There's no reason you can't encrypt an attachment, then search for it using the plain text message. Example: Here's the plans for the power substation. Predictive analysis shows that the part outlined in red will fail by March 15th.
Translation: Here's the plans for the power substation. Sabotage the part outlined in red on March 15th. They decrypt the attachment, and proceed with their mission.
Not only that, but there are plenty of ways of hiding encrypted data so that you don't even know it exists. The oldest is a code book held by both sides, and keywords in the plain text. The germans got caught out on that one when one of their operatives sent the message "mother is dead". They messaged back "is mother dead or deceased?"
the government could send code from the cloud provider to the client which sends them the decryption key
The stuff should be encrypted locally, and the decryption key never made accessible to the remote computers. So, how are you going to do that if you can't exploit a hole in the client?
Would you say the same for anyone who, instead of writing "THIS", would mod the comment up (at +5 right now)?
The original comment is 100% right - if you're storing sensitive data unencrypted on someone else's server, you're doing it wrong. Now I'm far from a millennial, but I would say THIS deserves to be modded to +10.
When confronted with genetic proof contrary to your beliefs, you argued the point here.
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.
You didn't call a spadE a spade - you picked and chose to provide outdateD "evidence" that backed up your prejudices.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
turning them into living, breathing, remote-controlled torpedoes
Sharks don't have lungs. They don't breathe. Of course, the statement doesn't appear in the article, just being a factoid springing wholly formed from the imagination of the submitter.
And apparently you have never heard of number theory. But to put it more concretely, you definitely can prove theories. Copernicus theorized that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. It's now accepted that this is true - the earth is NOT the center of the universe. Or are you going to dispute that? Same as Harvey theorized that blood circulated through the body, being pumped by the heart, and proved it by experimentation and observation (including illegal autopsies on human corpses that he paid others to bring him). Theories can be proven to be true.
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.
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.
"defragging ext2 file system".
1. ext2 is ancient history.
2. The file system doesn't need to be defragged. It's not Windows.
"our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released."
3. Absolutely false. If your lawyer (as if you actually had one) had done any research on the GPL, they would have discovered the LGPL. Code written using LGPL libraries doesn't have to be released.
"although it was tough to do, there really was no option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000."
4. Only a total moron would have ignored FreeBSD, which has had token ring support for a long time, and allows you to keep your source code to yourself. There are many fewer problems porting a program from linux to FreeBSD than from linux to Windows.
" Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available. Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors."
5. You would only have had to give your source to the same imaginary investment firm you gave the program to. That includes modified kernels. They are under no obligation to distribute the source unless they distribute the program, so any program for internal use would be perfectly fine.
Come on, you can do better than that. Or maybe not... in which case you're one sad f*ck.
None of them were eye witness accounts. The first was written 70 years after Jesus' purported death, which would mean that the writers all lived to be over 100.
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.
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.
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.
Google and Apple, as well as Facebook, are under investigation in the EU for tax dodging. Google paid a ridiculously small fine to the UK, but other countries are out for blood.
As for Rush Limbaugh, it's a safe bet he was already sheltering much of his income from taxes.
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
Translation: Here's the plans for the power substation. Sabotage the part outlined in red on March 15th. They decrypt the attachment, and proceed with their mission.
Not only that, but there are plenty of ways of hiding encrypted data so that you don't even know it exists. The oldest is a code book held by both sides, and keywords in the plain text. The germans got caught out on that one when one of their operatives sent the message "mother is dead". They messaged back "is mother dead or deceased?"
the government could send code from the cloud provider to the client which sends them the decryption key
The stuff should be encrypted locally, and the decryption key never made accessible to the remote computers. So, how are you going to do that if you can't exploit a hole in the client?
Would you say the same for anyone who, instead of writing "THIS", would mod the comment up (at +5 right now)?
The original comment is 100% right - if you're storing sensitive data unencrypted on someone else's server, you're doing it wrong. Now I'm far from a millennial, but I would say THIS deserves to be modded to +10.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
From the summary:
turning them into living, breathing, remote-controlled torpedoes
Sharks don't have lungs. They don't breathe. Of course, the statement doesn't appear in the article, just being a factoid springing wholly formed from the imagination of the submitter.
And apparently you have never heard of number theory. But to put it more concretely, you definitely can prove theories. Copernicus theorized that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. It's now accepted that this is true - the earth is NOT the center of the universe. Or are you going to dispute that? Same as Harvey theorized that blood circulated through the body, being pumped by the heart, and proved it by experimentation and observation (including illegal autopsies on human corpses that he paid others to bring him). Theories can be proven to be true.
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.
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.
Obvious bullshitter is obvious
"defragging ext2 file system".
1. ext2 is ancient history.
2. The file system doesn't need to be defragged. It's not Windows.
"our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released."
3. Absolutely false. If your lawyer (as if you actually had one) had done any research on the GPL, they would have discovered the LGPL. Code written using LGPL libraries doesn't have to be released.
"although it was tough to do, there really was no option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000."
4. Only a total moron would have ignored FreeBSD, which has had token ring support for a long time, and allows you to keep your source code to yourself. There are many fewer problems porting a program from linux to FreeBSD than from linux to Windows.
" Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available. Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors."
5. You would only have had to give your source to the same imaginary investment firm you gave the program to. That includes modified kernels. They are under no obligation to distribute the source unless they distribute the program, so any program for internal use would be perfectly fine.
Come on, you can do better than that. Or maybe not ... in which case you're one sad f*ck.
So you claim that all those mathematic and logic proofs are bullshit. I laugh at you.
We can trace the whole of the bible from previous mythologies. There's really nothing new in it.
None of them were eye witness accounts. The first was written 70 years after Jesus' purported death, which would mean that the writers all lived to be over 100.
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.
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.
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."
Google and Apple, as well as Facebook, are under investigation in the EU for tax dodging. Google paid a ridiculously small fine to the UK, but other countries are out for blood.
As for Rush Limbaugh, it's a safe bet he was already sheltering much of his income from taxes.
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.
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.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.