Slashdot Mirror
Twitter CEO Dick Costolo Secretly Censored Abusive Responses To President Obama, Says Report (buzzfeed.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from BuzzFeed: In 2015, then-Twitter CEO Dick Costolo secretly ordered employees to filter out abusive and hateful replies to President Barack Obama during a question and answer session, sources tell BuzzFeed News. According to a former senior Twitter employee, Costolo ordered employees to deploy an algorithm (which was built in-house by feeding it thousands of examples of abuse and harassing tweets) that would filter out abusive language directed at Obama. Another source said the media partnerships team also manually censored tweets, noting that Twitter's public quality-filtering algorithms were inconsistent. Two sources told BuzzFeed News that this decision was kept from senior company employees for fear they would object to the decision. According to sources, the decision upset some senior employees inside the company who strictly followed Twitter's long-standing commitment to unfettered free speech. A different source alleges that Twitter did the same thing during a question and answer with Caitlyn Jenner.
The following account has been suspended for violating our terms of service of not agreeing with us politically.
As an avid anti-Obama person I can't say that I really care. As much as I think he's been a poor excuse for a president, almost as bad as his predecessor, he's still the President of the United States. I think the office deserves respect even if the person holding it doesn't. If people can't express their displeasure without nasty, obscene and abusive language then I feel Twitter should censor them. If they want to practice their first amendment rights it is not incumbent upon Twitter to allow them a platform for it.
This way they can always point to the comments and say look how many people agree. It's part of a no-negativity culture. Helps hide the truth. Imagine finding out that your post with 1000 likes actually was hated by 100,000 people?
They don't do this for donald trump or any other figures who don't fit he agenda.
Q: Do you filter out certain Tweets before they appear on Twitter? A: No
Our users now send a billion Tweets every four days—filtering is neither desirable nor realistic. With this new feature, we are going to be reactive only: that is, we will withhold specific content only when required to do so in response to what we believe to be a valid and applicable legal request.https://blog.twitter.com/2012/tweets-still-must-flow
I fail to see how silencing the GNAA trolls during a Q&A session is cause for great hand wringing. It didn't say they filtered "conservative viewpoints" or "reasoned criticisms"... they said "abusive responses." And it's Twitter's 1st amendment right to allow abuse (within the confines of the law) or not on their platform.
Nothing posted to
They don't protect from abuse or harassment, they just protect the leftist narrative. Anything that challenges it, no matter how trivial, is deemed "abuse" or "harassment" for emotional appeal.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Given prior reputation with Twitter being aligned with the SOCJUS left, they'd let GNAA go nuts.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
he is the President of the USA and for that alone deserves at least some basic level of respect.
Fuck you. He signed extensions of the PATRIOT act multiple times. He deserves no more respect than any other power-grubbing scumbag who ever held that office.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I believe the word the linked poster was searching for was "edited", not "censored". When a private organization chooses what to print and what not to print on its platform that is editing.
sPh
Oooooh, the "teleprompter" attack. Not so popular since the 2016 Republican primaries when all the candidates were observed using Teleprompters extensively (as do all high-level executives and politicians). Still, one would have thought it would have been dropped after President Obama demolished the House Republicans in the 20-on-1 health care mini-debate. Takes some learnin' I guess.
sPh
The problem is Twitter is selectively defining what is hate speech and abuse based on what side of the political spectrum it falls on. Which is far worse than any hate speech or abuse that could be said.
I used to think Quora was cool, but there was a day that they started censoring replies to Hillary Clinton's answers to question (well, probably her staff's answers).
I read through her answers and found one of them to be particularly deceitful...beyond normal political spin. So I replied with a stern but thoughtful and truthful post. I did not engage in ad hominem or say anything derogatory. I was clearly not trolling and the follow-up discussion under my thread was outstanding.
After about an hour, the post disappeared without a trace. No communication to say that the post was flagged or in violation of their terms of service. I've seen very edgy and far more provocative pieces stand in comparison to what I wrote.
It's become clear that they were only interested in being a mouthpiece for Clinton and her platform. Quora was unwilling to communicate about the censorship despite my repeated attempts to contact them, even to employees who had previously reached out to me. It was utter silence. Since then, I've seen extended invitation to the liberal side of the political aisle to promote their "answers" (read: agenda) into the feeds of their readers. They're supposed to be interest and preference driven, but oddly enough I get all of Clinton's rhetoric despite having signed up for math and science subjects.
Anyway, I know that Quora isn't Twitter, but it is alarming how hard these social media companies feel compelled to censor the dissent against their prospective. What are they afraid of? I also find it disgusting that they act so anti first amendment in the country and culture that allowed them to thrive. Flaming hypocrites, all of them.
I can say anything I want! You can say anything you want unless it offends me.
Actually, it seems reasonable to me to filter out abusive and hateful replies, since it's unlikely they'll add much to the discussion.
Are people spouting racial epithets or hurling insults going to encourage any thoughtful responses or materially improve the Q&A session? No, probably not.
I also think that general interaction with the president of your country should be conducted with some decorum by default, but maybe that's just me. Maybe I'm just out of touch.
Even the presidents and politicians whom I can't stand would get some basic civility and respect from me, in some cases the bare fucking minimum. In terms of the president, whether or not I like whoever it is, if we ever meet he/she will get some respect and civility from me.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
It's chromosomes. Unchangable. Unless you can find a quack to mutilate you.
Renewing the Patriot Act doesn't qualify as neglecting to do something. It's an active affirmative move. It involves the same amount of paying attention to what he was signing it as vetoing it.
That's the problem.
Donald Trump isn't POTUS.
He hasn't earned any respect at all.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
If you abuse a right, you risk having it taken away from you
No, you don't. Rights aren't privileges. The right to free speech is inalienable.
More like, fuck him, he didn't even attempt to roll back any of Bush's power-grabs. Not to mention, he decided that he's entitled to kill American citizens without so much as an indictment, let alone a conviction in a court of law.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Is that supposed to be an excuse?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Obama demolished the House Republicans in the 20-on-1 health care mini-debate.
Bullshit. He made an ass of himself in front of a room full of asses.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Normally I would go on a rant about how I am deleting twitter right now. But I am not even sure I still have it installed. I got a few dozen followers and then sort of found it all stupid. It was just "BUY MY CRAP" "I AM SO COOL" "BUY MY CRAP" "I AM SO COOL" "BUY MY CRAP" or and, "I am so witty"
Really only congress can roll back the power grabs. Obama at least put a stop to torture, but it won't make a difference to the next president unless Congress acts.
Play Command HQ online
He got it for not being Bush. Contrary to some of the comments here, he's largely succeeded at that.
Play Command HQ online
Do you have any evidence for this?
Play Command HQ online
If you were face to face with Obama at a town hall and started calling him a "communist gay ni**er muslim", the crowd, liberal or not, would run you out of the building, and rightly so.
What you won't be, because this is a free country, is convicted of a crime for doing it.
Play Command HQ online
Even then, there is no surgery or therapy that can change one's base XX or XY designation.
We used to have a much freer and diverse web until about 7 years ago. We had separate social media platforms for everything from blogging to photo sharing to music. And we had (still have) the open RSS standard to combine feeds from various sources.
And yet people voted for a monolithic, closed web with Facebook and Twitter. 2 easy chokepoints that can be shut down at a whim, as seen in Turkey with the recent coup. Even if Slashdotters personally don't use these services, the vast majority of people do, and no online business/marketing strategy is complete without involving either or both of them.
Today Facebook is a single point of failure for the average user, one place where their entire online history and interaction is available for scrutiny if the account gets hacked. The internet is fast turning into a monoculture
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
Not really sure how memorizing a speech is somehow better than reading it. You do know that he could in principal memorize speeches written by others or put a speech written by himself on the teleprompter.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
he is the President of the USA and for that alone deserves at least some basic level of respect.
Fuck you. He signed extensions of the PATRIOT act multiple times. He deserves no more respect than any other power-grubbing scumbag who ever held that office.
-jcr
That's what Democrats do. That is why I voted for Obama, twice. That is why I am going to vote for Hillary.
Have a policy that we don't like? Guess what, we have a policy you don't like. Maybe we can compromise, and take the stuff you hate most out of my policy, and the stuff I hate most out of your policy, and pass them both together. That's what happened with Patriot Act under Obama. He agreed to water it down and keep parts of it, in exchange for other stuff that the Republicans Congress wouldn't other agree to. It is called "compromise."
No President in history has, and no General has ever asked for or recommended, a wartime policy where persons engaged in combat are excepted from being shot depending on what passport they have, are believed to have, or might have since you haven't searched them.
