenderism puts this idea into children's minds and into the minds of others, making us value(self-centerdly) our gender above other, more pressing matters like our education and future. It's another step in children and teens becoming more accustomed to the "Generation 'I'" mindset. This also goes right along with why lacking sexual integrity is bad(that is, because it makes people distracted by feelings they can't control).

I will add more if I think of anything else. Just thought I'd post this to see what you guys think. I think they are pretty valid reasons.

I am of the belief that, in a context such as this, if a person is doing something that doesn't harm anyone else then why is that wrong? I think the key point here is that the title of the thread is "why I think", which is obviously your reasoning. Society is bound by the morals of the legislators which, in cases such as murder and theft, are shared by many. Whilst I would agree with that, everyone's morals are different so some would see being transgender as wrong, others don't. But the reasoning is the same as many other controversial issues: it is bound by the moral standards of the individual. An entirely subjective debate, but at least you justified your opinion. People should be free to act as they choose, provided it doesn't negatively impact anyone else's life.

[Microcosm]

I am of the belief that, in a context such as this, if a person is doing something that doesn't harm anyone else then why is that wrong? I think the key point here is that the title of the thread is "why I think", which is obviously your reasoning. Society is bound by the morals of the legislators which, in cases such as murder and theft, are shared by many. Whilst I would agree with that, everyone's morals are different so some would see being transgender as wrong, others don't. But the reasoning is the same as many other controversial issues: it is bound by the moral standards of the individual. An entirely subjective debate, but at least you justified your opinion. People should be free to act as they choose, provided it doesn't negatively impact anyone else's life.

Couldn't you argue that it negatively impacts their lives though?

It's been shown that their mental state is adversely effected.

[Irishperson15]

Couldn't you argue that it negatively impacts their lives though?

It's been shown that their mental state is adversely effected.

I'm sure you could, but couldn't you argue that divorce, poverty, stress and neglect also affect mental states negativey in certain instances? I can't talk about this topic specifically as I don't know any statistics, but there are cases in any context where people can be impacted negatively. Look at it another way. If you stopped someone from being allowed to be who they feel they truly are, would that not impact them negatively also? Imagine being told they couldn't be who they wanted to. Would that not also adversely affect their mental state?

[Vlerchan]

Couldn't you argue that it negatively impacts their lives though?
This isn't a clear product of being Transgender.

The argument is also problematic insofar as being Transgender doesn't seem to be dependent on a personal choice - other than to go uncloseted. In that case allowing them to preference for closet or uncloset is probably a strong indication of their preferences (i.e what leaves them better off).

I'm sure you could, but couldn't you argue that divorce, poverty, stress and neglect also affect mental states negativey in certain instances?
You don't think these are negative things that we should attempt to minimise?

People should be free to act as they choose, provided it doesn't negatively impact anyone else's life.
You'll need to expand on 'negatively impact' here. In the broadest interpretation it becomes meaningless and incoherent as you demonstrated in the latest post:

i.e. people being transgeder has adverse consequences (debatable - but let's pretend it's true) but stopping them from being transgender also has adverse consequences.

[Irishperson15]

This isn't a clear product of being Transgender.

The argument is also problematic insofar as being Transgender doesn't seem to be dependent on a personal choice - other than to go uncloseted. In that case allowing them to preference for closet or uncloset is probably a strong indication of their preferences (i.e what leaves them better off).


You don't think these are negative things that we should attempt to minimise?


You'll need to expand on 'negatively impact' here. In the broadest interpretation it becomes meaningless and incoherent as you demonstrated in the latest post:

i.e. people being transgeder has adverse consequences (debatable - but let's pretend it's true) but stopping them from being transgender also has adverse consequences.


Your closing paragraph summed up my point in my previous post. I never said divorce, etc. weren't negative things, not sure where you got that from, and they do need minimised. The point I was making was that the other issues are more 'accepted' (you know what I mean) and they have good and bad aspects also, as does being openly transgender (for the individual in question, I'm not saying being transgender is bad). I was talking about 'negatively impacting' in relation to the post I replied to as that person mentioned it impacting on mental state.

[Microcosm]

i.e. people being transgeder has adverse consequences (debatable - but let's pretend it's true) but stopping them from being transgender also has adverse consequences.


Why should we accept it, though? It doesn't benefit people in any way. It just puts a focus on selfish tendencies and makes people consider what genitals they have as more important than actual problems. Why not just keep the two-gender system and keep any irregularities to a minimum? There's no need for it. It just complicates things unnecessarily.

