[Pants-of-dog]

By incorrectly stating my position, you do not win.

I think you are used to this sort of delusion because of your high volume posts. Most people would drop these things and let you skate by with it, and let you carry on self-deluded as to whether or not you scored a point (a very topical use of the word here, IMO). But, I actually think it's important to answer you on that one.

But please explain why you think I am "abandoning" it.

As you know, the word abandon is often defined along these lines:

I do not see what I am doing as abandoning at all, but as clarifying that there is a difference between the literary use of language and the more narrow, precise form of it.

Indeed, I would not hold this against you so much if you weren't ironically using this word to describe me explaining how I would choose to use a more rigorous expression than deceive if I knew it was going to be so staunchly disputed.

So why don't you tell us why I am abandoning it and show how you can uphold the use of this word in a very narrow, rigorous meaning.

Let's definitely start policing everyone's posts to they are using academic language. That'll surely not be a waste of anyone's time.

If you are not abandoning it, then support it.

Please note all the text here is not about your argument.

I assume some of this would be completely verifiable. Indeed, I imagine that you could produce such a response from a very significant amount of the LGBTQ community re: non-binary, but as it is hardly feasible that I now set out on a question to gather recordings of somewhat important LGBTQ people saying this, why not understand that this is a point that doesn't need to be discussed at length?

I will defend it by insisting that the conclusion is reasonable.

But I cannot provide empirical evidence.

So you are deciding not to support your argument.

Even if some LGBT people were pretending to gelieve in non binary genders even when they so not, I doubt it would be significant enough to have any impact.

So you were debating non-binary gender 30 years ago?

I am sure it occurred. I remember, as a boy of 14 or 15, stumbling onto some weird part of the internet where htye talked about the existence of I believe they phrased it alternative genders and they pointed to fantastical genders created in the writings of 19th century fantasy writers and the likes. Of course, some of these were purely fantasy enthusiasts exercising their creativity, though surely some of them were just regular perverts.

I am not sure who would be who as that would also require a lot of research and, I am sure, in many instances, it wouldn't be provable one way or the other.

There was a Night Court episode about it in, I believe, 1985.

These things have a pattern though. First the community itself gets active, then the academy writes about it, then it becomes a thing among progressives, then the news and the politicians hear about it, and finally the conservatives find out.

Because the transgender suicide rate, post-op, is not improved, and it remains to be a mental condition that results in insane levels of suicide.

So you guys do it to maintian a high level of transphobia and ensure more suicides?

MOreover, we defend the idea that it is an illness because we want to maintain our traditional gender norms.

You might as well be asking why do conservatives insist on persisting to exist...

So your position is not based on evidence or logic, but instead is based on your desire to impose traditional gender roles on everyone?

Aw, your error is that you were unaware that Noise music is a recognized musical genre.

Wikipedia

You see, your error here was in the assumption that I was just talking nonsense. But you should have done a bit of research.

Perhaps the comparison will now be more understandable to you.

Unless the actions can be shown to be self destructive, it is usually in the best interests of people to honestly express themsleves and embrace their identity.

Yet here you are, without an argument, virtue signaling, and not actually arguing.

When are we going to get some real content out of you?

Again, my argument is that non binary gender roles are not a sham or a scam.

The evidence is the fact that these genders have existed in other cultures, which implies that our binary paradigm is culturally specific and not objective.

The second stream of evidence is the fact that most trans people do not regret it and endure sacrifice and loss and transphobia in order to express their identity, which is not something they would do if it was just a fad.

The third stream of evidence is neurological. Recent studies have shown that the brains of trans people are more like the gender they try to be instead of the sex they were born into.

This is now the second time I write my argument out completely for you guys. Feel free to address it.

—————————-

Exactly. Not everything someone proclaims is a real thing. That is why these issues must be researched by medical professionals.

For the third or fourth time, the movement for equality for trans and non binary people ismnot about convincing conservatives. Your feelings and opinions are not relevant.

Do not get me wrong. It would be great if you guys agreed, but we are not here to change you.

The point is to change society so that people can no longer discriminate against trans and non binary people.

I get that POD wants to sing protest songs with all comers. I get that he relishes in calling anyone who is skeptical of some new disease a bigot. It makes him feel righteous.

This part here is irrelevant and is solely a personal attack. Classy....

People like him run the risk of empowering people to do damage to themselves. To have their potentially treatable illnesses go untreated. And hand the bill for this (illness or sophistry) to the tax payers, who for their money, get more people with more uncured misery.

Please 0rovide evidence for this claim.

[Verv]

If you are not abandoning it, then support it.

Please note all the text here is not about your argument.

Alright. I have elucidated a lot on it.

Would you like to attack my actual position, then, and not a caricature of that position?

So you are deciding not to support your argument.

Even if some LGBT people were pretending to gelieve in non binary genders even when they so not, I doubt it would be significant enough to have any impact.

Perhaps I underestimate the faith that people have in the concept of a non-binary gender.

I would love to be educated about this if only to be able to attack it but you have been awfully tight lipped about it.

There was a Night Court episode about it in, I believe, 1985.

These things have a pattern though. First the community itself gets active, then the academy writes about it, then it becomes a thing among progressives, then the news and the politicians hear about it, and finally the conservatives find out.

That is an interesting jab from someone who just found out about Noise music from a conservative .

Enlighten us, then.

So you guys do it to maintian a high level of transphobia and ensure more suicides?

This doesn't merit a response. This is just rude flailing about from someone who can't mount an argument.

So your position is not based on evidence or logic, but instead is based on your desire to impose traditional gender roles on everyone?

