 |
|
|||
Our Sexual Identity Crisis
By Selwyn DukePerhaps you've heard the tragic story of David Reimer. Born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada in 1966, David was the victim of a botched circumcision that left his penis charred beyond surgical repair. His parents Ron and Janet, no doubt beside themselves, were confused about the best way to proceed. Then, one day, they saw a man named Dr. John Money on television.Money was talking about his theory of "gender neutrality," which states that "gender identity" is learned rather than innate. The idea was that the sexes were the same except for the... (Read Full Article)
(Click Here to go to Main Comments Page)
Join the Discussion | 62 Comments | | | Post Comment |
|
Sep 28, 04:58 PM |
The left tries to use this same logic when it comes to energy policy. The laws of Physics have no political orientation. The laws of Physics are not a left or right issue. This fact simply drives the left crazy! What to do? Emotionalize it! They show us pictures of stranded a Polar Bear(s) and then casually link their supposed desperate predicament to human behaviour. A very torturous path of logic to say the least.
|
Sep 28, 05:01 PM |
When you are on the Left, everything is theoretical. Whether you should get up in the morning and go to work is a matter of theory that can be debated intensely every evening. To permit the Left to run the world is to commit ourselves to pure randomness. In the cases discussed, the result was disaster. But to the Left the cases were experiments. What the Left cannot face is that the number of such cases is infinite, given that the human race persists indefinitely. The Left courts infinite disaster.
|
Sep 28, 05:09 PM |
John Money and his ideas were discredited a long time ago. And just to focus on those for a bit - a moment's thought reveals that his original "solution" to the Reimers' issue, based on the pretense that gender is "learned", was precisely the OPPOSITE of the phenomenon that Duke is whining about with respect to Caster and prevailing contemporary thought on how to treat transgendered individuals when the condition is recognized during youth.
Money's addled notions do NOT hold sway with respect to current thinking on Transgender and Transsexual conditions. Citing Money's debunked ideas as if they are somehow still supported by contemporary medical professionals who have supposedly ignored recent gender research is a sign of either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty, or both. A couple of examples:
- "What these posters are expressing is the handiwork of today's Dr. Moneys, "transgender" theory."
Wrong. Money posited that gender could be "trained". That is, he maintained that one's gender could be determined by what OTHERS (e.g., parents) specified, not "whatever you want it to be".
- "...he would allow a child who is too young to decide to have sex decide what sex he should be. "
Here we see absolutely classic ignorance of transgender issues - conflating sexuality (i.e., sexual activity) and gender. Boys know they're boys long before they know about sex. Same with girls. Same with transgendered individuals. The open question is whether or not a transgender condition should be treated before puberty and/or before brain formation is complete (e.g., 20-22 years of age). There is not enough science available yet to answer that question and those promoting hormone treatments for children are on exactly the same thin ice as those who prescribe psychotropic drugs for that age group.
Duke is correct in noting that research in the '90s revealed distinct differences between male and female brain structure. He conveniently fails to mention - or, far more likely, he's completely ignorant of the fact - that this same research and the data derived from it have been used to verify that transgenderism is a valid, identifiable condition. Follow that link to a presentation ... (350 word limit)
Money's addled notions do NOT hold sway with respect to current thinking on Transgender and Transsexual conditions. Citing Money's debunked ideas as if they are somehow still supported by contemporary medical professionals who have supposedly ignored recent gender research is a sign of either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty, or both. A couple of examples:
- "What these posters are expressing is the handiwork of today's Dr. Moneys, "transgender" theory."
Wrong. Money posited that gender could be "trained". That is, he maintained that one's gender could be determined by what OTHERS (e.g., parents) specified, not "whatever you want it to be".
- "...he would allow a child who is too young to decide to have sex decide what sex he should be. "
Here we see absolutely classic ignorance of transgender issues - conflating sexuality (i.e., sexual activity) and gender. Boys know they're boys long before they know about sex. Same with girls. Same with transgendered individuals. The open question is whether or not a transgender condition should be treated before puberty and/or before brain formation is complete (e.g., 20-22 years of age). There is not enough science available yet to answer that question and those promoting hormone treatments for children are on exactly the same thin ice as those who prescribe psychotropic drugs for that age group.
Duke is correct in noting that research in the '90s revealed distinct differences between male and female brain structure. He conveniently fails to mention - or, far more likely, he's completely ignorant of the fact - that this same research and the data derived from it have been used to verify that transgenderism is a valid, identifiable condition. Follow that link to a presentation ... (350 word limit)
|
Sep 28, 05:30 PM |
One would think that there is a limit to this insanity. Sadly, there is not. I have actually heard of cases where people believe that they are animals born in human bodies. A few have gone so far as to have their bodies surgically mutilated to look like cats.
This is all an inevitable result of moral and intellectual relativism. We are on the slippery slope toward a place where reality itself is a subjective concept. Leftist ideology mandates that we must all accept the whims of even the most mentally unsound among us, that is, as long as that acceptance broadens the acceptance of Leftist thinking. It is all couched within the rubric of "tolerance" and "open-mindedness," but the end result is a chaotic atmosphere where there is no True North of reality, logic or morality.
I can never tell if Liberals are simply uncomfortable with the idea of judging anyone for anything (other than for not agreeing with them), or if they really do wish to create a world of moral anarchy. Are they simply psychologically infantile, or is there something more sinister going on here. I think it's both. There really are those who believe the kind of nonsense that is illustrated in this article; and then there are those who derive their power from taking advantage of such misguided thinking.
If you haven't read "The Sane Society" by Erich Fromm, this might be a good time to pick up a copy and give it a read.
This is all an inevitable result of moral and intellectual relativism. We are on the slippery slope toward a place where reality itself is a subjective concept. Leftist ideology mandates that we must all accept the whims of even the most mentally unsound among us, that is, as long as that acceptance broadens the acceptance of Leftist thinking. It is all couched within the rubric of "tolerance" and "open-mindedness," but the end result is a chaotic atmosphere where there is no True North of reality, logic or morality.
I can never tell if Liberals are simply uncomfortable with the idea of judging anyone for anything (other than for not agreeing with them), or if they really do wish to create a world of moral anarchy. Are they simply psychologically infantile, or is there something more sinister going on here. I think it's both. There really are those who believe the kind of nonsense that is illustrated in this article; and then there are those who derive their power from taking advantage of such misguided thinking.
If you haven't read "The Sane Society" by Erich Fromm, this might be a good time to pick up a copy and give it a read.
|
Sep 28, 05:34 PM |
Not sure I follow the logic here -- David's brain tells him, accurately, that he isn't right, that in fact he is a boy. As we know today the brain of males and females are different from birth, it doesn't matter the physical appearance or the bodies hormone levels -- that works for you.
Yet a person of one sex whose brain tells them they are really of the opposite sex, despite the physical appearance or the hormone levels has to be messed up psychologically -- this works for you too?
As I was reading this it seemed the logic failed -- The psychobabble is in trying to force someone to be what their brain is not.
If it is the brain that makes the identity, as evidenced by David in your article, what difference does the body make and how can you determine that the match occurred properly at birth? (Noting we don't have either brain scans or hormone levels to base our conclusions)
Rather then consider that perhaps the brain, for one reason or another, was born in the wrong body you assume it is psychobabble but your own earlier logic seems to discount that.
While I am the first to discount the constant use of a psychological excuse and the pandering to modern, "go with your feelings," theories I just can't discount the complexities of the human brain, the pinnacle computer of Gods creation unmatched even today. Your argument here is less then effective in making the case.
David
Yet a person of one sex whose brain tells them they are really of the opposite sex, despite the physical appearance or the hormone levels has to be messed up psychologically -- this works for you too?
As I was reading this it seemed the logic failed -- The psychobabble is in trying to force someone to be what their brain is not.
If it is the brain that makes the identity, as evidenced by David in your article, what difference does the body make and how can you determine that the match occurred properly at birth? (Noting we don't have either brain scans or hormone levels to base our conclusions)
Rather then consider that perhaps the brain, for one reason or another, was born in the wrong body you assume it is psychobabble but your own earlier logic seems to discount that.
While I am the first to discount the constant use of a psychological excuse and the pandering to modern, "go with your feelings," theories I just can't discount the complexities of the human brain, the pinnacle computer of Gods creation unmatched even today. Your argument here is less then effective in making the case.
David
|
Sep 28, 06:01 PM |
goy, I felt compelled to respond to your post, because I do think that there is a gray area here. In my first post, I commented on the Left's unwillingness to judge behaviors that society currently deems as abnormal. I do not want my comments to be misconstrued as a harsh condemnation of those who are not "normal." Clearly, there are a number of afflictions that plague the human mind. Physiology and psychology are intertwined, and even the slightest imbalance in one may affect the other. Therefore, I do not doubt that there are cases, such as with the African track star, that are not so cut-and-dried. I have the deepest sympathy for Semenya.
I can't speak for Mr. Duke, but I think that where most of us become indignant is with those who eccentrically take advantage of the existence of such human anomalies as are mentioned in Duke's article. In other words, yes, there are truly those who suffer from real afflictions, and they should treated with sympathy. But there are also charlatans who attempt to exploit that sympathy by feigning some sort of disorder, much like the welfare queens who selfishly take money that is meant for the truly needy. There are also those who have a vested interest in a world where no one is allowed to question anyone's motives for anything. The problem is that there are few who are willing to take on the task of calling these charlatans out on their ruse. Those who do point out discrepancies get excoriated.