You're talking about people overseas in war zones. Nobody cares what fucking passport they have; if you go to war, you might die. If you go to war with the United States, you might die at the hands of US military equipment. That has absolutely fucking nothing to do with indictments, convictions, or courtrooms.
In the imaginary world you seem to believe exists, every rebellion would succeed, because there would be no way to get convictions before the rebels took over everything, and you couldn't even shoot them.
Try engaging even one brain cell before regurgitating crap you read in the letters section of the local free weekly paper.
You know what? This is what happens when you put your speech in the hands of a private owner. They can take their liberties with what's in their control. Isn't really anything you can do, other than put your message into another channel of communications.
Same thing happened when I wrote a letter to the editor. They had the nerve to publish it, but without any of the swear words or offensive zingers I had carefully included. I had to take my letter to a more appropriate forum, and shout it at the sky.
And sorry, but the idea that a dude can say "I feel in my heart and soul that I'm a woman makes me a woman" is just nuts. That would be like me saying "you know, I feel in my heart and soul that I'm a real dragon, therefore that makes me one". It's just silly, and believe it or not, there are people who actually do this. They call themselves otherkin and they think that they actually, really, truly are nonhuman animals, including fictitious animals.
First, you're not sorry. Second there's kind of a difference here. An otherkin person cannot actually pass as non human. A post op trans woman for example can. The only way it would actually make any difference to you is if you wanted to bone her. Given that you don't even try to bone probably 99.99% of the women you meet there's really no way bumping into a trans woman versus a cis one would make the slightest bit of difference to you, to the extent that you wouldn't even know.
Anyway, let's go for a hypothetical. Ever read any Ian M. Banks? This'll be simpler to explain if you have.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If you were face to face with Obama at a town hall and started calling him a "communist gay ni**er muslim", the crowd, liberal or not, would run you out of the building, and rightly so.
What you won't be, because this is a free country, is convicted of a crime for doing it.
LOL how cute, somebody whose been in a cave all year and doesn't know about Trump rallies!
No, actually, right now only liberal SJWs would even ask you to stop.
MOS?
Mine was 67U20
Maybe an idea where rotorbudd came from?
A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
You're talking about people overseas in war zones
Yemen was not a war zone that the US was participating in on the ground. The U.S. citizen(s) killed there was actively sought out and assassinated. Now, you can argue that that jackass was actively planning attacks on the U.S. I won't disagree with that. But, at some point there should have been a judge/jury (even in absentia) unless his death was required to prevent an imminent attack. And even then, the evidence should be required to be presented to the public to prove it wasn't an abuse of power.
Just another day in Paradise
Maybe I'm crazy, but weren't the great public speakers of the past capable of speaking extemporaneously? Perhaps they may have been written at some point or they may have had notes, but by and large they spoke freely and weren't just reciting line for line a speech as if it was a script.
And I think the best were capable of speaking truly extemporaneously with no notes or written prep? I suppose these were a different kind of speaking that wasn't as dependent on the relentless recitation of "facts" that could be be tallied and checked, or the need to present new "talking points" or hammer away at a polling-derived message.
Now, that was funny. You made a valid point, and weren't even abusive that time. Bravo.
Just another day in Paradise
And yet, they seem to have no problem in continuing to allow ISIS to recruit through their tool. Ah, but it was more important to filter out trolls, right?
Just another day in Paradise
Even then the surgery is cosmetic. Your brain is not tricked by it, and if it is tricked, you did not have an disorder to begin with. Taking the disc out of a floppy doesn't make it a CD, the computer wont recognize it as a CD, nobody will consider it a CD, and now you have a floppy that doesn't work.
Source: Post-op. Looking into therapy to actually deal with the disorder while earning the ire of transtrenders who are giving us a bad name.
It's chromosoooomes! Unchangable! Yay! :-p Right. The nature is perfect, gets everything right every time!
Ezekiel 23:20
persons engaged in combat
Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't in a war zone, and neither was his kid.
Try engaging even one brain cell before regurgitating crap
Follow your own advice, you bootlicking jackass.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
What is more important, the brain or the rest of the body? Considering that it's the brain that actually separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. So if the body says "male" but the brain wiring says "female" for whatever developmental reason that happens occasionally, what are you going to do with it? And if it were you, what would you experience? Remember, the consciousness is in your brain, not in your dick.
Ezekiel 23:20
President Obama demolished the House Republicans in the 20-on-1 health care mini-debate
Not a single Republican voted for Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). Not a single one!
Jonathan Gruber, (professor at MIT) even said that the whole point was to fleece the American public so that ACA could both be passed and accepted. Of course, the real reasons is to break the healthcare industry into submission so that phase II could be enacted with future legislation - single payer (national health care). Meaning, this whole song-and-dance was to recalibrate the expectations of what the "new normal" is, and should be. You take something that was functional, make it really bad, then make it somewhat better to gain praise. It's the high low middle game; it's an old sales tactic!
Life is not for the lazy.
I am just utterly shocked that anyone would think that a public question-and-answer session for the President would not be censored, whatever media was used.
Obama at least put a stop to torture,
You think so? Do you also think the media would mention it if he didn't?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
and even criticism. Is it any wonder The Zero is such a narcissist?
epigenetics is the study of cellular and physiological phenotypic trait variations that result from external or environmental factors that switch genes on and off and affect how cells express genes
From the time the sperm and egg meet, epigenetics are part and parcel of development.
Also, you obviously are one of those mouth breathers who lumps in trans people with pedophiles, since you just did, so why should anyone take you seriously?
You don't get to dictate what is morally wrong for others. If it does no harm, it's simply none of your damn business, and there can be no moral argument made against it.
Your body, your choices. My body, my choices. That's part of what personal autonomy means.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Actually, you're wrong. Anyone getting their bone marrow wiped out and new marrow from a donor of the opposite sex will show up as the donor's sex on a blood test.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
ISTR it was Danny Dallas who said "If you weren't a transsexual before surgery, you are after." A good warning for non-transsexuals, but those are the ones who won't heed it.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
To add to this....distasteful, controversial and unpopular speech is exactly the type of speech you most want to protect.
With changing years, and opinions...you never know when the speech YOU feel is right and the most important, will be the one that the masses try to suppress.
It isn't the easy going, popular and non-controversial speech that needs protection.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Are you sure?
I've yet to meet any straight guys who have said they would date a transgender person.
Because I've run into many who would, maybe because you can't tell just by looking. We're everywhere, and unless you're gay, you've almost definitely gotten turned on by at least one of us without even knowing.
And that's not counting internet pr0n.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Remember, the consciousness is in your brain, not in your dick.
I'm not sure that is the case here - this guy is obviously thinking with his dick. (I know, so what else is new?)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
If you abuse a right, you risk having it taken away from you
No, you don't. Rights aren't privileges. The right to free speech is inalienable.
Wow, so nobody has ever been put into a concentration camp? Or been enslaved? Or forced into prostitution? And all those school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram was just another lie?
Rights are taken away from people all the time.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
People with androgen insensitivity syndrome are XY but will develop externally as completely female.
For what's it's worth, you're (probably) being hypocritical. We're talking about people's perceptions here--what it is they think and feel. You cannot dictate that. Saying "well, that's different" is stating that you believe one group's (transgender) feelings to be valid, while another group's ("otherkin," or whatever) are not, simply because you're sympathetic to the first group. The reality is that both groups have the same issues.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
I agree with you in principle, but the reality is different. Ask a guy in prison how his inalienable rights to "be secure in his person, houses, papers, and effects," "peaceably assemble," or vote are working out for him.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Can they apply this to everyone's account by default, with an opt out option? That would maintain freeze peach (everyone can see your tweets if they opt in) and make the platform nicer (people can avoid abuse trivially).
There are still prisoners in Gitmo. Doesn't matter whether it's Obama or obstructionists on the other side, it's still shameful.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
If you need more than a 3x5 index card with a few reminders, you don't know your sh*t well enough to give a speech. Exhibit A - Powerpoint presentations and the dummies who use them.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The crap directed at Caitlyn every day on Failbook far surpasses anything I've ever seen on slashdot. It's doubtful they filter anything.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Every single day that someone was in a concentration camp, their rights were being violated. That would not be true if the government removed their rights on day 1. The government didn't create their human rights, so the government can not remove them - the government, or anyone else, can only *violate* your rights.
The Constitution doesn't say "the government must *grant*" new rights, it says the government "shall not infringe" THE right of .... "The right of free speech, not "a" right of free speech - they are saying the right existed before the Constitution was written; that human rights are part of being human. Nobody grants them, therefore nobody can un-grant them.