[No response needed.]

Unless the actions can be shown to be self destructive, it is usually in the best interests of people to honestly express themsleves and embrace their identity.

So someone who is completely deluded about their gender identity ought to continue down that path because they are not otherwise hurting anyone, and the 42-46% suicide attempt rate is irrelevant...

Again, my argument is that non binary gender roles are not a sham or a scam.

The evidence is the fact that these genders have existed in other cultures, which implies that our binary paradigm is culturally specific and not objective.

What we always get are one-off shamans who are believed to be able to cross into a third gender or an opposite gender, often while in a drug like trance. These are cultures that either practice cannibalism or have just recently given it up.

But please, post a source on this that you think would stand up well.

The second stream of evidence is the fact that most trans people do not regret it and endure sacrifice and loss and transphobia in order to express their identity, which is not something they would do if it was just a fad.

There are people who spend their entire lives celibate in the name of Jesus Christ but I do not think that is persuasive enough to make you a Christian.

The third stream of evidence is neurological. Recent studies have shown that the brains of trans people are more like the gender they try to be instead of the sex they were born into.

(a) Which studies?
(b) Before or after hormone therapy?
(c) What does this have to do with non-binary people?

Indeed, it seems you are affirming that there are male and female neurotypes.

What is a non-binary neurotype?

[Drlee]

The third stream of evidence is neurological. Recent studies have shown that the brains of trans people are more like the gender they try to be instead of the sex they were born into.

Source.

Now again. YOU HAVE RUN OFF TOPIC BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE.

We are not talking about trans people POD and it is dishonest for you to continually try to change the subject even when you have been called on it.

Please post evidence that the non-binery definition is supported by science.

Pro hint. You can't.

[Pants-of-dog]

Alright. I have elucidated a lot on it.

Would you like to attack my actual position, then, and not a caricature of that position?

Can you please repeat your argument concisely?

Perhaps I underestimate the faith that people have in the concept of a non-binary gender.

I would love to be educated about this if only to be able to attack it but you have been awfully tight lipped about it.

Feel,free to educate yourself about it.

That is an interesting jab from someone who just found out about Noise music from a conservative .

Enlighten us, then.

About what? The fact that trans and non binary issues are not a new thing?

This doesn't merit a response. This is just rude flailing about from someone who can't mount an argument.

I asked youmwhy you wepaonise stories of regrret against all trans an non binary people. You answered that it was because of continuued high suicide rates.

The logical assumption is that you know that this act of weaponising these stories contributes to transphobia and suicide.

If you do not know this, now you should.

[No response needed.]

You said you believe it is an illness because of your belief in tradional gender norms.

That is a fallacy called appeal to tradition.

If your sole reason for treating trans and non binary like sickos is an appeal to tradition, then your reasons do not include logic or evidence.

So someone who is completely deluded about their gender identity ought to continue down that path because they are not otherwise hurting anyone, and the 42-46% suicide attempt rate is irrelevant...

Loaded questions are also a fallacy.

What we always get are one-off shamans who are believed to be able to cross into a third gender or an opposite gender, often while in a drug like trance. These are cultures that either practice cannibalism or have just recently given it up.

But please, post a source on this that you think would stand up well.

You made two claims here. Please present evidence for them.

There are people who spend their entire lives celibate in the name of Jesus Christ but I do not think that is persuasive enough to make you a Christian.

Again, it is not about teying to change my mind. You really want to call people delusional, it seems.

(a) Which studies?
(b) Before or after hormone therapy?
(c) What does this have to do with non-binary people?

Indeed, it seems you are affirming that there are male and female neurotypes.

What is a non-binary neurotype?

If all these questions are leading to an argument, please make the argument.

—————————-

Source.

Now again. YOU HAVE RUN OFF TOPIC BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE.

We are not talking about trans people POD and it is dishonest for you to continually try to change the subject even when you have been called on it.

Please post evidence that the non-binery definition is supported by science.

Pro hint. You can't.

I have already explained why I am discussing trans people and non binary people. If this is such a problem for you, please reread why I am doing it and then address that.

[Drlee]

I have already explained why I am discussing trans people and non binary people. If this is such a problem for you, please reread why I am doing it and then address that.

And I reject it and ask that you stay on topic. You are off topic. Please give us the scientifically accepted definition of "non-Binary gender. You have yet to establish that it is an accepted diagnosis.

The mere fact that someone proclaims themselves a Martian does not mean they should be treated as a Martian. It may well mean that they have a psychological pathology but it does not mean they are from mars.

[Pants-of-dog]

And I reject it and ask that you stay on topic. You are off topic.

How so?

Please give us the scientifically accepted definition of "non-Binary gender. You have yet to establish that it is an accepted diagnosis.

The mere fact that someone proclaims themselves a Martian does not mean they should be treated as a Martian. It may well mean that they have a psychological pathology but it does not mean they are from mars.

Are you arguing that the person in the OP was not non binary?

[Drlee]

If you would bother to read my posts, I would argue that the very definition of what he "is" is not an established medical fact. It does not appear in DSM V. It is a one-over-the-world term used to describe many conditions withing what insiders call the "queer community".

It is the medical equivalent of saying "my diagnosis is none-of-the-above" but I claim I am ill and demand treatment. Though I am not a doctor and there is no actual science here is what I suggest will make me well and I demand it be given to me."

Now stop dodging and give me the scientifically recognized sequelae of "gender binery" so I will know it when the patient doesn't.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you would bother to read my posts, I would argue that the very definition of what he "is" is not an established medical fact. It does not appear in DSM V. It is a one-over-the-world term used to describe many conditions withing what insiders call the "queer community".

