Zone1 Let's Debate: Is "Transgender" a Valid Concept based in Reality?

[Frankeneinstein]

Let's Debate: Is "Transgender" a Valid Concept based in Reality?​

Yes...problem is, once it reaches the hoi paloi [sp] of 'educational' institutions the debate shifts from proving the "concept" to proving it through the manipulation of language...we may not accept it, mostly due to how few folks seem to be, for lack of a better term, afflicted, but we do need to accommodate those few for who this is very real problem.

 

[alang1216]

Unfortunately, that is the argument from authority fallacy.

Actually it is not:

The appeal to authority fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam) occurs when an argument relies on the endorsement of an authority figure as evidence for the truth of a claim, even though that figure lacks relevant expertise, offers an opinion outside their field, or contradicts overall expert consensus. [1, 2]​

The American Psychological Association (APA), is none of those

Well . . . yes . . . but . . .

Keep in mind that the military also does not allow recruits on SSRI's for depression, ADHD meds, bi-polar medication, etc. along with pain management, sleep aids, and many other prescribed medications. Soldiering is an athletic occupation, often undertaken by young men and women who were not at all athletic in high school. They need to start off at a certain level of health before they get put into situations where they need to push themselves to the limit.

Just being "transgender" in your mind is not a behavior per say. But a male wearing a female uniform, or walking into a female shower, or other space is a behavior, that would severely damage the morale of the female trainees and service members.

They should not be banned for what they believe but for what they do. If they disobey the rules, chuck them out, if not, find a useful role they can play.

My argument for that is why even put the toilets and stalls in a separate room, then. Just line them up against a wall with no windows and everyone can conveniently just go into a stall and do their business. Since it does not matter who is in the room with them, I mean.

You're reaching.

I agree, but "transgender" does not equal black or gay, and it is insulting to those with those immutable traits to put them in the same category.

So being gay is 'immutable' but being transgender is not? Doesn't sound like settled science:

In discussions within communities, mixed opinions exist regarding how the concept of immutability should be applied to transgender people. Some argue that gender identity is as inherent as sexual orientation, while others point out that the transgender experience can involve an active, evolving process of social and medical transition. Furthermore, there is ongoing academic and legal debate regarding the right to choose "immutable" identity characteristics as opposed to them being strictly determined by birth. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]​

Yes, and as a parent and a teacher, I know how inappropriate that is.

I don't disagree.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Yes, I agree with that.

Odd thing is that this is the 36th post and no one has claimed any different. They've just attacked (mildly) the premise, nit-picked about definitions, and insulted me personally.

Actually, you claimed that a person believing something established objective reality.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Such a debate will have to start with definining the word "transgender." That is often the beginning and the rather abrupt end of such debates. So, I will propose a definition for us to have the debate about:

A transgender person or a person with transgenderism is a person who was born biologically one sex and who is in reality a person of the opposite sex.

If you have another definition, I am happy to debate whether that is the best definition and whether "transgender" is real under your definition.

My one rule is that the various medical conditions that fall under the layperson's term "intersex" not be part of the debate.

When I was a kid, the only term for not being normal was mentally ill.

 

[playtime]

sexual desire & sexual identity starts in the brain's wiring.

the body is secondary.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Actually it is not:

The appeal to authority fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam) occurs when an argument relies on the endorsement of an authority figure as evidence for the truth of a claim, even though that figure lacks relevant expertise, offers an opinion outside their field, or contradicts overall expert consensus. [1, 2]​

The American Psychological Association (APA), is none of those

When was the American Psychological Association correct about homesexuality? For 35 years when it declared homosexuality to be a mental disorder or since 1973 when the voted for it not to be?

If the APA is advocating that children be given hormones and surgery for "gender affirming" purposes, then it is in opposition to the medical standards of nearly every other first world nation on Earth. Therefore it contradicts overall expert consensus. and is the appeal to authority fallacy.

They should not be banned for what they believe but for what they do. If they disobey the rules, chuck them out, if not, find a useful role they can play.

I'm fine with not banning them for their beliefs, if they can function for four years as the gender that matches their biology, and won't be living at the chaplain's office or the psych counselors instead of pulling duty.

Except . . . there is a very high suicide rate among children and adolescents who identify as "transgender," regardless of what treatment they are given or not given. There is a greater cost to that than the military spending money teaching a service member a high tech MOS only to have them eat a bullet at the next range day.

Obviously, that is tragic for the individual and their parents would be in the right to sue the military for accepting their adult child with a mental disorder associated with self-harm and not following suicide prevention protocols. Aside from that, morale in the unit would be severely damaged by this avoidable tragedy.

What do you mean by "useful role?" Are you one of those who views service people as knuckle dragging useful idiots? If not, I apologize for sounding defensive.

You're reaching.

Maybe.

What about this that is not reaching:

What about a large single multiple-stalled restroom for "all genders," thus eliminating confusion? What argument could you make against that, that would not also apply to allowing biological males in the ladies room?

