CDZ "I’m The Scary Transgender Person The Media Warned You About"

[ChrisL]

For me the most disturbing aspect of this whole issue is the hormone treatments being given to children. I've watched medical folks asked what long term repercussions there could be to long term testosterone treatments being given to a female child or estrogen to a male. Universally they reply "we have no idea". It strikes me as an experiment being conducted on children. What could go wrong?

Universally they reply "we have no idea". It strikes me as an experiment being conducted on children. What could go wrong?

Well, that remains to be seen.

I understand you're remarks derive from some sort of altruism; that you have some is commendable. By the same token, however, it's not my place, or anyone's IMO, to have strong direct-affect views on a very rarefied matter about which I have no first-person perspective and about which the affected people do have such a perspective.

If, say, a girl thinks she should have been born a boy, what am I to say about that? Hell, I don't know what it feels like to be a girl, let alone a girl who feels as though she's supposed to be a boy. I am equally challenged to understand what it feels like to be boy who thinks he should be a girl. I've spent my whole life as a male who's content with being so.

As goes the physiological risks, well, if a kid's parents become convinced it's the right thing for their kid to do, well it just is. It's not my place to tell someone how to manage the issues that confront their kids. I certainly wouldn't countenance someone's having inserting themselves into the decisions I made for my kids.

Lord knows, my parents briefly tried, and my wife and I had to "lay down the law" and let them know they could either butt out or not see their grandkids, for we were not going to let them exist as strong influencers in forming our kids' worldviews that contravened ours. You know as well as I that if I wasn't of a mind to forbear my own parents' inserting themselves that way, others whom I know cannot possibly have the extent of love and concern for my kids that I, my wife and my parents do for them most certainly will not be allowed to do so.

This is where I think this whole issue goes of the rail. For me this isn't about the parents or even the child themself, it's about the medical field. What are the repercussions of pumping children full of hormones? It strikes me that there is a lowering of standards for this one instance. I don't understand that. What happened to standards of care, the hippocratic oath?

In addition, I've watched a number of debates on the transgender issue. One question that arises is, why was transgenderism changed from a disorder to a dysphoria( I think, I'm in no way an expert)? Every time the answers are the same, is there new research? No.Is there a new school of thought backed up by observation? No. It's political. That's dangerous. In a population that has a lifetime suicide attempt rate of 40% making decisions based on politics is obscene and dangerous. And this is at the level of national governing bodies. That's worrisome, at the least.

I've watched a number of debates on the transgender issue....I'm in no way an expert

1. I'm not sure where you watched such things. Researchers conduct their debates on matters of all sort in scholarly journals. One (or a group) of them does research, and publishes the findings. Other experts publish critiques of those findings and/or expand upon the findings by performing their own research into the matter or some dimension of it. Occasionally, a group of researchers organizes a project that expressly solicits multi-disciplinary contributions from researchers, and such things are thought of not as papers but rather as research projects. I know of one such project that pertained to transgender matters: Introduction to the Special Issue on “The Treatment of Gender Dysphoric/Gender Variant Children and Adolescents.” (See also: Instructions for Authors)
   
   Be it as a project or individually conceived research efforts, the process continues thus, and over time, a body of knowledge is developed based on all those findings there eventually forms among the community of experts a general consensus about the matter or key aspects of it.
   
   I suppose one can call reading those papers "watching" the debate, but it's odd that one would so describe the debate among researchers. Watching a debate among researchers at a professional symposium, conference, or seminar is surely a "watching" kind of thing. Is that the sort of debate to which you referred?
2. To the extent that debates form the primary mode by which you've come to be informed about the matter may be part of what's confounding your comprehension of the matter.
   • A debater's rhetorical purpose is to argue a point of view more compellingly than one's debate opponent. A debater's rhetorical purpose is not that of comprehensively informing listeners to the debate of subject matter being debated, to say nothing of doing so disinterestedly, though some audience members may obtain information as a result of listening.
   • While debating the matter, duly qualified debaters will make remarks that derive from/rely upon a level of detailed subject matter comprehension that lay observers of the debate lack; however, as laymen, those observers almost certainly don't know they lack those pieces of information.
   • To the extent debates are conducted such that the general public are the primary consumers of the debate, a number of factors, not the least of which is time, confound the debaters' ability to deliver the topical background knowledge lay listeners need to comprehend fully the topic and, in turn, aptly evaluate the merit of the arguments presented by the debaters. That said, lay listeners will yet form an opinion on which debater's arguments struck them as more compelling.
3. To get informed on a matter, one should consume content rhetorically purposed on informing rather than on persuading. Regrettably, too many people approach complex matters the other way round.

For me this isn't about the parents or even the child themself, it's about the medical field. What are the repercussions of pumping children full of hormones? It strikes me that there is a lowering of standards for this one instance. I don't understand that. What happened to standards of care, the hippocratic oath?

The Hippocratic Oath bids medical professionals to do no harm given what they know/what is known about a physical or mental status in which patients find themselves. It does not call doctors to refrain from taking action because something is unknown.

As goes transgenderism and the physiological procedures that transform one from male to female, yes, some of the long term effects are not known.

• Understanding Gender Nonconformity in Childhood and Adolescence

The same can be said of myriad nascent medical modalities, the maturity of such things being determined not by the passage of time, but by the incidence of occurrence and subsequent monitoring. Furthermore, discovery of the body of long term effects, particularly with regard to their being applied to minors, does not happen rapidly because there simply aren't that many kids who undergo the procedures.

• Serving Transgender Youth: Challenges, Dilemmas and Clinical Examples
  
• Endocrine Treatment of Transsexual Persons:An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline
  
• Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People
  
• Affirmative Practice With Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Youth: Expanding the Model
  
• An Endocrine Perspective on the Care of Transgender Adolescents

Between 1998 and 2010, 97 children underwent the procedures; however, up to 10K children (of the millions on the planet) are estimated to suffer from gender dysphoria issues.

One question that arises is, why was transgenderism changed from a disorder to a dysphoria ( I think, I'm in no way an expert)?

AFAIK, no such change has occurred. It's my understanding that the two are, quite simply, different things: one, a disorder, is a behavior and the other is a state of mind/being. Laymen may conflate and/or equate the two, but clinicians do not.

