Quote from: Tsirist on February 21, 2016, 06:40:35 PMQuote from: Assassin 11D7 on February 21, 2016, 06:36:10 PMThat's a social appeal. Not the argument I was making. Nice try, kiddo.My bad, I thought you were defending the guy whose statements were being contested. In any case, while what you said may be true from the perspective of evolution as an agent, it amounts to an appeal to nature in the context of this social issue, which would be pretty weak.Appealing to a biological requirement for our species to continue existing is a weak argument?
Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on February 21, 2016, 06:36:10 PMThat's a social appeal. Not the argument I was making. Nice try, kiddo.My bad, I thought you were defending the guy whose statements were being contested. In any case, while what you said may be true from the perspective of evolution as an agent, it amounts to an appeal to nature in the context of this social issue, which would be pretty weak.
That's a social appeal. Not the argument I was making. Nice try, kiddo.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885Before we all right McHugh off as a religious hick there is still the issue of extremely high suicide rates for SRS patients that no one in the thread has yet to address. Those who had the sex-change surgery were almost 20 times more likely to take their own lives than the non-transgender population. They were also more likely to seek in-house treatment for psychiatric conditions.The study was conducted in 2011, so you'd be pretty hard pressed to categorize the data as 'outdated'.
Quote from: Mordo on February 21, 2016, 06:57:24 PMhttp://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885Before we all right McHugh off as a religious hick there is still the issue of extremely high suicide rates for SRS patients that no one in the thread has yet to address. Those who had the sex-change surgery were almost 20 times more likely to take their own lives than the non-transgender population. They were also more likely to seek in-house treatment for psychiatric conditions.The study was conducted in 2011, so you'd be pretty hard pressed to categorize the data as 'outdated'.something i like to repost:Quotefrom here3.3. Percentages of transsexuals with symptomsof anxiety and depression according to thehormonal treatmentOverall, 61% of the group of patients without treatment and33% of the group with hormonal treatment experiencedpossible symptoms (score 8—10) or symptoms (score >11)of anxiety (Table 3). The same pattern was found for symptomsof depression;the percentages were significantly higherin the group of patients without treatment (31%) than in thegroup on hormonal treatment (8%).You might be confused by the fact that transsexuals remain at high risk for suicide after transitioning, but the question is whether or not they would have been at a high risk anyway if they hadn't transitioned, because the transgender tendency might relate to a mental health difference that non-transgender populations do not exhibit. See: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885"For the purpose of evaluating the safety of sex reassignment in terms of morbidity and mortality, however, it is reasonable to compare sex reassigned persons with matched population controls. The caveat with this design is that transsexual persons before sex reassignment might differ from healthy controls (although this bias can be statistically corrected for by adjusting for baseline differences). It is therefore important to note that the current study is only informative with respect to transsexuals persons health after sex reassignment; no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism. In other words, the results should not be interpreted such as sex reassignment per se increases morbidity and mortality. Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment. As an analogy, similar studies have found increased somatic morbidity, suicide rate, and overall mortality for patients treated for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.[39], [40] This is important information, but it does not follow that mood stabilizing treatment or antipsychotic treatment is the culprit."
from here3.3. Percentages of transsexuals with symptomsof anxiety and depression according to thehormonal treatmentOverall, 61% of the group of patients without treatment and33% of the group with hormonal treatment experiencedpossible symptoms (score 8—10) or symptoms (score >11)of anxiety (Table 3). The same pattern was found for symptomsof depression;the percentages were significantly higherin the group of patients without treatment (31%) than in thegroup on hormonal treatment (8%).You might be confused by the fact that transsexuals remain at high risk for suicide after transitioning, but the question is whether or not they would have been at a high risk anyway if they hadn't transitioned, because the transgender tendency might relate to a mental health difference that non-transgender populations do not exhibit. See: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885"For the purpose of evaluating the safety of sex reassignment in terms of morbidity and mortality, however, it is reasonable to compare sex reassigned persons with matched population controls. The caveat with this design is that transsexual persons before sex reassignment might differ from healthy controls (although this bias can be statistically corrected for by adjusting for baseline differences). It is therefore important to note that the current study is only informative with respect to transsexuals persons health after sex reassignment; no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism. In other words, the results should not be interpreted such as sex reassignment per se increases morbidity and mortality. Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment. As an analogy, similar studies have found increased somatic morbidity, suicide rate, and overall mortality for patients treated for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.[39], [40] This is important information, but it does not follow that mood stabilizing treatment or antipsychotic treatment is the culprit."
Correct me if I'm wrong but this study seems to almost explicitly refer to HRT, not SRS, which wasn't my initial contention.