First, you're not sorry. Second there's kind of a difference here. An otherkin person cannot actually pass as non human. A post op trans woman for example can. The only way it would actually make any difference to you is if you wanted to bone her. Given that you don't even try to bone probably 99.99% of the women you meet there's really no way bumping into a trans woman versus a cis one would make the slightest bit of difference to you, to the extent that you wouldn't even know.
Well there was this one time, about a year ago, that I ran into one at a bar. I was being kind to the person, and just having a casual conversation, but it was kind of obvious that I was talking to a man with a boob job. And in probably most cases, I can in fact tell the difference. MtF trans have always had a certain kind of voice, which is admittedly a voice that some real women rarely have, in addition to a somewhat larger upper body frame. And that's just seeing them head on; as soon as they reveal their hands then it becomes kind of obvious at that point.
But you know, if he believes he is a woman then he is a woman, I guess? Though it probably didn't help the trans cause that, when this guy asked me where I was from, I told him Mesa Arizona, and he immediately responds with "Mesa is trash, you're trash." And after the bar closed he did go home alone that night from what I can tell.
Either that or I've read commentary from Stanly Biber, in addition to reading why Johns Hopkins University, the first organization to ever perform bottom surgery, no longer does so.
While Stanly Biber performed srs surgery until he died, he once testified that the resulting sex of somebody who goes through the procedure is in fact neuter. As for Hopkins, the reasoning for this should be easy enough to find with Google.
It's not as if I'm uneducated on the subject. I'm not you're typical frat bro, I do actually read in depth about something prior to forming an opinion on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Your* sorry, swype error.
Simple Definition of inalienable - impossible to take away or give up. And full definition - "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred"
Nobody's talking about the US constitution here, which in fact did violate human rights in many ways (women, slaves, non-landowners).
However, now that you brought it up, the government regularly infringes on the right of free speech. Chelsea Manning, search warrants with gag orders, etc.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
For a man who had so much promise, what do we get? First, yes, "black" president who could have rewritten history books has done little substantive. What makes me more ill than anything else is this "grouping" along many political lines. I fear for our sovereignty, our freedoms (or what we have left), and the most immediate future. We, as the American culture, has failed to promote liberty for as long as I can remember. We, collectively, immigrants and all, are at risk of this behemoth, monolithic, corporatocracy. Everything recorded, everything censored, and no expectation of privacy anymore. Read your employee manual. I bet it will not only make you sick, but it will illustrate you and I are just batteries for harvest. Yes, I did make reference to the Matrix. No conspiracy theorist here, just observation over decades. (mic drop)
Johns Hopkins got caught suppressing the fact that John Money had faked all his research into the plasticity of gender identity in the David Reimer case to promote his mistaken belief that gender is learned, not innate. They did their best to hush things up, to the point that Money was never disciplined, even though Money's fakery resulted in Reimer's suicide.
So now Johns Hopkins is gun-shy. They were lucky to have dodged one lawsuit, and now won't do anything that might remotely risk one in that field.
And doc stanley was referring to the person's physical reproductive capacity after a sex change, which of course results in the person being neutered. Some of us are more than what's between the legs; otherwise srs wouldn't even be a thought.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
"According to sources, the decision upset some senior employees inside the company who strictly followed Twitter's long-standing commitment to unfettered free speech"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Damn, I haven't laughed this hard in a while. When I read that sentence my mind started flashing the "Unbelievable Bullshit" sign. There is nothing "unfettered" or "free" about the type of speech allowed on Twitter. That someone can say that sentence with a straight face...
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
And yet you were foolish enough to make an absolute statement with no evidence to back it up, and you say it's super uncommon, when in fact it's very common. The stats on M2F trans: 18% are lesbian, 32% are bi, 50% are straight. 16% of Latino, 17% of white, and 56% of black M2F are also HIV positive (source: CDC), so it's far more than super uncommon. There's also the trans-fans. Guys who specifically seek out transwomen because that's what they want.
Those numbers are absolutely insane, and yet there they are. Makes me wonder what the hell people are trying to prove - that the more people who f*ck you the more of a woman you are? We say it has nothing to do with sex, and yet so many go on sex shopping sprees after. And if you go on Failbook, you can find many of them bragging about how many dicks they've had after surgery.
I guess they feel that they have to make up for lost time or something ... but with those HIV stats, they're doing it wrong, and 82% are doing it with men (50% straight and 32% bi), and most don't stop at one, so that puts the lie to your "super rare" claim.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
"But you know, if he believes he is a woman then he is a woman, I guess?"
This is probably an ignorant question (I have no problems claiming ignorance on topics of which I know next to nothing), but what is the difference to believing oneself is a woman and believing oneself is Napoleon? Does the belief that one is Napoleon actually *MAKE* them Napoleon?
You're arguing about rights as if they are some sort of Platonic ideal. It's important to reason about rights in this way, because they are part and parcel with our ideas of morality, and morality is not generally held to be subject to empirical revision. However, there is a difference between these absolute concepts and the actual real-world freedom to do something. Personally, I don't prefer rationalism or logic to empirical evidence. The concept of "inalienable rights" is simply not useful, since they are clearly violated wholesale, daily and globally. It would be nice if we could deceive ourselves to believe that we are progressing towards any of these ideals, but there is no evidence of that.
Your concept of Rights cannot be wholly dismissed. Still, while in my more honest moments I can't find a very sound basis to compare logical or moral truths with empirical ones, if your concept of the world conflicts with the world as measured and experienced, you should certainly recognize that you are not describing a real-world concept, and it could be argued that you are ipso facto wrong. Either way though, neither of you can win this argument because you're arguing about not only different truths, but different ways of determining what is true. Yet another argument that could be avoided by an undergraduate course in epistemology.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Apparently I was unclear, I didn't communicate well. I'm distinguishing between violating rights (infringing on them) versus "taking them away".
> the government regularly infringes on the right of free speech. Chelsea Manning, search warrants with gag orders, etc.
Suppose the government improperly searches your papers on Monday, then again on Tuesday, then again on Wednesday. The SECOND time that the government does an illegal search of your papers, on Tuesday, is it infringing on your rights again? How about the third, on Wednesday? Yes, of course each search infringes (violates) your rights.
THEREFORE we know the right *existed* on Tuesday.
The government *infringed* your rights on Monday, it did not remove them.
If the government had *taken away* your rights on Monday, it couldn't possibly infringe them on Tuesday. The government *violated* your rights on Monday, it did not take them away.
Therefore:
> Rights are taken away from people all the time.
Rights are *violated* all the time. FTFY
> you should certainly recognize that you are not describing a real-world concept, and it could be argued that you are ipso facto wrong
I'm describing the fact that rights are violated repeatedly. That's very real-world.
A slave has their rights violated every day. If we don't take action, their rights will be violated again tomorrow. That's real world.
If you think that that a slaves rights were *taken away*, then their rights are no longer being violated. You would say "they were enslaved, and that's sad, but now that they are enslaves they have no rights, and I have no resposibility to protect the rights they don't have anyway." That's also real world, people actually think that way and make real-world decisions on that basis.
An example in America is parts of the Patriot Act. Some people see that as past event - rights WERE taken away. It's a done deal, they think, because rights were removed. I see that rights are currently being violated under the Act, today. The rights are being violated today only because they still exist today.
"You don't get to dictate what is morally wrong for others." But that's exactly what morals are in society.
What the fuck are smoking? Percents are not numbers that quantify how common something is. Just how the something is divided up. You've proven nothing except to avoid black M2F because it's a coin toss of getting aids.
How is it different from pretending you're an adoring, loving kind of person while only later revealing you're an untrustworthy/cheating/manipulative/all-of-the-above piece of shit? And I would think that this happens much more often. Any false advertisement lawsuits yet?
Ezekiel 23:20
How come the government didn't create people's human rights? There's no human rights if there's no government to codify them. Clearly they're a wholly artificial concept.
Ezekiel 23:20
That line of thinking requires you to believe that there are actually no such thing as rights, only privileges granted and revoked by other people at their whim.
Governments infringe on people's rights.
That would not be possible if government was the source of rights and could take them away.
The right of free speech would be completly meaningless if it meant nothing more than "as long as nobody dislikes what you say, nobody will stop you from saying it". The right of religuon would be meaningless if it meant "you can believe what you want, only if the government approves of it." That's true of ANYTHING - if nobody dislikes what I put into the water supply, nobody will stop me. Is that a "right to poison the water"? No. The difference, what is meant by the word "right", is exactly that I can believe what I will REGARDLESS of whether the government or the majority approves. That's why we can speak of a "right to free speech" but not a "right to poison water" - because the government may control the water, and may not control my words.
