Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: Gender disphoria?

  1. #21
    tWebber Meh Gerbil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    circular balloonist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,164
    Amen (Given)
    1438
    Amen (Received)
    2349
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    Ah, now I see your point. My language doesn't make it clear that I've gone on to state my personal view on the matter. I intended the example to be used exclusively to cast doubt on any simplified 'gonads = male', 'XY = male' essentialism. It's not as clear as that, unfortunately. Though I'd love it to be.

    Everything from 'The result is a spectrum...' should have been prefaced with 'In my opinion given our present state of knowledge,'
    Fair enough.
    Thanks for the clarification.
    Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

  2. #22
    tWebber Meh Gerbil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    circular balloonist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,164
    Amen (Given)
    1438
    Amen (Received)
    2349
    Disclaimer:
    Despite where this discussion goes I want to make abundantly clear that in my opinion it is the role of every Christian to treat each and every person with the Love of Jesus Christ. Under no circumstances do I feel it is appropriate to torment or attack someone who is of a different orientation. While I disagree with the whole LGBTQ crowd on a myriad of issues the one thing we can agree on is that we need to live in harmony. If a transgendered person is reading this thread I want you to know that I want peace and prosperity for you. I would buy you lunch, mow your lawn, and feed your 6 Pomeranians for you should the need arise. You are valuable.
    Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

  3. Amen Adrift, Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  4. #23
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,391
    Amen (Given)
    843
    Amen (Received)
    2475
    Quote Originally Posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
    Let me ask you this: May I define transgenderism this way?
    Despite the evaluation of empirical evidence as quantified by a degreed scientific professional an individual may decide, based on nothing but pure whimsy, to decide to live out a fantasy life as the opposite gender.
    You may, but it would be a wrong definition to use. And one that is both odious, unfair to the psychology of these people 'whimsy'. No transgendered individual who starts out those changes are doing so on a whimsy, not even those who do so for autogynephiliac reasons.

    And I have to ask you whether you're trolling or not. If you are, I'm out of here.
    Last edited by Leonhard; 02-24-2017 at 11:28 PM.

  5. #24
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,391
    Amen (Given)
    843
    Amen (Received)
    2475
    I think a better, less awful way of putting what you wanted to say is: A person who identifies as a gender that is the opposite of what their primary sexual characteristic is, as determined by a clinical professional at the time of birth.

    In other words, classical genitalia based gender essentialism.

    It's a position I understand and respect, though I don't think it's without problems.

  6. #25
    tWebber Meh Gerbil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    circular balloonist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,164
    Amen (Given)
    1438
    Amen (Received)
    2349
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    You may, but it would be a wrong definition to use. And one that is both odious, unfair to the psychology of these people 'whimsy'. No transgendered individual who starts out those changes are doing so on a whimsy, not even those who do so for autogynephiliac reasons.
    I provided that definition to illustrate that the conclusion of the argument can be wrapped up in the definition of the term. You have rightly pointed out that my definition wasn't neutral - you've taken exception to the word 'whimsy', for example - because if it is 'whimsy' then it would be the opposite of substantive. Obviously anyone willing to undergo gender reassignment believes the whole issue to be quite substantive.

    You must also realize that the definition you provided wasn't neutral either.
    You used several words that I'd object to in that definition which were just as misleading and biased as my use of the word 'whimsy'.

    Let's look at your definition again:
    "...rather than living as the culturally accepted gender role they were assigned with at birth."

    The words 'culturally accepted' imply transience because cultures can and do change.
    The words 'culturally accepted' also put the definition into the hands of culture or sociable norms.
    The word 'role' also hint a transience.
    The word 'assigned' also implies transience or a judgement call instead of observing what is empirically obvious.

    By placing gender into a role, as a expression of culture, as an assignment rather than a record of empirical fact you've crafted a definition that presupposes what the transgender community hopes to prove.
    Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

  7. #26
    tWebber Meh Gerbil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    circular balloonist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,164
    Amen (Given)
    1438
    Amen (Received)
    2349
    Okay, I'm going to make this my last post on the topic.
    You're in way deep, Leonard, you're way invested in this and I don't care to tangle with these wires.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    I think a better, less awful way of putting what you wanted to say is: A person who identifies as a gender that is the opposite of what their primary sexual characteristic is, as determined by a clinical professional at the time of birth.
    This is closer but you've built in so many wiggle words - this is what has caused me to guess you're highly invested in this debate.
    My first quibble is with 'primary sexual characteristics' because it goes far beyond that.
    It goes down to internal organs, bone structure, and is printed on nearly every cell in the body.