• What Is Gender Dysphoria?
• According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), disorders are thought of as “a clinically significant behavior, psychologically syndrome, or a pattern that occurs in an individual typically associated with distress, painful symptomology, disability or impairment.” (Source)
  
• Dysphoria, on the other hand, is a “psychological state that causes one to experience feelings of anxiety, restlessness and depression. It is not necessarily diagnosable, or something that would be identified in the DSM, but it is more a state of being, a feeling or unpleasantness or discomfort.” (Source)

As go dysphorias, if one attests to feeling a given way, who am I to say they don't feel the way they say they do? Though others may not be able to identify why the individual has his/her dysphoric feelings, clinicians are by their Hippocratic Oath required to, using the currently available information and research, try to help such individuals overcome their feelings. One of the ways used is helping the patient undergo the sex reassignment process; however, clinicians don't embark on that process lightly. They aren't nearly as acquiescent about doing that sort of thing as are, say, cosmetic dentists and surgeons are about installing crowns and doing rhinoplasty.

Every time the answers are the same, is there new research? No.Is there a new school of thought backed up by observation? No.

I have no way to remark upon this. What I can do is point you to the most recent literature review of which I'm aware.

• Gender dysphoria in children and adolescents: a review of recent research

It's political.

I'm sorry, but I find it very hard to believe that politics motivates any clinician to agree to and, in turn, help any patient through the process of transforming their overt sexual characteristics from male to female or vice versa. On the other hand, politicians absolutely consider, discuss and debate the matter and arrive at stances due to the political expediency of the stance(s) they take on it.

All that, and still you and no one else can definitively tell me why the APA changed transgenderism from a disorder to dysphoria. And even at a dysphoria, this warrants massive hormonal replacement? The results of which are entirely unknown? Some are even pushing for reassignment surgery? In children? As others have noted, of children that identify as the opposite sex 85 - 95% accept their birth sex by the time of puberty. What are the effects on a child, that had an 80 to 95% chance of accepting their birth sex, after being pumped full of hormones of the opposite sex? And all of this with the backdrop of no evidence whatsoever, that hormonal treatment or even reassignment surgery aids in the highest suicidal rate known. Psychiatry, it seems to me, has striven to be as empirically careful as the medical field, except in this one instance. Something is not right, and it's politics. And that truly is scary.

They've also changed up "definitions" when it comes to pedophilia. Scary path we are headed down.

 

[JoeMoma]

Straight woman in the body of a gay man I guess. The transsexual likes men, not necessary GAY men.

No, I'm talking about gay men. Some gay men also put on a female persona (as exaggerated and caricature like as it may be) with their hand gestures, their way of talking, their mannerisms. So if these gay men are attracted to MEN and not women, why the faux femininity on full display?

I guess it’s similar to lesbian couples in which one is the butch and one is the fem. And often the fem will turn out to be bisexual or a bicurious that is experimenting.

Okay, that is your theory but it doesn't really explain how one guy can claim to be "gay" (attracted to his own sex), yet the ones trying to attract him are putting on a caricature performance of being "feminine."

The feminine man is still a man. The butch (masculine) woman is still a woman. I guess there are different degrees of gayness along the sexual orientation spectrum. Just my theory.

But wouldn't you say that if you are attracted to "feminine traits" then you are attracted to females?

Does liking a penis in your butt mean you are "gay" (attracted to male qualities?) or is just completely based on the sexual act? Would they like it just as much if a woman was to hump them in their butt?

Woah this conversation is getting x-rated.

I’m not qualified to answer, ‘cause I like girls.

 

[ChrisL]

No, I'm talking about gay men. Some gay men also put on a female persona (as exaggerated and caricature like as it may be) with their hand gestures, their way of talking, their mannerisms. So if these gay men are attracted to MEN and not women, why the faux femininity on full display?

I guess it’s similar to lesbian couples in which one is the butch and one is the fem. And often the fem will turn out to be bisexual or a bicurious that is experimenting.

Okay, that is your theory but it doesn't really explain how one guy can claim to be "gay" (attracted to his own sex), yet the ones trying to attract him are putting on a caricature performance of being "feminine."

The feminine man is still a man. The butch (masculine) woman is still a woman. I guess there are different degrees of gayness along the sexual orientation spectrum. Just my theory.

But wouldn't you say that if you are attracted to "feminine traits" then you are attracted to females?

Does liking a penis in your butt mean you are "gay" (attracted to male qualities?) or is just completely based on the sexual act? Would they like it just as much if a woman was to hump them in their butt?

Woah this conversation is getting x-rated.

I’m not qualified to answer, ‘cause I like girls.

Sorry, I was using the term "you" in a general way. I wasn't really asking YOU.

Anyways, the whole situation lacks any logic at all.

 

[baileyn45]

For me the most disturbing aspect of this whole issue is the hormone treatments being given to children. I've watched medical folks asked what long term repercussions there could be to long term testosterone treatments being given to a female child or estrogen to a male. Universally they reply "we have no idea". It strikes me as an experiment being conducted on children. What could go wrong?

Universally they reply "we have no idea". It strikes me as an experiment being conducted on children. What could go wrong?

Well, that remains to be seen.

I understand you're remarks derive from some sort of altruism; that you have some is commendable. By the same token, however, it's not my place, or anyone's IMO, to have strong direct-affect views on a very rarefied matter about which I have no first-person perspective and about which the affected people do have such a perspective.

If, say, a girl thinks she should have been born a boy, what am I to say about that? Hell, I don't know what it feels like to be a girl, let alone a girl who feels as though she's supposed to be a boy. I am equally challenged to understand what it feels like to be boy who thinks he should be a girl. I've spent my whole life as a male who's content with being so.

As goes the physiological risks, well, if a kid's parents become convinced it's the right thing for their kid to do, well it just is. It's not my place to tell someone how to manage the issues that confront their kids. I certainly wouldn't countenance someone's having inserting themselves into the decisions I made for my kids.

Lord knows, my parents briefly tried, and my wife and I had to "lay down the law" and let them know they could either butt out or not see their grandkids, for we were not going to let them exist as strong influencers in forming our kids' worldviews that contravened ours. You know as well as I that if I wasn't of a mind to forbear my own parents' inserting themselves that way, others whom I know cannot possibly have the extent of love and concern for my kids that I, my wife and my parents do for them most certainly will not be allowed to do so.

This is where I think this whole issue goes of the rail. For me this isn't about the parents or even the child themself, it's about the medical field. What are the repercussions of pumping children full of hormones? It strikes me that there is a lowering of standards for this one instance. I don't understand that. What happened to standards of care, the hippocratic oath?

In addition, I've watched a number of debates on the transgender issue. One question that arises is, why was transgenderism changed from a disorder to a dysphoria( I think, I'm in no way an expert)? Every time the answers are the same, is there new research? No.Is there a new school of thought backed up by observation? No. It's political. That's dangerous. In a population that has a lifetime suicide attempt rate of 40% making decisions based on politics is obscene and dangerous. And this is at the level of national governing bodies. That's worrisome, at the least.