Suppose for a moment that rights did come from government. Which law, which act of government granted you the right of free speech? There is none. No law says "you make speak freely". So you do not have the right of free speech if you're waiting for the government to grant it. Rather, the Constitution FORBIDS the federal government from INFRINGING on your pre-existing rights.
If you abuse a right, you risk having it taken away from you
No, you don't. Rights aren't privileges. The right to free speech is inalienable.
Right to free speech is only guaranteed by government and public venues. Twitter ain't it. I'm not saying anything pro or con Twitter's stance, but I'm drawing a line in the sand when it comes to force a private medium as if it were a branch of government, a street corner or public service. The ability for a person or company to build a medium and to apply its own version of censorship is a right on itself, a right closely related to freedom of expression.
If they want to practice their first amendment rights it is not incumbent upon Twitter to allow them a platform for it.
Precisely. Unless Twitter becomes part of the government or a platform owned by the people, it is disingenuous to demand Twitter to provide a platform it does not agree with. That's like force Joe down the street to put a pro Trump/Clinton/Whatever sign on his front yard, in his own fucking private property, against his political views or wishes. My freedom of speech ends where someone else's freedom of opinion, expression and privacy begin.
If I want to propagate a message, it is not my fucking right to force others to echo it, it is not my right to force others to listen, it is not my right to prevent someone from walking away should they wish not to hear me.
Freedom of speech is about being free to express myself. It does not give me the right to force others to listen to me against their wishes.
I didn't know that, thanks! Is that a part of reassignment therapy, though? I can't imagine that doctors would risk the immunological consequences for that.
It's high time for some civility in our public discourse. If an owner of a private company decides to show the Commander-in-Chief some respect while he's using those services, that is to be applauded. God forbid that Trump should become president, but if he does, I will still show some respect for the office, even if I disdain the person in it. Unfortunately, the censor-able tweets in a Trump Q&A are more likely to come from the other side of the conversation.
Indeed and when it comes to this, I don't issue prejudice. That includes not being prejudice against mental health statuses that people on slashdot frequently get upmodded for bashing, including psychopaths, rapists and pedophiles.
And on that last one, unlike most people, I recognize that somebody doesn't just wake up one day and decide to be a pedophile. For reasons not yet understood, some people become this way, much as they become a homosexual for example.
And no, I'm not equating the two. A pedophile often engages in unconsentual sex, whereas a homosexual typically does not. I also recognize that setting arbitrary limits on age of consent is a bit ridiculous. Sure, there needs to be a point, but I've even met adults who would feel harmed by consentual sex.
Rapists also tend to have a preference for dominating people who explicitly do not consent, and they too didn't just wake up one day and decide to have that preference. Nonetheless it is how they get their rocks off.
If only we had an objective standard for "respectful" or "civil" that was applied equally.
Alas there is a very clear double standard which our media helps enforce.
There isn't? How about not using the n* word against the POTUS for starters? Or not calling him monkey? How about not using racism or well known dog whistles? Or not calling her daughters whores?
I'm sorry bro, but there are objective standards for being respectful and civil. Maybe it's just me or the way my parents raised me.
I'm pretty sure that the only absolute I called out is the fact that wishing you were something else really badly doesn't make it so.
As for your numbers, I specifically called out straight men. If you're a man attracted to a man with a boob job and a large penis, you're by definition a homosexual. (And for what it's worth, I recognize gay as being a culture rather than a sexual preference. Many homosexuals don't want anything to do with the gay scene while still being comfortable in their skin, and there's nothing wrong with that. And unlike many in the gay scene, they do have my blessing, though not that they need it. After all, I'm a huge fan of James Rhandi.)
And yes, I have actually read about that scene, and in fact there are a sizeable portion of Johns who look specifically for trans people, but again, see the above paragraph. Also the AIDS statistics don't mean anything. You know as well as I do that intravenous drug use is highly common among trans people, which is a deliberate distortion by omission on your part.
And yes, I know the reason they often resort to that, which is unfortunate and I do think that they need better support. Contrary to your homophobic and transphobic opinion of me, I don't hate any particular group and I really hope they get the help they need because I wouldn't wish my chronic depression and PTSD symptoms on anybody, I just think the existing treatment methods are probably taking the wrong path because, as I'm sure you're aware, the mental state of those post op is too often not peaches and roses.
For what's it's worth, you're (probably) being hypocritical. We're talking about people's perceptions here--what it is they think and feel. You cannot dictate that.
You're misunderstanding the point I was attempting (badly?) to make. I can't dictate people's perceptions, but I can have a reasonable shot at predicting them. In many cases the only circumstance under which you might notice whether someone is trans is if you tried to have sex with them. Absent of removing their clothes in most cases you simply wouldn't notice. At that point, if you can't tell then it's unlikely that your perceptions would on average be different from meeting any other random non trans person.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
MtF trans have always had a certain kind of voice, which is admittedly a voice that some real women rarely have,
Firstly, no they don't, not all of them for sure, and secondly, well that makes things a lot harder to distinguish especially as "women with an unusual kind of voice" is almost certainly a larger category than trans women (which is a pretty small category). Deep voice is not much of a distinguishing factor. Funny thing I've noticed is that women in male dominated environments tend to have deeper voices, and the reverse is true too. Mostly, I put it down to the rather generic thing of humans tending to imitate the group.
Anyway all your post says is an anecdote where you happened to notice one MTF person and you appear to have generalized that to all of them. Naturally, you appear to have discounted anyone you've met who you didn't notice was MTF or FTM. We can duel with anecdotes if you like.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
And how does that negate my statement that you don't get to dictate what is morally right or wrong for others?
Civilized society has stopped labeling a lot of things that used to be seen as morally wrong because nowadays we realize it's nobody's business if nobody is getting hurt. This has got the bible-thumpers in a tizzy, because for the first time, they are seen as being morally wrong in trying to impose their views on others.
Don't like same sex marriage? Get over yourself. Don't like that transsexuals pee in the bathroom they want to pee in? Then YOU go use the handicapped single user bathroom. Still feeling dirty about watching gay porn? That's your problem - don't go around trying to mitigate your guilt by trying to make others feel guilty. Don't like women going around topless in public? Too bad - there are plenty of states and provinces where it's legal. Don't like women breast feeding in public? Turn yourself in to the local museum as a living fossil.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The number of trans-women is between 1 in 2500 (from the turn of the century) and 3 per thousand (or more) today. In absolute numbers, it keeps rising as better stats become available, and as it becomes more accepted. And the percentages DO quantify how common something is among the group being sampled. You could have found this out yourself if you knew how to use the Internet.
Now if you think that a 16% or 17% risk is acceptable, that's your business. But from where I sit, it's still crazy bad odds.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
No, it's not. However, humans aren't limited to XX and XY. And there are multiple cases of XY women giving birth, including one who failed the gene test at the Olympics.
Helps to explain why genetic testing isn't the sole determinant at the olympics any more. Too many women would spend years competing, get to the olympics, and be discovered with AIS or CAIS, with XY sex chromosomes.
As with anything else, "it's complicated."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
So what about the men who are attracted to women with CAIS? Even the Olympics recognizes them as women, despite having XY chromosomes. They don't know about them being XY until they get a gene test. And what about those cases where XY women gave birth? You're saying the guys making babies with them were gay?
Also, you seem to be misinformed about transsexuals. There's no "large penis". Perhaps you're confusing them with the larger transgender scene, the cross-dressers and gender-benders who don't have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder. Why not let a surgeon explain it to you - or if you need pictures ...
No penis there, just a new vagina and a clitoris that, in 80% of all cases, is capable of multiple orgasms. Sex, after all, starts and ends in the brain.
SRS has been found to be the best option, with success rates in the high 90's, with post-op suicide rates about the same as the general population. No treatment for a mental illness has a success rate anywhere near that, not even cognitive behavioral therapy, at ~50%.
Making the body match the brain works. But you have a pretty obvious hang-up about penises being the be-all and end-all of determining a person's sex. Science says otherwise.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Obviously it doesn't "harm society as a whole", since large portions of society will tell the busybodies to not-so-kindly go f*ck themselves.
