Grenartia wrote:Tarsonis wrote:
You first. But maybe you're not understanding what I mean. Gender is not completely unmoored from biological sex. The concept is inherently tied to the expression of biological sex in both the Id and the societal conception. While strict dichotomous gender roles and expression has been challenged in modern thinking, gender is still rooted in how biological sex is expressed. A transgender person is someone whose self expressed gender, does not match their biological sex. An "Agender" person is someone who doesn't claim to be of either gender (male/female) and usually expresses an androgenous gender, that is ultimately a compilation of gender traits to a varying degree, or in some a complete rejection of gender identifying traits (though usually still results in a compilation of gender traits).
While our expression of gender is understood to be much less determined by biological sex, the concept of gender is inherently rooted in the biological sexes.
Rooted? I'd call it more like a tiny thread linking the two.
Sure, if you need to be intellectually dishonest to support your own paradigm. Gender is how we express, and the social deteriminate effect on, biological sex. They're inherently related. Without biological sex, gender doesn't exist.
That they may. I expect disagreement, this is a debate forum after all.
I see the problem, you're conflating normal with valid. Just because something isn't "normal" doesn't make it invalid. Case in point with Red hair. Red hair isn't a normal phenotype, in the wholesale population. It's the result of a recessive gene pairing, thus making it rare. Granted due to the nature of breeding communities, Red hair is quite common in the anglo-community, but as a whole of the species it is quite rare. Same with blue eyes. However, this differs with intersex, because red hair is not the result of genetic defect. And I'm not appealing to some vague post modern idea of "defect is subjective." Red Hair is the result of successful gene paring, but of recessive traits. The genes correctly separated during meiosis, and correctly paired during conception.
What is typically referred to as intersex, is the result of several genetic or congenital defects that cause intersex.
such as:
"Congenital adrenal hyperplasia"
"Aromatase deficiency"
"turner syndrom"
"true hermaphroditism"
And these are just a few.
These do not constitute "alternative gene sequences" they are medically defined intersex disorders.
Nevertheless, there are forms of intersexuality that are results of alternative gene sequences.
No, there aren't.
The intersex community is an attempt to normalize the expression of said defects in public perception, the same way being deaf has been normalized. Like intersex, being deaf is objectively a deviation from the norm,
Sure.
Sweet, progress.
it is a disability, a defect, a loss of normal human ability.
Elaborate.
Normally, members of species homosapiens sapiens sapiens have 5 standard senses, Sight, Hearing, Taste, Smell, Touch.
A deaf person, is lacking one of those senses, hence disabled.
A normalized culture of being deaf has developed due to a lack of ability to treat said disability, and because the defect does not invalidate the humanity of the individual. However, now that there is implants that effectually cure deafness, I suspect, and rather hope really that community will ultimately disappear. Not because they're evil or should be persecuted or are subhuman or anything, because they aren't but because we can effectually cure the ailment.
Hopefully deafness will go the way of polio.
Hopefully, we'll eventually be able to treat intersex disorders and eliminate it as well.
Yeah...about that. Doctors have been saying that for decades, and there's no shortage of intersex individuals who have been negatively affected by those attempts to "treat" them.
There's no shortage of people who've been negatively effected by attempts to treat any medical ailment. Medicine is a practice. 250,000 people die per year due to medical malpractice. Countless more suffer from side effects, and secondary developments. Chemotherapy is literally a race between two lethal elements. Doesn't mean we abandon medical research and development all together. We research precisely so that our medical practices will be more effective, and less damaging.
Alright, see when a mommy and a daddy love each other, or make bad decisions....
Those are neither birds nor bees.
.....you're pulling my leg, right?
so like, all of them?
If you don't disagree with them, then you have to admit your position is wrong.
Only in the specific cases where the facts are on your side.
Biological sex classification is inherently related to their role in reproduction. Sterility, though preventing sexual reproduction, does not invalidate the biological sex of the individual, because biological sex is classified in relation to the species as a whole, not the individual. An individual or even most females being sterile would not make them not female.
It's not me, it's biology. And you just said above that you don't disagree with the points presented, therefor it's reasonable to deduce that you agree with me on this point. So where exactly do we disagree.