[Vlerchan]

I never said divorce, etc. weren't negative things, not sure where you got that from, and they do need minimised.
It would seem I misinterpreted the point of the opening then. Apologies.

Why should we accept it, though? It doesn't benefit people in any way.
Like I have been arguing it occurs regardless of whether we accept it or not. What might occur if we don't accept it is that the Transperson remains closeted. The impact on someone's mental health in remaining closeted can't be tested.

But we can test what the impact of either embracing their preferred gender and the support of people around them with their decision to become uncloseted. These are both positives. We can also presume - with reference to the doctrine of revealed preferences - that Transpersons feel better off leaving the closet.

You can argue that these people should be a good society's sacrificial lambs. That's not an issue with me - and I support it with respect to other identities. But I see no welfare-enhancing reason to do that here.

It just puts a focus on selfish tendencies and makes people consider what genitals they have as more important than actual problems.
This happens regardless. In our current view of gender people spend a significant amount of time obsessing over their own gender: or more precisely how they fit it. Whether they are masculine: because that's a must for people with a penis. Or whether they are feminine: because that's a must for people with a vagina. It's just so widespread it goes unnoticed.

Opening this up to a pluralistic post-sex-based approach to gender-endowment has the likelihood of in fact liberating people from needing to fit a certain stereotype and thus freeing them towards thinking about more consequential issues. You wouldn't have to put effort into being who you are. This is opposed to having to put energy into being who society want you to be.

---

On a final note - which you might appreciate in connection - we also wouldn't be having these drab time-consuming conversations on social issues which polarise societies and suck up a disproportionate amount of political-energy.

[Microcosm]

Vlerchan,

One of the largest negative impacts, I think, is that it opens up the pandora's box of gender uncertainty for people who otherwise wouldn't have been so concerned by such a trivial thing otherwise when the media and society starts taking strides to accept it. To elucidate further, it also complicates sexual relations which are a huge factor in community.

I think the best course of action then would not be to pressure them to remain closeted, but rather to treat them so that these feelings do not impede them from accomplishing or distract them from the importance of their responsibilities to the world and society around them, the value of which greatly outweighs that of their own personal conundrums and misguidances.

The evidence that it distracts people and makes them worry over nothing can be found right here on VT. People will become curious as to whether they are male, female, bigender, trigender, or whatever else and it never helps them in the end.

The way the media portrays it influences the simple-minded or vulnerable portion of society to start "testing" their gender which distracts them from important things and fosters a selfish attitude, given that they start valuing things like their gender and their sexuality over their societal responsibilities. Which is, again, evidenced by people who come to VT wondering and needing advice. I also see it consistently in my high school with kids who are depressed and uncertain about who they are, which is not even worth preoccupying yourself with to the extent that they do.

[Vlerchan]

[I]t opens up the pandora's box of gender uncertainty for people who otherwise wouldn't have been so concerned by such a trivial thing otherwise when the media and society starts taking strides to accept it. To elucidate further, it also complicates sexual relations which are a huge factor in community.

I think the best course of action then would not be to pressure them to remain closeted, but rather to treat them so that these feelings do not impede them from accomplishing or distract them from the importance of their responsibilities to the world and society around them, the value of which greatly outweighs that of their own personal conundrums and misguidances.
The point I'm making is that it would seem that their feelings of confusion and anxiousness arise out of a lack of acceptance. These feelings are what impedes them from engaging in their 'duties' and 'responsibilities'. If it is the case that it drags bystanders in on the confusion it's on the basis that there's significant taboos surrounding this and that inhibits them from making a quick and simple decision here.

Gender diaspora steeped in biology. It's framing it as a choice - and this is primarily the contribution of conservatives - that has transformed it into a social issue. Throughout this thread I have never argued that it should be as big as it is in the media. In fact the points I have been making is that it's innate to Transgender people and we should be doing our best to support them. That means handing it over to medical and psychiatric practitioners and depoliticisng the issue.

Suppressing Transpersons - in contrast - politicises the issue. It turns it into a social issue: people stating for and against. That fact that this proposal of yours is appearing in a political debating subforum demonstrates that. The solution is neither helpful to Transpersons - and the broader social and political agenda you purport to pursue.

Furthermore Pandora's Box has been open. This has gone mainstream. It's now up to people to choose to deal with the consequences of this. Because there's - at this stage - no pretending it never happened.