So being gay is 'immutable' but being transgender is not? Doesn't sound like settled science:

In discussions within communities, mixed opinions exist regarding how the concept of immutability should be applied to transgender people. Some argue that gender identity is as inherent as sexual orientation, while others point out that the transgender experience can involve an active, evolving process of social and medical transition. Furthermore, there is ongoing academic and legal debate regarding the right to choose "immutable" identity characteristics as opposed to them being strictly determined by birth. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]​

I don't disagree.

Well, we know that acting out the "transgender" chimera in an attempt to make it reality is mutable, and we know especially that the majority of children identified as "transgender" at young ages desist rather than persist in their "transgender" identification before or shortly after reaching adulthood. Especially those who are not encouraged to "transition" by adults are very likely to desist.

Do children grow out of gender dysphoria? - Transgender Trend

Do children change their minds and grow out of opposite-sex identification? Looking at the evidence and predictors for persistence and desistance.

www.transgendertrend.com

An analysis of 10 published studies can be seen here.

The later studies confirm earlier findings that gender dysphoria in early childhood does not persist in most children past puberty.

This Dutch study

(Steensma 2013) followed 127 children who were referred to the Gender Identity clinic in Amsterdam under the age of 12. The study looked to see if these children were still gender dysphoric by the time they reached adolescence at age fifteen. 37% of these children had persisted. However 64% of children had either desisted or were no longer traceable. Since there is only one Gender Identity clinic for children in Holland it can be assumed that the latter no longer required support and so had also desisted.


By 2013 the term ‘gender dysphoria’ was being used and the incidence of social transition was increasing. The study found that a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and social role transition were significant indicators of adolescent persistence of gender dysphoria.

Social role transition accounted for the largest portion of unique variability (12%), whereas each of the other significant predictors accounted for 6% to 7% of unique variability in persistence of GD.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Actually, you claimed that a person believing something established objective reality.

In what post did I do that?

 

[alang1216]

When was the American Psychological Association correct about homesexuality? For 35 years when it declared homosexuality to be a mental disorder or since 1973 when the voted for it not to be?

I like to think science progresses, like Einstein superseded Newton.

If the APA is advocating that children be given hormones and surgery for "gender affirming" purposes, then it is in opposition to the medical standards of nearly every other first world nation on Earth. Therefore it contradicts overall expert consensus. and is the appeal to authority fallacy.

"If" is a very big word. I bet neither of us know for sure but I'd bet that the APA advocates a range of treatments depending on the individual.

I'm fine with not banning them for their beliefs, if they can function for four years as the gender that matches their biology, and won't be living at the chaplain's office or the psych counselors instead of pulling duty.

Agreed.

Except . . . there is a very high suicide rate among children and adolescents who identify as "transgender," regardless of what treatment they are given or not given. There is a greater cost to that than the military spending money teaching a service member a high tech MOS only to have them eat a bullet at the next range day.

Obviously, that is tragic for the individual and their parents would be in the right to sue the military for accepting their adult child with a mental disorder associated with self-harm and not following suicide prevention protocols. Aside from that, morale in the unit would be severely damaged by this avoidable tragedy.

As I recall, suicide rates in the military are higher than in the general public. Also, soldiers are neither children nor adolescents.

What do you mean by "useful role?" Are you one of those who views service people as knuckle dragging useful idiots? If not, I apologize for sounding defensive.

I worked in the defense world for decades and have seen all kinds of people, the bad ones tend to get weeded out over time.

Maybe.

What about this that is not reaching:

What about a large single multiple-stalled restroom for "all genders," thus eliminating confusion? What argument could you make against that, that would not also apply to allowing biological males in the ladies room?

I have no issues with this. I've been to co-ed bathrooms, they are just fine.

Well, we know that acting out the "transgender" chimera in an attempt to make it reality is mutable, and we know especially that the majority of children identified as "transgender" at young ages desist rather than persist in their "transgender" identification before or shortly after reaching adulthood. Especially those who are not encouraged to "transition" by adults are very likely to desist.

I'm happy to go with the best science and data available.

 

[Rambunctious]

Its a mental illness.... treatable if not endorsed by society....

 

[Dogmaphobe]

In what post did I do that?

Your very first.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I like to think science progresses, like Einstein superseded Newton.

Yes science progresses. The APA changed the definition of "mental disorder" in 1973 such that homosexuality was no longer classified as a mental disorder. Not based on any science, and not based on any principle, but just so that homosexuality could now not be a mental disorder.

Not saying that they were wrong. But once again an organization thought of as scientific acts as if it can change science by changing definitions.

"If" is a very big word. I bet neither of us know for sure but I'd bet that the APA advocates a range of treatments depending on the individual.

Yes, and that range includes puberty blockers and surgery for minors.

Agreed.


As I recall, suicide rates in the military are higher than in the general public. Also, soldiers are neither children nor adolescents.

Fair point if you mean that there is little more risk in being a "transgender" soldier than in being a soldier period. I'm not sure that the suicidality of "transgenders" would be folded in with the suicidality of being a soldier, or would multiply by each other.

I worked in the defense world for decades and have seen all kinds of people, the bad ones tend to get weeded out over time.

Fair.

I have no issues with this. I've been to co-ed bathrooms, they are just fine.