It is the medical equivalent of saying "my diagnosis is none-of-the-above" but I claim I am ill and demand treatment. Though I am not a doctor and there is no actual science here is what I suggest will make me well and I demand it be given to me."

How does this have anything to do with the topic?

When the person in the OP first went to get medical treatments, they bullied the nurse into giving “him” (he was presenting as a man at the time) drugs and hormones to become a woman. The non binary thing did not happen until later and, as far as I know, has nothing to do with the medical community.

[Verv]

Can you please repeat your argument concisely?

...

Feel,free to educate yourself about it.

...

About what? The fact that trans and non binary issues are not a new thing?

...

I asked youmwhy you wepaonise stories of regrret against all trans an non binary people. You answered that it was because of continuued high suicide rates.

The logical assumption is that you know that this act of weaponising these stories contributes to transphobia and suicide.

If you do not know this, now you should.

(1) The concept of non-binary is unscientific and a wild flight of fancy that is paraded out to score points for the LGBTQ worldview. While it is treated by some as a legitimate identity, it's not really a position that has any basis in scientific fact.

We know that people are born men and women, and we also know that it is possible to have a wide range of emotions about this, right?

When we say that every single emotion about it is valid and that you can transcend your biology, the bottom falls out. Hence the "I identify as an attack helicopter" meme.

(2) If you think that we argue for the things we believe because we want to promote transphobia and suicide, you are being a total klutz with ideas.

Implying that people don't have legitimate beliefs that they want to support but just want to cause violence to others is dehumanizing your opponents.

You said you believe it is an illness because of your belief in tradional gender norms.

That is a fallacy called appeal to tradition.

If your sole reason for treating trans and non binary like sickos is an appeal to tradition, then your reasons do not include logic or evidence.

... Obviously, there's a lot more argumentation that exists .

Boys have a penis; girls have a vagina. Where's the lie? Where's the problem with this definition?

Prove to me that the flights of fancy that justify "non-binary" and other genders are meaningful.

You made two claims here. Please present evidence for them.

Remember how this came about?

You said that plenty of cultures have third genders, etc. (something along these lines). Every time that I have seen this brought forward I often get something about native American non-binary genders. This was often focused on the concept of "Two Spirited."

Like in here.

I was wondering if you had some compelling story as to why people in civilized societies should regard the occasional sexual anarchy found among tribes people as representing sexual orientations and "gender identities" we should embrace.

If all these questions are leading to an argument, please make the argument.

—————————-



I have already explained why I am discussing trans people and non binary people. If this is such a problem for you, please reread why I am doing it and then address that.

Oh, so you want to ask me for evidence even conerning my reference to common "evidence" for your claims, but you do not want to lift a finger to make an argument that non-binary is a valid identity?

You clearly only feel comfortable attacking a position and not defending one.

[Pants-of-dog]

(1) The concept of non-binary is unscientific and a wild flight of fancy that is paraded out to score points for the LGBTQ worldview. While it is treated by some as a legitimate identity, it's not really a position that has any basis in scientific fact.

We know that people are born men and women, and we also know that it is possible to have a wide range of emotions about this, right?

When we say that every single emotion about it is valid and that you can transcend your biology, the bottom falls out. Hence the "I identify as an attack helicopter" meme.

Why do you think it is unscientific? Also, why does it need to fit a definition of “scientific” in order to be valid? Finally, what do you mean by “scientific”?

I know that people are born babies. I am not so certain about much else.

Finally, no one is saying that EVERY SINGLE emotion about gender is valid. But if someone is saying or doing something that has no negative impact on me or anyone else, why should I care about whether or not something is “valid”?

(2) If you think that we argue for the things we believe because we want to promote transphobia and suicide, you are being a total klutz with ideas.

Implying that people don't have legitimate beliefs that they want to support but just want to cause violence to others is dehumanizing your opponents.

The please explain the vaild beliefs behind weaponising these rare stories of regret against all trans people.

If you think this transphobic act is saving people from suicide, it is almost certainly increasing suicide because it is transphobic.

... Obviously, there's a lot more argumentation that exists .

Boys have a penis; girls have a vagina. Where's the lie? Where's the problem with this definition?

The definion is too simplistic.

Prove to me that the flights of fancy that justify "non-binary" and other genders are meaningful.

As i said, the struggle for equality is not about convincing conservatives to change their mind. It is about ensuring equality for everyone.

You think that other people should not enjoy the same rights that you do. Okay. Believe that. But if I choose to not dignify that belief with intellectual discourse, then that is my prerogative.

Instead, I will focus on dismantling societal institutions that allow you to discriminate and I will ask you why care about the sex lives and gender identities of people who are doing nothing to you.

Remember how this came about?

You said that plenty of cultures have third genders, etc. (something along these lines). Every time that I have seen this brought forward I often get something about native American non-binary genders. This was often focused on the concept of "Two Spirited."

Like in here.

I was wondering if you had some compelling story as to why people in civilized societies should regard the occasional sexual anarchy found among tribes people as representing sexual orientations and "gender identities" we should embrace.

Your ethnocentric and vaguely racist argument is noted and ignored. Much like your previous ones about drugged shamans and cannibalism.

My point, that you ignored but may not have noted, is that this is evidence that gender binaries are social constructs and not biological realities.

Oh, so you want to ask me for evidence even conerning my reference to common "evidence" for your claims, but you do not want to lift a finger to make an argument that non-binary is a valid identity?

You clearly only feel comfortable attacking a position and not defending one.