    My second quibble is with 'determined by a clinical professional at the time of birth' since:
    1: It is empirically obvious to everyone and anyone (even children).
    2: It goes beyond birth - it is a permanent condition (not a determination) that persists until death (short of intervention by modern medicine).

    The doctor doesn't assign the birth weight, the doctor doesn't assign the body length, the doctor doesn't assign eye color - he observes them and records them.
    You aren't the first person I've seen who has thrown out the scientific method to accommodate transgenderism.
    You won't be the last.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    In other words, classical genitalia based gender essentialism.
    No, it isn't only the genitalia.
    Also, I suspect the term 'classical' is an attempt to mask the words 'old fashioned' and 'dated'.

    Let me tell you how classical this approach is: A thousand years after we've nuked ourselves off the face of the planet a pair of gerbils will hook up in a remote part of the Mongolian desert and 90 days later there will be a litter of pups. That will happen without 'assignment', 'role playing', 'culture' or any of that nonsense. It will happen because it is woven into the fabric that makes up the little rats. It is something that you and a rash of weasel words cannot prevent, supplant or replace.

    This is how I know you're really invested in this thing.
    This is my final post on the matter.
    I wish you the very best, Leonhard.
    Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

  8. Amen Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  9. #27
    tWebber demi-conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,625
    Amen (Given)
    114
    Amen (Received)
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerbil
    You're in way deep, Leonard, you're way invested in this and I don't care to tangle with these wires.
    You can talk to me!!! We can discuss statements of Leonhard:

    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    That's one reason why I don't think sex can be simply boiled down to chromosomes. Sex chromosomes can cause the right development of a person into either a man or a woman, but it doesn't determine this development.

    The result is a spectrum, with most people being identifiable as either male or women, with some outliers who have mixed attributes: Someone who is physically female but identifies as a male and wishes to be seen and treated as a man.
    ^Standard prog tosh. From 'biological cases not always clear cut' to 'there is spectrum of cases which involves identifying'!! But where did identification magically come in as 'valid' in biological discussion???

    So they blur lines, between biology and 'identification', and debate moves from those very very small few who have unclear biology then to justify sex mutilation of those with no biological ambiguity but have identity problems.



    Bonus: also note bigly jump from 'some people stuck in sexual no-man-land because of nature/nurture' to 'so we need to allow, normalize even more sex mutilation in society!!!'
    Last edited by demi-conservative; 02-25-2017 at 05:45 AM.
    Trump is basically "Bruce Wayne pretending to be a foppish retarded billionaire" tier genius, in case nerds need a simpler metaphor.

  10. #28
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,391
    Amen (Given)
    843
    Amen (Received)
    2475
    Quote Originally Posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
    I provided that definition to illustrate that the conclusion of the argument can be wrapped up in the definition of the term.
    If you ask me why I choose that language, then it's because I tend to word things more closely to the psychological literature, when describing clinical terms. I wasn't asked about my views on men, whether sex is essential, cultural, whether it's malleable, whether it's easily determined in most cases, or whether there are cases where typical clear indicators are false, or whether I consider sex essential but gender something that could be transitioned for social and psychological reasons, etc...

    So I described the clinical term, in a way that's close to the literature.

    I'm sorry you didn't like that, and you've made presumptions as to what I believe. As you had a word before me, I'll answer a few things you point out.

    you've taken exception to the word 'whimsy', for example - because if it is 'whimsy' then it would be the opposite of substantive
    No, I take offense to the word 'whimsy' because it's idiotic and intentionally hurtful language. I wouldn't mind having a perfectly honest discussion about the psychology of people suffering from dysphoria. Flaws and all. However to call an identity that they've had for years and years, and actively fought against... you do realize that most people with dysphoria simple struggle on with occasional depression right? They never transition. A lot of those that do, at least those of a later age, do so after a severe depression. But it's somehow a whimsy when after six purges, they actually go about doing it, and then you wonder why I find the term offensive?