Again, I can't speak for Mr. Duke, and I am not familiar enough with specific disorders, so I am not attempting to discredit your own argument. I would only ask you to consider that the intention of the article was not to ridicule those who may have real mental afflictions, or who suffer genuine mental anguish. I think it is more about pointing out the hypocrisy of those who claim to be advocates of the afflicted, but they instead exploit these people in order to promote a political ideology.
I can't speak for Mr. Duke, but I think that where most of us become indignant is with those who eccentrically take advantage of the existence of such human anomalies as are mentioned in Duke's article. In other words, yes, there are truly those who suffer from real afflictions, and they should treated with sympathy. But there are also charlatans who attempt to exploit that sympathy by feigning some sort of disorder, much like the welfare queens who selfishly take money that is meant for the truly needy. There are also those who have a vested interest in a world where no one is allowed to question anyone's motives for anything. The problem is that there are few who are willing to take on the task of calling these charlatans out on their ruse. Those who do point out discrepancies get excoriated.
Again, I can't speak for Mr. Duke, and I am not familiar enough with specific disorders, so I am not attempting to discredit your own argument. I would only ask you to consider that the intention of the article was not to ridicule those who may have real mental afflictions, or who suffer genuine mental anguish. I think it is more about pointing out the hypocrisy of those who claim to be advocates of the afflicted, but they instead exploit these people in order to promote a political ideology.
|
Sep 28, 06:07 PM |
Once again - we find conservatives reacting to something they perceive as political, rather than spending the time to educate themselves about it in order to deal with the actual issue.
But that education doesn't happen. Why? Because there's so much more partisan satisfaction in preserving ignorance on topics like this so that they can be used as political footballs. This is kind of ironic, since it's always conservatives who complain (rightly) about how the left politicizes everything. Politicization of everything is, in fact, the hallmark of totalitarianism. Is that the label we're trying to earn?
So here's my question - and it's pertinent to one of the other articles here on AT today, which laments the fact that we let the left set the rules on political discourse - why do we allow the left to politicize issues like this? Why do we blindly respond with knee-jerk conviction the way "scythe" has, up above? I can guarantee you that scythe has absolutely no knowledge of the science that has been developed to understand gender, yet s/he nods in stupefied agreement with the nonsense in Duke's article.
COME ON PEOPLE - We're Better Than That. Or at least I'd like to think so.
But that education doesn't happen. Why? Because there's so much more partisan satisfaction in preserving ignorance on topics like this so that they can be used as political footballs. This is kind of ironic, since it's always conservatives who complain (rightly) about how the left politicizes everything. Politicization of everything is, in fact, the hallmark of totalitarianism. Is that the label we're trying to earn?
So here's my question - and it's pertinent to one of the other articles here on AT today, which laments the fact that we let the left set the rules on political discourse - why do we allow the left to politicize issues like this? Why do we blindly respond with knee-jerk conviction the way "scythe" has, up above? I can guarantee you that scythe has absolutely no knowledge of the science that has been developed to understand gender, yet s/he nods in stupefied agreement with the nonsense in Duke's article.
COME ON PEOPLE - We're Better Than That. Or at least I'd like to think so.
|
Sep 28, 06:16 PM |
You get so much right about John Money and then take a left turn.....
The meme "woman trapped in a man's body" turns out to be exactly right. More than 300 scientific studies now confirm this. The brains and in fact the entire central nervous systems of transsexual people are as they claim they are and the broad spectrum of dimorphic neurological differences between the sexes confirmed this. Transsexual women are born with brains and central nervous systems that function as female normative and are structured as such.
So where does that leave you? The central nervous system cannot be changed and as you correctly pointed out in the case of David will resist all attempts to do so. The body can be changed. You would deny this simple correction out of some prejudice?
And naturally you totally ignore someone like myself. I was born a true hermaphrodite. At my birth in the forties it was simplest to just sew my labia shut and toss a blue blanket over me. Only that was contrary to my central nervous system (and in my case specifically a lot of other organ systems as well) At puberty I nearly died repeatedly because I did start to menstruate and there was no place for the flow to go. My testes (yes I was born with both a full set of ovaries and testicles) finally kicked in and shut down my ovaries from estrogen production. Otherwise I would not be here today typing this. I corrected my body surgically as an adult to female as it should have been. According to you this was mutilation?
The world is stranger than you might think and when you make assumptions on limited knowledge you might be making an ass out of yourself.
Just a thought. The blog is called "American Thinker".....try it.
The meme "woman trapped in a man's body" turns out to be exactly right. More than 300 scientific studies now confirm this. The brains and in fact the entire central nervous systems of transsexual people are as they claim they are and the broad spectrum of dimorphic neurological differences between the sexes confirmed this. Transsexual women are born with brains and central nervous systems that function as female normative and are structured as such.
So where does that leave you? The central nervous system cannot be changed and as you correctly pointed out in the case of David will resist all attempts to do so. The body can be changed. You would deny this simple correction out of some prejudice?
And naturally you totally ignore someone like myself. I was born a true hermaphrodite. At my birth in the forties it was simplest to just sew my labia shut and toss a blue blanket over me. Only that was contrary to my central nervous system (and in my case specifically a lot of other organ systems as well) At puberty I nearly died repeatedly because I did start to menstruate and there was no place for the flow to go. My testes (yes I was born with both a full set of ovaries and testicles) finally kicked in and shut down my ovaries from estrogen production. Otherwise I would not be here today typing this. I corrected my body surgically as an adult to female as it should have been. According to you this was mutilation?
The world is stranger than you might think and when you make assumptions on limited knowledge you might be making an ass out of yourself.
Just a thought. The blog is called "American Thinker".....try it.
|
Sep 28, 06:21 PM |
My sister (mother of two daughters) long believed the leftist crap that the only difference between little boys and little girls is how they are socialized. I about fell off my chair laughing when I heard she'd taken three 12 year old boys out in a canoe. She was sputtering for days about how just how different they were. Ah, just love those reality checks.
I'd strongly urge further reading of "Why gender matters" by Leonard Sax, MD. He had access to those on the cutting edge of both pyschological as well as physiological research in the differences between male and female. ( It even explains why Letterman's "10 things only women understand" includes the difference between cream, bone, ecru, off-white, etc. ;-) (snark) Boils down to the difference in the nerve structure in the retina - woman are wired to see texture, and men are wired to see motion. (gatherers and hunters? ring a bell?) Give an eyeball to a pathologist who knows the difference, and he can tell you with 100% certaintly if they eyeball came from a man or a woman. ) Oh, and it only get's more interesting from there.
I'd strongly urge further reading of "Why gender matters" by Leonard Sax, MD. He had access to those on the cutting edge of both pyschological as well as physiological research in the differences between male and female. ( It even explains why Letterman's "10 things only women understand" includes the difference between cream, bone, ecru, off-white, etc. ;-) (snark) Boils down to the difference in the nerve structure in the retina - woman are wired to see texture, and men are wired to see motion. (gatherers and hunters? ring a bell?) Give an eyeball to a pathologist who knows the difference, and he can tell you with 100% certaintly if they eyeball came from a man or a woman. ) Oh, and it only get's more interesting from there.
|
Sep 28, 06:27 PM |
Samwise Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can never tell if Liberals are simply
> uncomfortable with the idea of judging anyone for
> anything (other than for not agreeing with them),
> or if they really do wish to create a world of
> moral anarchy.
I have no such questions. I've live around, and observed libs my whole life.
If *they* judge anyone for being immoral, they someone else might judge *them*. It goes back to why liberals are far more likely to being atheistic/agnostic. They're *afraid* there is some force that WILL hold them accountable for their actions, so they reject it and live in denial thinking by doing so they will escape natural law (or God). Remember, these are the people who totally espouse darwinism, but scream and kick when darwins theory of survival of the fittest is allowed free roam. (re: when the weak get eaten, they want to destroy the strong.)
You note how the left *constantly* preaches tolerance, but when it comes to someone with a different viewpoint who will not agree with them, they are the most intolerant group around.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can never tell if Liberals are simply
> uncomfortable with the idea of judging anyone for
> anything (other than for not agreeing with them),
> or if they really do wish to create a world of
> moral anarchy.
I have no such questions. I've live around, and observed libs my whole life.
If *they* judge anyone for being immoral, they someone else might judge *them*. It goes back to why liberals are far more likely to being atheistic/agnostic. They're *afraid* there is some force that WILL hold them accountable for their actions, so they reject it and live in denial thinking by doing so they will escape natural law (or God). Remember, these are the people who totally espouse darwinism, but scream and kick when darwins theory of survival of the fittest is allowed free roam. (re: when the weak get eaten, they want to destroy the strong.)
You note how the left *constantly* preaches tolerance, but when it comes to someone with a different viewpoint who will not agree with them, they are the most intolerant group around.
|
Sep 28, 06:56 PM |
goy,
I think that you have answered your own question when you wrote in your last post"This is kind of ironic, since it's always conservatives who complain (rightly) about how the left politicizes everything. Politicization of everything is, in fact, the hallmark of totalitarianism." You'll have to forgive us if tend to have knee-jerk reactions to the Left's willingness to turn everything into a political ploy, because that is precisely what they do!