I've watched a number of debates on the transgender issue....I'm in no way an expert

1. I'm not sure where you watched such things. Researchers conduct their debates on matters of all sort in scholarly journals. One (or a group) of them does research, and publishes the findings. Other experts publish critiques of those findings and/or expand upon the findings by performing their own research into the matter or some dimension of it. Occasionally, a group of researchers organizes a project that expressly solicits multi-disciplinary contributions from researchers, and such things are thought of not as papers but rather as research projects. I know of one such project that pertained to transgender matters: Introduction to the Special Issue on “The Treatment of Gender Dysphoric/Gender Variant Children and Adolescents.” (See also: Instructions for Authors)
   
   Be it as a project or individually conceived research efforts, the process continues thus, and over time, a body of knowledge is developed based on all those findings there eventually forms among the community of experts a general consensus about the matter or key aspects of it.
   
   I suppose one can call reading those papers "watching" the debate, but it's odd that one would so describe the debate among researchers. Watching a debate among researchers at a professional symposium, conference, or seminar is surely a "watching" kind of thing. Is that the sort of debate to which you referred?
2. To the extent that debates form the primary mode by which you've come to be informed about the matter may be part of what's confounding your comprehension of the matter.
   • A debater's rhetorical purpose is to argue a point of view more compellingly than one's debate opponent. A debater's rhetorical purpose is not that of comprehensively informing listeners to the debate of subject matter being debated, to say nothing of doing so disinterestedly, though some audience members may obtain information as a result of listening.
   • While debating the matter, duly qualified debaters will make remarks that derive from/rely upon a level of detailed subject matter comprehension that lay observers of the debate lack; however, as laymen, those observers almost certainly don't know they lack those pieces of information.
   • To the extent debates are conducted such that the general public are the primary consumers of the debate, a number of factors, not the least of which is time, confound the debaters' ability to deliver the topical background knowledge lay listeners need to comprehend fully the topic and, in turn, aptly evaluate the merit of the arguments presented by the debaters. That said, lay listeners will yet form an opinion on which debater's arguments struck them as more compelling.
3. To get informed on a matter, one should consume content rhetorically purposed on informing rather than on persuading. Regrettably, too many people approach complex matters the other way round.

For me this isn't about the parents or even the child themself, it's about the medical field. What are the repercussions of pumping children full of hormones? It strikes me that there is a lowering of standards for this one instance. I don't understand that. What happened to standards of care, the hippocratic oath?

The Hippocratic Oath bids medical professionals to do no harm given what they know/what is known about a physical or mental status in which patients find themselves. It does not call doctors to refrain from taking action because something is unknown.

As goes transgenderism and the physiological procedures that transform one from male to female, yes, some of the long term effects are not known.

• Understanding Gender Nonconformity in Childhood and Adolescence

The same can be said of myriad nascent medical modalities, the maturity of such things being determined not by the passage of time, but by the incidence of occurrence and subsequent monitoring. Furthermore, discovery of the body of long term effects, particularly with regard to their being applied to minors, does not happen rapidly because there simply aren't that many kids who undergo the procedures.

• Serving Transgender Youth: Challenges, Dilemmas and Clinical Examples
  
• Endocrine Treatment of Transsexual Persons:An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline
  
• Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People
  
• Affirmative Practice With Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Youth: Expanding the Model
  
• An Endocrine Perspective on the Care of Transgender Adolescents

Between 1998 and 2010, 97 children underwent the procedures; however, up to 10K children (of the millions on the planet) are estimated to suffer from gender dysphoria issues.

One question that arises is, why was transgenderism changed from a disorder to a dysphoria ( I think, I'm in no way an expert)?

AFAIK, no such change has occurred. It's my understanding that the two are, quite simply, different things: one, a disorder, is a behavior and the other is a state of mind/being. Laymen may conflate and/or equate the two, but clinicians do not.

• What Is Gender Dysphoria?
• According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), disorders are thought of as “a clinically significant behavior, psychologically syndrome, or a pattern that occurs in an individual typically associated with distress, painful symptomology, disability or impairment.” (Source)
  
• Dysphoria, on the other hand, is a “psychological state that causes one to experience feelings of anxiety, restlessness and depression. It is not necessarily diagnosable, or something that would be identified in the DSM, but it is more a state of being, a feeling or unpleasantness or discomfort.” (Source)

As go dysphorias, if one attests to feeling a given way, who am I to say they don't feel the way they say they do? Though others may not be able to identify why the individual has his/her dysphoric feelings, clinicians are by their Hippocratic Oath required to, using the currently available information and research, try to help such individuals overcome their feelings. One of the ways used is helping the patient undergo the sex reassignment process; however, clinicians don't embark on that process lightly. They aren't nearly as acquiescent about doing that sort of thing as are, say, cosmetic dentists and surgeons are about installing crowns and doing rhinoplasty.

Every time the answers are the same, is there new research? No.Is there a new school of thought backed up by observation? No.

I have no way to remark upon this. What I can do is point you to the most recent literature review of which I'm aware.

• Gender dysphoria in children and adolescents: a review of recent research

It's political.

I'm sorry, but I find it very hard to believe that politics motivates any clinician to agree to and, in turn, help any patient through the process of transforming their overt sexual characteristics from male to female or vice versa. On the other hand, politicians absolutely consider, discuss and debate the matter and arrive at stances due to the political expediency of the stance(s) they take on it.

All that, and still you and no one else can definitively tell me why the APA changed transgenderism from a disorder to dysphoria. And even at a dysphoria, this warrants massive hormonal replacement? The results of which are entirely unknown? Some are even pushing for reassignment surgery? In children? As others have noted, of children that identify as the opposite sex 85 - 95% accept their birth sex by the time of puberty. What are the effects on a child, that had an 80 to 95% chance of accepting their birth sex, after being pumped full of hormones of the opposite sex? And all of this with the backdrop of no evidence whatsoever, that hormonal treatment or even reassignment surgery aids in the highest suicidal rate known. Psychiatry, it seems to me, has striven to be as empirically careful as the medical field, except in this one instance. Something is not right, and it's politics. And that truly is scary.

All that, and still you and no one else can definitively tell me why the APA changed transgenderism from a disorder to dysphoria.

It's not clear to me that the APA actually did do so. That said, what is it about the difference between a behavior and a state of being that you don't understand? "All that" I wrote and the distinction between the two got by you.

Even if they did, medically, what difference does it make and what makes you, a self proclaimed non-expert on the matter, one who's right to challenge/refute their having done so, assuming they did in fact do so.

As far as the APA, compare dsm 4 to dsm 5. As far as the other, please find me someone that will back the change. I've listened to a number of psychiatric professionals, none will back the change with anything but opinion. Again in a field that seems to strive for "scientific" validity that sucks. I do not claim any authority, when those that do claim authority cannot or will not speak, there is a problem.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, that remains to be seen.