[Porpoise101]

I personally do not take it as offensive (at least immediately), but as an inherently misrepresentative term, taking the phenomenon that it is being used for. However, if it is used excessively and with emotive intention, then I understand why people take offence.

I draw analogy to the term 'atheism', which I feel is being used for people with such views that actually make the term 'antitheism' better applicable, and technically correct.
There are lots of examples of this. Almost any type of "-phobic" follows this. Since the suffix is fearing, it doesn't make sense because the person is more hateful than fearful. A homophobe isn't afraid of a gay man for example. So maybe it would be better to use misic as a suffix (from misos-hate). That's just my idea that won't happen.

[Vermilion]

Transganderism,like Homosexuality are mental disorders and the people victim of it should be helped.


You are saying that being gay is unnatural right ? If so why ? I'm sure that happy gay people are mentally healthy. Homosexuality is found in the animal kindon.

[Ragle]

Since life doesn't make sense anyway, there is no right or wrong. So transgenderism is also none of both. We have to talk about it, if it's not ignored.

[Microcosm]

The point I'm making is that it would seem that their feelings of confusion and anxiousness arise out of a lack of acceptance.

I doubt this. To me, it seems that confusion would naturally occur from one realizing that there is a possibility that they are in some way different than their natural-born sex.

But I see your point. It would probably take some research to figure out which one.

Gender diaspora steeped in biology. It's framing it as a choice - and this is primarily the contribution of conservatives - that has transformed it into a social issue. Throughout this thread I have never argued that it should be as big as it is in the media. In fact the points I have been making is that it's innate to Transgender people and we should be doing our best to support them. That means handing it over to medical and psychiatric practitioners and depoliticisng the issue.

The issue is, as you stated, already politicized; however, it is not because of conservatives. It's because of transgender people acting like their condition isn't a disorder. They don't want medical treatment because they think their condition is totally okay. This causes a problem to which conservatives are obliged to respond. Also, this condition being popularized contributes greatly to the general behaviors of people in today's society, which also politicizes the issue. And why is it being popularized? Trans people and others who support them.

It's hard to pin that on conservatives I think.

Suppressing Transpersons - in contrast - politicises the issue. It turns it into a social issue: people stating for and against. That fact that this proposal of yours is appearing in a political debating subforum demonstrates that. The solution is neither helpful to Transpersons - and the broader social and political agenda you purport to pursue.

I wouldn't call this a "political debating subforum," just a "debating subforum." We talk about any idea that relates to various different things here.

I think that treating them so as to help them fit in better with the sex they were born with helps both them and the general populous. It helps them escape the confusion by following the path of their natural sex, and it helps everyone else because they don't have to put taxpayer money towards sex changes, see trans people and not be sure if they should say "he" or "she" or "they," etc.

Furthermore Pandora's Box has been open. This has gone mainstream. It's now up to people to choose to deal with the consequences of this. Because there's - at this stage - no pretending it never happened.


True.

[Vlerchan]

I doubt this. To me, it seems that confusion would naturally occur from one realizing that there is a possibility that they are in some way different than their natural-born sex.
I have radically different interests to most people in my cohort. This has never confused me - It's just who I am.

The issue with the topic we're discussing is that there's severe social ramifications in a Transperson identifying with another gender as opposed me identifying with my interests.

It's because of transgender people acting like their condition isn't a disorder. They don't want medical treatment because they think their condition is totally okay.
I'm of the belief that it's not a disorder. That's because there's nothing innately harmful in it as far as I can see. Like I have mentioned before in this thread accusations of it leading to mental health issues in-and-of-itself suffer from significant identification problems.

Where medical treatment is concerned. Far as I'm aware medical practitioners don't prescribe things to correct gender diaspora: medical practitioners prescribe things that help them deal with being Transgender. This is not something that Transpeople have an issue accepting.

This causes a problem to which conservatives are obliged to respond.
I would appreciate if you could define the 'problem' which is disentangled from the role of conservatives in the issue. So far it has been the mental health issues but there's been no demonstration that this is innate to being transgender.

Like always you're free to point to the academic literature on the topic with regards to mental health issues being innate.

Also, this condition being popularized contributes greatly to the general behaviors of people in today's society, which also politicizes the issue. And why is it being popularized? Trans people and others who support them.
I'm going to repeat the point I made earlier. Conservatives have framed being Transgender as if it's a decision. This is the basis of their opposition. The support for Transpersons identities would not need to occur - least on the political-scaling it does at the moment - if it was not for the opposition to them in the first place.

