I think the people who are behind the survey realize this, but just simply object to new smartphones coming out as often as they do.
But this is kind of typical of Greenpeace, actually. They like to distort the truth wherever it suits them. And no, I'm not talking about climate change, I'm talking about deliberately holding back technologies that can solve climate change, such as nuclear energy and GMO, which they oppose at any cost, even when there's overwhelming evidence in favor of these technologies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
I fail to see how videotaped 100% clear proof of violent crime can be ignored because the police break a rule when obtaining it.
Because if you let it go in this case then you have to let it go in all cases, and if you let it go in all cases then the police are free to break into your home, car, office, etc, hack into your computer, read your mail, record your phone calls, use stingray type devices, and anything else privacy invading just any time they want just to find shit to send you to jail for.
But what's that you say? Who cares about privacy when lives are on the line? Well the thing with that is if police can just do whatever they want to obtain evidence to throw you in jail, then they can practically throw anybody they want in jail because EVERYBODY does things that are illegal, and you bet your ass that politicians would start using this to silence their opposition until we end up with a China style government.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.)
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.
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.)
(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.
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?
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.
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.
Regardless, even before reading this I've been debating deleting my LinkedIn account and only republishing it in the event that I get laid off. The site just strikes me as pointless, and all I get out of it is recruiter spam for jobs that pay about the same as what I'm getting now only in stupidly expensive areas like San Francisco...no thanks.
In fact the only reason I created one to begin with is because the HR people at a place I interned for said it was a good idea to have one, but now I'm not so sure.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the people who are behind the survey realize this, but just simply object to new smartphones coming out as often as they do.
But this is kind of typical of Greenpeace, actually. They like to distort the truth wherever it suits them. And no, I'm not talking about climate change, I'm talking about deliberately holding back technologies that can solve climate change, such as nuclear energy and GMO, which they oppose at any cost, even when there's overwhelming evidence in favor of these technologies.
600mph for 30 minutes IMO
Well the 381 mile estimate is based on European figures; the US EPA figures are tighter and would estimate closer to what you said.
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 helps to know what I'm supposed to be searching for.
I just bought a dell T20 for my home lab and it's even quieter than my desktop. It has all of the usual server features, including ECC.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
I fail to see how videotaped 100% clear proof of violent crime can be ignored because the police break a rule when obtaining it.
Because if you let it go in this case then you have to let it go in all cases, and if you let it go in all cases then the police are free to break into your home, car, office, etc, hack into your computer, read your mail, record your phone calls, use stingray type devices, and anything else privacy invading just any time they want just to find shit to send you to jail for.
But what's that you say? Who cares about privacy when lives are on the line? Well the thing with that is if police can just do whatever they want to obtain evidence to throw you in jail, then they can practically throw anybody they want in jail because EVERYBODY does things that are illegal, and you bet your ass that politicians would start using this to silence their opposition until we end up with a China style government.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
I already know that's not true for this particular place because it's a church organization that will give to just anybody who asks.
Regardless, even before reading this I've been debating deleting my LinkedIn account and only republishing it in the event that I get laid off. The site just strikes me as pointless, and all I get out of it is recruiter spam for jobs that pay about the same as what I'm getting now only in stupidly expensive areas like San Francisco...no thanks.
In fact the only reason I created one to begin with is because the HR people at a place I interned for said it was a good idea to have one, but now I'm not so sure.