I understand you're remarks derive from some sort of altruism; that you have some is commendable. By the same token, however, it's not my place, or anyone's IMO, to have strong direct-affect views on a very rarefied matter about which I have no first-person perspective and about which the affected people do have such a perspective.

If, say, a girl thinks she should have been born a boy, what am I to say about that? Hell, I don't know what it feels like to be a girl, let alone a girl who feels as though she's supposed to be a boy. I am equally challenged to understand what it feels like to be boy who thinks he should be a girl. I've spent my whole life as a male who's content with being so.

As goes the physiological risks, well, if a kid's parents become convinced it's the right thing for their kid to do, well it just is. It's not my place to tell someone how to manage the issues that confront their kids. I certainly wouldn't countenance someone's having inserting themselves into the decisions I made for my kids.

Lord knows, my parents briefly tried, and my wife and I had to "lay down the law" and let them know they could either butt out or not see their grandkids, for we were not going to let them exist as strong influencers in forming our kids' worldviews that contravened ours. You know as well as I that if I wasn't of a mind to forbear my own parents' inserting themselves that way, others whom I know cannot possibly have the extent of love and concern for my kids that I, my wife and my parents do for them most certainly will not be allowed to do so.

This is where I think this whole issue goes of the rail. For me this isn't about the parents or even the child themself, it's about the medical field. What are the repercussions of pumping children full of hormones? It strikes me that there is a lowering of standards for this one instance. I don't understand that. What happened to standards of care, the hippocratic oath?

In addition, I've watched a number of debates on the transgender issue. One question that arises is, why was transgenderism changed from a disorder to a dysphoria( I think, I'm in no way an expert)? Every time the answers are the same, is there new research? No.Is there a new school of thought backed up by observation? No. It's political. That's dangerous. In a population that has a lifetime suicide attempt rate of 40% making decisions based on politics is obscene and dangerous. And this is at the level of national governing bodies. That's worrisome, at the least.

I've watched a number of debates on the transgender issue....I'm in no way an expert

1. I'm not sure where you watched such things. Researchers conduct their debates on matters of all sort in scholarly journals. One (or a group) of them does research, and publishes the findings. Other experts publish critiques of those findings and/or expand upon the findings by performing their own research into the matter or some dimension of it. Occasionally, a group of researchers organizes a project that expressly solicits multi-disciplinary contributions from researchers, and such things are thought of not as papers but rather as research projects. I know of one such project that pertained to transgender matters: Introduction to the Special Issue on “The Treatment of Gender Dysphoric/Gender Variant Children and Adolescents.” (See also: Instructions for Authors)
   
   Be it as a project or individually conceived research efforts, the process continues thus, and over time, a body of knowledge is developed based on all those findings there eventually forms among the community of experts a general consensus about the matter or key aspects of it.
   
   I suppose one can call reading those papers "watching" the debate, but it's odd that one would so describe the debate among researchers. Watching a debate among researchers at a professional symposium, conference, or seminar is surely a "watching" kind of thing. Is that the sort of debate to which you referred?
2. To the extent that debates form the primary mode by which you've come to be informed about the matter may be part of what's confounding your comprehension of the matter.
   • A debater's rhetorical purpose is to argue a point of view more compellingly than one's debate opponent. A debater's rhetorical purpose is not that of comprehensively informing listeners to the debate of subject matter being debated, to say nothing of doing so disinterestedly, though some audience members may obtain information as a result of listening.
   • While debating the matter, duly qualified debaters will make remarks that derive from/rely upon a level of detailed subject matter comprehension that lay observers of the debate lack; however, as laymen, those observers almost certainly don't know they lack those pieces of information.
   • To the extent debates are conducted such that the general public are the primary consumers of the debate, a number of factors, not the least of which is time, confound the debaters' ability to deliver the topical background knowledge lay listeners need to comprehend fully the topic and, in turn, aptly evaluate the merit of the arguments presented by the debaters. That said, lay listeners will yet form an opinion on which debater's arguments struck them as more compelling.
3. To get informed on a matter, one should consume content rhetorically purposed on informing rather than on persuading. Regrettably, too many people approach complex matters the other way round.

For me this isn't about the parents or even the child themself, it's about the medical field. What are the repercussions of pumping children full of hormones? It strikes me that there is a lowering of standards for this one instance. I don't understand that. What happened to standards of care, the hippocratic oath?

The Hippocratic Oath bids medical professionals to do no harm given what they know/what is known about a physical or mental status in which patients find themselves. It does not call doctors to refrain from taking action because something is unknown.

As goes transgenderism and the physiological procedures that transform one from male to female, yes, some of the long term effects are not known.

• Understanding Gender Nonconformity in Childhood and Adolescence

The same can be said of myriad nascent medical modalities, the maturity of such things being determined not by the passage of time, but by the incidence of occurrence and subsequent monitoring. Furthermore, discovery of the body of long term effects, particularly with regard to their being applied to minors, does not happen rapidly because there simply aren't that many kids who undergo the procedures.

• Serving Transgender Youth: Challenges, Dilemmas and Clinical Examples
  
• Endocrine Treatment of Transsexual Persons:An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline
  
• Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People
  
• Affirmative Practice With Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Youth: Expanding the Model
  
• An Endocrine Perspective on the Care of Transgender Adolescents

Between 1998 and 2010, 97 children underwent the procedures; however, up to 10K children (of the millions on the planet) are estimated to suffer from gender dysphoria issues.

One question that arises is, why was transgenderism changed from a disorder to a dysphoria ( I think, I'm in no way an expert)?

AFAIK, no such change has occurred. It's my understanding that the two are, quite simply, different things: one, a disorder, is a behavior and the other is a state of mind/being. Laymen may conflate and/or equate the two, but clinicians do not.

• What Is Gender Dysphoria?
• According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), disorders are thought of as “a clinically significant behavior, psychologically syndrome, or a pattern that occurs in an individual typically associated with distress, painful symptomology, disability or impairment.” (Source)
  
• Dysphoria, on the other hand, is a “psychological state that causes one to experience feelings of anxiety, restlessness and depression. It is not necessarily diagnosable, or something that would be identified in the DSM, but it is more a state of being, a feeling or unpleasantness or discomfort.” (Source)

As go dysphorias, if one attests to feeling a given way, who am I to say they don't feel the way they say they do? Though others may not be able to identify why the individual has his/her dysphoric feelings, clinicians are by their Hippocratic Oath required to, using the currently available information and research, try to help such individuals overcome their feelings. One of the ways used is helping the patient undergo the sex reassignment process; however, clinicians don't embark on that process lightly. They aren't nearly as acquiescent about doing that sort of thing as are, say, cosmetic dentists and surgeons are about installing crowns and doing rhinoplasty.