I will agree that we cannot allow ourselves to be sucked into their way of thinking; however, experience has caused us to view their motives with a jaundiced eye. Again, our outrage stems from the fact that the Left exploits the afflicted for their own political gain, regardless of what form that affliction may take -- social, financial, racial, mental, etc.. But I will also have to say that we need to be careful not to simply instantly oppose anything that the Left espouses. There is an erroneous assumption that to be compassionate means that one must be Liberal-minded. The Left has somehow managed to hold a monopoly on compassion, which, considering their track record, I find to be laughable. I do think that many Conservatives fall into the trap of opposing anything that we believe smacks of lily-livered, weak-kneed Liberalism. Unfortunately, it is sometimes difficult to dissect an issue as complicated as this one without inflicting harm on those who have no political stake in its outcome.
I think that you have answered your own question when you wrote in your last post"This is kind of ironic, since it's always conservatives who complain (rightly) about how the left politicizes everything. Politicization of everything is, in fact, the hallmark of totalitarianism." You'll have to forgive us if tend to have knee-jerk reactions to the Left's willingness to turn everything into a political ploy, because that is precisely what they do!
I will agree that we cannot allow ourselves to be sucked into their way of thinking; however, experience has caused us to view their motives with a jaundiced eye. Again, our outrage stems from the fact that the Left exploits the afflicted for their own political gain, regardless of what form that affliction may take -- social, financial, racial, mental, etc.. But I will also have to say that we need to be careful not to simply instantly oppose anything that the Left espouses. There is an erroneous assumption that to be compassionate means that one must be Liberal-minded. The Left has somehow managed to hold a monopoly on compassion, which, considering their track record, I find to be laughable. I do think that many Conservatives fall into the trap of opposing anything that we believe smacks of lily-livered, weak-kneed Liberalism. Unfortunately, it is sometimes difficult to dissect an issue as complicated as this one without inflicting harm on those who have no political stake in its outcome.
|
Sep 28, 06:58 PM |
GOY, how do we know that Selwyn Dukes is the one who is full of nonsense and not you? Because you've stated that "Scythe" has nodded in stupefied agreement with the nonsense that Selwyn Duke has put out? I've read extensively inthe archives of Selwyn Duke, and based on that I've come to the conclusion that he's a prety impressive thinker. I don't know the same about you.
You post a series of links to an article to some research. So what? Entire branches of Psychology pop up and just as quickly disappear after being exposed as utter rubbish. And you can flame me all you want about being close minded. Well, that's right! I'm not totally close minded to liberalism, but anymore I place a presumption of nonsense on all liberal thought which can be overcome at times by overwhelming weight of evidence.
I happen to be a certifiable expert on the Middle East, and I can tell you, A-T's regular stable of contributors are never completely off base when they talk about the Middle East. And I seriously doubt that Selwyn Duke is off base here.
You post a series of links to an article to some research. So what? Entire branches of Psychology pop up and just as quickly disappear after being exposed as utter rubbish. And you can flame me all you want about being close minded. Well, that's right! I'm not totally close minded to liberalism, but anymore I place a presumption of nonsense on all liberal thought which can be overcome at times by overwhelming weight of evidence.
I happen to be a certifiable expert on the Middle East, and I can tell you, A-T's regular stable of contributors are never completely off base when they talk about the Middle East. And I seriously doubt that Selwyn Duke is off base here.
|
Sep 28, 06:59 PM |
Do you all really want all our children to be comfortable and trusting of all these apparent anomalies and the experts? Is there no moral hazzard? Or is it that the ungodly who wish to outlaw discretion? There are things we don't understand and charity has to go both ways. The benefit of the doubt should not remove doubt. I knew a repulsive amazon when I was a kid, who abused her little horse on the way to having him cared for by someone more knowledgeable. Simply cruel riding. About 5 years later she had fits and behaved very spookey, came out of it, all subdued. Subsecuently I heard from a very wise older woman who had loved the family for many years, that the family had been playing with witchcraft for many years. Many things we don't know, but I'm free to exercise my 'religion' and choose my friends with care, and govern my childrens associations.
|
Sep 28, 07:17 PM |
Samwise Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You'll
> have to forgive us if tend to have knee-jerk
> reactions to the Left's willingness to turn
> everything into a political ploy, because that is
> precisely what they do!
You completely missed my point, which was clear. Duke has turned the phenomenon of transgenderism into a political football. He's done this with lies, errors and unscientific, baseless assertions that reflect the very worst of partisan-driven ignorance on this topic. I've been studying it both directly and indirectly for YEARS, and I know that all one needs to do is look into the recent research in this area to know how far off base Duke is on this.
> I will agree that we cannot allow ourselves to be
> sucked into their way of thinking;
Too late. By turning a medical / psychological issue into a political one, you've already done that. This has nothing to do with assessing the left's "motives". It has everything to do with understand that not EVERY aspect of human behavior and human physiology can be justifiably politicized. Yet that's precisely what Duke has done with this article, and it's precisely what AT has done by publishing it without vetting it.
Call me Lennie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GOY, how do we know that Selwyn Dukes is the one
> who is full of nonsense and not you?
You can verify that by simply following the links I provided and reading the research for yourself. You could follow Duke's references if he'd provided any, but he didn't. The only links I saw were references to sensationalized articles that have made great media hay out of the unfortunate and very difficult circumstances being experienced by a few individuals and their families. If nothing else, just go look up the news articles about Caster Semenya - Duke lied outright about her test results, which were in fact released over two weeks ago. Semenya is INTERSEXED, not transgender. Please tell me you understand the difference and, if not, explain why you're commenting on this topic at all.
> I've read extensively inthe
> archives of Selwyn Duke, and based on that I've
> come to the ... (350 word limit)
-------------------------------------------------------
> You'll
> have to forgive us if tend to have knee-jerk
> reactions to the Left's willingness to turn
> everything into a political ploy, because that is
> precisely what they do!
You completely missed my point, which was clear. Duke has turned the phenomenon of transgenderism into a political football. He's done this with lies, errors and unscientific, baseless assertions that reflect the very worst of partisan-driven ignorance on this topic. I've been studying it both directly and indirectly for YEARS, and I know that all one needs to do is look into the recent research in this area to know how far off base Duke is on this.
> I will agree that we cannot allow ourselves to be
> sucked into their way of thinking;
Too late. By turning a medical / psychological issue into a political one, you've already done that. This has nothing to do with assessing the left's "motives". It has everything to do with understand that not EVERY aspect of human behavior and human physiology can be justifiably politicized. Yet that's precisely what Duke has done with this article, and it's precisely what AT has done by publishing it without vetting it.
Call me Lennie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GOY, how do we know that Selwyn Dukes is the one
> who is full of nonsense and not you?
You can verify that by simply following the links I provided and reading the research for yourself. You could follow Duke's references if he'd provided any, but he didn't. The only links I saw were references to sensationalized articles that have made great media hay out of the unfortunate and very difficult circumstances being experienced by a few individuals and their families. If nothing else, just go look up the news articles about Caster Semenya - Duke lied outright about her test results, which were in fact released over two weeks ago. Semenya is INTERSEXED, not transgender. Please tell me you understand the difference and, if not, explain why you're commenting on this topic at all.
> I've read extensively inthe
> archives of Selwyn Duke, and based on that I've
> come to the ... (350 word limit)
|
Sep 28, 07:18 PM |
Society doesn't have the luxury for liberals to have us all stop take a look and contemplate what gender we really want to be. Hasn't the radical left defined at least 5 genders? All these hairbrained schemes and social conditionings have merely resulted in barriers erected resulting in wasted time, money and squat in production of real gdp growth. Why don't you go to a developing nation and postulate your bogus science and leave this decaying economy to be rebuilt, and come back in about 20 years.
|
Sep 28, 07:47 PM |
The world is getting so muddled you can no longer tell the transsexuals from the transvestites.
That used to be a joke. Now it's true.
I don't know, goy. Certainly you make some cogent points, but science does have a habit of being revised. Part of the problem is science isn't immune to politics (see Global Warming). Politics have always informed science as much as they’ve have informed anything else - which is why you get "scientific" studies that - shock! - just happen to prove that the very kind of research you are conducting is valid. Voila, more funding of your research institute is the answer.
Pick a point of view, and you can come up with data to back you up. I never even read news reports anymore whose headlines proclaim "new study finds this" or "new study finds that." Because you know that it's about an agenda and, as sure as dawn will come tomorrow, within a few weeks another study that proves the exact opposite of the first study will emerge from a group with a different agenda. And so it goes.
I've watched a few Discovery Channel shows on transgendered individuals - usually males to females. Of course the coverage is fawning and there's an ostentatious smugness with which the narrator refers to the erstwhile males as "she." The tone of voice is its own footnote: "Look at how SENSITIVE and open and accepting and nonjudgmental we are! Aren't we GOOD?"
I'm sorry, but transgendered individuals remain their original gender until they shuffle off the old mortal coil. A man who has his body altered to look female cannot menstruate or produce children; A woman who changes into a man cannot produce sperm, and so forth. So, to my decidedly unscientific eye, it seems we are talking not about a sexual phenomenon at all, but a social one. I'm sure the research goy refers us to (and I will look at it) will declare with unctuous certainty that the physiology of brain functions ... (350 word limit)
That used to be a joke. Now it's true.