    To call that whimsy is not just wrong. Even if it's a decision, doing so would not be whimsical.

    I don't know if you simply chose the word 'whimsy' to goad me, or any transgender person reading this page. If you do mission accomplished, but it's not a term I or anyone else will respect and I hope to God it's not a term you'll ever use when talking to a transgender person.

    Thankfully people tend to behave more civilized offline, than online.

    You're in way deep, Leonard, you're way invested in this and I don't care to tangle with these wires.
    A rather patronizing exit, but see you around.

    This is closer but you've built in so many wiggle words - this is what has caused me to guess you're highly invested in this debate.
    My first quibble is with 'primary sexual characteristics' because it goes far beyond that.
    It goes down to internal organs, bone structure, and is printed on nearly every cell in the body.
    If by internal organs you mean gonads, ovaries, wombs, ... then you're still talking about primary sexual characteristics. That's the precise clinical term for the part of our sexuality that is exclusive to our reproductive function. And our reproductive function is what essentialism ties to what our sex is. You are 'essentially able to impregnate = man', or 'essentially able to become pregnant = woman'.

    Minor differences in bone structure, fat distribution, hair thickness, etc are called secondary sexual characteristics. They're far more variable, less of an impact, and independent of the primary sexual characteristics.

    The doctor doesn't assign the birth weight, the doctor doesn't assign the body length, the doctor doesn't assign eye color - he observes them and records them.
    You aren't the first person I've seen who has thrown out the scientific method to accommodate transgenderism.
    Actually, if I were to go entirely with scientific opinions about sex and gender, I'd have to ditch the dualism of the genders as the Catholic Church teaches; There are men and women period, in Christian theology. It's not something up for discussion. However as science is all about simple documenting and recording the world, anthropology doesn't make any judgments about whether a particular understanding of sexuality is wrong, just that it's there and recognized. And let's not forget the animal kingdom that has all sorts of weirdities that don't fall neatly into binary categories. A grand example is the clownfish which can change sex based on the prevalence of males.

    So if I took the immediate results of anthropology, biology and gender studies as more than simple observations about what humans do, my view on gender would be very far from the Church.

    As it is I 'believe, teach and preach what the Catholic Church believes, teaches and preaches' as I promised when I was accepted into the Church.

    No, it isn't only the genitalia.
    Also, I suspect the term 'classical' is an attempt to mask the words 'old fashioned' and 'dated'.
    'Not only about the genitalia', I wish we had conversations about that, other than this long-winded and fairly empty discussion about rhetorics and the flavor of words to use. And as for classical being old-fashioned, I'm a traditional Catholic, I love the older prayer books, I love the Tridentine Latin rite and prefer it to the newer 1962 era Novus Ordo rite of the mass. When I say something is classical it's a mark of respect, a word I even explicitly used to describe the term.

    I think you've - likely unintentionally - busy stuffing me into a shoebox in your head called 'liberal'.

    Anyway, it was nice having this whatever it was with you. I wish you'd have discussed the science and psychology of gender dysphoria with me rather than what you did.

    God bless and see you around.

  11. #29
    Professor Cerebrum123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,061
    Amen (Given)
    16954
    Amen (Received)
    3348
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    I discussed pretty much the whole gamut of people, so when you say 'these' in response to my post it leaves it completely ambiguous who you're trying to refer to: The women with complete androgen insensitivity disorder, but with XY chromosomes? Or someone else?
    I underlined the part specifically about those with androgen insensitivity disorder. They are men, they might not look like it, but they are. Having female hormones and a feminine shape does not make one a woman.

  12. #30
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,391
    Amen (Given)
    843
    Amen (Received)
    2475
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    I underlined the part specifically about those with androgen insensitivity disorder. They are men, they might not look like it, but they are. Having female hormones and a feminine shape does not make one a woman.
    Alright, I just had to be sure I understood... so if you don't consider dna as destiny, and you understand that these women are born and develop identically to other girls, with the only exception that instead of ovaries they have testes.

    What is it that makes them men?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •