Is transgender something to get upset about?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

How oddly expected that Dalek would go ape-shit at Lacewing and me, yet say nothing about your genuinely callous comments. Just sayin'.

It's probably because that's what you expect from henry. It's like when the neighbourhood mad dog barks at you as you walk past, you don't take it personally.

Just as well I suppose, as PE likely posted the thread anticipating a blood bath.

[Immanuel Can]

Mannie, see what you did? You, just posting in a thread, move the discussion away from crazy folks who wanna cut off their willies (a source of great amusement) to 'God' (*yawn*).

Shame on you, you theist.

Henry:

So sorry to cut short your fun.

Actually, I profess innocence of the charge. It was the OP who brought in "religion," as if it had any relevance to the topic. As for me, I only said that transgenderism has remarkable links with mental illness, and that good people don't indulge mentally-ill people in their delusions, because that's not compassionate but self-serving and nasty.

That's all true. And it's all statistically verifiable, logically sound, and relevant to the topic. But I didn't say a darn thing about "religion."

How that changed the flow of things, I'm at a loss to tell you. People went where they wanted to go, I guess. *shrug*

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Mannie, see what you did? You, just posting in a thread, move the discussion away from crazy folks who wanna cut off their willies (a source of great amusement) to 'God' (*yawn*).

Shame on you, you theist.

Henry:

So sorry to cut short your fun.

Actually, I profess innocence of the charge. It was the OP who brought in "religion," as if it had any relevance to the topic. As for me, I only said that transgenderism has remarkable links with mental illness, and that good people don't indulge mentally-ill people in their delusions, because that's not compassionate but self-serving and nasty.

That's all true. And it's all statistically verifiable, logically sound, and relevant to the topic. But I didn't say a darn thing about "religion."

How that changed the flow of things, I'm at a loss to tell you. People went where they wanted to go, I guess. *shrug*

And of course religious belief isn't a mental illness at all. No similarities whatsoever.

[Harbal]

I only said that transgenderism has remarkable links with mental illness, and that good people don't indulge mentally-ill people in their delusions, because that's not compassionate but self-serving and nasty.

That's all true. And it's all statistically verifiable, logically sound, and relevant to the topic. But I didn't say a darn thing about "religion."

Disturbing characters aren't exactly rare on internet forums but very few have the ability to make the skin crawl in quite the way you do.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini were both Roman Catholics.
Fascism shares many similarities to the heirachical structures and ideologies of Catholicism.

[Greta]

If cross-gender behaviour is invalid, does this mean there are limits to human diversity - that females must all necessarily be feminine and males must all be masculine? That's culture, forcing conformity. Nature, by contrast, has no choice but to be diverse - falling naturally into every unexplored evolutionary nook and cranny like water flowing into cracks in the ground. So nature has no problems whatsoever in throwing up masculine females and highly feminine males in all manner of species.

The way I see it, humans can have two basic functions in society - either they can breed and look after their own or they can contribute to society generally - and this latter role has traditionally been taken by gays, transpeople and the like.

[Hobbes' Choice]

If cross-gender behaviour is invalid, does this mean there are limits to human diversity - that females must all necessarily be feminine and males must all be masculine? That's culture, forcing conformity. Nature, by contrast, has no choice but to be diverse - falling naturally into every unexplored evolutionary nook and cranny like water flowing into cracks in the ground. So nature has no problems whatsoever in throwing up masculine females and highly feminine males in all manner of species.

The way I see it, humans can have two basic functions in society - either they can breed and look after their own or they can contribute to society generally - and this latter role has traditionally been taken by gays, transpeople and the like.

Are you watching the same thing I am?
Blue brain in a pink body and Viceversa.

[Greta]

If cross-gender behaviour is invalid, does this mean there are limits to human diversity - that females must all necessarily be feminine and males must all be masculine? That's culture, forcing conformity. Nature, by contrast, has no choice but to be diverse - falling naturally into every unexplored evolutionary nook and cranny like water flowing into cracks in the ground. So nature has no problems whatsoever in throwing up masculine females and highly feminine males in all manner of species.

The way I see it, humans can have two basic functions in society - either they can breed and look after their own or they can contribute to society generally - and this latter role has traditionally been taken by gays, transpeople and the like.

Are you watching the same thing I am?
Blue brain in a pink body and Viceversa.

No. What got me going was a gay friend on fb recently posting an article about a study exploring why gayness didn't die out since not breeding would seem a poor strategy for passing on one's genes. So the survival value to gayness would seem to be due to gays being being 1) extra pairs of hands 2) extra minds available not swamped by family responsibilities, and 3) having slightly different kinds of minds, adding new perspectives to the group. I expect the same would apply to transpeople.

[Hobbes' Choice]

If cross-gender behaviour is invalid, does this mean there are limits to human diversity - that females must all necessarily be feminine and males must all be masculine? That's culture, forcing conformity. Nature, by contrast, has no choice but to be diverse - falling naturally into every unexplored evolutionary nook and cranny like water flowing into cracks in the ground. So nature has no problems whatsoever in throwing up masculine females and highly feminine males in all manner of species.

The way I see it, humans can have two basic functions in society - either they can breed and look after their own or they can contribute to society generally - and this latter role has traditionally been taken by gays, transpeople and the like.

Are you watching the same thing I am?
Blue brain in a pink body and Viceversa.

No. What got me going was a gay friend on fb recently posting an article about a study exploring why gayness didn't die out since not breeding would seem a poor strategy for passing on one's genes. So the survival value to gayness would seem to be due to gays being being 1) extra pairs of hands 2) extra minds available not swamped by family responsibilities, and 3) having slightly different kinds of minds, adding new perspectives to the group. I expect the same would apply to transpeople.

It is just that there was a good programme on the BBC tonight as you were typing.
What i was wondering was to what extent is the TG phenomenon largely a factor of modern life; that as we have separated ourselves from the vicissitudes of natural selection, a range of human variations are permitted by nature to thrive since there is no negative pressure on the necessities of procreation; and that culture has questioned and liberalised identities. together they offer a fertile ground for these things to occur.
Seriously there is no survival value in gayness. There are always plenty of extra hands, and gays seldom pass their genes. Gayness needs no such justification. Evolution thrives on variety and these appear without the need for survival.

These questions were not addressed by the program though. It was centred on the growth in childhood gender reassignment surgery and the wisdom of adolescence blockers. I did have a feeling os disquiet that what for many kids is a period of experiment that often results in keeping with your birth gender (60%), whether there might be to much fashion and peer pressure to have the surgery that might be later regretted. In Frisco its so easy to have the surgery where the plastic surgeons are waiting eagerly to receive the large cheques for the work.

[Arising_uk]

India and transgender

[Greta]

These questions were not addressed by the program though. It was centred on the growth in childhood gender reassignment surgery and the wisdom of adolescence blockers. I did have a feeling of disquiet that what for many kids is a period of experiment that often results in keeping with your birth gender (60%), whether there might be to much fashion and peer pressure to have the surgery that might be later regretted. In Frisco its so easy to have the surgery where the plastic surgeons are waiting eagerly to receive the large cheques for the work.

Then again, the earlier a teen goes for it, the better the chance of the transition being successful. I am no longer surprised by how variant human beings can be and would not want to venture opinions on others' private business.

A while ago I watched trust Me, I'm a Doctor and it was remarkable how differently people's bodies processed foods in the tests. One woman found that she metabolised chocolate in such a way that it would not make her gain weight, but fattened up with bread. Another woman was exactly the opposite. If they were speaking on a dieting forum before doing the tests, imagine the advice they would give and how committed they would be to the truth of their view.

So it is their truth. Not anyone else's, although people often make the mistake of believing that what's good for one is good for the many. I think this is at play with transgenderism. From what I can gather, any of those tendencies and orientations are impossible to change.

[thedoc]

No. What got me going was a gay friend on fb recently posting an article about a study exploring why gayness didn't die out since not breeding would seem a poor strategy for passing on one's genes. So the survival value to gayness would seem to be due to gays being being 1) extra pairs of hands 2) extra minds available not swamped by family responsibilities, and 3) having slightly different kinds of minds, adding new perspectives to the group. I expect the same would apply to transpeople.

You seem to be accepting the idea that being gay is a genetic condition. If that were true, homosexuality would die out because gays do not usually pass on their genes. To my knowledge there have been gays throughout history, and in many areas and times have been brutally persecuted, though there have been places and times where it was accepted. I would venture to say that there is more to homosexuality than genetics.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

No. What got me going was a gay friend on fb recently posting an article about a study exploring why gayness didn't die out since not breeding would seem a poor strategy for passing on one's genes. So the survival value to gayness would seem to be due to gays being being 1) extra pairs of hands 2) extra minds available not swamped by family responsibilities, and 3) having slightly different kinds of minds, adding new perspectives to the group. I expect the same would apply to transpeople.

You seem to be accepting the idea that being gay is a genetic condition. If that were true, homosexuality would die out because gays do not usually pass on their genes. To my knowledge there have been gays throughout history, and in many areas and times have been brutally persecuted, though there have been places and times where it was accepted. I would venture to say that there is more to homosexuality than genetics.

Of course they can pass on their genes. Being 'gay' doesn't mean you can't have children, or don't want them.

[thedoc]

So it is their truth. Not anyone else's, although people often make the mistake of believing that what's good for one is good for the many. I think this is at play with transgenderism.

This is true, but the problem is that oftentimes a medical professional must treat the individual according the the statistics of the masses, rather than taking the time to address the individual. A few years ago I was in the hospital for an unrelated condition, and was taking a medication that is normally prescribed for High Blood pressure. I don't have high blood pressure but was taking the medication for another purpose, on of the other effects it had. While in the hospital My blood pressure dropped to below 90 on the top number and the staff withheld that medication for the 3 days I was in. A day after I was released, my defibrillator went off, but talking it over with my cardiologist, we decided that the normal 30 days of not driving was not necessary, there was a good reason that had been addressed.

[Greta]

No. What got me going was a gay friend on fb recently posting an article about a study exploring why gayness didn't die out since not breeding would seem a poor strategy for passing on one's genes. So the survival value to gayness would seem to be due to gays being being 1) extra pairs of hands 2) extra minds available not swamped by family responsibilities, and 3) having slightly different kinds of minds, adding new perspectives to the group. I expect the same would apply to transpeople.

You seem to be accepting the idea that being gay is a genetic condition. If that were true, homosexuality would die out because gays do not usually pass on their genes. To my knowledge there have been gays throughout history, and in many areas and times have been brutally persecuted, though there have been places and times where it was accepted. I would venture to say that there is more to homosexuality than genetics.

Consider those who can pass themselves off as the other gender, and are inclined to do so. That's genetics. Any discussion that dismisses either nature or nurture is going to be wrong. Reality is never that tidy. Hobbes questioned the genetic possibility based on it being a poor survival strategy. This brings us to the genetics v group selection debate between R Dawkins and EO Wilson, and I side with the latter. Children with gay uncles and aunts may well have had a slight advantage over other children - essentially, having extra supporters is effectively the same as living in a safer environment than otherwise.

Of course, it may not be genetic. There may be significant factors in gestation and the first few years of life. This may explain how fixed gay and trans orientations are reported to be. Many decades of electroshock and cognitive therapy treatment was wasted until the medical community worked out that humans really are diverse and that that's okay, and that these differences are not distortions but natural minority variations.