I don't know, goy. Certainly you make some cogent points, but science does have a habit of being revised. Part of the problem is science isn't immune to politics (see Global Warming). Politics have always informed science as much as they’ve have informed anything else - which is why you get "scientific" studies that - shock! - just happen to prove that the very kind of research you are conducting is valid. Voila, more funding of your research institute is the answer.
Pick a point of view, and you can come up with data to back you up. I never even read news reports anymore whose headlines proclaim "new study finds this" or "new study finds that." Because you know that it's about an agenda and, as sure as dawn will come tomorrow, within a few weeks another study that proves the exact opposite of the first study will emerge from a group with a different agenda. And so it goes.
I've watched a few Discovery Channel shows on transgendered individuals - usually males to females. Of course the coverage is fawning and there's an ostentatious smugness with which the narrator refers to the erstwhile males as "she." The tone of voice is its own footnote: "Look at how SENSITIVE and open and accepting and nonjudgmental we are! Aren't we GOOD?"
I'm sorry, but transgendered individuals remain their original gender until they shuffle off the old mortal coil. A man who has his body altered to look female cannot menstruate or produce children; A woman who changes into a man cannot produce sperm, and so forth. So, to my decidedly unscientific eye, it seems we are talking not about a sexual phenomenon at all, but a social one. I'm sure the research goy refers us to (and I will look at it) will declare with unctuous certainty that the physiology of brain functions ... (350 word limit)
|
Sep 28, 07:55 PM |
Well, GOY, I asked you to present a more complete case for yourself and so you have. But in the end it's a matter of faith, and I put my faith in the likes of Duke.
And as for your comment about whether I'm a expert about the Middle East. Well, that points out a problem with this whole set up in general. How does anyone know what I am, or what you are. But anyone who has been following my posts on the Middle East for the past three months knows I'm not just any schmo on that particular topic -- that I must know something. Because there was a time when I analyzed the material as if peoples lives depended on it.
Sometimes, I get a little concerned about the tone of the discussions here. But then I go to the forums on other sites, like Townhall, for instance. This site is like Rebecca of Sunnnybrook farm compared to that
And as for your comment about whether I'm a expert about the Middle East. Well, that points out a problem with this whole set up in general. How does anyone know what I am, or what you are. But anyone who has been following my posts on the Middle East for the past three months knows I'm not just any schmo on that particular topic -- that I must know something. Because there was a time when I analyzed the material as if peoples lives depended on it.
Sometimes, I get a little concerned about the tone of the discussions here. But then I go to the forums on other sites, like Townhall, for instance. This site is like Rebecca of Sunnnybrook farm compared to that
|
Sep 28, 08:01 PM |
Grzmlyk ,
Very well put!! I have been attempting to give our friend goy the benefit of the doubt; however, the more I read his (her?) comments, the more I realize that this is once again a case of someone using specious scientific arguments about a politically correct topic. I can't help but notice goy's sanctimoniousness about the whole matter, and his attempts to shut down debate based solely on his claims to be an authority on the subject.
Very well put!! I have been attempting to give our friend goy the benefit of the doubt; however, the more I read his (her?) comments, the more I realize that this is once again a case of someone using specious scientific arguments about a politically correct topic. I can't help but notice goy's sanctimoniousness about the whole matter, and his attempts to shut down debate based solely on his claims to be an authority on the subject.
|
Sep 28, 08:12 PM |
I worked at Johns Hopkins Medical School when "Dr." Money was on the faculty. There were many MDs there at the time that thought he was bizarre. There were many who said his students were regularly shown porn films in class as a lesson in sexuality. One could only speculate as to the real purpose of the endeavor and given that he is said to have sexually abused the Reimer children, the answer seems obvious.
I wonder how many medical schools are doing sex-change operations today. I was under the impression that most had stopped because many patients returned with more problems than they possessed before the surgery and wanted to be changed back.
Dr. Paul McHugh, chairman of Psychiatry at the time Money was at Hopkins has written about Dr. Money's experiments and convoluted science. I believe him.
I wonder how many medical schools are doing sex-change operations today. I was under the impression that most had stopped because many patients returned with more problems than they possessed before the surgery and wanted to be changed back.
Dr. Paul McHugh, chairman of Psychiatry at the time Money was at Hopkins has written about Dr. Money's experiments and convoluted science. I believe him.
|
Sep 28, 08:37 PM |
Some people are caught in their fundamentalistic materialism, so they need only to make pronouncements in vocabulary from German, Greek or Latin, and they will gain more disciples. I've heard about experts, that 'ex' is the unknown quantity, while spert is a drip under pressure. The philology is dubious. I've heard something about PhD, too, but I respect a good many of them, especially those who don't take themselves too seriously.
Grzmlyk, Thank you for your comment. When you said science is not immune to politics, I wondered, when government money is involved, science is political squared or cubed? And certainly as surely as a Godly heart tends to jump to a Godly conclusion, an ungodly heart will jump to an ungodly conclusion. In my flesh there's nothing good, and I'm damnable as is Hitler and the Devil, but for God's lovingkindness in paying for me.
Grzmlyk, Thank you for your comment. When you said science is not immune to politics, I wondered, when government money is involved, science is political squared or cubed? And certainly as surely as a Godly heart tends to jump to a Godly conclusion, an ungodly heart will jump to an ungodly conclusion. In my flesh there's nothing good, and I'm damnable as is Hitler and the Devil, but for God's lovingkindness in paying for me.
|
Sep 28, 08:45 PM |
Thanks, Sam and Samwise:
This is not to say goy doesn't make interesting points - it's just to say I'd like to be allowed by the elites to keep my own judgment about what I do and what I do not find acceptable and/or normal.
I don't want to hate or persecute anyone, but if I have a visceral response to something, or an opinion that isn't necessarily informed by the latest issue of The Lancet, the elites are bloody well going to have to live with it.
This is not to say goy doesn't make interesting points - it's just to say I'd like to be allowed by the elites to keep my own judgment about what I do and what I do not find acceptable and/or normal.
I don't want to hate or persecute anyone, but if I have a visceral response to something, or an opinion that isn't necessarily informed by the latest issue of The Lancet, the elites are bloody well going to have to live with it.
|
Sep 28, 09:17 PM |
JWAL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I reccomend that the parents of those kids who are
> changing them into girls take a moment and
> consider WHY WOULD YOU DO SUCH A THING?
because society has conditioned them to be politically correct, and if they aren't supportive of their children - even if they are 12 years old and know little of real life - then they, the parent, is a barbarian. er, unloving parent. This is basically why my sister has been fully encouraging of her daughter being a lesbian because when she was *10*, she said she didn't like boys. Frankly, I'd be worried if a 10 year old girl DID like boys.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I reccomend that the parents of those kids who are
> changing them into girls take a moment and
> consider WHY WOULD YOU DO SUCH A THING?
because society has conditioned them to be politically correct, and if they aren't supportive of their children - even if they are 12 years old and know little of real life - then they, the parent, is a barbarian. er, unloving parent. This is basically why my sister has been fully encouraging of her daughter being a lesbian because when she was *10*, she said she didn't like boys. Frankly, I'd be worried if a 10 year old girl DID like boys.
|
Sep 28, 09:43 PM |
Sam said . . .
"And certainly as surely as a Godly heart tends to jump to a Godly conclusion, an ungodly heart will jump to an ungodly conclusion."
Odd, nobody here notes the irony that the article focuses on a small boy subjected to religious sexual mutilation (circumcision) based on "godly" principles, being permanently damaged by it, and eventually killing himself because his parents tried to undo the damage. Is this what you mean by a "Godly heart?"
"And certainly as surely as a Godly heart tends to jump to a Godly conclusion, an ungodly heart will jump to an ungodly conclusion."
Odd, nobody here notes the irony that the article focuses on a small boy subjected to religious sexual mutilation (circumcision) based on "godly" principles, being permanently damaged by it, and eventually killing himself because his parents tried to undo the damage. Is this what you mean by a "Godly heart?"
|
Sep 28, 09:59 PM |
Grzmlyk.
Judging by your first response to goy, you have proven that you are both extremely intelligent and thoughtful. I don't think that anyone here doubts your competence or your veracity. You're right -- goy does make some interesting points, and I applaud him for that. It is indeed a good thing to be armed with the facts, but when it comes to science, facts can often be malleable (as you so aptly pointed out previously). I am a firm believer in intuition. If something just doesn't seem right, regardless of the "facts," then it usually isn't.
This particular topic is kind of getting lost in scientific elitism. It's starting to remind me of the Global Warming debate, which has been declared by the Left to be "over," simply because they say so, and because they are supported by supposedly indisputable facts. I also suspect that some of the more strident responses against Duke's article are from those who are personally attached to this issue. That is understandable, and it shouldn't disqualify anyone from commenting, but there is a reason that judges recuse themselves from cases that are too close to them personally: they are unable to be completely impartial.
Judging by your first response to goy, you have proven that you are both extremely intelligent and thoughtful. I don't think that anyone here doubts your competence or your veracity. You're right -- goy does make some interesting points, and I applaud him for that. It is indeed a good thing to be armed with the facts, but when it comes to science, facts can often be malleable (as you so aptly pointed out previously). I am a firm believer in intuition. If something just doesn't seem right, regardless of the "facts," then it usually isn't.