Every time the answers are the same, is there new research? No.Is there a new school of thought backed up by observation? No.

I have no way to remark upon this. What I can do is point you to the most recent literature review of which I'm aware.

• Gender dysphoria in children and adolescents: a review of recent research

It's political.

I'm sorry, but I find it very hard to believe that politics motivates any clinician to agree to and, in turn, help any patient through the process of transforming their overt sexual characteristics from male to female or vice versa. On the other hand, politicians absolutely consider, discuss and debate the matter and arrive at stances due to the political expediency of the stance(s) they take on it.

All that, and still you and no one else can definitively tell me why the APA changed transgenderism from a disorder to dysphoria. And even at a dysphoria, this warrants massive hormonal replacement? The results of which are entirely unknown? Some are even pushing for reassignment surgery? In children? As others have noted, of children that identify as the opposite sex 85 - 95% accept their birth sex by the time of puberty. What are the effects on a child, that had an 80 to 95% chance of accepting their birth sex, after being pumped full of hormones of the opposite sex? And all of this with the backdrop of no evidence whatsoever, that hormonal treatment or even reassignment surgery aids in the highest suicidal rate known. Psychiatry, it seems to me, has striven to be as empirically careful as the medical field, except in this one instance. Something is not right, and it's politics. And that truly is scary.

All that, and still you and no one else can definitively tell me why the APA changed transgenderism from a disorder to dysphoria.

It's not clear to me that the APA actually did do so. That said, what is it about the difference between a behavior and a state of being that you don't understand? "All that" I wrote and the distinction between the two got by you.

Even if they did, medically, what difference does it make and what makes you, a self proclaimed non-expert on the matter, one who's right to challenge/refute their having done so, assuming they did in fact do so.

As far as the APA, compare dsm 4 to dsm 5. As far as the other, please find me someone that will back the change. I've listened to a number of psychiatric professionals, none will back the change with anything but opinion. Again in a field that seems to strive for "scientific" validity that sucks. I do not claim any authority, when those that do claim authority cannot or will not speak, there is a problem.

They have become ridiculous and, yes, I think they have caved under pressure to conform. Now you are only considered a pedophile if you only fantasize about having sex with kiddies OVER a certain amount of hours in a day. So, if you only think about kiddies in sexual situations for 2 hours a day as opposed to 4 hours a day, then you are "normal" I suppose. Blech! That pisses me off to no end! They are dangerous to children!

 

[JoeMoma]

I guess it’s similar to lesbian couples in which one is the butch and one is the fem. And often the fem will turn out to be bisexual or a bicurious that is experimenting.

Okay, that is your theory but it doesn't really explain how one guy can claim to be "gay" (attracted to his own sex), yet the ones trying to attract him are putting on a caricature performance of being "feminine."

The feminine man is still a man. The butch (masculine) woman is still a woman. I guess there are different degrees of gayness along the sexual orientation spectrum. Just my theory.

But wouldn't you say that if you are attracted to "feminine traits" then you are attracted to females?

Does liking a penis in your butt mean you are "gay" (attracted to male qualities?) or is just completely based on the sexual act? Would they like it just as much if a woman was to hump them in their butt?

Woah this conversation is getting x-rated.

I’m not qualified to answer, ‘cause I like girls.

Sorry, I was using the term "you" in a general way. I wasn't really asking YOU.

Anyways, the whole situation lacks any logic at all.

Well, maybe I am more qualified than I thought. A girly man is still a man and I would be gay to be attracted to such a man. Thus, I find real woman sexually attrive, not girly men. I am straight.

 

[ChrisL]

Okay, that is your theory but it doesn't really explain how one guy can claim to be "gay" (attracted to his own sex), yet the ones trying to attract him are putting on a caricature performance of being "feminine."

The feminine man is still a man. The butch (masculine) woman is still a woman. I guess there are different degrees of gayness along the sexual orientation spectrum. Just my theory.

But wouldn't you say that if you are attracted to "feminine traits" then you are attracted to females?

Does liking a penis in your butt mean you are "gay" (attracted to male qualities?) or is just completely based on the sexual act? Would they like it just as much if a woman was to hump them in their butt?

Woah this conversation is getting x-rated.

I’m not qualified to answer, ‘cause I like girls.

Sorry, I was using the term "you" in a general way. I wasn't really asking YOU.

Anyways, the whole situation lacks any logic at all.

Well, maybe I am more qualified than I thought. A girly man is still a man and I would be gay to be attracted to such a man. Thus, I find real woman sexually attrive, not girly men. I am straight.

Okay, that is an opinion from a heterosexual male though. However if a man is to claim he is attracted ONLY to men, then why is he actually attracted to what would be considered feminine behaviors? That doesn't make sense. MOST gay men are kind of on the girly side. I mean, you can usually tell when a man is gay because he displays feminine mannerisms.

 

[baileyn45]

This is where I think this whole issue goes of the rail. For me this isn't about the parents or even the child themself, it's about the medical field. What are the repercussions of pumping children full of hormones? It strikes me that there is a lowering of standards for this one instance. I don't understand that. What happened to standards of care, the hippocratic oath?

In addition, I've watched a number of debates on the transgender issue. One question that arises is, why was transgenderism changed from a disorder to a dysphoria( I think, I'm in no way an expert)? Every time the answers are the same, is there new research? No.Is there a new school of thought backed up by observation? No. It's political. That's dangerous. In a population that has a lifetime suicide attempt rate of 40% making decisions based on politics is obscene and dangerous. And this is at the level of national governing bodies. That's worrisome, at the least.

I've watched a number of debates on the transgender issue....I'm in no way an expert

1. I'm not sure where you watched such things. Researchers conduct their debates on matters of all sort in scholarly journals. One (or a group) of them does research, and publishes the findings. Other experts publish critiques of those findings and/or expand upon the findings by performing their own research into the matter or some dimension of it. Occasionally, a group of researchers organizes a project that expressly solicits multi-disciplinary contributions from researchers, and such things are thought of not as papers but rather as research projects. I know of one such project that pertained to transgender matters: Introduction to the Special Issue on “The Treatment of Gender Dysphoric/Gender Variant Children and Adolescents.” (See also: Instructions for Authors)
   
   Be it as a project or individually conceived research efforts, the process continues thus, and over time, a body of knowledge is developed based on all those findings there eventually forms among the community of experts a general consensus about the matter or key aspects of it.
   