As for trusting my authority on the topic, I certainly am not going to trust your opinion over half a dozen specialists who disagree with you. You simply don't have the qualifications, and your comments show you don't know shit about the subject. Sorry, but that's the truth - anyone who sees transsexual women as "men with boob jobs and a big penis" really doesn't know the difference between a transsexual and gay guys who get off feminizing their bodies while keeping their dicks.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
"Gender is a social construct."
I don't necessarily agree with this. A male dog is not SOCIALLY a male dog because in dog society that is what he learned.
"The question you're posing is a false analogy."
I'm not so sure. You say "gender is a social construct". I say "gender RULES are a social construct". Completely different things.
Lastly, your argument seems to suggest (correct me if I'm wrong) that "social constructs" are either "bad" or "OK to be ignored". If that is the argument you are making, I think you are mostly wrong. I would argue that social rules are behaviors that have evolved because they have some benefit. I think it's ok to stretch them -- and over time they change -- but to abruptly ignore them all together can be damaging to a society not ready to embrace those changes.
Thanks to Ailes' departure, Fox has gone quite far in the MSM direction.
How about you explain why harassers have been given protection on Twitter when they're of the correct political bent?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I think what AC is doing is drawing a distinction between gender and sex, which is fair enough. For example, kilts used to be a really manly thing but now they call them skirts and only women wear them. Pink used to be a really masculine color but now it's seen as very effeminate.
That said, if a man wants to wear drag and even chop off his wiener it doesn't make him a female, which is the whole point of my post.
So what about the men who are attracted to women with CAIS? Even the Olympics recognizes them as women, despite having XY chromosomes. They don't know about them being XY until they get a gene test. And what about those cases where XY women gave birth? You're saying the guys making babies with them were gay?
Let me get this straight: You're arguing that a person with female gametes is a male because they have a vestigial and unexpressed male chromosome? That argument is as silly as saying that you have a legitimate claim to identify as an ape because you carry much of their genetic structure.
Also, you seem to be misinformed about transsexuals. There's no "large penis".
You missed the reference I was making. At any rate, a penis isn't even relevant; they could chop the thing off and stuff skin from their legs into their pelvis to make a skin pocket next to their prostate, and the point remains no less valid.
SRS has been found to be the best option, with success rates in the high 90's, with post-op suicide rates about the same as the general population. No treatment for a mental illness has a success rate anywhere near that, not even cognitive behavioral therapy, at ~50%.
Nice claim; let's do a little fact checking, shall we?
http://theconversation.com/fac...
Shelton was correct to say that research shows that transgendered people who have had sex reassignment surgery had a suicide mortality rate later in life that was roughly 20 times higher than the non-transgendered population.
However, it is also possible some viewers may have been left with the impression that the study showed sex reassignment surgery causes a higher risk of suicide later in life. That is not what the Swedish study showed. In fact, the researchers wrote that things might have been even worse without sex reassignment.
Nevertheless, there is lack of research on the topic and his comment appears to be based on one study from Sweden. – Kairi Kõlves
Sorry, you're wrong here, and unlike you I'm not going to omit any important details. It should be acknowledged that social pressures probably do contribute to these higher suicide rates, but I strongly believe that they don't explain a 20 fold increase. Why? Well, look further up in the page:
However, suicide risk was found not to be significantly higher in female-to-male transsexuals compared to the general population in an 18 year follow-up of 996 male-to-female and 365 female-to-male transexuals.
It just doesn't seem likely to me that FtM is somehow seeing dramatically (that is, 20 fold) reduced societal pressure for suicide than their MtF counterparts. Personally, I'm leaning towards (and yes, this is pure speculation on my part) that it's likely due to the difference in psychology between an FtM vs MtF transexual. That is, I believe that there's something much deeper than simply "I'm a woman trapped in a man's body" going on, and gender dysphoria is merely a symptom. Another condition called BIID (which...SHOCKER...nobody treats through surgery) is probably, in my opinion, another symptom of what is fundamentally the same underlying cause.
Nonetheless, and all speculation aside, your assertion that post op transexuals have a suicide rate similar to the general population is undeniably false.
Making the body match the brain works. But you have a pretty obvious hang-up about penises being the be-all and end-all of determining a person's sex. Science says otherwise.
Actually the science more or less says that sex is determined by gametes.
Firstly, no they don't, not all of them for sure, and secondly, well that makes things a lot harder to distinguish especially as "women with an unusual kind of voice" is almost certainly a larger category than trans women (which is a pretty small category). Deep voice is not much of a distinguishing factor. Funny thing I've noticed is that women in male dominated environments tend to have deeper voices, and the reverse is true too. Mostly, I put it down to the rather generic thing of humans tending to imitate the group.
No, that's not what I said. It's not a deeper voice at all, rather it's a voice similar to what a prepubescent teenage male would sound like, only a little more raspy, much like a kazoo, without necessarily having any deepening. In fact it sounds very close to this: (But this is missing that "kazoo" sound.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
(A funny note on that: Once I saw a youtube video that showed an FtM trans who was claiming to be more of a man than Justin Beiber, which doesn't seem like a hard thing to do.)
But that's just the ones who never had a naturally deep voice, and again, some real women sound similar to this (Ann Coulter for example) but not *quite* the same, and you sometimes have to listen to them speak for a while to tell the difference. The ones who do have a naturally deep voice however are even more raspy, and/or try to cover it up with a fake lisp, and/or pick up mannerisms that black girls tend to use.
LOL nice, my MOS was 19D, aka Cavalry Scout. In retrospect, the connection isn't quite obvious unless you're familiar with the history of that MOS. The old name for Cavalry was Dragoon, which in French means Dragon. Armored because...well, modern cavalry is all about being mechanized, and at least in the US Army, is likewise part of the Armor Branch.
So now Johns Hopkins is gun-shy.
From something that occurred 20 years ago, in what is now an age of "srs is perfectly healthy" is the common refrain? I don't think so. I think this is more likely:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...
The pro-transgender advocates do not want to know, said McHugh, that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings “spontaneously lose those feelings” over time. Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were “satisfied” with the operation “but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.”
“And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs,” said Dr. McHugh.
Johns Hopkins is renowned for being at the leading edge of psychology and neurology, so I find it unlikely that Dr. Paul R. McHugh would say all of these things without Johns Hopkins distancing itself if the organization fundamentally disagreed. I fully expect an incoming "well he's catholic so his very extensive background in psychology doesn't count" argument but you should actually try reading the points he makes.
I also can't help but notice the big "oops" that should be apparent in those cases where puberty is delayed for eventual SRS. 70 to 80 percent. Think about that. And on the subject of thinking, you presume to tell others that I only think with my dick, (a comment that older males typically make towards younger ones, I might add.) But hey, we're both probably thinking with our dicks here, except you removed yours so that kind of narrows down which one of us is actually doing any thinking at all and which one isn't, doesn't it? (Hey, it was you who started the personal attacks.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Not in my personal experience.
and/or pick up mannerisms that black girls tend to use.
WTF?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Cripes - you haven't got a clue, do you? CAIS is not caused by an unexpressed Y chromosome. You claimed
And you should really do some fact checking. Crap from 1973 is seriously outdated.
With both improved technique and more experience in treating patients, the satisfaction numbers in various studies go from a low of 83.7% to 100% - the newer the survey, the higher the satisfaction rate. Cherry-picking from an era where surgery was rare and highly experimental won't cut it. Neither does quoting from religious assholes with an agenda who can't afford to acknowledge the facts.
So kindly either buy a clue or fuck off, because your posts are extremely insulting, as well as being anchored in lies.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Quoting a study that was hugely flawed, that didn't make any effort to distinguish between children who had occasional as opposed to persistent opposite-sex gender identification, and the people behind it (in particular Zucker, whose clinic was closed down for child abuse of the children he was trying to "cure", and which lead to Ontario banning "reparative therapy", which is also banned elsewhere - in the case of new york because it is consumer fraud and there has been no evidence supporting it), seriously? He had a financial motive in admitting kids who did not show distinct signs of transsexualism, since that's how his clinic made money for decades, so of course most of the kids turned out to be non-trans. Always follow the money.
Johns Hopkins reputation in the field of transsexualism is pretty much zero. That's why they appointed someone who is opposed to it. Makes it safe for them, no digging up the skeletons. Any transsexual with any brains avoids them.
And no, you were the one who started the personal attacks by trying to undermine what I am with baseless lies coming from outdated and disproven studies.
Really, NOBODY in the field except the religious nuts cites Johns Hopkins when it comes to transsexualism. They got nailed for falsifying data, for harming their subjects, and for covering it up. They're still afraid of lawsuits decades later, because the families of their victims are still alive.