Do you think there would be the same movement for Transgender that there is if not for the opposition of conservatives?

I wouldn't call this a "political debating subforum," just a "debating subforum." We talk about any idea that relates to various different things here.
Nonetheless it's still a political solution.

It helps them escape the confusion by following the path of their natural sex[.]
Like I said earlier. Transgender people have a brain structure - genetically endowed - that is different to that of their natural sex. That's the reason I don't think that helping them adjust to something that's unnatural to them will be helpful.

But you're free to refer to the literature on this matter.

and it helps everyone else because they don't have to put taxpayer money towards sex changes, see trans people and not be sure if they should say "he" or "she" or "they," etc.
The cost of sex changes to tax-payers is peanuts.

I don't think the cost of the latter point gets anywhere near compensating for the cost imposed on Transpersons of the denies of their identities and the likelihood of the mental health ramifications imposed.

[Porpoise101]

It's because of transgender people acting like their condition isn't a disorder. They don't want medical treatment
Last I checked, there is no medical treatment unless you count "pray the gay away" Bible camps. You can't suggest treatment unless there is one available.

[Microcosm]

Last I checked, there is no medical treatment unless you count "pray the gay away" Bible camps. You can't suggest treatment unless there is one available.


Therapy and such.

I have radically different interests to most people in my cohort. This has never confused me - It's just who I am.

The issue with the topic we're discussing is that there's severe social ramifications in a Transperson identifying with another gender as opposed me identifying with my interests.

One is subjective to your own decisions and the other is an uncontrollable preference of the brain, yes.

I'm of the belief that it's not a disorder. That's because there's nothing innately harmful in it as far as I can see. Like I have mentioned before in this thread accusations of it leading to mental health issues in-and-of-itself suffer from significant identification problems.

Where medical treatment is concerned. Far as I'm aware medical practitioners don't prescribe things to correct gender diaspora: medical practitioners prescribe things that help them deal with being Transgender. This is not something that Transpeople have an issue accepting.

I find it disturbing. Men dressing like women would be disturbing to a majority of the public, for example.

I would appreciate if you could define the 'problem' which is disentangled from the role of conservatives in the issue. So far it has been the mental health issues but there's been no demonstration that this is innate to being transgender.

Like always you're free to point to the academic literature on the topic with regards to mental health issues being innate.

I mean to say that the social outcry was brought about by trans people and supporters. I am not well-read on literature of this.

I'm going to repeat the point I made earlier. Conservatives have framed being Transgender as if it's a decision. This is the basis of their opposition. The support for Transpersons identities would not need to occur - least on the political-scaling it does at the moment - if it was not for the opposition to them in the first place.

Do you think there would be the same movement for Transgender that there is if not for the opposition of conservatives?


Perhaps. People like to make themselves stand out and this is one way for young people specifically to do it.

I'm not saying that all trans people are young, but most of the people who push for its acceptance are young.

[Vlerchan]

Sorry. I've been quite busy and haven't had the time.

Therapy and such.
Far as I'm aware this has been used to help Transgender people better able to deal with being Transgender and what that means in the prevailing social environment.

It can't correct it.You ever refer to it as an 'uncontrollable preference'.

One is subjective to your own decisions and the other is an uncontrollable preference of the brain, yes.
I can't remember choosing to be interested in what I'm interested in. What I'm interested in just happens to align with inbuilt preferences that themselves are formed with reference to genetic and environmental factors.

Homosexuals are also divergent from the norm. Whilst they have an above average rate of suicide - and are consistent victims of social discrimination - this is quite below that of Transgender people. That the difference is 'larger' can't be explained without reference to social forces which reinforces the point I'm making.

I find it disturbing. Men dressing like women would be disturbing to a majority of the public, for example.
Something being disturbing, in your opinion, isn't the basis to label it a disorder.

I mean to say that the social outcry was brought about by trans people and supporters.
In response to the social discrimination exhibited by conservatives and trans-detractors.

I'm not saying that all trans people are young, but most of the people who push for its acceptance are young.
Younger people tend to be a lot more liberal and have a lot more time on their hands.

Thus these people tend to be disproportionately represented amongst social activists.