I should not have to defend treating human beings with respect.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4223342/tran ... -research/

[Drlee]

The non binary thing did not happen until later and, as far as I know, has nothing to do with the medical community.

Really?

Justify that please. The people are supposed to pay for his treatments without any evidence that he has a disease or condition to treat?

Right.

[Verv]

I will shave this down a little in places.

Why do you think it is unscientific? Also, why does it need to fit a definition of “scientific” in order to be valid? Finally, what do you mean by “scientific”?

I know that people are born babies. I am not so certain about much else.

Finally, no one is saying that EVERY SINGLE emotion about gender is valid. But if someone is saying or doing something that has no negative impact on me or anyone else, why should I care about whether or not something is “valid”?

Men and women procreate through sex, and we are born with genitals resembling one or two types. We are sexually dimorphous.

What amount of humans are "non-binary?" A very low amount, and htis would not describe any of them physically. it can only describe a social construct that was made up by them.

If you are suggesting that there is a scientific basis for non-binary, then you are inherently talking about soft sciences.

The please explain the vaild beliefs behind weaponising these rare stories of regret against all trans people.

If you think this transphobic act is saving people from suicide, it is almost certainly increasing suicide because it is transphobic.

Don't be silly. I am not trying to hurt people by telling these stories or presenting the information.

It's like telling a drug addict about the risks that they face -- how would I be weaponizing it against them?

How would my bringing arguments forward against the lifestyle be weaponizing it against them?

The definion is too simplistic.

Why not present us with an alternative then?

As i said, the struggle for equality is not about convincing conservatives to change their mind. It is about ensuring equality for everyone.

Is this you saying you won't be arguing?

You think that other people should not enjoy the same rights that you do. Okay. Believe that. But if I choose to not dignify that belief with intellectual discourse, then that is my prerogative.

Instead, I will focus on dismantling societal institutions that allow you to discriminate and I will ask you why care about the sex lives and gender identities of people who are doing nothing to you.

How have I said that they do not deserve their basic human rights..?

They also have the right to marry, to work, to enjoy life. What am I denying them..?

And what institutions are you talking about? The Church? Schools?

Your ethnocentric and vaguely racist argument is noted and ignored. Much like your previous ones about drugged shamans and cannibalism.

My point, that you ignored but may not have noted, is that this is evidence that gender binaries are social constructs and not biological realities.

But they were biologically men or women who were being treated merely differently because of a perceived status within the community.

Tell me... Why should we have such a tradition? Why should we recognize it?

And I am not saying that a group of people can't do that among themselves, but why should we give institutional power over to people who believe that this is the right way to do things?

I should not have to defend treating human beings with respect.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4223342/tran ... -research/

That affirms the gender binary, doesn't it?

Men who want to be women have brains more like women.

Women who want to be men have brains more like men.

In order for this argument to be valid there has to be two genders, basically.

[Pants-of-dog]

I will shave this down a little in places.

Men and women procreate through sex, and we are born with genitals resembling one or two types. We are sexually dimorphous.

What amount of humans are "non-binary?" A very low amount, and htis would not describe any of them physically. it can only describe a social construct that was made up by them.

If you are suggesting that there is a scientific basis for non-binary, then you are inherently talking about soft sciences.

Can you please answer the questions about your argument instead of just changing the subject and discussing biological sex?

Don't be silly. I am not trying to hurt people by telling these stories or presenting the information.

It's like telling a drug addict about the risks that they face -- how would I be weaponizing it against them?

How would my bringing arguments forward against the lifestyle be weaponizing it against them?

These stories used to reinforce the transphobic belief that all trans and non-binary people are deluded and sick.

If you think that telling people that they are deluded sickos is somehow helping them, then you are wrong.

Why not present us with an alternative then?

Sure.

Sex is biological.

Gender roles are social comstructs and can encompass a wide and diverse number of genders.

Gender identity is the inner image of who we are in terms of gender, and is influenced by many things. It can also be more than two.

Is this you saying you won't be arguing?

Let me know when you have an argument about deception.

How have I said that they do not deserve their basic human rights..?

They also have the right to marry, to work, to enjoy life. What am I denying them..?

You are denying them a right that you enjoy: the right to live and express yourself as the gender with which you identify.

And what institutions are you talking about? The Church? Schools?

Those and more.

But they were biologically men or women who were being treated merely differently because of a perceived status within the community.

Tell me... Why should we have such a tradition? Why should we recognize it?

And I am not saying that a group of people can't do that among themselves, but why should we give institutional power over to people who believe that this is the right way to do things?

I have already explained why I am not going to bother with questions like these.

No one has to justify themselves to the people who want to deprive them of rights.

That affirms the gender binary, doesn't it?

Men who want to be women have brains more like women.

Women who want to be men have brains more like men.

In order for this argument to be valid there has to be two genders, basically.

If you accept this as true, then you are accepting that being trans is an actual thing and not a self-deception as you claimed.

Are you now conceding that you are incorrect about that?

[Drlee]

How does this have anything to do with the topic?

It is the topic you dol...... I won't say dolt as I was going to. That would be a rule violation. So I will just say. Gentleman".

Read the OP before you go off at the mouth again. I know you believe your usual tactics are cute but we are on to you.

[Pants-of-dog]

I explained why it was not relevant by referring to the OP. If you think the OP says something else, please explain how.

[Verv]

Can you please answer the questions about your argument instead of just changing the subject and discussing biological sex?

The question was: "Why do you think it is unscientific? Also, why does it need to fit a definition of “scientific” in order to be valid? Finally, what do you mean by “scientific”?"

