Excessive promotion of progressive values ... annoying AF

[m52nickerson]

You didn't acknowledge my main point. You arbitrarily defend gender by putting into a separate category without reason.

There is reason. Sex = physical, Gender = psychological. There is your reason. There is also reason to defend gender in law because of a history of discrimination against people who's gender, stated or other wise, does not match their sex.

 

[dontsnitch]

There is reason. Sex = physical, Gender = psychological. There is your reason. There is also reason to defend gender in law because of a history of discrimination against people who's gender, stated or other wise, does not match their sex.

That's not what I meant, but whatever.

There is an argument that says religion must be protected in law because of the amount of discrimination theists have faced. It should therefore be illegal for anyone to deny God exists to someone who tells you otherwise, because of their feelz. It's literally the same argument as the pronoun one, and it may even have more weight, because religion is more prevalent, as is discriminating against people because of religion. It's an identity that's fully encompassing just like gender.

Why do you hate religious people? Why won't you just accommodate them and acknowledge the reality that God exists around them if they demand that of you?

 

[DoomPatrol]

Feel free to answer my one question.

Oh I missed that one, although you technically have more than one question.

I'm assuming you're talking in regards to pronoun laws. As an American, freedom of speech is pretty important to me. I don't think anyone should be forced to use any particular vocabulary while operating as a private citizen. I could find issue with a government organization or business who refuses to go by the pronoun that a trans-person identified with. As far as any penalties go, I don't have that answer.

Oh, ok..... So dissention actually IS both propoganda and a conspiracy from the Right and those dang Christians. Got it. And both of the Doctors who wrote that article are either retired or current resident's at John's Hopkins in the Psychiatry Department.

And both doctors are notorious for their anti-LGBQ ideas. Literally they are the only example people like you bring up. If you notice, they don't even actually say that it's not a result of genetics.

Dissention isn't a bad thing in science if you're not presenting outdated ideas that have already been dismissed by the community of your peers, peers of which don't get the opportunity to present their review because you submitted it to a bullshit organization masquerading as a legitimate scientific journal.

If you want to present ideas that haven't been debunked or a new approach and you submit it for peer review, that's great dissention.

Anytime scientists don't submit their research for peer review, that's when you know bullshit is getting presented.

Your source failed to point out that Dean Hamer is a gay man whose main field of study is trying to prove that homosexuality is actually linked to your DNA. He's trying to PROVE that, he didn't come across that perspective on accident. Stop and think about that for just one second, then let me know how there is absolutely no agenda whatsoever coming from the left in this regard. On top of that, he isn't a Mental Health Professional.

He's a geneticist with the National Institutes of Health. He came across that perspective because of his research into his field of study. Have you even read his research?

Chris Beyrer just so happens to be President of The International AIDS Society, so once again, you're quoting a totally non-Partisan source. He also happens to be a Professor of Epidemiology. He isn't a Mental Health Professional either.

Oh, did I mention? He's gay too...

Yes, typically one quotes experts in relevant fields.

Uh.... Yeah. Actuall Mental Health Professionals holds much more weight than politically motivated, Non-Mental Health Professionals who also just so happen to fall under the umbrella of the exact category that is being discussed. Don't claim to be from the party of science or pro-Science if you're going to ignore it in favor of political drivel that makes you more comfortable.

With your logic, what the fuck would a mental health specialist know about genetics compared to a geneticist?

 

[m52nickerson]

That's not what I meant, but whatever.

There is an argument that says religion must be protected in law because of the amount of discrimination theists have faced. It should therefore be illegal for anyone to deny God exists to someone who tells you otherwise, because of their feelz. It's literally the same argument as the pronoun one, and it may even have more weight, because religion is more prevalent, as is discriminating against people because of religion. It's an identity that's fully encompassing just like gender.

Why do you hate religious people? Why won't you just accommodate them and acknowledge the reality that God exists around them if they demand that of you?

The idea that religious individuals face discrimination in the US is laughable. More so if you want to compare it to any protected classification. Also, if you had not noticed discrimination based on religious belief is also against the law. So you have zero in the way of argument here.

 

[lfd0311]

And both doctors are notorious for their anti-LGBQ ideas. Literally they are the only example people like you bring up. If you notice, they don't even actually say that it's not a result of genetics.