I'm not trolling, I'm engaging in a reasoned argument. You being offended by the argument does not make it trolling.
I never said I was offended by the arguments themselves. However, it is apparent that you (and the others who followed you here) have come here not to learn about trans people, but to invalidate our existence. That is trolling, even if the site allows it.
I, like most academics I think, learn through debate and being convinced of my opponents position, or at least parts of it. The problem here for you is that you're not proving me wrong. If the facts do not support your position, then your position is invalid.
And thats great. But at the same time that strengthens my belief that you only agree with the empirical facts until they disagree with your position.
Tarsonis wrote:
I categorically reject the notion that an adolescent child is capable of legitimately understanding the complexities of gender identification, evaluating their own Id and superego, and creating a valid gendered ego of themselves.
As a young adult into adulthood? Sure.
Exactly my earlier point. You're here to deny our validity. And psychology and medicine both agree that even kids as young as 3 can know they're trans. And no amount of outdated Freudian babbling will change that.
Even if Freud's theories are someone what outdated, the language is still useful. And no, they don't agree. They agree that young children can develop GD symptoms, and there's plenty of room for debate on how and why that is. But being GD is not equivalent to trans, especially when most kids who experience GD, desist pass adolescence.
Dude, I've already expanded on this through multiple posts, don't make me repeat it all again.
Tarsonis wrote:
And what 9 year old is capable of adequately making that decision, understanding all the info about the procedure, and making informed consent? With the exception of the sheldon coopers of the world, 0.
I undoubtedly believe they can make that decision, in much the same way as a kid with terminal cancer can make decisions about how they want their funeral and memorials to be handled.
Those aren't even remotely equivalent.
Jeez, Tars, you're acting like they're doing the fucking surgery itself at 9. All they're doing is giving the kid the option to hold off on puberty until they can be sure the kid can consent to actual hormone therapy. There's no serious ill effects from it.
And I've already stated in later posts why that statement is not true.
Tarsonis wrote:Artificially suppressing puberty, for a child who cannot reasonably make a decision about their gender identity, is nothing short of unethical. It's not like simply hitting pause on development as people make the claim. It can lead to developmental issues later on life.
Proof it.
I did, later on. If you're not going to read all the posts you've missed before starting to post, it really does hamstring the exchange.
Further more, studies have repeatedly shown that gender dysphoria usually doesn't persist past adolescence.
That's a misrepresentation if I've ever heard one. While its true, there's also the fact that there's nothing irreversible even happening until it can be safely determined that the kid is truly dysphoric.
That's not a known fact, because, as I stated later on, there's little to know research on the longterm effects.
Essentially, once they actually hit puberty, most children's genders conform to their sex. Which means that more than likely said child with "grow out of it" during puberty. Suppressing puberty actively blocks this correction.
That requires linking gender dysphoria to the biological processes behind puberty. You don't have the data required to make that determination. In all likelihood, the "grow out of it" is due to actual age, not puberty kicking in.
Except, for all the data I provided of course. In all likelihood, GD doesn't persist past puberty because puberty is when sexual dimorphism becomes much more apparent.
The notion suppressing puberty is good medicine is nothing short of ideological nonsense, that flies in the face of observable fact.
If that were true, then the medical community wouldn't allow it, because it would fly in the face of established medical ethics.
Bwhahahahahaha, just like opioids are perfectly harmless right?
Tarsonis wrote:https://www.transgendertrend.com/wp-con ... -rates.pdf
Study found that roughly 2/3rds of observed children desisted.
http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/ ... TATION.pdf
Study found that 88% desisted.
In and of itself no. Neither is killing. But, I'm not speaking of it without context, were talking specifically about suppressing Puberty for children diagnosed with GD.
Good, but we're not talking about that now are we.
That's not as air tight as you think. Gender suppressants have been shone to be mostly safe in and of themselves, and when prescribed in cases of accelerated or early puberty, they effectively correct the development of the child.
But, that's not what they're being used for in the cases of GD. They're being used to unnaturally prolong adolescence as a part of a long term treatment plan. They problem there is the body doesn't stop developing just because puberty suppressants are introduced. It's not a veritable pause button so to speak. Children continue developing without the natural development that occurs during puberty.
