rw11 wrote:
No there is not. You are now showing your true colors. Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of political nutballs and their sub-scientific "there are no facts rants" no matter whether they are nutball right wingers or idiotic left wingers
When a conversation deteriorates to one-sided name calling, it's time to be done. All the best of luck to all of you. Apparently, a nerve has been struck.
Javier Munoz wrote:
Have you ever consider the possibility that you could be wrong? You are offending many with your irrational gospel.
Likewise have you considered that you are wrong. Mrs Holloway, in her original post only gave her opinion on how we should not jump so quick to make a medical case out of a kid, like many other kids that age, that cross dresses in fun. It is our forum transgender member that has turned the thread in to name calling bashing. As much as it has been denied here, studies have shown the jury is still out as to whether all those calling themselves transgender are truly genetically transgender, or are mentally ill. If that offends some here too bad. Keep in mind the same medical experts that are deciding what is right for our children are the same experts that did lobotomies on 20,000 people in the fifties, to cure mental illness, And the same experts today that prescribe Ritalin to every kid that acts up a little, so they can walk around like zombies. I am sorry for your condition TwoShadows, and understand your defense of it, but it is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. To attack those with other views, for whatever reason, does not help your cause.
Again to the OP, you did a fine job on the image.
Ed
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
You have zero proof of that. For every article/study you can find supposedly supporting this notion, there is equally compelling evidence that disputes it.
I think you are making this up. You have not referenced a single scholarly article that supports your position that people make a conscious choice to be who they are, transgender or gay. You are not a trained doctor or medical professional, and based on your posts here, it would appear that you have not made an attempt to educate yourself on the subject. Yet you are CERTAIN that this 4 year old child has a choice in this matter, that he could choose to be "normal" if his parents were to "encourage" him to develop a masculine self identity. You cannot even acknowledge the possibility that he is physiologically hardwired to be the way he is, such is your certainty. That is beyond arrogant.
I'm a straight man and I didn't make a choice to be either. I was born that way. Being gay or feminine was never a choice available to me. Based on your posts you were never given a choice in the matter either, to be anything but a straight woman. So why do you believe that some people have this choice?
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But not all opinions are equally valid. You can believe that the Earth is flat or was created 6,000 years ago. But if you express such opinions in public you will be challenged or even ridiculed. If you want to debate your position, be prepared to support your assertions with evidence and reason. And be open to the idea that not everything necessarily has to fit the into neat little boxes you have created in your mind.
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
Nope. Not irrefutable considering there is "science" saying the exact opposite of what you spout as truth.
And when were you going to cite said science that defends your position?
By the way, science is not about proof, it is about probabilities of certainty based on available evidence. Nothing in science is irrefutable, and everything is open to challenge and debate. That is what makes science such a a powerful tool for acquiring knowledge of the universe.
Agreed. Tobacco industry funded research; Coca-Cola funded research for food health or Fossil energy grants for studies debunking global warming are some of them. Religious and conservative organizations funding research on endocrinology etc are other examples where it is easy to get funding if your abstract include, gender issues and unnatural in the same paragraph.
Yes, there is. It is called peer-reviewed publications and, with all their flaws, is better than ad-hominem arguments or poorly controlled research published in non-scientific media.
You are getting it backwards. Church was the one shutting down Copernicus and Galileo. Both of them had in common the use of the Scientific Method.
Oh but they do!!!. I have seen it with my own 2 eyes tenths of times. Female rats "mounting" other female rats, Male rats mounting other male rats... Same thing in cats, monkeys, dogs etc have been reported ubiquitously. It happens way more frequently that you think. You just have to observe animals for long periods of time.
. They mate to reproduce and (mostly males) because it is rewarding and gives them pleasure. In humans and other species of mammals, sex is also rewarding in females because of the way the sexual apparatus evolved
That is something it makes you a good mother. No sarcasm included. ...Show more → KristinSmall wrote A leading cause of suicide is mental illness.
Mental illness can be induced by social pressure as it is in the case of gender issues. People with gender issues dont come with depression right off the bat. Bullying, and intolerance lead them to develop those mental illnesses you talk about. KristinSmall wrote No one is trying to change you, but it is abuse to perpetuate such things on children.