Go look for studies done after 2000. And studies on children that were properly pre-screened. Things have changed since 1973.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Quoting a study that was hugely flawed
Which one? The Swedish one? I haven't seen any indication that it's flawed. The only bad press it has received is that some people made false conclusions based on it, but the original study itself is sound research. Why would a site like the one I linked lie about that?
Johns Hopkins reputation in the field of transsexualism is pretty much zero.
That's rich, given that they're notorious for having good results when treating sex related psychological issues.
And no, you were the one who started the personal attacks by trying to undermine what I am with baseless lies coming from outdated and disproven studies.
Are you on crack? I never said anything about you. I say shit all the time about people's religions, and they never take that as being personal. You're the one with the big issues if you interpret everything people say that isn't direct at you as being personal. And in my experience, religions only take it to the level you do when they believe so deeply in their irrational viewpoint that when you give them a logical argument that they can't defeat even with their own dogmatic talking points, they begin lashing out at the arguer, just like you're doing here. You're making this simple in that I don't even need to attack your credibility, you're already doing a good job of damaging your own without me.
And really, what you're doing is systemic to the whole trans movement: Suppressing any facts that they find inconvenient, much like a religion would, which makes sense because none of them can argue with the idea that wishing you were something you aren't doesn't make you that something, so naturally they want to suppress that notion with "if I feel in my heart and mind that I'm a helicopter then that makes me an IRL helicopter". Really, there's no difference.
Really, NOBODY in the field except the religious nuts cites Johns Hopkins when it comes to transsexualism. They got nailed for falsifying data, for harming their subjects, and for covering it up. They're still afraid of lawsuits decades later, because the families of their victims are still alive.
You keep saying this yet I haven't seen any indication that they're somehow trigger shy. I think the only reason you hate them is because in spite of all of the good medicine that they do, they don't support your cause which angers the shit out of you.
Go look for studies done after 2000. And studies on children that were properly pre-screened. Things have changed since 1973.
Umm....the Karolinska Institute study is from 2011.
Cripes - you haven't got a clue, do you? CAIS is not caused by an unexpressed Y chromosome. You claimed
The androgen receptors are impaired or are otherwise not working. I'm not sure how more specific you want? Dimorphism occurs very early in fetal development, and the path it takes is dependent upon the hormonal signaling. And the thing is, in most cases you're going to have one or the other, and contrary to the common trans refrain, your brain doesn't mysteriously develop as the opposite sex when the conditions required for that are not present.
And you should really do some fact checking. Crap from 1973 is seriously outdated.
Try reading the date again.
So kindly either buy a clue or fuck off, because your posts are extremely insulting, as well as being anchored in lies.
The central premise in my posts is and always has been this: Wishing you were something you are not does not make it so. How the fuck is that insulting? It's just reality. That's every bit as absurd as calling it an insult when I say that Jesus likely didn't exist. Sure, a christian might take offense to it, and might accuse me of lying, but so fucking what? I don't acknowledge their religious views anymore than I do yours, and I'm allowed to have an opinion on the matter, whether you like it or not. If you think my opinion is insulting, even though it is in no way vulgar, then that's your problem.
Obviously you haven't looked far enough. The flaws in the study are well known. I thought you said you knew something about this stuff?
As for Johns Hopkins being trigger shy, they absolutely refuse to discuss Dr. Money's fake research with the media. And you can also look at their other actions, such as putting a guy into place who also hasn't kept up with the latest brain studies (including autopsies) that show that not only are trans brains more like an amalgam of both sexes, but the neural networks are more like their target gender than their birth gender. Even the brains of transsexuals who had never taken hormones, never transitioned, had structures that were more the opposite sex, so it can't be blamed on cross-gender hormones - it's innate.
If you really had done your research, you would have already known this, but you haven't, because you're a bigot who goes out of their way to find the oldest studies. Searching "satisfaction rates for srs" earlier today turned up studies that contradict everything you're saying.
The swedish study you quotes uses subject going back to 1973, when the surgery was experimental and controversial. A followup swedish study says you're full of shit.
No one regretted their reassignment. The clinicians rated the global outcome as favorable in 62% of the cases, compared to 95% according to the patients themselves, with no differences between the subgroups. Based on the follow-up interview, more than 90% were stable or improved as regards work situation, partner relations, and sex life, but 5-15% were dissatisfied with the hormonal treatment, results of surgery, total sex reassignment procedure, or their present general health. Most outcome measures were rated positive and substantially equal for MF and FM. Late-onset transsexuals differed from those with early onset in some respects: these were mainly MF (88 vs. 42%), older when applying for sex reassignment (42 vs. 28 years), and non-homosexually oriented (56 vs. 15%). In conclusion, almost all patients were satisfied with the sex reassignment; 86% were assessed by clinicians at follow-up as stable or improved in global functioning.
The only one suppressing facts here is you, with your irrational insistance on using old data, and a hospital that has a researcher who totally faked his research to present "evidence" to reinforce his viewpoint rather than the facts - just like you are doing.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Quit lying. Here's what you wrote:
they have a vestigial and unexpressed male chromosome
What they have is a body that doesn't respond to testosterone. And guess what - the X chromosome is involved. And that is NOT what you said. "Vestigial male chromosome." You make me laugh. The "Y" chromosome is already much smaller than any other chromosome -50 genes as opposed to 1600 on the X.. Most of the genes that were originally on the Y chromosome are now on the X chromosome. And there are mammals with ONLY XX genes, no Y.
So now we have 2 genes that can turn a female into a male, and one of them is not located on the Y chromosome! How can that be? It turns out that SRY is probably just a facilitator that allows a more critical gene (or genes) to function, by blocking the action of another opposing factor. Can the magic of genetics do the opposite – turn a male into a female? Indeed it can. A gene on the X chromosome (the chromosome one typically associates with “femaleness”) called DAX1 when present in double copy in a male (XY) mouse, turns it into a female.
So now we have genes on the Y that can turn females with XX chromosomes into males and genes on the X that can turn males with XY chromosomes into females wow! Maleness and femaleness are NOT determined by having an X or a Y, since switching a couple of genes around can turn things upside down.
In fact, there’s a whole lot more to maleness and femaleness than X or Y chromosomes. About 1 in 20,000 men has no Y chromosome, instead having 2 Xs. This means that in the United States there are about 7,500 men without a Y chromosome. The equivalent situation - females who have XY instead of XX chromosomes - can occur for a variety of reasons and overall is similar in frequency.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. With the brain autopsies and the brain scans, we know that the "wishing" is because the brain acts in part like the opposite sex, because it resembles the opposite sex to a certain degree, in critical areas. There's no "wishing" involved - just a realization that sex and gender both begin and end in the brain.
We have known for decades that male-to-female transsexuals don't get the testosterone signal at 12 weeks. It's simple enough to track - the finger bones are developing at the same time, and testosterone also affects the lengh of the fingers. Less testosterone results in a hand with finger lengths more aligned with women than with men - longer index finger, shorter ring finger. Normal levels of testosterone cause the opposite effect. Extremely high levels of testosterone cause the ring finger to be almost as long as the middle finger.
And where does this testosterone come from? The fetus. If the genes that govern release of testosterone in the gonads fail to do their jobs, the various parts that are developing at that point develop more as female than male - and that includes the brain. And it's entirely due to the fetus' genes.
You said you knew about this stuff, and it's obvious you don't, or your would have known about all the science done since 1995 showing brain development is different in transsexuals because of that failure to release testosterone as the brain cells start dividing like crazy. The testes will most likely function to produce testosterone at other critical stages, otherwise - when they don't, you end up with a baby that for all intents and purposes is a female, even if it's xy.
You're allowed to have your own opinion, but you are not allowed to have your own set of bs facts, and use them to insult transsexuals, including myself, by implying that we "wish" to be the opposite sex, without any biological or genetic basis, when in fact it's those very genes that fail to send the "make testosterone" signal at a critical time of development.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
What they have is a body that doesn't respond to testosterone. And guess what - the X chromosome is involved [isna.org]. And that is NOT what you said. "Vestigial male chromosome." You make me laugh. The "Y" chromosome is already much smaller than any other chromosome -50 genes as opposed to 1600 on the X. [theconversation.com]. Most of the genes that were originally on the Y chromosome are now on the X chromosome. And there are mammals with ONLY XX genes, no Y.
So I used the improper term? So what? This doesn't change anything, it's just hair splitting on your part. And yes, I'm aware of SRY.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. With the brain autopsies and the brain scans, we know that the "wishing" is because the brain acts in part like the opposite sex, because it resembles the opposite sex to a certain degree, in critical areas. There's no "wishing" involved - just a realization that sex and gender both begin and end in the brain.