This particular topic is kind of getting lost in scientific elitism. It's starting to remind me of the Global Warming debate, which has been declared by the Left to be "over," simply because they say so, and because they are supported by supposedly indisputable facts. I also suspect that some of the more strident responses against Duke's article are from those who are personally attached to this issue. That is understandable, and it shouldn't disqualify anyone from commenting, but there is a reason that judges recuse themselves from cases that are too close to them personally: they are unable to be completely impartial.
|
Sep 28, 10:22 PM |
Three quick comments/questions:
Not sure why this subject matter is being politicized?
As for Samwise's comment about intuition: I agree that intuition is a good guide to use in life. But I wouldn't use it as proof of truth. After all, many felt the earth was flat at one time. That was their sense or intuition about things. Sadly, they were wrong.
What are0" facts"? What is "truth"? What is "real"? What is "perception"? What is "common sense"? And how does all of this fit together to become a basis for discussion?
Not sure why this subject matter is being politicized?
As for Samwise's comment about intuition: I agree that intuition is a good guide to use in life. But I wouldn't use it as proof of truth. After all, many felt the earth was flat at one time. That was their sense or intuition about things. Sadly, they were wrong.
What are0" facts"? What is "truth"? What is "real"? What is "perception"? What is "common sense"? And how does all of this fit together to become a basis for discussion?
|
Sep 28, 10:50 PM |
Rev. Cathryn Platine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You get so much right about John Money and then
> take a left turn.....
>
> The meme "woman trapped in a man's body" turns
> out to be exactly right. More than 300 scientific
> studies now confirm this. The brains and in fact
> the entire central nervous systems of transsexual
> people are as they claim they are and the broad
> spectrum of dimorphic neurological differences
> between the sexes confirmed this. Transsexual
> women are born with brains and central nervous
> systems that function as female normative and are
> structured as such.
>
> So where does that leave you? The central nervous
> system cannot be changed and as you correctly
> pointed out in the case of David will resist all
> attempts to do so. The body can be changed. You
> would deny this simple correction out of some
> prejudice?
>
> And naturally you totally ignore someone like
> myself. I was born a true hermaphrodite. At my
> birth in the forties it was simplest to just sew
> my labia shut and toss a blue blanket over me.
> Only that was contrary to my central nervous
> system (and in my case specifically a lot of other
> organ systems as well) At puberty I nearly died
> repeatedly because I did start to menstruate and
> there was no place for the flow to go. My testes
> (yes I was born with both a full set of ovaries
> and testicles) finally kicked in and shut down my
> ovaries from estrogen production. Otherwise I
> would not be here today typing this. I corrected
> my body surgically as an adult to female as it
> should have been. According to you this was
> mutilation?
>
> The world is stranger than you might think and
> when you make assumptions on limited knowledge you
> might be making an ass out of yourself.
>
> Just a thought. The blog is called "American
> Thinker".....try it.
Your history demonstrates that there are medical conditions that require sensitive, rational responses. that does not ... (350 word limit)
-------------------------------------------------------
> You get so much right about John Money and then
> take a left turn.....
>
> The meme "woman trapped in a man's body" turns
> out to be exactly right. More than 300 scientific
> studies now confirm this. The brains and in fact
> the entire central nervous systems of transsexual
> people are as they claim they are and the broad
> spectrum of dimorphic neurological differences
> between the sexes confirmed this. Transsexual
> women are born with brains and central nervous
> systems that function as female normative and are
> structured as such.
>
> So where does that leave you? The central nervous
> system cannot be changed and as you correctly
> pointed out in the case of David will resist all
> attempts to do so. The body can be changed. You
> would deny this simple correction out of some
> prejudice?
>
> And naturally you totally ignore someone like
> myself. I was born a true hermaphrodite. At my
> birth in the forties it was simplest to just sew
> my labia shut and toss a blue blanket over me.
> Only that was contrary to my central nervous
> system (and in my case specifically a lot of other
> organ systems as well) At puberty I nearly died
> repeatedly because I did start to menstruate and
> there was no place for the flow to go. My testes
> (yes I was born with both a full set of ovaries
> and testicles) finally kicked in and shut down my
> ovaries from estrogen production. Otherwise I
> would not be here today typing this. I corrected
> my body surgically as an adult to female as it
> should have been. According to you this was
> mutilation?
>
> The world is stranger than you might think and
> when you make assumptions on limited knowledge you
> might be making an ass out of yourself.
>
> Just a thought. The blog is called "American
> Thinker".....try it.
Your history demonstrates that there are medical conditions that require sensitive, rational responses. that does not ... (350 word limit)
|
Sep 28, 10:59 PM |
J Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Three quick comments/questions:
>
> Not sure why this subject matter is being
> politicized?
>
> As for Samwise's comment about intuition: I agree
> that intuition is a good guide to use in life. But
> I wouldn't use it as proof of truth. After all,
> many felt the earth was flat at one time. That was
> their sense or intuition about things. Sadly, they
> were wrong.
>
> What are0" facts"? What is "truth"? What is
> "real"? What is "perception"? What is "common
> sense"? And how does all of this fit together to
> become a basis for discussion?
Ah, I was expecting that response, and I beg to differ. There were those who had a vested interest in the accepted belief that the earth was flat. In fact, it was so widely accepted that debate was not tolerated (sound familiar??). But there were those like Galileo and Copernicus whose intuition told them otherwise. Eventually, they did back up that intuition with proof, but it required a willingness to oppose the conventional wisdom of the day. They did so at a great personal cost. They were called heretics, and were punished for stubbornly opposing the "truth." But deep down they knew that they possessed the real answers.
The history of science is replete with revision. What we believe to be an immutable fact today may in fact be rooted in ignorance. We would like to believe that we have it all figured out, but history has shown us that we don't always get it right. But to me it is clear that in order for science to be accurate, then there must ultimately be a universal truth that is solid and not at all subjective. And this is where the lines between Science and God become a bit blurred. But.. that is a topic for another day.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Three quick comments/questions:
>
> Not sure why this subject matter is being
> politicized?
>
> As for Samwise's comment about intuition: I agree
> that intuition is a good guide to use in life. But
> I wouldn't use it as proof of truth. After all,
> many felt the earth was flat at one time. That was
> their sense or intuition about things. Sadly, they
> were wrong.
>
> What are0" facts"? What is "truth"? What is
> "real"? What is "perception"? What is "common
> sense"? And how does all of this fit together to
> become a basis for discussion?
Ah, I was expecting that response, and I beg to differ. There were those who had a vested interest in the accepted belief that the earth was flat. In fact, it was so widely accepted that debate was not tolerated (sound familiar??). But there were those like Galileo and Copernicus whose intuition told them otherwise. Eventually, they did back up that intuition with proof, but it required a willingness to oppose the conventional wisdom of the day. They did so at a great personal cost. They were called heretics, and were punished for stubbornly opposing the "truth." But deep down they knew that they possessed the real answers.
The history of science is replete with revision. What we believe to be an immutable fact today may in fact be rooted in ignorance. We would like to believe that we have it all figured out, but history has shown us that we don't always get it right. But to me it is clear that in order for science to be accurate, then there must ultimately be a universal truth that is solid and not at all subjective. And this is where the lines between Science and God become a bit blurred. But.. that is a topic for another day.
|
Sep 28, 11:45 PM |
There are few lay people who have trouble recognizing that Nature messes up occasionally involving any body system including the psychosexual e.g.causing a mismatch between brain and body sex.
However, there is a world of difference between studying these anomalies and trying to help those suffering them to live as nearly a normal and happy life as possible vs remaking this relatively humane societal view into one where the the anomaly is "normalized" by denormalizing the 98% of people without the anomaly.
The pretense that we are all on some continuum of heterosexual and same sex attraction or gender identity instead of a dichotomous lucky majority whose brains, sex organs etc. are correctly lined up to make it possible to procreate and continue the species as intended and an unfortunate group with various impediments to this ideal is meant to make the unlucky ones feel better. (There is less success with trying to make people feel they are on a continuum of hearing with the deaf, or a continuum of hemoglobin with the thalassemic, a continuum of breathing with asthmatics etc.)
This approach used with psycho-sexual disabilities is not without potential harm for the large majority (and therefore much larger absolute numbers). Societal role models and pressure can push the more suggestible/vulnerable into experimentation that in this day and age of AIDS and other STD's as well as falling barriers to pedophilia, incest etc. can do both physical and/or psychological harm to kids who would have been fine if they had not been given blurry guidelines.
The push to perfect things for the few and transfer their burden of unhappiness to the larger group is not ethically justifiable.
We are all dealt a certain genetic and developmental (accidents in utero) hand. A humane society says "We're sorry you were dealt a bad hand and we are willing to expend some treasure on helping you to manage this disability e.g. seeing eye dogs, cochlear transplants, removal of legal barriers to same sex congress etc."
Pretending that it's not a disability and we're all just on a spectrum is beyond ... (350 word limit)
However, there is a world of difference between studying these anomalies and trying to help those suffering them to live as nearly a normal and happy life as possible vs remaking this relatively humane societal view into one where the the anomaly is "normalized" by denormalizing the 98% of people without the anomaly.