How is the OP perpetuating anything on children? If a children tells you that he is not boy but you force him to behave like one chances are that you are perpetuating a feeling of alienation that will lead to the mental illnesses you mentioned.
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
No, the adults encouraging this nonsense in children to further their own twisted agenda are dangerous to children. I'm a good mom. Thanks for playing though.
What agenda are you talking about? Are you implying that the parents of this 4 year old want him to be feminine, and are actively encouraging him to behave this way? Or are you suggesting that some of the forum members posting in this thread have an agenda to influence the behavior of the child in question? Please elaborate, because I would like to know.
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
When a conversation deteriorates to one-sided name calling, it's time to be done. All the best of luck to all of you. Apparently, a nerve has been struck.
are you referring to your previous comment calling a poster "butt-hurt"
aubsxc wrote:
I think you are making this up. You have not referenced a single scholarly article that supports your position that people make a conscious choice to be who they are, transgender or gay. You are not a trained doctor or medical professional, and based on your posts here, it would appear that you have not made an attempt to educate yourself on the subject. Yet you are CERTAIN that this 4 year old child has a choice in this matter, that he could choose to be "normal" if his parents were to "encourage" him to develop a masculine self identity. You cannot even acknowledge the possibility that he is physiologically hardwired to be the way he is, such is your certainty. That is beyond arrogant.
I'm a straight man and I didn't make a choice to be either. I was born that way. Being gay or feminine was never a choice available to me. Based on your posts you were never given a choice in the matter either, to be anything but a straight woman. So why do you believe that some people have this choice?
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But not all opinions are equally valid. You can believe that the Earth is flat or was created 6,000 years ago. But if you express such opinions in public you will be challenged or even ridiculed. If you want to debate your position, be prepared to support your assertions with evidence and reason. And be open to the idea that not everything necessarily has to fit the into neat little boxes you have created in your mind....Show more →
No she did not make it up - it has been used by science deniers for several decades. She is merely copying a previous usage.
I doubt me saying this is going to change the course of this thread but I doubt anyone is going to change any ones mind here so it might be best to stop not because conversations are bad but because conversations with delusional folks are bound to be an exercise in futility especially in matters where understanding is needed in spades but the collective empathy of the other side is that of a turnip. I can't remember who said it but it seems rather poignant here - "don't argue or fight with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you."
This discussion has veered off course and therefore will be locked.
Please remember that here at FM, we do not allow name-calling, harassment or bullying of any kind. Members who choose to do this, risk having their accounts locked and banned.
Even if you disagree with someone's views, please be respectful and courteous towards them. Remember this is a forum for photography critique and not a platform for political discussions.
KristinSmall wrote:
Javier, your major also means nothing. Very few so-called scientists even know what the Scientific Method is anymore. Too often, it is corrupted by politics and money. There is little data out there that you can actually trust anymore. Dissenters are not encouraged to research but are shut down (much like Copernicus or Galileo were in their days.) Animals do NOT identify themselves by the opposite gender. They mate to reproduce (not for love.) If my children were confused, I would help them. We don't break bonds. A leading cause of suicide is mental illness. No one is trying to change you, but it is abuse to perpetuate such things on children. ...Show more →
Kristin, you passionately mischaracterize the scientific community (apparently all bought-and-paid for), modern zoology (many animals mate for love), the veracity of data (it's pretty tough for independent academics to get money to be "corrupted" by if their data isn't repeatable and reflective of reality), and history (Galileo and Copernicus were hobbled by religious non-empiricists - not the other way around). Maybe some of the passion you invest in making indefensible remarks would be better directed to "being the change you wish to see in the world?"
You loudly proclaim to everyone but the alleged "abusers" that what they are doing is "abuse." So why not reach out to Sweden's Ombudsman for Children and report this contents of this thread? Maybe poor Ake will get the help you think he needs?
twoshadows wrote:
Transgender is no more a choice then being gay. Educate yourself.