Dissention isn't a bad thing in science if you're not presenting outdated ideas that have already been dismissed by the community of your peers, peers of which don't get the opportunity to present their review because you submitted it to a bullshit organization masquerading as a legitimate scientific journal.

If you want to present ideas that haven't been debunked or a new approach and you submit it for peer review, that's great dissention.

Anytime scientists don't submit their research for peer review, that's when you know bullshit is getting presented.

1.) No, they aren't "notorious" for anti- LGBT etc, etc idea. They're notorious for addressing it from a psychological perspective, and doing it honestly. On top of that, where have their ideas been "debunked"? All they did was present the standard stance for both homosexuality and transgenderism since modern American psychology began. I'm pretty sure that's been peer reviewed. On top of that, it doesn't help when the Left is naturally dishonestly representing the APA's views on most of these issues. Actually read this whole thing. It is nowhere near as in line with the Left's presentation of it as they'd like you to believe.

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.pdf

He's a geneticist with the National Institutes of Health. He came across that perspective because of his research into his field of study. Have you even read his research??

He's been focused in on that one area since 1990. 30 years in an awful long time, don't you think?

Yes, typically one quotes experts in relevant fields.

Well, if these are the only two dissenting parties in all of the Psychiatric World.... Why didn't they ask any Psyciatrists?

With your logic, what the fuck would a mental health specialist know about genetics compared to a geneticist?

No, that would be your logic. By my logic, they wouldn't be calling up the two Psychiatrists to weigh in on dude's findings on genetics, then acting like he'd owned him if they disagreed.

 

[dontsnitch]

Oh I missed that one, although you technically have more than one question.

I'm assuming you're talking in regards to pronoun laws. As an American, freedom of speech is pretty important to me. I don't think anyone should be forced to use any particular vocabulary while operating as a private citizen. I could find issue with a government organization or business who refuses to go by the pronoun that a trans-person identified with. As far as any penalties go, I don't have that answer.

Fair enough. At least we agree on the first part.

 

[esotamoc]

It would be hilarious if one of these scientists finds the direct cause of gayness and trannyness and some scientist in china not bogged down by pc culture creates a cure/ immunisation for these mental disorders.

 

[Islam Imamate]

1.) No, they aren't "notorious" for anti- LGBT etc, etc idea. They're notorious for addressing it from a psychological perspective, and doing it honestly. On top of that, where have their ideas been "debunked"? All they did was present the standard stance for both homosexuality and transgenderism since modern American psychology began. I'm pretty sure that's been peer reviewed. On top of that, it doesn't help when the Left is naturally dishonestly representing the APA's views on most of these issues. Actually read this whole thing. It is nowhere near as in line with the Left's presentation of it as they'd like you to believe.

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.pdf

And tbh at this point I'm even skeptical of the APA. I haven't dug through the research on gender dysphoria but I remember digging through the literature on gay parenting. At first I came across lit review by the APA which said that there were no differences in outcomes based on 59 studies. That seemed to convince me because I was going to take the word of the APA instead of dig through 59 separate articles to fact check them. Fortunately though someone else did and this is what they found

Abstract
In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on lesbian and gay parenting. This brief included the assertion: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents” (p. 15). The present article closely examines this assertion and the 59 published studies cited by the APA to support it. Seven central questions address: (1) homogeneous sampling, (2) absence of comparison groups, (3) comparison group characteristics, (4) contradictory data, (5) the limited scope of children’s outcomes studied, (6) paucity of long-term outcome data, and (7) lack of APA-urged statistical power. The conclusion is that strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted. Recommendations for future research are offered.

Highlights
► A 26 of 59 APA studies on same-sex parenting had no heterosexual comparison groups.
► In comparison studies, single mothers were often used as the hetero comparison group.
► No comparison study had the statistical power required to detect a small effect size.
► Definitive claims were not substantiated by the 59 published studies.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

As you pointed out a lot of researchers who examine issues related to the LGBTQWERTY community are themselves of that community. Psychology is not a field that has a lot of conservatives and when you do find one who takes a maverick view of these issues they're often religious Christians so they're probably not impartial either. But the latter seem far outnumbered by the former.