The pretense that we are all on some continuum of heterosexual and same sex attraction or gender identity instead of a dichotomous lucky majority whose brains, sex organs etc. are correctly lined up to make it possible to procreate and continue the species as intended and an unfortunate group with various impediments to this ideal is meant to make the unlucky ones feel better. (There is less success with trying to make people feel they are on a continuum of hearing with the deaf, or a continuum of hemoglobin with the thalassemic, a continuum of breathing with asthmatics etc.)
This approach used with psycho-sexual disabilities is not without potential harm for the large majority (and therefore much larger absolute numbers). Societal role models and pressure can push the more suggestible/vulnerable into experimentation that in this day and age of AIDS and other STD's as well as falling barriers to pedophilia, incest etc. can do both physical and/or psychological harm to kids who would have been fine if they had not been given blurry guidelines.
The push to perfect things for the few and transfer their burden of unhappiness to the larger group is not ethically justifiable.
We are all dealt a certain genetic and developmental (accidents in utero) hand. A humane society says "We're sorry you were dealt a bad hand and we are willing to expend some treasure on helping you to manage this disability e.g. seeing eye dogs, cochlear transplants, removal of legal barriers to same sex congress etc."
Pretending that it's not a disability and we're all just on a spectrum is beyond ... (350 word limit)
|
Sep 28, 11:54 PM |
Call me Lennie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, GOY, I asked you to present a more complete
> case for yourself and so you have. But in the end
> it's a matter of faith, ...
No Lennie, that is exactly the problem. You sound like one of the Global Warming lemmings here, no offense, who blindly believe in someone's claim because they have "faith" in the theory based on "scientific consensus" or some other specious nonsense. In fact, this is just blind gullibility. Those of us who've looked at the evidence for ourselves know that the entire global warming hoax relies on just exactly this sort of blind-faith-gullibility. The sad thing here is that you're putting faith in someone who's not qualified to pass medical or psychological judgment on anyone.
The size of one's hypothalamus is not a matter of "faith". Having a 47, XXY karyotype is not a matter of "faith". Androgyn Insensitivity Syndrome is not a matter of "faith". Turner's Syndrome is not a matter of "faith". Five Alpha Reductase Deficiency is not a matter of "faith". Facts matter. Bona fide medical research matters. You can't pick and choose which results you're going to accept and which you're going to reject just because, like Grzmlyk, you have an imagined "hard-wired" revulsion to a medical condition you don't understand.
ALL of these things are matters of reality - and as the tag line for this article ironically states, they aren't negotiable. People fear what they don't understand, and that's exactly the case here. But the fact is that these are real people that suffer from a variety of medical conditions caused by everything from genetics to drug-abusing and/or alcoholic parents to stress during pregnancy, to all manner of other phenomena which affect hormonal balance during gestation.
Duke is not a medical doctor nor a psychologist nor a psychiatrist nor, as far as I can tell, even a college professor with any sort of advanced degree indicating years of study in this or any other field. If he were, he'd have been able to cite SOME semblance of evidence for the bizarre assertions in his ... (350 word limit)
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, GOY, I asked you to present a more complete
> case for yourself and so you have. But in the end
> it's a matter of faith, ...
No Lennie, that is exactly the problem. You sound like one of the Global Warming lemmings here, no offense, who blindly believe in someone's claim because they have "faith" in the theory based on "scientific consensus" or some other specious nonsense. In fact, this is just blind gullibility. Those of us who've looked at the evidence for ourselves know that the entire global warming hoax relies on just exactly this sort of blind-faith-gullibility. The sad thing here is that you're putting faith in someone who's not qualified to pass medical or psychological judgment on anyone.
The size of one's hypothalamus is not a matter of "faith". Having a 47, XXY karyotype is not a matter of "faith". Androgyn Insensitivity Syndrome is not a matter of "faith". Turner's Syndrome is not a matter of "faith". Five Alpha Reductase Deficiency is not a matter of "faith". Facts matter. Bona fide medical research matters. You can't pick and choose which results you're going to accept and which you're going to reject just because, like Grzmlyk, you have an imagined "hard-wired" revulsion to a medical condition you don't understand.
ALL of these things are matters of reality - and as the tag line for this article ironically states, they aren't negotiable. People fear what they don't understand, and that's exactly the case here. But the fact is that these are real people that suffer from a variety of medical conditions caused by everything from genetics to drug-abusing and/or alcoholic parents to stress during pregnancy, to all manner of other phenomena which affect hormonal balance during gestation.
Duke is not a medical doctor nor a psychologist nor a psychiatrist nor, as far as I can tell, even a college professor with any sort of advanced degree indicating years of study in this or any other field. If he were, he'd have been able to cite SOME semblance of evidence for the bizarre assertions in his ... (350 word limit)
|
Sep 29, 12:19 AM |
I believe Mr Duke's concerns about one living their life based on what's real or based on what one feels is critically important to life in today's America. Our cultural landscape is divided into realists and emotionalists or intuitionalists. The realists demand proof or data and demand logical honesty before making a decision. Decisions and the actions they engender may be painful to live with or require discipline and self-denial. The emotionalists do what intuitivly feels like the right or best thing to do, usually to ameliorate real or imagined suffering (frequently their own) or achieve social 'equity' however they define it. In the American cultural scene and political scene the battle between these two mindsets rages daily.
Of late, the liberals or progressives seem to be entrapped in this 'politics of feelings', setting public policy and taking fiscal actions based on what feels like the right, decent, kind, equitable, compassionate, loving thing to do. For example, amnesty for illegal immigrants. How many of us have heard the arguments based on emotion? Privately, if one chooses to live their life and base their decision on what feels acceptable or not emotionally painful, then more power to em. Publically, attempting to guide a complex society and complex economy in a complex competitive world based on one's feelings, where ever they derive, is asking for conflict within the body politic. Whether we're discussing gender or culture, to veer off the road and treat theories as reality is asking for trouble. Mr Duke chose to discuss sexual identity, he could have made the point equally as well if he had chosen to discuss the 'self-esteem' movement started in California schools in the late 1960s.
Of late, the liberals or progressives seem to be entrapped in this 'politics of feelings', setting public policy and taking fiscal actions based on what feels like the right, decent, kind, equitable, compassionate, loving thing to do. For example, amnesty for illegal immigrants. How many of us have heard the arguments based on emotion? Privately, if one chooses to live their life and base their decision on what feels acceptable or not emotionally painful, then more power to em. Publically, attempting to guide a complex society and complex economy in a complex competitive world based on one's feelings, where ever they derive, is asking for conflict within the body politic. Whether we're discussing gender or culture, to veer off the road and treat theories as reality is asking for trouble. Mr Duke chose to discuss sexual identity, he could have made the point equally as well if he had chosen to discuss the 'self-esteem' movement started in California schools in the late 1960s.
|
Sep 29, 06:38 AM |
JRG3 , I think any of us would be foolish to pretend that we are purely rational and indifferent, or purely emotional in our judgements. We aren't made that way. We were made to think and to take delight. If we could not hate, our love would be pretty cheap. Because we love, we hate what would be evil inflicted upon our beloved. Love and hate aren't equal opposites in fact. Proper emotion is not irrational, and indifference is not the highest rationality. C S Lewis spoke of the "Grandfather in heaven" in popular imagination, a senile benevolence who desired only to be able to say at the end of every day that a good time was had by all.
I'm not disagreeing with you, except that the poles don't fit anyone, and we have hidden and subliminal agenda's. Some who claim love are really better at hate, on both sides of these issues. We all need to beware of our deceitful hearts.
I'm not disagreeing with you, except that the poles don't fit anyone, and we have hidden and subliminal agenda's. Some who claim love are really better at hate, on both sides of these issues. We all need to beware of our deceitful hearts.
|
Sep 29, 06:53 AM |
By the end of this article I'm wondering if the author believes gay people or dinosaurs exist too.
C'mon now! It's 2009! There are a couple hundred autobiographies written by transgendered people at book stores, as well as numerous collections of empirical scientific and historical studies on the subject. That's not even mentioning the [google this term] "transsexual success" stories you can find on the internet showing numerous transgendered people owning PhD's and working within the general science, computers, and medical industries.
Despite the clever wording in the main post, Gender Dysphoria does actually exist, is an actual problem, should be studied more, and we should look more at the social stigma generated by such topics. While Dr. Money may have been one of those leftist kooks, his name shouldn't sully an issue that deserves our attention and warrants scientific study, and using him is like trying to empirically prove an environmental argument using Rachel Carsen's "Silent Spring."
I'm going to have to give props to Rev. Platine, who seems to have done her research on the subject. I will also go on to say that gender reassignment for people under 18 is wrong and should not be done. Period. A procedure like that is even more permanent than tattoos, and no sane parent would let their kid get a tattoo at that age. It should especially not be decided on by the parents without the direction and consent of the person receiving said treatment.
C'mon now! It's 2009! There are a couple hundred autobiographies written by transgendered people at book stores, as well as numerous collections of empirical scientific and historical studies on the subject. That's not even mentioning the [google this term] "transsexual success" stories you can find on the internet showing numerous transgendered people owning PhD's and working within the general science, computers, and medical industries.
Despite the clever wording in the main post, Gender Dysphoria does actually exist, is an actual problem, should be studied more, and we should look more at the social stigma generated by such topics. While Dr. Money may have been one of those leftist kooks, his name shouldn't sully an issue that deserves our attention and warrants scientific study, and using him is like trying to empirically prove an environmental argument using Rachel Carsen's "Silent Spring."