Currently, the main concern is bone density and the likely hood of developing osteoperosis later in life, but the reality is we don't have much research into the effects of long term puberty suppressants, because that would be highly unethical in the normal sense. Using it to treat GD is a relatively new medical practice, and we won't know the long term effects until adequate research can be done.
That's a very unethical statement to make, mainly because it's all theory and little fact. As I said long term puberty suppressant is a very new form of treatment, and the long term effects are still unknown.
Also from that article:"However, the use of puberty blockers to treat transgender children is what’s considered an “off label” use of the medication — something that hasn’t been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. And doctors say their biggest concern is about how long children stay on the medication, because there isn’t enough research into the effects of stalling puberty at the age when children normally go through it."
"However, doctors caution that estrogen and testosterone, the hormones that are blocked by these medications, also play a role in a child’s neurological development and bone growth.
“We do know that there is some decrease in bone density during treatment with pubertal suppression,” Finlayson said, adding that initial studies have shown that starting estrogen and testosterone can help regain the bone density. What Finlayson said there isn’t enough research on is whether someone who was on puberty blockers will regain all their bone strength, or if they might be at risk for osteoporosis in the future.
Another area where doctors say there isn’t enough research is the impact that suppressing puberty has on brain development.
“The bottom line is we don’t really know how sex hormones impact any adolescent’s brain development,” Dr. Lisa Simons, a pediatrician at Lurie Children’s, told FRONTLINE. “We know that there’s a lot of brain development between childhood and adulthood, but it’s not clear what’s behind that.” What’s lacking, she said, are specific studies that look at the neurocognitive effects of puberty blockers."
What we have is physicians playing loose and fast with medication, using it in a manner that hasn't been vetted, and the long term effects are not known. While Off label usage isn't a particularly new practice (Viagra was a blood pressure medication after all), in this instance they are driving blind. They don't know the long term effects of it, and they cannot in any intellectually honest way, say that it is absolutely safe.
This is of course ignoring that, as the above studies show, going through puberty effectually causes most GD diagnosed kids to desist.
...
Theoretically. While that is how it functions with children with early onset puberty, the long term effects on young adults is not researched or known.
But at what cost? It prevents the onset of puberty which would cause most GD to desist, which means in favor of easier transition, you're effectively trapping most GD kids in a state they'll grow out of in natural course. As such I make no apologies for considering this use of puberty suppressants highly unethical, at this time. As such I see it as veritable child abuse.
And the concern trolling rears its ugly head again.
Side stepping all the evidence to I provided just to troll name? Not a good look for you.
While we're at it, lets concern troll for other things. Giving kids with cancer treatment is child abuse, because the survivors generally have heart disease, to say nothing of the adverse effects of chemo itself.
Treating childhood cancer leads to heart disease and premature death. Therefore, giving treatment to kids who have cancer is child abuse. QED, by Tars' logic.
By all means, show me evidence that kids grow out of cancer, and that Chemotherapy is blocking this eventuality. The false equivalency is strong with this one.
Tarsonis wrote:Well this shit has gone off the rails....
You dragged the people causing it into this thread.
Um, I don't know this person, am not friends with this person, and this person isn't even engaging the same points that I was. I didn't do shit.
Tarsonis wrote:Khasinkonia wrote:Frankly I think the more reasonable route would be to chip away at some of the unnecessary expectations we have of men and women. I’m speaking from the perspective of a southerner, mind you.
I’m trying to keep most of my personal views on gender as a concept out of it because my personal views are largely religious based. Much as I believe them, “cause God said so” doesn’t really pack the punch I’d like in a debate.
At least you're honest.
Tarsonis wrote:
Not an unfair question really, but only means somethin if you’re irreligius and/or view the past as “backwards.”
For us religious folk, these 2000 year old writings are veritable truths inspired by the Creator of the universe. So they’re applicability doesn’t have an expiration date. The struggle of the modern theologian is applying these ancient texts to modern concepts, and the cutting edge of that right now really is the issue of the (for lack of a better word((by all means someone provide one if there is one))) Queer.
Just say "queer people".
Okay, thanks.