My answer was:

"Men and women procreate through sex, and we are born with genitals resembling one or two types. We are sexually dimorphous.

What amount of humans are "non-binary?" A very low amount, and htis would not describe any of them physically. it can only describe a social construct that was made up by them.

If you are suggesting that there is a scientific basis for non-binary, then you are inherently talking about soft sciences."

I guess I could expand this a bit more and be more direct:

(1) I think it is unscientific because humans are sexually dimorphous and the mental dispositions of humans do not play a real, active role in the reality of our sex. If we allow them to, the bottom drops out and anyone can make all manner of absurd claims about "gender."

(2) Why does it need to fit a definition of scientific to be valid? Because, if it doesn't, it becomes arbitrary very quickly. There are then as many genders as anyone claims there are. Genders can be made up. There's no real basis for us to say that all of these silly alternatives exist.

While some social constructs can be thought of as valid... these really aren't. The feelings and thoughts of extreme minorities -- especially in an age of decadence -- are not really a great basis for new ideas about gender.

(3) Finally, what do you mean by “scientific”?

I guess it would be something like 'empirical reasoning.'

These stories used to reinforce the transphobic belief that all trans and non-binary people are deluded and sick.

If you think that telling people that they are deluded sickos is somehow helping them, then you are wrong.

It would be helpful to tell a drug addict that they are an addict, and that they are in a bad position and living a bad life. They are sick.

It would also be helpful to tell a paranoid schizophrenic that.

And it would be helpful to tell people with strange ideas about gender that.

You can't just put harsh words in my mouth and convince me that I am hurting people.

Sure.

Sex is biological.

Gender roles are social comstructs and can encompass a wide and diverse number of genders.

Gender identity is the inner image of who we are in terms of gender, and is influenced by many things. It can also be more than two.

In most societies, nobody wants to do anything like that. In modern, atomized soceities, it appears that some people want to do it, and this correlates high with mental health issues and often comes off as attention seeking or... just strange. Why should we stop thinking of it as strange and mainstream this idea.

What benefit does it have.

Let me know when you have an argument about deception.

It is deceptive to say that there is a scientific basis for these things like Bill Nye did. It is self-delusional as well.

You are denying them a right that you enjoy: the right to live and express yourself as the gender with which you identify.

They have every right to live and express themselves in these weird ways...

How have I suggested that they be denied that?

They simply can't act that way and expect no criticism.

I have already explained why I am not going to bother with questions like these.

No one has to justify themselves to the people who want to deprive them of rights.

Name a single right I want to deprive them of -- and, when you can't, go back and answer this.

If you accept this as true, then you are accepting that being trans is an actual thing and not a self-deception as you claimed.

Are you now conceding that you are incorrect about that?

Not at all.

Being transgender is still a disorder because your mind doesn't match your body.

[Drlee]

The question was: .....Also, why does it need to fit a definition of “scientific” in order to be valid? Finally, what do you mean by “scientific”?"

As I have said, you have decided to ignore the topic of this thread.

Listen. I have no problem if you want to sew wings to your back and claim to be a fairy. I have a serious problem if you want me to pay for it through my tax dollars. Or, for that matter, with any insurance money because it affects what all of us pay.

If someone wishes to be "cured" then, by definition they must have a condition from which they wish to be cured. Or the answer is, pay for it yourself. The man in the OP did not do this.

Then. Progressives often err in their thinking that enabling is empowering. In doing so they leave many deeply unhappy people without proper treatment for conditions that ought to be cured. Who is he harming? Perhaps himself. Certainly the subject of this thread was harming himself. And were were the healers? Pandering to a political idea and not giving a fuck about what the science says. "First do no harm....". Every doctor takes this oath. The dimwits who treated the man in the OP (some of them) certainly did harm them.

So if you have a cold and go to the doctor requesting antibiotics the doctor should say NO. Why? Because antibiotics do nothing for a cold, cost money and are potentially dangerous. But there are currently CME's aimed at teaching doctors how to say no to a request of antibiotics. The same is true for many psychiatric treatments. Not everyone who is sad ought to be put on a lifetime regimen of anti-depressants.

You may not like it POD but doctors are not elected. They are trained. They should embrace science based solutions to scientifically identified disease. Why? Because the treatment sought these disorders (and especially those of the man in the OP) can be dangerous.

The left wing argument goes something like this.

The man does not have a "medical disorder".

Nevertheless we ought to employ powerful medical interventions to "cure" him.

But he does have a disorder but don't call him sick and don't ask that he be cured.

But there is no science to show that his so-called disorder is actually a real thing.

It must be because he proclaimed it to be so.

But I am a doctor. I shouldn't give him drugs to cure a non-illness.

Confusing? Not really.

You refer the guy to a psychiatrist (not a psychologist or therapist) and do nothing until there is the clear proof that a disorder exists and the treatment you propose might cure him or failing that, suppress the symptoms that are making him ill.

Maybe we should sage mentally ill people. Native Americans will jump right on board and who can it hurt?

[Pants-of-dog]

(1) I think it is unscientific because humans are sexually dimorphous and the mental dispositions of humans do not play a real, active role in the reality of our sex. If we allow them to, the bottom drops out and anyone can make all manner of absurd claims about "gender."

You seem to start off discussing biological sex, and then you make an unexplained logical leap to a conclusion about gender.

First of all, the fact that sex is biological has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the concept of gender is unscientific. The biological concept of sex is scientific, but that does not mean that the ideas of gender roles and gender identities are not also scientific.