[Microcosm]

Vlerchan,

I think a disorder can be classified as anything that is extremely different from and therefore harmful to the norm, the norm being that which is consistent with a large majority of people in a society, not what they believe, but what they are.

This definition is maintained by the fact that attempts to diverge greatly from what is considered normal splits society in parts, and is therefore harmful to it.

Since transgenders are a minority, the rest of society shouldn't have to suffer this. They don't like it and consider it disgusting because it's so abnormal.

Conservatives did react against it and have for years even before the media made it a big deal, yes, but their reaction against it was justified because it was (a)fostering selfishness in people("you shouldn't care what society thinks!!! xoxoxo") and (b)it disturbed a majority of the public, which is reason enough to be against it. The public shouldn't have to see that sort of thing if most of them don't want to.

Trans activists have blown it way out of proportion and made it hard to be against it by taking advantage of teens who will always be willing to accept any new progressive movement that the media throws at them.

[Vlerchan]

I think a disorder can be classified as anything that is extremely different from and therefore harmful to the norm, the norm being that which is consistent with a large majority of people in a society, not what they believe, but what they are.
Like being part of the Goth subculture?

Like being Atheist?

Like being able to engage with advanced mathematics?

I could go on but this is an obviously dreadful definition.

Since transgenders are a minority, the rest of society shouldn't have to suffer this.
I'm not sure if you've ever read Tocqueville's Democracy in America. I'm sure you're aware that's where your signature is adapted from. One of the major concepts that was popularised in it is the tyranny of the majority. It refers to legislative actions but it's analogous to the current discussion.

The idea of living in a republic that has a set a set of fundamental rights is that the interests of minorities - and minorities themselves - need be tolerated. It's a pretty fundamental principle of Western societies that the idea described above holds itself against. You live in a society with values antithetical to the triumph of the General Will.

I would avoid mentioning this in most debates. But there's something ironic about championing a concept antithetical to the Western politico-cultural order in claimed-defence of the Western politico-cultural order.

(a)fostering selfishness in people("you shouldn't care what society thinks!!! xoxoxo")
Literally every social reform movement has begun with the assumption that the societal norm should be overturned and as a result shouldn't be cared about.

(b)it disturbed a majority of the public, which is reason enough to be against it.
Not so long ago so did woman in managerial positions.

Not so long before that so did the idea that I couldn't rape by unwilling wife (actually that was broadly concurrently).

I'm not saying that all change is good. What I am saying is that this principal is clearly devoid of historical sense.

Trans activists have blown it way out of proportion and made it hard to be against it by taking advantage of teens who will always be willing to accept any new progressive movement that the media throws at them.
Social issues are always blown out of proportion. That they're so simple makes it easier for people to take and push opinions about them.

[Microcosm]

Vlerchan,

I said "not what they believe, but what they are," meaning not like being an atheist and such but things that are harder to control, that are more fundamental to who a person is.


I would avoid mentioning this in most debates. But there's something ironic about championing a concept antithetical to the Western politico-cultural order in claimed-defence of the Western politico-cultural order.

The majority's will obviously matters though in determining public policy.

[Vlerchan]

said "not what they believe, but what they are," meaning not like being an atheist and such but things that are harder to control, that are more fundamental to who a person is.
People's religious inclinations tend to be quite fundamental to who they are. In fact I imagine being irreligious is a lot more influential on someone's behaviour than being transgender.

People's social affiliations at least signal some fundamental part of their being.

The majority's will obviously matters though in determining public policy.
Constitutions and political norms constrain the majority's will. What's more: sectional interests tend be the largest contributor to the policy-output on a significant number of platforms.

Western democracies have been set up to constrain majoritarianism.

[sqishy]

There are lots of examples of this. Almost any type of "-phobic" follows this. Since the suffix is fearing, it doesn't make sense because the person is more hateful than fearful. A homophobe isn't afraid of a gay man for example. So maybe it would be better to use misic as a suffix (from misos-hate). That's just my idea that won't happen.

I agree.
I am all for using a 'new' class of adjectives that talk about the hatred of a certain thing, keeping it separate from fear of it. Fear is different to hatred, and it's good to keep language better 'tuned' such that we don't subconsciously equate or associate fear with hatred. For example, I don't see why someone cannot have a genuine fear and no hatred, of Muslims. I feel a good proportion of certain people associating Islam with recent events, experience this.
I thought 'mis-' was enough of a prefix to denote hatred, but you may be correct too.
[This is more off topic than on it, so I will stop now.]