Also I can't stress enough the fact that surgeries are botched so much that infections and revisions are just a part of standard procedure. A lot of this is due to the fact that not all surgeons are 100% trans friendly, or people try to do things on a budget because shit's fucking expensive as hell.
Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on February 21, 2016, 06:58:41 PMQuote from: Tsirist on February 21, 2016, 06:40:35 PMQuote from: Assassin 11D7 on February 21, 2016, 06:36:10 PMThat's a social appeal. Not the argument I was making. Nice try, kiddo.My bad, I thought you were defending the guy whose statements were being contested. In any case, while what you said may be true from the perspective of evolution as an agent, it amounts to an appeal to nature in the context of this social issue, which would be pretty weak.Appealing to a biological requirement for our species to continue existing is a weak argument?if homosexuality showed any sign of threatening our species i would consider it a valid concernas it stands i'm gonna need to see some evidence suggesting the world will be coming to an end as a result of tolerating homosexuality. in the meantime i have faith in heterosexuality to be able to keep up considering the comparatively low rate of homosexuality
But why does it fucking matter if it's "biologically erroneous?"Who in their right mind would give a solitary fuck what nature intends?Frankly, we should be going out of our way to defy nature's order.
Quote from: Tsirist on February 21, 2016, 07:01:44 PMQuote from: Assassin 11D7 on February 21, 2016, 06:58:41 PMQuote from: Tsirist on February 21, 2016, 06:40:35 PMQuote from: Assassin 11D7 on February 21, 2016, 06:36:10 PMThat's a social appeal. Not the argument I was making. Nice try, kiddo.My bad, I thought you were defending the guy whose statements were being contested. In any case, while what you said may be true from the perspective of evolution as an agent, it amounts to an appeal to nature in the context of this social issue, which would be pretty weak.Appealing to a biological requirement for our species to continue existing is a weak argument?if homosexuality showed any sign of threatening our species i would consider it a valid concernas it stands i'm gonna need to see some evidence suggesting the world will be coming to an end as a result of tolerating homosexuality. in the meantime i have faith in heterosexuality to be able to keep up considering the comparatively low rate of homosexualityI don't even understand this anymore, are you trying to not be insane? Never was the claim made that being tolerant of gays will doom the human race, only that they have an erroneous desire, which biologically is completely accurate.
Quote from: Verbatim on February 21, 2016, 07:38:18 PMBut why does it fucking matter if it's "biologically erroneous?"Who in their right mind would give a solitary fuck what nature intends?Now you're busting some spooks.
But why does it fucking matter if it's "biologically erroneous?"Who in their right mind would give a solitary fuck what nature intends?
Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on February 21, 2016, 06:58:41 PMQuote from: Tsirist on February 21, 2016, 06:40:35 PMQuote from: Assassin 11D7 on February 21, 2016, 06:36:10 PMThat's a social appeal. Not the argument I was making. Nice try, kiddo.My bad, I thought you were defending the guy whose statements were being contested. In any case, while what you said may be true from the perspective of evolution as an agent, it amounts to an appeal to nature in the context of this social issue, which would be pretty weak.Appealing to a biological requirement for our species to continue existing is a weak argument?Honestly, yeah. Everyone doesn't need to breed.In fact, we, and our planet, would probably be better off if most people DIDN'T breed.It's not like it's 2000 BC and there's only a million of us.You might as well object to Catholic priests practicing celibacy and married men getting vasectomies.
Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on February 21, 2016, 07:34:09 PMQuote from: Tsirist on February 21, 2016, 07:01:44 PMQuote from: Assassin 11D7 on February 21, 2016, 06:58:41 PMQuote from: Tsirist on February 21, 2016, 06:40:35 PMQuote from: Assassin 11D7 on February 21, 2016, 06:36:10 PMThat's a social appeal. Not the argument I was making. Nice try, kiddo.My bad, I thought you were defending the guy whose statements were being contested. In any case, while what you said may be true from the perspective of evolution as an agent, it amounts to an appeal to nature in the context of this social issue, which would be pretty weak.Appealing to a biological requirement for our species to continue existing is a weak argument?if homosexuality showed any sign of threatening our species i would consider it a valid concernas it stands i'm gonna need to see some evidence suggesting the world will be coming to an end as a result of tolerating homosexuality. in the meantime i have faith in heterosexuality to be able to keep up considering the comparatively low rate of homosexualityI don't even understand this anymore, are you trying to not be insane? Never was the claim made that being tolerant of gays will doom the human race, only that they have an erroneous desire, which biologically is completely accurate.I went from (apparently) misinterpreting one of your statements as being an appeal to nature in the context of a social issue to you claiming that it is relevant in our species' need to reproduce. Again, the biological "error" would only be relevant to this social issue if it were an actual threat to our species, which it isn't. So how is it relevant again?