Secondly, no one is saying that someone’s gender identity changes their sex. That would require surgery and hormones and a whole host of other things that you can care about if you want. Again, this has no bearing on whether or not the concept of non binary gender is unscientific.

Finally, if somene does identify, genderwise, as an attack helicopter or a bat or as a unicorn, why does it matter if they are not hurting anyone?

(2) Why does it need to fit a definition of scientific to be valid? Because, if it doesn't, it becomes arbitrary very quickly. There are then as many genders as anyone claims there are. Genders can be made up. There's no real basis for us to say that all of these silly alternatives exist.

While some social constructs can be thought of as valid... these really aren't. The feelings and thoughts of extreme minorities -- especially in an age of decadence -- are not really a great basis for new ideas about gender.

Since I do not care if gender roles and gender identity become arbitrary, I find it hard to care about this bit.

Anyway...

Since gender roles and traditional concepts about gender identity are social constructs and not biological, they are also arbitrary to a degree.

At this point, we would have to discuss why we should consider your (admittedly less but still arbitrary) ideas as being more valid than the pink haired kids identifying as genderfluid.

Is it just tradition?

(3) Finally, what do you mean by “scientific”?

I guess it would be something like 'empirical reasoning.'

By that definition, traditional gender roles and gender identities are just as unscientific as non binary gender identities.

It would be helpful to tell a drug addict that they are an addict, and that they are in a bad position and living a bad life. They are sick.

It would also be helpful to tell a paranoid schizophrenic that.

And it would be helpful to tell people with strange ideas about gender that.

You can't just put harsh words in my mouth and convince me that I am hurting people.

Do you understand what I mean when I say these stories are weaponised?

And if you say that all people who belong to group x are sick, deluded, and are hurting themselves, could you see how that can be construed as bigotry?

In most societies, nobody wants to do anything like that. In modern, atomized soceities, it appears that some people want to do it, and this correlates high with mental health issues and often comes off as attention seeking or... just strange. Why should we stop thinking of it as strange and mainstream this idea.

What benefit does it have.

The first and only necessary benefit is that this definition seems to be accurate and consistent with actual reality, while your simplistic definition is inaccurate and is not consistent with everything we actually observe.

Or, to put it more succinctly, mine is scientific and yours is unscientific.

That is the benefit.

It is deceptive to say that there is a scientific basis for these things like Bill Nye did. It is self-delusional as well.

Then explain exactly how Mr. Nye was incorrect.

They have every right to live and express themselves in these weird ways...

How have I suggested that they be denied that?

They simply can't act that way and expect no criticism.

Have you been criticised lately for your choice of gender identity and expression?

Name a single right I want to deprive them of -- and, when you can't, go back and answer this.

Trans and non binary people currently face (under Trump, because you are from the US) the following lack of rights or lack of protection from discrimination:

The right to military service.
Federal contractors can use religious exemptions to discriminate against trans people openly.
Trans and non binary asylum seekers who are targets of gang violence or domestic abuse will have their claims rejected.
Most are incarcerated in prisons according to their birth sex, greatly increasing the chances of sexual assault and murder of these inmates.
Students are not allowed to complain about school staff discriminating against them because of gender identity.
They are actually trying to get a religious exemption to let medical professionals refuse to treat trans and non binary people.

THe list goes on. Do you agree with any of those? All of them?

If you support the US conservative position, these are the policies currently being enacted in your name.

Not at all.

Being transgender is still a disorder because your mind doesn't match your body.

It matches your brain, according to the study.

Is the brain part of your body? Yes.

—————————-

As I have said, you have decided to ignore the topic of this thread.

Yes, you did say that, but you did not explain or show how I did that.

Listen. I have no problem if you want to sew wings to your back and claim to be a fairy. I have a serious problem if you want me to pay for it through my tax dollars. Or, for that matter, with any insurance money because it affects what all of us pay.

If someone wishes to be "cured" then, by definition they must have a condition from which they wish to be cured. Or the answer is, pay for it yourself. The man in the OP did not do this.

The insurance thing is a problem with your health care system and we agree that you should have single payer health care by now.

As for tax dollars, I have no trouble spending tax dollars on this.

Then. Progressives often err in their thinking that enabling is empowering. In doing so they leave many deeply unhappy people without proper treatment for conditions that ought to be cured. Who is he harming? Perhaps himself. Certainly the subject of this thread was harming himself. And were were the healers? Pandering to a political idea and not giving a fuck about what the science says. "First do no harm....". Every doctor takes this oath. The dimwits who treated the man in the OP (some of them) certainly did harm them.

So if you have a cold and go to the doctor requesting antibiotics the doctor should say NO. Why? Because antibiotics do nothing for a cold, cost money and are potentially dangerous. But there are currently CME's aimed at teaching doctors how to say no to a request of antibiotics. The same is true for many psychiatric treatments. Not everyone who is sad ought to be put on a lifetime regimen of anti-depressants.

Yes, medical professionals need to follow the latest advances in science. Does the science say that there is a significant problem of people being harmed in this manner? If so, please show it to me.

An anecdotal tale from a single person who is currently a darling of right wing think tanks is not scientific evidence.

You may not like it POD but doctors are not elected. They are trained. They should embrace science based solutions to scientifically identified disease. Why? Because the treatment sought these disorders (and especially those of the man in the OP) can be dangerous.

What exactly happened to this man?

He took some hormone pills, because he (more importantly) never got the medical help he actually needed with his mental health issues.

Fortunately, he managed to get the care he actually needed to get better and is now doing better.

Yes, these treatments may be dangerous, but if the story in the OP is any indication, these dangers are often averted altogether.