   I suppose one can call reading those papers "watching" the debate, but it's odd that one would so describe the debate among researchers. Watching a debate among researchers at a professional symposium, conference, or seminar is surely a "watching" kind of thing. Is that the sort of debate to which you referred?
2. To the extent that debates form the primary mode by which you've come to be informed about the matter may be part of what's confounding your comprehension of the matter.
   • A debater's rhetorical purpose is to argue a point of view more compellingly than one's debate opponent. A debater's rhetorical purpose is not that of comprehensively informing listeners to the debate of subject matter being debated, to say nothing of doing so disinterestedly, though some audience members may obtain information as a result of listening.
   • While debating the matter, duly qualified debaters will make remarks that derive from/rely upon a level of detailed subject matter comprehension that lay observers of the debate lack; however, as laymen, those observers almost certainly don't know they lack those pieces of information.
   • To the extent debates are conducted such that the general public are the primary consumers of the debate, a number of factors, not the least of which is time, confound the debaters' ability to deliver the topical background knowledge lay listeners need to comprehend fully the topic and, in turn, aptly evaluate the merit of the arguments presented by the debaters. That said, lay listeners will yet form an opinion on which debater's arguments struck them as more compelling.
3. To get informed on a matter, one should consume content rhetorically purposed on informing rather than on persuading. Regrettably, too many people approach complex matters the other way round.

For me this isn't about the parents or even the child themself, it's about the medical field. What are the repercussions of pumping children full of hormones? It strikes me that there is a lowering of standards for this one instance. I don't understand that. What happened to standards of care, the hippocratic oath?

The Hippocratic Oath bids medical professionals to do no harm given what they know/what is known about a physical or mental status in which patients find themselves. It does not call doctors to refrain from taking action because something is unknown.

As goes transgenderism and the physiological procedures that transform one from male to female, yes, some of the long term effects are not known.

• Understanding Gender Nonconformity in Childhood and Adolescence

The same can be said of myriad nascent medical modalities, the maturity of such things being determined not by the passage of time, but by the incidence of occurrence and subsequent monitoring. Furthermore, discovery of the body of long term effects, particularly with regard to their being applied to minors, does not happen rapidly because there simply aren't that many kids who undergo the procedures.

• Serving Transgender Youth: Challenges, Dilemmas and Clinical Examples
  
• Endocrine Treatment of Transsexual Persons:An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline
  
• Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People
  
• Affirmative Practice With Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Youth: Expanding the Model
  
• An Endocrine Perspective on the Care of Transgender Adolescents

Between 1998 and 2010, 97 children underwent the procedures; however, up to 10K children (of the millions on the planet) are estimated to suffer from gender dysphoria issues.

One question that arises is, why was transgenderism changed from a disorder to a dysphoria ( I think, I'm in no way an expert)?

AFAIK, no such change has occurred. It's my understanding that the two are, quite simply, different things: one, a disorder, is a behavior and the other is a state of mind/being. Laymen may conflate and/or equate the two, but clinicians do not.

• What Is Gender Dysphoria?
• According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), disorders are thought of as “a clinically significant behavior, psychologically syndrome, or a pattern that occurs in an individual typically associated with distress, painful symptomology, disability or impairment.” (Source)
  
• Dysphoria, on the other hand, is a “psychological state that causes one to experience feelings of anxiety, restlessness and depression. It is not necessarily diagnosable, or something that would be identified in the DSM, but it is more a state of being, a feeling or unpleasantness or discomfort.” (Source)

As go dysphorias, if one attests to feeling a given way, who am I to say they don't feel the way they say they do? Though others may not be able to identify why the individual has his/her dysphoric feelings, clinicians are by their Hippocratic Oath required to, using the currently available information and research, try to help such individuals overcome their feelings. One of the ways used is helping the patient undergo the sex reassignment process; however, clinicians don't embark on that process lightly. They aren't nearly as acquiescent about doing that sort of thing as are, say, cosmetic dentists and surgeons are about installing crowns and doing rhinoplasty.

Every time the answers are the same, is there new research? No.Is there a new school of thought backed up by observation? No.

I have no way to remark upon this. What I can do is point you to the most recent literature review of which I'm aware.

• Gender dysphoria in children and adolescents: a review of recent research

It's political.

I'm sorry, but I find it very hard to believe that politics motivates any clinician to agree to and, in turn, help any patient through the process of transforming their overt sexual characteristics from male to female or vice versa. On the other hand, politicians absolutely consider, discuss and debate the matter and arrive at stances due to the political expediency of the stance(s) they take on it.

All that, and still you and no one else can definitively tell me why the APA changed transgenderism from a disorder to dysphoria. And even at a dysphoria, this warrants massive hormonal replacement? The results of which are entirely unknown? Some are even pushing for reassignment surgery? In children? As others have noted, of children that identify as the opposite sex 85 - 95% accept their birth sex by the time of puberty. What are the effects on a child, that had an 80 to 95% chance of accepting their birth sex, after being pumped full of hormones of the opposite sex? And all of this with the backdrop of no evidence whatsoever, that hormonal treatment or even reassignment surgery aids in the highest suicidal rate known. Psychiatry, it seems to me, has striven to be as empirically careful as the medical field, except in this one instance. Something is not right, and it's politics. And that truly is scary.

All that, and still you and no one else can definitively tell me why the APA changed transgenderism from a disorder to dysphoria.

It's not clear to me that the APA actually did do so. That said, what is it about the difference between a behavior and a state of being that you don't understand? "All that" I wrote and the distinction between the two got by you.

Even if they did, medically, what difference does it make and what makes you, a self proclaimed non-expert on the matter, one who's right to challenge/refute their having done so, assuming they did in fact do so.

As far as the APA, compare dsm 4 to dsm 5. As far as the other, please find me someone that will back the change. I've listened to a number of psychiatric professionals, none will back the change with anything but opinion. Again in a field that seems to strive for "scientific" validity that sucks. I do not claim any authority, when those that do claim authority cannot or will not speak, there is a problem.

They have become ridiculous and, yes, I think they have caved under pressure to conform. Now you are only considered a pedophile if you only fantasize about having sex with kiddies OVER a certain amount of hours in a day. So, if you only think about kiddies in sexual situations for 2 hours a day as opposed to 4 hours a day, then you are "normal" I suppose. Blech! That pisses me off to no end! They are dangerous to children!

Honestly, I don't believe I was discussing pedophelia. I have concern and empathy for trans folks. I will never afford such to anyone that hurts a child. That would be the one subject that would cause me to lose control.