Great point, unless if something is going to end our species, it's not a problem at all.
Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on February 21, 2016, 07:48:42 PMGreat point, unless if something is going to end our species, it's not a problem at all.I see what you're trying to say so, in that case, please demonstrate the logical connection between homosexuality being a biological error and it being a social problem that demands some solution.
Quote from: Tsirist on February 21, 2016, 07:50:24 PMQuote from: Assassin 11D7 on February 21, 2016, 07:48:42 PMGreat point, unless if something is going to end our species, it's not a problem at all.I see what you're trying to say so, in that case, please demonstrate the logical connection between homosexuality being a biological error and it being a social problem that demands some solution.I'm glad you see what argument I'm making, because based on your comment I sure don't.
spook
Quote from: Chief Among Sinners on February 21, 2016, 07:49:40 PMspookI must've seen you use this a million times and I still don't know what it means.
Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on February 21, 2016, 07:53:40 PMQuote from: Tsirist on February 21, 2016, 07:50:24 PMQuote from: Assassin 11D7 on February 21, 2016, 07:48:42 PMGreat point, unless if something is going to end our species, it's not a problem at all.I see what you're trying to say so, in that case, please demonstrate the logical connection between homosexuality being a biological error and it being a social problem that demands some solution.I'm glad you see what argument I'm making, because based on your comment I sure don't.Was your intent merely to state that homosexuality is a biological error? Without meaning to imply that that should have any bearing on the discussion at hand or this thread?
I have no idea what connection you're expecting me to talk about, I stated that the claim that homosexuals have an erroneous desire is correct from a biological standpoint, meaning that the doctor's claim doesn't discredit him. Failing to reproduce because of a desire to mate with the improper sex, makes that desire erroneous. You need to stay on what was said instead of looking for shadows to fight.
Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on February 21, 2016, 08:17:41 PMI have no idea what connection you're expecting me to talk about, I stated that the claim that homosexuals have an erroneous desire is correct from a biological standpoint, meaning that the doctor's claim doesn't discredit him. Failing to reproduce because of a desire to mate with the improper sex, makes that desire erroneous. You need to stay on what was said instead of looking for shadows to fight.The issue is that the doctor did not make that claim. You did. His statement was not a biological one; yours is. You can go back and read his exact statements yourself. He is discredited exactly because he is attacking the issue from a non-biological perspective. Meanwhile your point is simply . . . irrelevant. Biologically/evolutionarily it is an error, yes. But I'm pretty sure that aspect only has relevance to about 5% of the population, and not for any good reason.
"Whoso is full of sacred (religious, moral, humane) love loves only the spook, the “true man,” and persecutes with dull mercilessness the individual, the real man."The spook is the god of the modern man. He fancies himself a free thinker, detached from the religious dogma and delusion of the past. Little does he realize he has only traded a personal god or gods for impersonal ones.In the past a man justified his action by claiming it was god's will, shouting Deus Vult.Today men justify their actions by shouting praise to "progress", "reason", "society", "the common good".These are intangible abstracts, "ghosts of the mind". Man places them above himself, to his own detriment. He fails to acknowledge and act on his own ego.
The claim I was responding to was "Homosexuality is an erroneous desire". I said it's true biologically, therefore the doctor is right about the claim. I'm not talking about the doctor's support of his claim, only you are doing that.
Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on February 21, 2016, 08:24:31 PMThe claim I was responding to was "Homosexuality is an erroneous desire". I said it's true biologically, therefore the doctor is right about the claim. I'm not talking about the doctor's support of his claim, only you are doing that.I think you're missing an implication there. Distinguish between these two claims:"Homosexuality is [a biologically] erroneous desire""Homosexuality is [a socially] erroneous desire"It is clear that his was the second, and it has relevance to the discussion at hand because it discredits his views on other matters of social importance. The former claim is true but has almost no relevance at all to this discussion.For example, distinguish between these two claims:"Smoking is (physiologically) good for you.""Smoking is (emotionally) good for you."One of these is arguably/occasionally/weakly true. The other is downright false. Either could be condensed to "Smoking is good for you" in the context of a conversation in progress, but you would know to what the person was actually referring.Sorry if that's a weak example, I'm trying to think of something simple that illustrates this notion of something being true in one sense and not in another/the importance of context and implications.
At first glance of that word it looks like another stepping stone on the path to hating men, because men. Why not fiddle with the words a little bit to indoctrinate someone?But then Cindy showed a pretty fair use of it, although I find it a bit odd. If someone was "transmisogynistic", does that mean they don't mind MtF's? How the hell does that work?
"Transmisogyny"