 

[dontsnitch]

The idea that religious individuals face discrimination in the US is laughable. More so if you want to compare it to any protected classification. Also, if you had not noticed discrimination based on religious belief is also against the law. So you have zero in the way of argument here.

It's illegal to discriminate against people for religious reasons, just as it is for gender. So far we're consistent. The issue is that gender is placed in a category of it's own and treated as special for no discernible reason. If this were not true, we would be arguing if it's proper for religious people to be appeased with language mandated by the State. So my question is why do we need to legislate language for gender but not the other identities? If you were consistent, you would see that this point has merit. Yes, they are not identical, but the principle is the exact same, and it is the principle to which I am objecting.

Simply put, legislating language is a step in the wrong direction and sets a horrible precedent which I am exposing with a simple analogy. It's illiberal, period. There are many other objections via the same principle that show that gender is a special class and thus, the law is inconsistently applied.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Regarding transgenderism, progressives will cite research showing a minuscule portion of the brain in role-playing men ("MTF") is closer to female brains than normal male brains and use this to validate their ideas of "gender identity". But sex has always been based on testes i.e. reproductive function, not bell curve averages for BSTc volume or something like that. (And that's aside from the fact that normal "cis" males have had their BSTc volume at the "female" end of the range). Being an outlier on same data plot doesn't give you the right to force me to refer to someone born with a penis as "she".

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Oh and in B4 "triggered conservative" or "stop crying about what doesn't affect you".

thats inevitably got some to do with whats going on, though. we notice and remember the things that trigger us, more than things that dont.

liberals will notice and remember magazines and newspapers that talk about obama wanting to rename christmas and shit. that show trump as some nativist hero etc etc

 

[Islam Imamate]

Regarding transgenderism, progressives will cite research showing a minuscule portion of the brain in role-playing men ("MTF") is closer to female brains than normal male brains and use this to validate their ideas of "gender identity". But sex has always been based on testes i.e. reproductive function, not bell curve averages for BSTc volume or something like that. (And that's aside from the fact that normal "cis" males have had their BSTc volume at the "female" end of the range). Being an outlier on same data plot doesn't give you the right to force me to refer to someone born with a penis as "she".

I'm not sure I even entirely understand that argument from the left. Our brains are malleable so it shouldn't shock anyone that a male who attempts to live as a female and thinks of himself as one for a sustained period of time might see some changes in the brain. A pretty tame daily mediation routine(5 minutes a day for 5 weeks) has been shown to cause changes in gray matter concentration and drug addiction alters parts of the brain, usually having to do with the reward systems.

So we know that behaviors, foreign substances, and even regular changes in consciousness can change our brains. That being transgender is accompanied by a change in the brain isn't surprising and its also not clear to me how it legitimizes the pro-affirmation argument. Nobody would justify a lifestyle of drug abuse just because the abusers brain is different from that of a non-abuser for instance.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

I'm not sure I even entirely understand that argument from the left. Our brains are malleable so it shouldn't shock anyone that a male who attempts to live as a female and thinks of himself as one for a sustained period of time might see some changes in the brain. A pretty tame daily mediation routine(5 minutes a day for 5 weeks) has been shown to cause changes in gray matter concentration and drug addiction alters parts of the brain, usually having to do with the reward systems.

So we know that behaviors, foreign substances, and even regular changes in consciousness can change our brains. That being transgender is accompanied by a change in the brain isn't surprising and its also not clear to me how it legitimizes the pro-affirmation argument. Nobody would justify a lifestyle of drug abuse just because the abusers brain is different from that of a non-abuser fir instance.

Yeah, given neuroplasticity, it shouldn't be a surprise that a man who role-plays as a woman will fall on the "female" side of some data plot on brain shape.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

@jgarner

I could find issue with a government organization or business who refuses to go by the pronoun that a trans-person identified with.

Why?

 

[dontsnitch]

Yeah, given neuroplasticity, it shouldn't be a surprise that a man who role-plays as a woman will fall on the "female" side of some data plot on brain shape.

But they're arguing for gender not sex, so what would it matter what their brain chemistry looks like given that the concept of gender has been rendered meaningless?

They reduced gender into some ethereal identity which you can literally change from one day to the next and you can never be wrong. If gender is everything, then gender is nothing. They made it tautological, so there can't be an argument.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

But they're arguing for gender not sex, so what would it matter what their brain chemistry looks like given that the concept of gender has been rendered meaningless?