 

[ChrisL]

1. I'm not sure where you watched such things. Researchers conduct their debates on matters of all sort in scholarly journals. One (or a group) of them does research, and publishes the findings. Other experts publish critiques of those findings and/or expand upon the findings by performing their own research into the matter or some dimension of it. Occasionally, a group of researchers organizes a project that expressly solicits multi-disciplinary contributions from researchers, and such things are thought of not as papers but rather as research projects. I know of one such project that pertained to transgender matters: Introduction to the Special Issue on “The Treatment of Gender Dysphoric/Gender Variant Children and Adolescents.” (See also: Instructions for Authors)
   
   Be it as a project or individually conceived research efforts, the process continues thus, and over time, a body of knowledge is developed based on all those findings there eventually forms among the community of experts a general consensus about the matter or key aspects of it.
   
   I suppose one can call reading those papers "watching" the debate, but it's odd that one would so describe the debate among researchers. Watching a debate among researchers at a professional symposium, conference, or seminar is surely a "watching" kind of thing. Is that the sort of debate to which you referred?
2. To the extent that debates form the primary mode by which you've come to be informed about the matter may be part of what's confounding your comprehension of the matter.
   • A debater's rhetorical purpose is to argue a point of view more compellingly than one's debate opponent. A debater's rhetorical purpose is not that of comprehensively informing listeners to the debate of subject matter being debated, to say nothing of doing so disinterestedly, though some audience members may obtain information as a result of listening.
   • While debating the matter, duly qualified debaters will make remarks that derive from/rely upon a level of detailed subject matter comprehension that lay observers of the debate lack; however, as laymen, those observers almost certainly don't know they lack those pieces of information.
   • To the extent debates are conducted such that the general public are the primary consumers of the debate, a number of factors, not the least of which is time, confound the debaters' ability to deliver the topical background knowledge lay listeners need to comprehend fully the topic and, in turn, aptly evaluate the merit of the arguments presented by the debaters. That said, lay listeners will yet form an opinion on which debater's arguments struck them as more compelling.
3. To get informed on a matter, one should consume content rhetorically purposed on informing rather than on persuading. Regrettably, too many people approach complex matters the other way round.

The Hippocratic Oath bids medical professionals to do no harm given what they know/what is known about a physical or mental status in which patients find themselves. It does not call doctors to refrain from taking action because something is unknown.

As goes transgenderism and the physiological procedures that transform one from male to female, yes, some of the long term effects are not known.

• Understanding Gender Nonconformity in Childhood and Adolescence

The same can be said of myriad nascent medical modalities, the maturity of such things being determined not by the passage of time, but by the incidence of occurrence and subsequent monitoring. Furthermore, discovery of the body of long term effects, particularly with regard to their being applied to minors, does not happen rapidly because there simply aren't that many kids who undergo the procedures.

• Serving Transgender Youth: Challenges, Dilemmas and Clinical Examples
  
• Endocrine Treatment of Transsexual Persons:An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline
  
• Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People
  
• Affirmative Practice With Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Youth: Expanding the Model
  
• An Endocrine Perspective on the Care of Transgender Adolescents

Between 1998 and 2010, 97 children underwent the procedures; however, up to 10K children (of the millions on the planet) are estimated to suffer from gender dysphoria issues.

AFAIK, no such change has occurred. It's my understanding that the two are, quite simply, different things: one, a disorder, is a behavior and the other is a state of mind/being. Laymen may conflate and/or equate the two, but clinicians do not.

• What Is Gender Dysphoria?
• According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), disorders are thought of as “a clinically significant behavior, psychologically syndrome, or a pattern that occurs in an individual typically associated with distress, painful symptomology, disability or impairment.” (Source)
  
• Dysphoria, on the other hand, is a “psychological state that causes one to experience feelings of anxiety, restlessness and depression. It is not necessarily diagnosable, or something that would be identified in the DSM, but it is more a state of being, a feeling or unpleasantness or discomfort.” (Source)

As go dysphorias, if one attests to feeling a given way, who am I to say they don't feel the way they say they do? Though others may not be able to identify why the individual has his/her dysphoric feelings, clinicians are by their Hippocratic Oath required to, using the currently available information and research, try to help such individuals overcome their feelings. One of the ways used is helping the patient undergo the sex reassignment process; however, clinicians don't embark on that process lightly. They aren't nearly as acquiescent about doing that sort of thing as are, say, cosmetic dentists and surgeons are about installing crowns and doing rhinoplasty.

I have no way to remark upon this. What I can do is point you to the most recent literature review of which I'm aware.

• Gender dysphoria in children and adolescents: a review of recent research

I'm sorry, but I find it very hard to believe that politics motivates any clinician to agree to and, in turn, help any patient through the process of transforming their overt sexual characteristics from male to female or vice versa. On the other hand, politicians absolutely consider, discuss and debate the matter and arrive at stances due to the political expediency of the stance(s) they take on it.

All that, and still you and no one else can definitively tell me why the APA changed transgenderism from a disorder to dysphoria. And even at a dysphoria, this warrants massive hormonal replacement? The results of which are entirely unknown? Some are even pushing for reassignment surgery? In children? As others have noted, of children that identify as the opposite sex 85 - 95% accept their birth sex by the time of puberty. What are the effects on a child, that had an 80 to 95% chance of accepting their birth sex, after being pumped full of hormones of the opposite sex? And all of this with the backdrop of no evidence whatsoever, that hormonal treatment or even reassignment surgery aids in the highest suicidal rate known. Psychiatry, it seems to me, has striven to be as empirically careful as the medical field, except in this one instance. Something is not right, and it's politics. And that truly is scary.

All that, and still you and no one else can definitively tell me why the APA changed transgenderism from a disorder to dysphoria.

It's not clear to me that the APA actually did do so. That said, what is it about the difference between a behavior and a state of being that you don't understand? "All that" I wrote and the distinction between the two got by you.

Even if they did, medically, what difference does it make and what makes you, a self proclaimed non-expert on the matter, one who's right to challenge/refute their having done so, assuming they did in fact do so.

As far as the APA, compare dsm 4 to dsm 5. As far as the other, please find me someone that will back the change. I've listened to a number of psychiatric professionals, none will back the change with anything but opinion. Again in a field that seems to strive for "scientific" validity that sucks. I do not claim any authority, when those that do claim authority cannot or will not speak, there is a problem.

They have become ridiculous and, yes, I think they have caved under pressure to conform. Now you are only considered a pedophile if you only fantasize about having sex with kiddies OVER a certain amount of hours in a day. So, if you only think about kiddies in sexual situations for 2 hours a day as opposed to 4 hours a day, then you are "normal" I suppose. Blech! That pisses me off to no end! They are dangerous to children!

Honestly, I don't believe I was discussing pedophelia. I have concern and empathy for trans folks. I will never afford such to anyone that hurts a child. That would be the one subject that would cause me to lose control.

I'm just saying that the definition of transgender isn't the only thing they've changed recently.