The left wing argument goes something like this.

The man does not have a "medical disorder".

Nevertheless we ought to employ powerful medical interventions to "cure" him.

But he does have a disorder but don't call him sick and don't ask that he be cured.

But there is no science to show that his so-called disorder is actually a real thing.

It must be because he proclaimed it to be so.

But I am a doctor. I shouldn't give him drugs to cure a non-illness.

Confusing? Not really.

The only part that is confusing is your claim that I or anyone else in this thread has made these claims.

This is not my argument, so I need not address it.

You refer the guy to a psychiatrist (not a psychologist or therapist) and do nothing until there is the clear proof that a disorder exists and the treatment you propose might cure him or failing that, suppress the symptoms that are making him ill.

Like the way this guy was never able to get gender reassignment surgery despite his insistence that he get it?

[Verv]

You seem to start off discussing biological sex, and then you make an unexplained logical leap to a conclusion about gender.

First of all, the fact that sex is biological has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the concept of gender is unscientific. The biological concept of sex is scientific, but that does not mean that the ideas of gender roles and gender identities are not also scientific.

Then show that they are scientific -- at least, that would be the natural way to go about this.

Of course, the word scientific is very subjective. It can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but you can imagine that, for our purposes here, I am thinking of a more narrow definition.

Secondly, no one is saying that someone’s gender identity changes their sex. That would require surgery and hormones and a whole host of other things that you can care about if you want. Again, this has no bearing on whether or not the concept of non binary gender is unscientific.

It is convenient to have these dual concepts of "sex" and "gender." This was not the way that people perceived these things decades ago -- this was something that was invented specifically to justify your position. Of course, there is some merit to the fact that it exists in a minority of cultures and has existed at different points in time, but it still is not a good reason as to why I should embrace it or regard it as 'scientific.'

Cannibalism can be explained in scientific terms and be thought of as a non-harmful activity... But why should society accept a radically different cultural practice that grinds against its sensibilities?

Why should we accept a radically different concept of gender?

Finally, if somene does identify, genderwise, as an attack helicopter or a bat or as a unicorn, why does it matter if they are not hurting anyone?

If I were to say who is being hurt by Egypt not recognizing gay marriage or affirming LGBTQ identities? you would probably argue that people are actually hurt in a roundabout way through these actions even though people are not literally being hurt by it, right?

So let's just say my response to this is

How are we hurting anyone by not affirming their lifestyle or legally enshrining it? We are just as blameless as the person identifying by themselves off in a corner as an attack helicopter.

We didn't do nothing wrong.

Since I do not care if gender roles and gender identity become arbitrary, I find it hard to care about this bit.

Anyway...

Since gender roles and traditional concepts about gender identity are social constructs and not biological, they are also arbitrary to a degree.

At this point, we would have to discuss why we should consider your (admittedly less but still arbitrary) ideas as being more valid than the pink haired kids identifying as genderfluid.

Is it just tradition?

Why would it be, though, that the overwhelming majority of cultures in history identify men and women only, and even those who make room for "Two Spirited" people are also affirming male and female roles?

If there is no God, we have to look to the natural world for cues, right?

What cues can we get from the natural world on this?

By that definition, traditional gender roles and gender identities are just as unscientific as non binary gender identities.

Not at all.

I am unaware of any society in which there is not Men & Women, and Men & Women, while having some amount of variety in roles and in tasks,tend to have very, very similar functions and roles.

Do you dispute that?

Do you understand what I mean when I say these stories are weaponised?

And if you say that all people who belong to group x are sick, deluded, and are hurting themselves, could you see how that can be construed as bigotry?

(a) Yeah.
(b) Sometimes. But not always.

If a Muslim or Hindu was telling me that I was deluded in terms of my religious beliefs... I would think they are trying to save me. I wouldn't be offended. OF course, if they were overtly hostile, it could be offensive, but if they were trying to improve my life, I would be complimented by them caring for me.

The world is three dimensional like that.

The first and only necessary benefit is that this definition seems to be accurate and consistent with actual reality, while your simplistic definition is inaccurate and is not consistent with everything we actually observe.

Or, to put it more succinctly, mine is scientific and yours is unscientific.

That is the benefit.

...
Then explain exactly how Mr. Nye was incorrect.

So is your argument something like transgender people and people who have very strange gender identities exist, therefore it's scientific to affirm it.

Gambling addicts exist. Yet, the bulk of people regard this as a negative manifestation they do not want in their community, right? People who are OCD exist; people who have restless leg syndrome exist... A whole variety of unhealthy manifestations exist, both extreme and relatively unnoticeable, yet their mere existence does not provide a moral justification.

Indeed, sometimes they are the unhealthy picture off of which we get a clearer idea of what health is.

... Or am I missing somehting?

Could you tell me what is healthy about alternative sexualities?

Have you been criticised lately for your choice of gender identity and expression?

Trans and non binary people currently face (under Trump, because you are from the US) the following lack of rights or lack of protection from discrimination:

The right to military service.
Federal contractors can use religious exemptions to discriminate against trans people openly.
Trans and non binary asylum seekers who are targets of gang violence or domestic abuse will have their claims rejected.
Most are incarcerated in prisons according to their birth sex, greatly increasing the chances of sexual assault and murder of these inmates.
Students are not allowed to complain about school staff discriminating against them because of gender identity.
They are actually trying to get a religious exemption to let medical professionals refuse to treat trans and non binary people.

THe list goes on. Do you agree with any of those? All of them?

If you support the US conservative position, these are the policies currently being enacted in your name.