Again, you should probably look up the scientific definitions of sex: Males produce spermatoza, females produce eggs. Anything beyond that is just you putting your own emotions into it.
Anyways this is getting stupid and I've already spent far more time this topic than I typically like to spend on any given topic. I expressed an opinion that you found offensive even though I didn't use any kind of vulgarity or insults, so you come in and issue personal attacks against me, and then wonder why I don't take you seriously. You're the one with the issues, not me.
If you really had done your research, you would have already known this, but you haven't, because you're a bigot who goes out of their way to find the oldest studies. Searching "satisfaction rates for srs" earlier today turned up studies that contradict everything you're saying.
Of course, more personal attacks! Why do I even bother...
scientific definitions of sex: Males produce spermatoza (sic), females produce eggs." is not true.
Science disagrees with you. Obviously you are into denial. Like about those xy women who bad babies. You can't say it's genes on the one hand and eggs when your "genes" argument falls apart.
Your denial of scientific fact shows that you are the one with issues, not me.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Why do you bother? I'll tell you why.
Because you need to disprove what I'm saying, because you are so emotionally invested in your world view that people like me are a threat to it. That your preconceived notions of sex being xy or xx, and that defines male or female, are no longer accepted as always being the case. You are so out of date (which is why you depend on studies 4 decades old instead of newer studies that contradict you on things like the efficacy of srs), but you can't admit being wrong.
Because you got caught out being an ignorant bigot, and don't want to admit it even to yourself.
Because you will never admit you are wrong. You will make up one lame excuse after another, saying "what I really meant" (vestigial y chromosome) being just the latest example.
Of course they're personal attacks. You started it. Calling you bigoted is personal, but it's also the truth. Must be hard being a male, never being able to admit you're wrong, despite evidence.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Because you need to disprove what I'm saying, because you are so emotionally invested in your world view that people like me are a threat to it.
I don't need to disprove anything. I simply called a spade a spade and that offends you. You're every bit as bad as religious fundamentalists that can't tolerate a view that conflicts with theirs. Seriously you sound exactly like Politicians that raise a shit about drawing pictures of Mohamed, calling it hateful and offensive when it's quite benign.
Of course they're personal attacks. You started it.
LOL you're such a douche, you very obviously started it in the post where you accuse me of thinking with my dick, and now you're trying to spin it as me starting it for nothing more than the crime of saying shit that you don't like.
Calling you bigoted is personal, but it's also the truth.
Really? That's interesting. Let's look at the definition of a bigot:
bigot:
noun. a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
Well let's see, I haven't demonstrated any form of intolerance, rather I've done nothing more than say that wishing you were something you are not doesn't make you that something.
But let's look at you for a minute: You accuse me of thinking with my dick just for expressing my opinion, you call me names just for expressing my opinion, and you try to insult my intelligence just for expressing my opinion. That's three counts of bigotry on your part. And you're calling ME a bigot? That's rich. Go back to school learn about the terms you use before you use them, dimwit.
Science disagrees with you. Obviously you are into denial. Like about those xy women who bad babies. You can't say it's genes on the one hand and eggs when your "genes" argument falls apart.
I never made a genes argument, you're the only one who ever did. Female is purely a phenotype of gametes rather than a genotype, otherwise many other species of animals and plants would have no females since y chromosomes are completely irrelevant.
You're the only one denying science here by saying things can merely wish their way into being something else for them to be something else.
You didn't call a spadE a spade - you picked and chose to provide outdateD "evidence" that backed up your prejudices. Anyone reading this thread can see that.
When I produce newer studies in the same country (eg. sweden) that provide a far different view, you fail to respond to them because you can't without admitting you're wrong. That's cowardly.
You also fail to acknowledge all the biomedical and genetic advances over the last 20 years, because that also doesn't go with your prejudices. Or the xy women who gave birth. Or that even the fuss-pots at the Olympics no longer use gene testing as a final determination of just who is a woman after kicking out a woman "for being a nam" who was one of those xy women who gave birth.
Society has moved on from your primitive understanding and pseudoscience. So does my birth certificate. 100% legally a woman. I can legally use the woman's washroom in all 50 states, since the backwards ones require you to use the bathroom that matches the gender on your birth certificate, but don't provide a check beyond the birth certificate, such as genetic testing. And no, the police cannot request my "old" birth certificate - all the records have been changed at the source. Even I can't get a copy. And the government would reject any request from a foreign jurisdiction that does not comply with our laws (and such a request would definitely not comply, even from the FBI, same as for years we did not share arrest records, only convictions of our citizens, to the DHS).
Ass I reminded you before, you can have your own set of opinions, but not your own set of facts. You may be a KKK sympathizer and just love using the "n" word - you can't hide behind "I can have my own opinions" to hide the fact that you're prejudiced, bigoted, and wilfully ignorant. The same with this situation -you cannot overcome your preconceived, decades-out-of-date anti-science bias.
What do you REALLY fear? That you might have accidentally lusted after one of us, or even slept with one of us, and that would somehow mean your are gay in your mind? Or is it a fear of castration? There's no rational reason to ignore the last 2 decades of science, so we're stuck with the irrational. Of course, irrational people won't admit it to begin with, so it's a catch-22. The only thing that can be said for a certainty is that you have an irrational motivation to refuse to accept medical facts because they disagree with your preconceived notions. And that makes you a prejudiced bigot.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Let me get this straight: You're arguing that a person with female gametes is a male because they have a vestigial and unexpressed male chromosome? That argument is as silly as saying that you have a legitimate claim to identify as an ape because you carry much of their genetic structure.
Again, you refuse to accept modern science because it disagrees with your prejudices. And in that same comment, you drag out a since-disproven old study. Just as your claim that "Another condition called BIID (which...SHOCKER...nobody treats through surgery)" is full of crap, as well as wilfully ignorant because we know that transsexuals have aspects of their brain that are more closely related to their target sex than their genetic sex, so to dismiss it as just a mental illness.
Can't you stick to the facts for once? Oh wait, you can't. Your prejudices command otherwise.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
When I produce newer studies in the same country (eg. sweden) that provide a far different view, you fail to respond to them because you can't without admitting you're wrong. That's cowardly.
Or, you've long since turned this into a mudslinging contest with your bigotry so I stopped caring about actual debate a few posts ago. And yes, you are the only one being bigoted here. If you don't believe me, go pick up a dictionary.
When confronted with genetic proof contrary to your beliefs, you argued the point here
I wasn't making an argument about genetics, I was debunking your argument about genetics, so try again.
Just as your claim that "Another condition called BIID (which...SHOCKER...nobody treats through surgery)" is full of crap [salvomag.com],
Try reading that article again, specifically, notice what the guy did to his leg, and notice what the doctors tried to do FOR his leg prior to amputation. Also read the third sentence in the fourth paragraph. And you wonder why I don't care to respond to your full posts (between the personal attacks and ignoring most of the evidence I toss your way, it's pointless.)
persons engaged in combat
Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't in a war zone
Find a brain cell and look that up, moron.
Seriously. Look it the fuck up because you're just making shit up like a total asshole. People died, fuckwit. You think people die just to make political points for you that aren't even true?
You didn't know he was in a war zone? That means you didn't even read shit about what happened, what did you do, just repeat shit you heard at the bar? Fuckin' lame. You're just another aliterate moron who won't even look it up even after you're called on your shit.
You're talking about people overseas in war zones
Yemen was not a war zone that the US was participating in on the ground.
Strange equivocation. Why add in words about "on the ground?" Does that make a moral difference? No. Does it make a legal difference? No. Does it make any sort of known difference at all? No.
As your equivocation shows that you knew, Yemen was a war zone; and the recognized government of Yemen approved the operation. No, the US wasn't participating "on the ground" we were participating "from the air." From the air, to the ground.
Being against it is political. Making up lies about the conditions in order to make a faulty legal claim to stupid and pointless. People who make this decisions aren't going to listen to you because you made up some horse shit. You don't disagree that he was planning attacks, you seem to be aware that he was in a war zone, that isn't a gray area. They are clearly allowed to blow him up. All he has to do is be in a war zone, and be believed to be naughty, and it is legal and normal under the laws of war to kill him. That's what happens in a war.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Especially note that part that says:
He would be in a war zone even if he wasn't in Yemen. You don't have to like it. I certainly don't approve of the government declaring war on non-State entities. I think those should be handled as police actions. But that is a political complaint, not a legal one involving the laws of war. There is not actually any doubt that he was a member of one of the groups that war was declared on, so even if he had been in a different place he would still be a legit military target.