 

[ChrisL]

People have to keep in mind that these DSM diagnoses are not definitive science either. Nothing in psychology/psychiatry is ever definitive. Their educated hypotheses do not make them FACTS.

 

[baileyn45]

All that, and still you and no one else can definitively tell me why the APA changed transgenderism from a disorder to dysphoria. And even at a dysphoria, this warrants massive hormonal replacement? The results of which are entirely unknown? Some are even pushing for reassignment surgery? In children? As others have noted, of children that identify as the opposite sex 85 - 95% accept their birth sex by the time of puberty. What are the effects on a child, that had an 80 to 95% chance of accepting their birth sex, after being pumped full of hormones of the opposite sex? And all of this with the backdrop of no evidence whatsoever, that hormonal treatment or even reassignment surgery aids in the highest suicidal rate known. Psychiatry, it seems to me, has striven to be as empirically careful as the medical field, except in this one instance. Something is not right, and it's politics. And that truly is scary.

All that, and still you and no one else can definitively tell me why the APA changed transgenderism from a disorder to dysphoria.

It's not clear to me that the APA actually did do so. That said, what is it about the difference between a behavior and a state of being that you don't understand? "All that" I wrote and the distinction between the two got by you.

Even if they did, medically, what difference does it make and what makes you, a self proclaimed non-expert on the matter, one who's right to challenge/refute their having done so, assuming they did in fact do so.

As far as the APA, compare dsm 4 to dsm 5. As far as the other, please find me someone that will back the change. I've listened to a number of psychiatric professionals, none will back the change with anything but opinion. Again in a field that seems to strive for "scientific" validity that sucks. I do not claim any authority, when those that do claim authority cannot or will not speak, there is a problem.

They have become ridiculous and, yes, I think they have caved under pressure to conform. Now you are only considered a pedophile if you only fantasize about having sex with kiddies OVER a certain amount of hours in a day. So, if you only think about kiddies in sexual situations for 2 hours a day as opposed to 4 hours a day, then you are "normal" I suppose. Blech! That pisses me off to no end! They are dangerous to children!

Honestly, I don't believe I was discussing pedophelia. I have concern and empathy for trans folks. I will never afford such to anyone that hurts a child. That would be the one subject that would cause me to lose control.

I'm just saying that the definition of transgender isn't the only thing they've changed recently.

Agreed

 

[SeaGal]

The leftists try to shut down any discussions about anything by simply accusing the side they disagree with of "hatred." Such a transparent and weak tactic.

Excellent point.

Hateful, anti-immigrant, racist, bigot, homophobe, islamophobe, misogynist - are all red herrings used in the attempt to distract from the direction the conversation is going.

I have to admit the attempts at deflection are interesting to watch tho' - a contortionist in a traveling circus would be envious.

You know how the leftists love to assign people to boxes based on gender, race and/or creed, right?...and when one of those boxed folks 'misbehave' ain't it funny how quick they are to remind us of the evil in judging the many by the actions of the few...unless it's Christians misbehaving.

Do you know what the only unpardonable sin is in the leftists code of conduct book?...escaping the box. They have a special kind of enmity for folks who reject their brand of 'good will'.

 

[SeaGal]

American right-wingers seem to become hysterical whenever matters involving sex or gender come up, as if it were any of their business what someone else does.

There is one sure fire way to keep what you do private - and I'm pretty sure that airing your business on social media ain't it.

 

[Lysistrata]

American right-wingers seem to become hysterical whenever matters involving sex or gender come up, as if it were any of their business what someone else does.

There is one sure fire way to keep what you do private - and I'm pretty sure that airing your business on social media ain't it.

I don't keep up with social media. I've heard that some people are posing pictures of themselves having sex and while I might not approve, I don't have to see it. My comment was not about this, however. I meant hysteria over fact-based sex education or a person's announcement that he or she is married (we sort of know what married people do), making lewd comments that people should put an aspirin between their knees, running around screeching like somebody is having sex at 12th and Main at high noon. Its creepy.

 

[SeaGal]

I don't keep up with social media. I've heard that some people are posing pictures of themselves having sex and while I might not approve, I don't have to see it. My comment was not about this, however. I meant hysteria over fact-based sex education or a person's announcement that he or she is married (we sort of know what married people do), making lewd comments that people should put an aspirin between their knees, running around screeching like somebody is having sex at 12th and Main at high noon. Its creepy.

Without the public posting of a private matter via social media this thread would not have happened.

Fact-based sex education, in order to be factual, would include the fact that barring surgical removal of reproductive organs the only 100% effective form of birth control is to not have sex. That fact starts the discussion and dispels many birth control myths.

Since when is discussing biology and nature a form of hysteria? Where did you hear 'lewd comments' that 'people should put an aspirin between their knees'?

 

[Tilly]

Transgender should not be confused with gay or straight. Jenner says he still prefers the ladies, as does a teenager transitioning from male to female as 'documented' on TLC

When I close my eyes and just be me in my head, I’m not usually thinking about what reproductive parts my body has. I like what I like. I don’t like what I don’t like. In today’s society, there are very few roles that aren’t interchangeable between males and females. If I eliminate sexual preference from the equation, being male or female has little to do with who I am. It just doesn’t make sense to have anxiety about being male or female....I accept myself for who I am. My reproductive parts do not determine my happiness or the person I am on the inside.

It probably helped that you weren’t being ‘encouraged’ to continually question your gender when you were a kid.

 

[martybegan]

I don't think the CDZ meant what I thought it did.

This thread seems pretty CIVIL to me. This topic has been discussed in other zones.......it can get very ugly.

Okay. I was surprised to see that this is a Christian family, dad's a pastor, etc. Nobody seems to have found that unusual or worthy of a paradigm shift.

It could be the case the parents would rather blame physical biological disorders than admit their child might be gay.

One only has to look at the whole weird transgender thing in Iran to get an example.

Transsexuality in Iran - Wikipedia

 

[Tilly]

Children are malleable and they should not be encouraged to be gender dysmorphic.
They need parental guidance.

And when they get older, and they remain certain they are in the wrong body. How do you then proceed?

There are studies that reveal that 75% or more of children who are believing that they are "transgender" grow out of it by the time they reach their mid 20s.

Yes, unless they start injecting the poor kids with puberty blocking hormones from age 12+ as they do now. Suspicious.

 

[Tilly]

I don't think the CDZ meant what I thought it did.

Well it’s very civilised.
You thought it meant everyone must agree with you?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It probably helps that you weren’t being ‘encouraged’ to continually question your gender when you were a kid.

I used to question my gender quite a bit when I was young because I liked the answers I got so much.

Heck, when I was 14, I think I was questioning my gender three or four times every day!