I'm going to have to give props to Rev. Platine, who seems to have done her research on the subject. I will also go on to say that gender reassignment for people under 18 is wrong and should not be done. Period. A procedure like that is even more permanent than tattoos, and no sane parent would let their kid get a tattoo at that age. It should especially not be decided on by the parents without the direction and consent of the person receiving said treatment.
|
Sep 29, 07:41 AM |
OMG are you totally misguided and ignorant. Miss Semenya is apparently intersexed. If you don't know what that is maybe you need to watch this video:
[www.youtube.com]
Clueless people like you would like everything to be black and white, but in reality nature doesn't work that way. The human experience has much, much more diversity in it. You then further extend your ignorance when talking about transsexual people. Some of those same scientific studies in the 90's also showed that the brains of transsexual people are very similar to the gender they identify with and not like their assigned at birth sex. Transsexual people are born with a brain-body mismatch characterized by a gender identity that is at odds with the body they were born into. Literally a female brain in a male body or vice-versa. By YOUR own admission we know what happens when a person is raised in a gender role that is opposite of their gender identity. The Reimer case shows us clearly that gender identity trumps all. Gender identity is more important than body parts or socialization. Then you compound your ignorance further by mentioning the number of transsexual success stories. The fact is medical transition for transsexual people works. Here's what the internationally recognized Standards of Care say about transition:
"Sex Reassignment is Effective and Medically Indicated in Severe GID. In persons diagnosed with transsexualism or profound GID, sex reassignment surgery, along with hormone therapy and real-life experience, is a treatment that has proven to be effective. Such a therapeutic regimen, when prescribed or recommended by qualified practitioners, is medically indicated and medically necessary. Sex reassignment is not "experimental," "investigational," "elective," "cosmetic," or optional in any meaningful sense. It constitutes very effective and appropriate treatment for transsexualism or profound GID. "
That's the world leading gender experts talking.
Next, you mention gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria can be debilitating, but guess what? When a transsexual person is allowed to transition to their identified gender it disappears! The outcome of transition is a happy, healthy and well adjusted individual. You mention young children ... (350 word limit)
[www.youtube.com]
Clueless people like you would like everything to be black and white, but in reality nature doesn't work that way. The human experience has much, much more diversity in it. You then further extend your ignorance when talking about transsexual people. Some of those same scientific studies in the 90's also showed that the brains of transsexual people are very similar to the gender they identify with and not like their assigned at birth sex. Transsexual people are born with a brain-body mismatch characterized by a gender identity that is at odds with the body they were born into. Literally a female brain in a male body or vice-versa. By YOUR own admission we know what happens when a person is raised in a gender role that is opposite of their gender identity. The Reimer case shows us clearly that gender identity trumps all. Gender identity is more important than body parts or socialization. Then you compound your ignorance further by mentioning the number of transsexual success stories. The fact is medical transition for transsexual people works. Here's what the internationally recognized Standards of Care say about transition:
"Sex Reassignment is Effective and Medically Indicated in Severe GID. In persons diagnosed with transsexualism or profound GID, sex reassignment surgery, along with hormone therapy and real-life experience, is a treatment that has proven to be effective. Such a therapeutic regimen, when prescribed or recommended by qualified practitioners, is medically indicated and medically necessary. Sex reassignment is not "experimental," "investigational," "elective," "cosmetic," or optional in any meaningful sense. It constitutes very effective and appropriate treatment for transsexualism or profound GID. "
That's the world leading gender experts talking.
Next, you mention gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria can be debilitating, but guess what? When a transsexual person is allowed to transition to their identified gender it disappears! The outcome of transition is a happy, healthy and well adjusted individual. You mention young children ... (350 word limit)
|
Sep 29, 07:52 AM |
Thank you for a wonderful, insightful, and helpful article about one of the most tragic "issues" in today's world. Some of your statements are so prophetic, so profound.
This is an inspiring read for anybody who hasn't thrown out his-or-her conscience in exchange for feelings.
Thank you.
Michael Glatze
This is an inspiring read for anybody who hasn't thrown out his-or-her conscience in exchange for feelings.
Thank you.
Michael Glatze
|
Sep 29, 08:08 AM |
" We ought to tread far more carefully in encouraging permanent surgical solutions where one can simply accommodate lifestyle choices."
No one is suggesting, with the possible exceptions of what happened under Apartheid or in places like Iran, that effeminate boys or butch women should have surgery. In those places/times being gay was seen as a crime and women and men in the army were forced to undergo medical procedures to change their bodies and well we all know Iran just plainly thinks that people that are gay/lesbian just don't exist so instead to continue that ignorance your choice is surgery or death.
And for those that fall for headlines like "12 year old allowed to have sex change", you need to understand that the story is written that way for the typical ignorant person who knows nothing. It's worded that way for sensationalism purposes. (selling papers) No 12 year old is permitted to chage/correct their bodies. They are, however, permitted to take medication that puts their puberty on hold allowing them time to make sure without having to attempt to undo the effects of puberty to the body should they later become certain. This medication is completely reversible, once stopped puberty begins/continues. If at the age of 16 they are still sure then they are permitted to then take medication to being bringing on secondary sex characteristics. Again reversible. Only when they are 18 and past are they allowed to have surgery.
" I recently read that Renee Richards regrets her surgery and having once very briefly met her I can only say that surgery and hormones should not be doled out to make people feel better about themselves in a value-free universe."
Actually that's a misquote. Renne was speaking about how much she had to give up to be who she is and just how hard that was. She has never said she regretted the surgery.
The article speaks about, first Money and his mutilation of a child forcing him to be what he never was, a girl. His brain was never a girl as such he suffered from depression and suicide ... (350 word limit)
No one is suggesting, with the possible exceptions of what happened under Apartheid or in places like Iran, that effeminate boys or butch women should have surgery. In those places/times being gay was seen as a crime and women and men in the army were forced to undergo medical procedures to change their bodies and well we all know Iran just plainly thinks that people that are gay/lesbian just don't exist so instead to continue that ignorance your choice is surgery or death.
And for those that fall for headlines like "12 year old allowed to have sex change", you need to understand that the story is written that way for the typical ignorant person who knows nothing. It's worded that way for sensationalism purposes. (selling papers) No 12 year old is permitted to chage/correct their bodies. They are, however, permitted to take medication that puts their puberty on hold allowing them time to make sure without having to attempt to undo the effects of puberty to the body should they later become certain. This medication is completely reversible, once stopped puberty begins/continues. If at the age of 16 they are still sure then they are permitted to then take medication to being bringing on secondary sex characteristics. Again reversible. Only when they are 18 and past are they allowed to have surgery.
" I recently read that Renee Richards regrets her surgery and having once very briefly met her I can only say that surgery and hormones should not be doled out to make people feel better about themselves in a value-free universe."
Actually that's a misquote. Renne was speaking about how much she had to give up to be who she is and just how hard that was. She has never said she regretted the surgery.
The article speaks about, first Money and his mutilation of a child forcing him to be what he never was, a girl. His brain was never a girl as such he suffered from depression and suicide ... (350 word limit)
|
Sep 29, 09:03 AM |
Irving Goldbaumbergmanstein Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CY, you invite us to: Get a grip.
>
> Incitement to violence is not allowed at AT. I'd
> love to throttle you, but alas I am constrained by
> rationally imposed civility. Sorry to have to
> disappoint you, Cy.
Now THAT is funny!
-------------------------------------------------------
> CY, you invite us to: Get a grip.
>
> Incitement to violence is not allowed at AT. I'd
> love to throttle you, but alas I am constrained by
> rationally imposed civility. Sorry to have to
> disappoint you, Cy.
Now THAT is funny!
|
Sep 29, 09:39 AM |
Dear dear Mr. Duke,
I think YOU would need to live your entire life with gender dysphoria in order to understand what it means rather than speculate and then legitimize sexual-socieo-political agendas based purely on that speculation. I am gender dysphoric, I have lived with it for 40 years, since I became aware that there was a wrongness at age 5. It IS real, not imagined nor made up. Why would I saddle myself with this kind of pain and anguish for so long... the diagnosis pertains to "persistent" body-brain mis-match and not a fleeting whim as you seem to put things. I have suppressed it successfully for years at a time but it always, ALWAYS returns and each time with more consequences and secondary psychosis: namely anxiety and depression. You wouldn't know about that because you are Mr. together, Mr. normal, Mr. Know-it-all. Your type would lock me up eh... deprive my kids of their parent and wife of partner. Neanderthal! We have an open society now because it has successfully recognised your type. I won't fit in your box either... I generally vote conservative, I generally fit in. But I am still transgender... I still have a female brain even if I never have plastic surgery or a need for correction. The fact is that we are out here too and we will not be ruled by the narrow minded nor the Judeo-Christian idealists. We deny you exist as long as you deny we do...