They reduced gender into some ethereal identity which you can literally change from one day to the next and you can never be wrong. If gender is everything, then gender is nothing. They made it tautological, so there can't be an argument.

Yeah, "gender identity" sounds kinda like a Cartesian soul.

 

[helltoupee]

Regarding transgenderism, progressives will cite research showing a minuscule portion of the brain in role-playing men ("MTF") is closer to female brains than normal male brains and use this to validate their ideas of "gender identity". But sex has always been based on testes i.e. reproductive function, not bell curve averages for BSTc volume or something like that. (And that's aside from the fact that normal "cis" males have had their BSTc volume at the "female" end of the range).

I believe the above arguments are used in discussions where the issue being debated is whether or not sexuality and gender is solely based on a psychological construct. Probably an extension of the age old notion that sexual preference is a 'choice' (absent of biological phenomena).

I never reached a crossroads where I had to contemplate whether or not I wanted to have sex with men, nor do I think most people (other than bisexuals), so why would I think that homosexuals, or people who "feel" like they are a woman trapped in a man's body, ever reached a point in their life where they had to conscientiously make this type of choice? Something biologically determined this for them, just as it did for you and me. Nobody hits puberty and weighs the pros and cons of tongue-kissing other men. It's either repulsive to you or it's not, instinctually.

It doesn't matter whether or not they were born with a penis, if they are questioning their gender in any way at all, it must be a pretty significant feeling. Sexuality is not like choosing between a Honda or a Toyota. I never questioned my own, did you?

Being an outlier on same data plot doesn't give you the right to force me to refer to someone born with a penis as "she".

Who is forcing you to refer to someone with a penis as a "she"? In what context?

Other than the transgender bathroom thing (off the top of my head), I can't see where any of this impacts you, unless you were planning to deny somebody rights using their gender as the basis - which is all I see coming from these laws.

These laws, at least the Canadian ones, simply appear to be saying, if a woman walks into your place of business, but clearly has an adam's apple, you cannot simply say, I don't want to rent/sell to you because you identify as a female. The same as you can't deny someone because they are a Christian, Muslim, 89 years old, black, asian, white, or disabled. It seems that you are coming from the position that you want to insist on said man-in-the-dress call himself Bob instead of Mary, which leads me to question 'why do you care'?

I suppose I could understand if you wanted to argue that all discrimination laws are stupid, and a business should have the right to refuse anyone, and I can understand that, but that's a different argument.

Granting someone equal rights (protections from discrimination) doesn't detract from your own.

 

[Space]

It would be hilarious if one of these scientists finds the direct cause of gayness and trannyness and some scientist in china not bogged down by pc culture creates a cure/ immunisation for these mental disorders.

 

[Codpiece]

Let me ask you this. Why the fuck does it matter if I buy alcohol on Sunday at 10am or 1pm?

May I ask why you perceive this law as 'Christian'? Having read the Bible I can say with some confidence that sale of alcohol is not regulated in this manner.

 

[MacDuffle]

That's not what I meant, but whatever.

There is an argument that says religion must be protected in law because of the amount of discrimination theists have faced. It should therefore be illegal for anyone to deny God exists to someone who tells you otherwise, because of their feelz. It's literally the same argument as the pronoun one, and it may even have more weight, because religion is more prevalent, as is discriminating against people because of religion. It's an identity that's fully encompassing just like gender.

Why do you hate religious people? Why won't you just accommodate them and acknowledge the reality that God exists around them if they demand that of you?

If anything, Theism has dominated history far outweighing non-religious institutions or governing bodies, asserting and enforcing its own theism by literally executing and forcing out non-believers until eventually being told they were being giant flaming assholes, slowly transitioning into the modern era of religious tolerance enforced by law

It's the dominant force behind colonial/post-colonial abuses to large native populations ('convert or die') and it's the reason many, many europeans were publically murdered by their governments for daring to read or translate the Bible into English versions you enjoy today

...basically Theism has ruled the world for all of history, but go ahead and cry about modern freedoms that allow citizens of State to not adhere. It's not like that was a death sentence for hundreds of years to perfectly morally decent humans or anything right.