Why does it matter? Setting aside the fact that few of us can escape our genetics, does it really matter that someone chooses to be transgender (or gay), rather than being "born" that way? Isn't that the wrong question? A better question to my mind is, why is someone else's gender identification so meaningful to me? In a free society, one should be able to make personal "choices" that don't harm others without recrimination. Thinking something is weird isn't a license to persecute it. It's an invitation to understand it better.
There have been some scientists that postulate the possibility that homosexuality actually serves a protective role for FAMILY. That's right, I said family. The very thing that homosexual hating right wingers use and their exact reason for part of the reason why they hate homosexuality... because it is a detriment to their ideals of family. Well, some scientists suggest that having a homosexual adult in a family unit can help ensure the safety of all members by acting as caregivers to all of the children and the elderly members of said unit. One theory suggests that having a member of the family who they themself don't have direct parental ties to children helps ensure a holistic caregiving role of multiple paternal groups within a family, while the nursing moms care for their infants and dads provide in the way of hunting, etc. Perhapd...just PERHAPS homosexuals have a very integral, and large role in homo sapiens that is specifically evolved as a mechanism to help ensure protection of family units. Food for thought..
Arka wrote:
Why does it matter? Setting aside the fact that few of us can escape our genetics, does it really matter that someone chooses to be transgender (or gay), rather than being "born" that way? Isn't that the wrong question? A better question to my mind is, why is someone else's gender identification so meaningful to me? In a free society, one should be able to make personal "choices" that don't harm others without recrimination. Thinking something is weird isn't a license to persecute it. It's an invitation to understand it better.
I actually agree with this - to a point. When it comes to small children though, I disagree. A 4 year old is far too young to have made any decisions relating to something like this.
haleym77 wrote:
There have been some scientists that postulate the possibility that homosexuality actually serves a protective role for FAMILY..
Although the theory you discussed is interesting, we need to make a clear distinction between gender dysphoria, as in the case of Ake and homosexuality. They are entirely different things, but people often confuse one for the other. There's a big difference between identifying oneself as male or female when physical attributes are contra-indicative and being sexually attracted to someone of the same sex.
This confusion makes it hard to have a clear view of gender dysphoria. Some people think encouraging girls to do "girl things" or boys to do "boy things" will solve the problem. Sometimes it's a lot more complicated than that.
Dec 28, 2016 at 03:47 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Lisa_Holloway wrote:
I actually agree with this - to a point. When it comes to small children though, I disagree. A 4 year old is far too young to have made any decisions relating to something like this.
******************************
To start, what I do agree with Arka on is the implied message that everyone should be treated with respect and dignity regardless of their make-up. For too long people who had same sex attraction disorder (a.k.a. homosexuality) or gender identity disorder (a.k.a. transgender) have been treated with scorn and ridicule and have subsequently been at best, poorly treated, and at worse, treated as something less than human. This has to stop, they are people and should be treated with dignity and respect.
I agree with Lisa that a 4 year old is hardly old enough to make any decision like this and should be encouraged to associate with his/her genetic gender. That said, the cause(s) of sexual identity disorder are yet unknown to science, so as yet, no treatment can or should be applied. We can only provide our support to people who must live with it.
Finally, we should be careful not to fall into the trap of "relativism". There is a difference between having a disorder against one's will and choosing to be disordered. All disorders have an impact to the person, their loved ones, and indeed all of society.
Yes, this I understand and agree with. My point was that in this whole discussion of choice, sexual orientation, gender dysphoria, etc., is that possibilities exist which could shed logical light on what many people view as aberrations. In other words, while gender dysphoria may seem as an abberation to many...perhaps it has a general value to our society, much in the way that some suggest homosexuality has.
dmacmillan wrote:
Although the theory you discussed is interesting, we need to make a clear distinction between gender dysphoria, as in the case of Ake and homosexuality. They are entirely different things, but people often confuse one for the other. There's a big difference between identifying oneself as male or female when physical attributes are contra-indicative and being sexually attracted to someone of the same sex.
This confusion makes it hard to have a clear view of gender dysphoria. Some people think encouraging girls to do "girl things" or boys to do "boy things" will solve the problem. Sometimes it's a lot more complicated than that. ...Show more →
Archive 2016 · Åke the boy who wants to be a girl