Where is this crazy idea that the military is expected to have legal documentation before shooting people? That is precisely the sort of thing that they don't need. That is the whole point of war, "OK now we're just going to shoot you guys." That's what war is. That is what it means. That is why "war is hell."
There are actual international agreements (aka "laws of war") regulating who you can shoot in war, and who you can't. If you can't shoot them in war, then that nonsense about judges would make a difference. No, nobody at war is required to go to a judge before killing somebody. And if they make a mistake, that is OK too. And if the enemy is parked next to a school, it is legal to blow them (and the school) up. War is hell, but that doesn't automatically mean that war is a war crime, or that hell is a war crime.
By the way, more on BIID:
http://www.scirp.org/journal/P...
Here's the abstract, you can read the free PDF for more details on the study.
Gender Dysphoria and Body Integrity Identity Disorder are sometimes together in the 19% of the cases. Other discomfort diseases related to identity, body scheme and/or integrity are discussed in relation to Gender Dysphoria. Because persons experiencing Gender Dysphoria need a precise diagnostic that protects their access to care and will not be used against them in social, occupational or legal areas a distinction diseases is provided in this text, because a meticulous description with clear exclusion criteria is required.
19% is quite a significant number, especially considering that among those with BIID, there are differences in which particular disability that some of them are after. A desire for having genitals and breasts surgically altered would easily fit.
In addition:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
Two BIID individuals with the paralyzation form from in the present study and one with the amputation form reported by First et al. stated to have an intersex condition (see Table 3) [1]. These rates are substantially higher than in the general population [27] and therefore might suggest a common pathway in developing identity disorders [2]. However there can be a significant ascertainment bias, so it still remains uncertain at present whether there is a true relation between intersexuality and BIID.
So apparently more people than just me think there's a possible common underlying pathology. And no, contrary to what you think, nobody ever treats BIID with surgery; the rare exceptions are those where somebody deliberately injures themselves to force an amputation, or in at least one case there was a girl who blinded herself:
Of course, you're going to be bigoted and lob more personal attacks for me for having an opinion consistent with some obviously well done scientific investigation, but again that's your issue.
Dodging the truth again ... tsk tsk tsk. My facts beat your lies, and now you try to save face by coming up with excuses - and those excuses fail to address that your original post was ignorant and offensive. You started it, and now you're running away from it. Coward.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Your debunking failed. And the arguments about genetics were to disprove your lies.
And if you had read the entire article, you would have known there was a WOMAN who had elective surgery for BIID, not some guy.
You can't seem to even read properly. But we already knew that, since you reject all the scientific evidence that refutes your beliefs, because you can't come to grips with it proving you wrong.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
And yet BIID is not transsexuality. You're the one who brought BIID into the conversation, trying to imply that the two were the same. And no, people do not think there is a common pathology, because now transsexuality is not thought of as pathological. Hasn't been considered as such since 2013, a year after your citation. Out of date citations, even recent ones, don't prove shit, though they prove you don't know shit about the topic.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
trying to imply that the two were the same.
Is your reading comprehension just bad or something? I never implied anything, rather I directly spelled out (twice) that they may have the same underlying cause. That does NOT mean that they are the same condition.
I skimmed the article and I don't see that in there. Though I did happen to notice that you're quoting a religious website...makes sense with how bigoted you are. You're just like Mr. Garrison.
And a lot of things are still considered morally objectionable. You don't see public nudity being legalized everywhere or publically having sex. Those are probably the least likely to be legalized so I used them as examples. Clearly people are still dictating societies morals. So it still doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about society dictating morals and individuals are the ones that make up a society. You know that a law that allowed people to choose their bathroom was what started the anti bathroom laws, right? People trying to pass their moral values as laws backfired on them.
They do NOT have the same underlying cause. Genes failing to trigger the testes to release testosterone during the 12th week has NOTHING to do with BIID.
Of course, it is your reading comprehension that is a failure, because you are unable to bring yourself to understand that science has found the underlying basis for transsexualism, and it has nothing to do with any sort of mental disorder.
So how's it feel still living in the 20th century? Dial-up internet, no smart phones, CBT not being all that widely deployed as the most effective treatment ever for PTSD, many doctors still believing that stomach ulcers were caused by psychological stress (mental cause) instead of a bacterial infection (physical cause), no same-sex marriage, vcrs, floppy drives, teeny-tiny hard disks, almost no ram, ...
You are willfully ignorant of what's been going on in science since the mid-90s on this whole topic, despite claiming you are well informed on t, and you've put your ignorance on display for the whole world to see. And that is why it's right to call you a prejudiced bigot - you can't put aside your wrong "facts" in the face of new findings over the last 2 decades, instead acting like any other bigot.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You never heard of using the search function in your browser? Wow, you must be stuck in the '80s. And you must be unable to believe that an atheist can even quote the bible when appropriate, and finds the Christian Science Monitor (widely recognized for their reporting) a valid news source. Their staff have won 7 Pulitzers. Unlike you, I judge by the facts, not the messenger.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It helps to know what I'm supposed to be searching for.
They do NOT have the same underlying cause.
So we see a high correlation of the two conditions for no reason at all then? Did you even read the quotes I posted from those whitepapers?
It's perfectly legal here for both sexes to go around topless. We also have nude beaches that anyone can use. And obviously, there's sex going on there - to the point that one of my former neighbors bragged about it every chance he got, with pictures, even though both I and several other women told him we didn't want to see them (he'd sneak them into a stack of other pictures to show us).
As for the bathroom bills, it was not any law that allowed people to choose - this was started by religious groups at the turn of the century. Before that, it wasn't on anyone's radar. The laws allowing choice were passed in reaction to previous bathroom bills. A good example was Maryland, where religious groups, who in 2007 started pushing against transsexuals, staged incidents in 2008 by having men dress as women and going into women's areas. They got caught, and it was in reaction to crap like this that a law was passed allowing transsexuals to use the bathroom matching their identity.
Fortunately the provincial human rights commission has defended our rights to go where we should be going, instead of where bigots want us to go, for at least a quarter-century.
So no, you're lying again when you claim it was a law that allowed people to choose their bathroom that started the whole anti-bathroom bills thing. Until religious groups pushed, there was no law against us using the bathroom that matched our identity. The only thing, from a point of safety if someone was determined to cause a problem for us, was to carry a doctor's note explaining the situation and that we are to be treated in all respects the same as any other woman.
Again, you know shit.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You must have a really hard time constructing good search terms on google. No wonder you keep coming up with out-of-date crap.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Wow - you are really, REALLY stupid. Correlation is not causation. Just because there appears to be a superficial correlation does not mean they have the same causes - especially when the cause of transsexualism is known to be biological, something you can't admit because it would expose your bigoted views to yourself.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You did not understand what I wrote, evidently. Rights, at least by your definition, are inalienable. They only exist because people agree they do. You can argue that they are "real world", but that is not a particularly meaningful term as you have used it. They are absolutely not empirical -- you cannot measure your right to free speech, for example. And yet there is an empirical analogue which you may be said to possess, which can be taken away, granted, or restored. The appropriate word for this is likely 'freedom'.
It is not to say that there is anything inherently wrong with the idea that rights are independent of the real world, or with suggesting that they only have a notional existence: the same may be said for love, or morality, and all products of rational thought, including mathematics. Empiricism is also not without its flaws, though you'll pardon me if I encourage you to read more on the subject of epistemology rather than explain more fully. The point is that we must distinguish between these two types of truths, or you're likely to spend a lot of time arguing irreconcilable positions. Similarly, the difference in how truth is determined is the source of probably every argument of science vs. religion.
If arguing the undecidable is your entertainment, of course, by all means keep on as you are; one imagines a healthy level of ignorance would even help that endeavor. Even in that case, however, you may want to retain the idea that when two people are offering incompatible definitions of a concept, the chances are excellent they are not talking about the same thing.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
By all account of her standards, she was prejudiced against Milo for his background.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The Russian word "pravda" means "truth". Pravda is the government-controlled newspaper.
It would indeed be a waste of time to ARGUE with one person talking about pravda and the other talking about Pravda. They are two different things.
On the other hand, I believe it's worth remembering, and sometimes pointing out, that they are two different things. Where a conversation is seeking pravda (truth), I will mention it when someone seeks to answer the inquiry by citing Pravda (the government newspaper).
One reall can fall into the trap of thinking that the only truth is what the govt acknowledges as truth, and that the only rights are whatever the govt acknowledges as rights.