Yeah, and none of them are discriminatory or bad.

Does the Army discriminate against blind people?

Would jails discriminate against people who identified as spoons for not housing them in drawers?

Should a Muslim woman who is chaste and virtuous be forced to handle a man's member for an STD check because she is a public servant..? Should a Catholic doctor be forced to perform an abortion?

Why is it that the rights of workers are unimportant?

It matches your brain, according to the study.

Is the brain part of your body? Yes.

A blind eye cannot see.

Is it healthy? No.

Is it part of the body? Yes.

Is sociopathy natural? Yes. Is it from the brain? Yes. Is it part of the body? Yes...

We can play these sophist games all day.

[Pants-of-dog]

Then show that they are scientific -- at least, that would be the natural way to go about this.

Of course, the word scientific is very subjective. It can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but you can imagine that, for our purposes here, I am thinking of a more narrow definition.

Then perhaps you should clarify what your definition is, and then show how the concept of non binary gender is unscientific.

It is convenient to have these dual concepts of "sex" and "gender." This was not the way that people perceived these things decades ago -- this was something that was invented specifically to justify your position.

The fact that people did not perceive it decades ago is not evidence that it is unscientific. No one talked about cell phones decades ago, and they are not unscientific.

But if you want to ass the new claim that these terms were invented to justify a position, please present evidence for this claim.

Of course, there is some merit to the fact that it exists in a minority of cultures and has existed at different points in time, but it still is not a good reason as to why I should embrace it or regard it as 'scientific.'

For the fourth or fifth time, I do not care what you embrace or consider scientific.

And I notice that you keep ignoring my point: the fact that different cultures have different ideas suggests that western traditional gender binaries are cultural and not objective.

Cannibalism can be explained in scientific terms and be thought of as a non-harmful activity... But why should society accept a radically different cultural practice that grinds against its sensibilities?

This comparison makes no sense.

Why should we accept a radically different concept of gender?

As I already pointed out:

1. Because it is more accurate and consistent with reality.
2. It harms no one.
3. Not accpeting it does cause harm.

If I were to say who is being hurt by Egypt not recognizing gay marriage or affirming LGBTQ identities? you would probably argue that people are actually hurt in a roundabout way through these actions even though people are not literally being hurt by it, right?

No, I would argue that people are being deprived of rights in a direct way.

So let's just say my response to this is

How are we hurting anyone by not affirming their lifestyle or legally enshrining it? We are just as blameless as the person identifying by themselves off in a corner as an attack helicopter.

We didn't do nothing wrong.

By depriving them of rights that the rest of us enjoy. This is something I have already explained.

Also, I noticed you did not answer the question.

Again:

Finally, if somene does identify, genderwise, as an attack helicopter or a bat or as a unicorn, why does it matter if they are not hurting anyone?

Why would it be, though, that the overwhelming majority of cultures in history identify men and women only, and even those who make room for "Two Spirited" people are also affirming male and female roles?

I do not know that it is a fact that “the overwhelming majority of cultures in history identify men and women only”, so I will need evidence for that.

Also, you seem to not know what Two Spirit means.

If there is no God, we have to look to the natural world for cues, right?

What cues can we get from the natural world on this?

https://globalnews.ca/news/4223342/tran ... -research/

Not at all.

I am unaware of any society in which there is not Men & Women, and Men & Women, while having some amount of variety in roles and in tasks,tend to have very, very similar functions and roles.

Do you dispute that?

So your insistence on traditional gender roles is based on the fallacy of tradition, and your ignorance about other cultures.

This is also called an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

(a) Yeah.

If you understand what I mean by weaponised, do you see how these stories are weaponised against all trans and non binary people?

(b) Sometimes. But not always.

So you now see how your “argument” is transphobic.

If a Muslim or Hindu was telling me that I was deluded in terms of my religious beliefs... I would think they are trying to save me. I wouldn't be offended. OF course, if they were overtly hostile, it could be offensive, but if they were trying to improve my life, I would be complimented by them caring for me.

The world is three dimensional like that.

People can be absolutely horrible and evil to each other when trying to save them.

So is your argument something like transgender people and people who have very strange gender identities exist, therefore it's scientific to affirm it.

No.

Gambling addicts exist. Yet, the bulk of people regard this as a negative manifestation they do not want in their community, right? People who are OCD exist; people who have restless leg syndrome exist... A whole variety of unhealthy manifestations exist, both extreme and relatively unnoticeable, yet their mere existence does not provide a moral justification.

Indeed, sometimes they are the unhealthy picture off of which we get a clearer idea of what health is.

... Or am I missing somehting?

Could you tell me what is healthy about alternative sexualities?

Again, comparing all trans people to addicts and sick people is transphobic.

And you failed to explain why Mr. Nye was wrong.

Yeah, and none of them are discriminatory or bad.

Does the Army discriminate against blind people?

Would jails discriminate against people who identified as spoons for not housing them in drawers?

Should a Muslim woman who is chaste and virtuous be forced to handle a man's member for an STD check because she is a public servant..? Should a Catholic doctor be forced to perform an abortion?

Why is it that the rights of workers are unimportant?

Man, you consistently fail to answer questions.

Anyway, since you obviously support these forms of discrimination, you are okay with depriving them of rights.

A blind eye cannot see.

Is it healthy? No.

Is it part of the body? Yes.

Is sociopathy natural? Yes. Is it from the brain? Yes. Is it part of the body? Yes...

We can play these sophist games all day.

I understand.

You have an emotional need to see trans people as sick and deluded. I simply do not share it, and I see this paradigm as transphobic.