I think YOU would need to live your entire life with gender dysphoria in order to understand what it means rather than speculate and then legitimize sexual-socieo-political agendas based purely on that speculation. I am gender dysphoric, I have lived with it for 40 years, since I became aware that there was a wrongness at age 5. It IS real, not imagined nor made up. Why would I saddle myself with this kind of pain and anguish for so long... the diagnosis pertains to "persistent" body-brain mis-match and not a fleeting whim as you seem to put things. I have suppressed it successfully for years at a time but it always, ALWAYS returns and each time with more consequences and secondary psychosis: namely anxiety and depression. You wouldn't know about that because you are Mr. together, Mr. normal, Mr. Know-it-all. Your type would lock me up eh... deprive my kids of their parent and wife of partner. Neanderthal! We have an open society now because it has successfully recognised your type. I won't fit in your box either... I generally vote conservative, I generally fit in. But I am still transgender... I still have a female brain even if I never have plastic surgery or a need for correction. The fact is that we are out here too and we will not be ruled by the narrow minded nor the Judeo-Christian idealists. We deny you exist as long as you deny we do...
|
Sep 29, 10:18 AM |
Zbigniew Mazurak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem wouldn't have existed if Canadian and
> American infant boys were not subjected to genital
> mutiliation. Fortunately, nowadays, few Canadian
> parents subject their kids to such horrible
> suffering.
Zbiggy,
I'm going to file this right with your support of Newt Gingrich.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem wouldn't have existed if Canadian and
> American infant boys were not subjected to genital
> mutiliation. Fortunately, nowadays, few Canadian
> parents subject their kids to such horrible
> suffering.
Zbiggy,
I'm going to file this right with your support of Newt Gingrich.
|
Sep 29, 10:30 AM |
Many of the commentators today seem to have a dog in the race. Yet the author's essential points remain valid. There are differences in male and female brains. There are also differences in male and female bodies. There are also differences between males and females at the affective or behavioral level. All of that is indisputable. The truth of those differences is dishonored by dishonest social scientists.
The fact that there are anomalous people in the world doesn't take away from any of that. Indeed, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that those who are anomalous (as opposed to those who simply want to be) are anomalous because their brains are not normal. To goy, I would simply say that your obvious wish to protect the feelings and legitimate the reality of those who are anomalous, while it may be laudable, should not lead you to castigate those who, like the author, elucidate the background against which such anomalous people need to be understood.
The author's essential point is that the search for truth should not be sacrificed on the alter of social science or political correctness or anything else. To the commentators who criticize the author, think on that a while and see if you don't agree with me that the point is well taken.
The fact that there are anomalous people in the world doesn't take away from any of that. Indeed, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that those who are anomalous (as opposed to those who simply want to be) are anomalous because their brains are not normal. To goy, I would simply say that your obvious wish to protect the feelings and legitimate the reality of those who are anomalous, while it may be laudable, should not lead you to castigate those who, like the author, elucidate the background against which such anomalous people need to be understood.
The author's essential point is that the search for truth should not be sacrificed on the alter of social science or political correctness or anything else. To the commentators who criticize the author, think on that a while and see if you don't agree with me that the point is well taken.
|
Sep 29, 03:54 PM |
Grzmlyk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The world is getting so muddled you can no longer
> tell the transsexuals from the transvestites.
Well, actually no one can tell the transgendered from the transvestites. Classic transsexualism is not transgenderism.
> I have genuine sympathy for these folks. But also
> a visceral revulsion. Sorry, it's wired into my
> brain. So please don't call me a bigot...
No one will call you a bigot, at least not I, but to say you have a visceral revulsion, yet also say you have no desire to do any research to educate yourself on the difference between classic transsexuality and transgender does pretty much relegate you to the terminally ignorant.
Just saying...
-------------------------------------------------------
> The world is getting so muddled you can no longer
> tell the transsexuals from the transvestites.
Well, actually no one can tell the transgendered from the transvestites. Classic transsexualism is not transgenderism.
> I have genuine sympathy for these folks. But also
> a visceral revulsion. Sorry, it's wired into my
> brain. So please don't call me a bigot...
No one will call you a bigot, at least not I, but to say you have a visceral revulsion, yet also say you have no desire to do any research to educate yourself on the difference between classic transsexuality and transgender does pretty much relegate you to the terminally ignorant.
Just saying...
|
Sep 29, 05:48 PM |
Descans said:
"The fact that there are anomalous people in the world doesn't take away from any of that. Indeed, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that those who are anomalous (as opposed to those who simply want to be) are anomalous because their brains are not normal. To goy, I would simply say that your obvious wish to protect the feelings and legitimate the reality of those who are anomalous, while it may be laudable, should not lead you to castigate those who, like the author, elucidate the background against which such anomalous people need to be understood."
I'm not venturing an opinion; just a concern. I assume there are anomalous folks who are trapped in, for them, the wrong gender. My concern is that, in rushing to be sympathetic, we do not seek to legitimize the subconscious leading of, the undue encouragement of, or the pressure upon those who only believe themselves to be anomalous. I would hesitate to undervalue the adage that misery, even if unwittingly, loves to experience company by spreading misery. I hope there are competent people working in this area who are not bound to political prejudices.
News recently informed of a teenaged boy who returned to school, after summer break, identifying as a girl. I worry that there may be occassions when p.c. parents are too quick to facilitate such conversions. I doubt one may very well say that unsavory factors within our society never influence such events. Look at Octomom.
"The fact that there are anomalous people in the world doesn't take away from any of that. Indeed, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that those who are anomalous (as opposed to those who simply want to be) are anomalous because their brains are not normal. To goy, I would simply say that your obvious wish to protect the feelings and legitimate the reality of those who are anomalous, while it may be laudable, should not lead you to castigate those who, like the author, elucidate the background against which such anomalous people need to be understood."
I'm not venturing an opinion; just a concern. I assume there are anomalous folks who are trapped in, for them, the wrong gender. My concern is that, in rushing to be sympathetic, we do not seek to legitimize the subconscious leading of, the undue encouragement of, or the pressure upon those who only believe themselves to be anomalous. I would hesitate to undervalue the adage that misery, even if unwittingly, loves to experience company by spreading misery. I hope there are competent people working in this area who are not bound to political prejudices.
News recently informed of a teenaged boy who returned to school, after summer break, identifying as a girl. I worry that there may be occassions when p.c. parents are too quick to facilitate such conversions. I doubt one may very well say that unsavory factors within our society never influence such events. Look at Octomom.
|
Sep 30, 01:09 AM |
Descans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many of the commentators today seem to have a dog
> in the race. Yet the author's essential points
> remain valid. There are differences in male and
> female brains. There are also differences in male
> and female bodies. There are also differences
> between males and females at the affective or
> behavioral level. All of that is indisputable. The
> truth of those differences is dishonored by
> dishonest social scientists.
Dogs are hard-wired to behave as dogs. Cats are hard-wired to behave as cats. What they used to call 'instinct' comes as a result of neural densities and patterns formed to bring about the sense of self and behavior specific to each creature. Similarly, NORMAL men and women are hard-wired to be men and women, to be suited for the lives that lie ahead of them. THAT is indisputable.
However, despite the apparent convictions of Mr. Duke and many who have replied here, the human brain -- the most delicate of all the body's organs -- is NOT immune to birth defects and physical developmental anomalies. In that month or so between the time when the genitalia take shape and the brain is hard-wired for gender identity through processes so fragile that mere stress in the mother can disrupt them, a LOT can happen. All babies begin as proto-female (due to the hormones in the mother's bloodstream) and continue to develop as females until male hormones produced by the baby's own body (if the baby is to be a boy) change the relevant tissues into male ones. Should the process of re-wiring the brain as male be interrupted, the brain retains a female self-identity. THAT too, is indisputable.
The links Goy posted above, despite being dismissed by some of you, point to but a small sampling of the extensive medical research done in establishing what we now know.
I am conservative. I am devoutly Christian. I am a theologian. And I am transsexual. I did NOT choose this horrid life, and would not wish it on my worst ... (350 word limit)
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many of the commentators today seem to have a dog
> in the race. Yet the author's essential points
> remain valid. There are differences in male and
> female brains. There are also differences in male
> and female bodies. There are also differences
> between males and females at the affective or
> behavioral level. All of that is indisputable. The
> truth of those differences is dishonored by
> dishonest social scientists.
Dogs are hard-wired to behave as dogs. Cats are hard-wired to behave as cats. What they used to call 'instinct' comes as a result of neural densities and patterns formed to bring about the sense of self and behavior specific to each creature. Similarly, NORMAL men and women are hard-wired to be men and women, to be suited for the lives that lie ahead of them. THAT is indisputable.
However, despite the apparent convictions of Mr. Duke and many who have replied here, the human brain -- the most delicate of all the body's organs -- is NOT immune to birth defects and physical developmental anomalies. In that month or so between the time when the genitalia take shape and the brain is hard-wired for gender identity through processes so fragile that mere stress in the mother can disrupt them, a LOT can happen. All babies begin as proto-female (due to the hormones in the mother's bloodstream) and continue to develop as females until male hormones produced by the baby's own body (if the baby is to be a boy) change the relevant tissues into male ones. Should the process of re-wiring the brain as male be interrupted, the brain retains a female self-identity. THAT too, is indisputable.
The links Goy posted above, despite being dismissed by some of you, point to but a small sampling of the extensive medical research done in establishing what we now know.
I am conservative. I am devoutly Christian. I am a theologian. And I am transsexual. I did NOT choose this horrid life, and would not wish it on my worst ... (350 word limit)
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum. Login or Register
|