I would have no issue myself, but I would have a big issue with my female loved ones and female colleagues and friends being given the option of holding it or sharing a bathroom with a male. On vacation in Holland, they had cleaning ladies stationed inside themens rooms, like mens room attendants in a fancy place except they just sat on a chair in their cleaning lady uniform with a tip plate on a little table. Didn't bother me, but if Mrs. Flops' restroom had had a male version, that would have bothered me.

But who would have a bigger issue with that is the "transgender" activist community. They absolutely do not want co-ed bathrooms. Most of them do not want individual unisex bathrooms, either. What they want is Men's Rooms and Women's Rooms but for "transgenders" to have a right to use the bathroom of their chosen gender and for it to be a crime to try to stop them.

It's about power, not about seeking common sense solutions.

I'm happy to go with the best science and data available.

Me too.

But there is almost no science in the "transgender" topic, especially from the "trans" advocacy side. There is just opinion, propaganda, and profit-seeking.

What little science there is is usually ignored for not fitting in with the "transgenda." For example, the studies I showed have been completely ignored by the 'transactivist" community because it does not fit the narrative.

Anyway, I have to stop posting today after one more. I'll read anything you post with interest and answer tomorrow.

Thanks for a good discussion!

 

[Seymour Flops]

Your very first.

On this thread?

Not at all.

 

[sartre play]

It's a mental derangement....End of "debate".

Your personal opinion.
Why would that end any debate?

 

[Paperplate 2]

Such a debate will have to start with definining the word "transgender." That is often the beginning and the rather abrupt end of such debates. So, I will propose a definition for us to have the debate about:

A transgender person or a person with transgenderism is a person who was born biologically one sex and who is in reality a person of the opposite sex.

If you have another definition, I am happy to debate whether that is the best definition and whether "transgender" is real under your definition.

My one rule is that the various medical conditions that fall under the layperson's term "intersex" not be part of the debate.

As an older person I do not agree with YOUR definition! "A transgender person or a person with transgenderism is a person who was born biologically one sex and
who is in reality a person of the opposite sex. Reality is what you are born as!!! That is 'reality' and not some 'chosen' thing!!

 

[JoeB131]

Yes science progresses. The APA changed the definition of "mental disorder" in 1973 such that homosexuality was no longer classified as a mental disorder. Not based on any science, and not based on any principle, but just so that homosexuality could now not be a mental disorder.

Not saying that they were wrong. But once again an organization thought of as scientific acts as if it can change science by changing definitions.

Or maybe they realized that "I think it's icky" and "God says it's bad" aren't good enough reasons to call it a mental illness.

they will find the same with gender identity.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Or maybe they realized that "I think it's icky" and "God says it's bad" aren't good enough reasons to call it a mental illness.

they will find the same with gender identity.

So you seriously claim that the american psychological association literally put homosexuality on the mental disorder list until 1973 because "god says it's bad," and "I think it's icky?"

I'm sure you have copious evidence before you would make a claim like that.

So . . . what is your evidence?

And . . . they stopped believing that in 1973 after gay activists disrupted their annual conferences two years in a row in 1971 and 1972.

Now that was a co-inky-dink!

 

[JoeB131]

So you seriously claim that the american psychological association literally put homosexuality on the mental disorder list until 1973 because "god says it's bad," and "I think it's icky?"

Um, yeah, actually.

What is your evidence is was actually a mental illness?

And . . . they stopped believing that in 1973 after gay activists disrupted their annual conferences two years in a row in 1971 and 1972.

Now that was a co-inky-dink!

Or they realized that 10% of their numbers who were probably gay themselves got tired of being called "mentally disordered" just for living their lives.

 

[martybegan]

No, such a debate will have to start with defining the word "valid". Who gets to determine what is valid, yourself or others? What is valid for me is called personal freedom and, so long as it doesn't adversely affect others, that should be the end of the discussion.

Walking around assuming people will guess whatever gender you are pretending to be and then going nuts when they don't adversely affects people not willing to go along with it.

Boys taking spots and wins in women's sports adversely affects others.

Drugging and mutilating minors over all this affects the people in question and society as a whole.

 

[martybegan]

sexual desire & sexual identity starts in the brain's wiring.

the body is secondary.

transgenderism isn't about sexual desire or sexual identity, it's about sex identity.

And barring genetic or developmental defects, it's a binary solution set that cannot be changed.

 

[Senior]

I believe that - in reality - what people call "transgender" is a spectrum that could range for example from a girl who enjoys wearing her older brothers' clothes, joins them in playing football and "playing Army" and has to be forced by her mom to put on a dress for church all the way to a girl who wears exclusively boys' clothes and what she perceives as a male haircut, alters her name to a male version (i.e. Erin to Aaron, Frances to Frank), and suffers from dibilitating depression, bi-polar traits, and anger issues that she attributes to being "assigned the wrong sex" at birth.

When it gets to that extreme end of the specturm, it is the mental illness of Gender Dysphoria. But it is not in realty being born in the "wrong body." It is a refusal to accept the body she was born in.

Fill us in on your medical vitae. Surely you possess a M.D. or a D.O. degree?