Would you allow your sons to be feminine?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your logic is all over the place is why.

Except it is not and we can just add this to the list like "you are just incorrect" of things you simply throw out but _never_ argue or qualify.

And how summarising my argument falsely instead of replying to anything in it means _my_ logic is messed up and not yours - is anyones guess. You are floundering now.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In one case you make allowances for other people's reality

That is not so and I explained that. I repeat:

"All I have said is that in Case A) You can very clearly show the people believe something contrary to reality. In Case You can not even remotely do so."

How is anything in that paragraph - a paragraph you predictably did not even reply to - "made allowances for other peoples reality"? Nothing in that paragraph does _any such thing_.

You are - as usual - making stuff up.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm trying to understand your position, but your position simply appears to be based on scaremongering

More of your distortions. Nothing I said is "scaremongering". All I have said is there is good reason to think - and I linked in one post to actual papers on this topic - that having your individual expression repressed - and not finding support and understanding in your parents on your early years voyage of self discovery - can both be more harmful than people think as well as less beneficial for the goals the parents usually express while saying they do them.

In response to this you have distorted and misrepresented my position - declared me "incorrect" but refused to explain how or why - and even completely made up things I never even _remotely_ said and then claimed I said them - such as the comment about parents with their hearts on their sleeve.

And you wonder why you are having trouble understanding my position? Predominantly because you have displayed no _actual_ intention to engage with that position is the reason.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And people suggest I'm an authoritarian?

You will have to ask the people who call you that. I would call you many things if asked in private - and explain to you _exactly why_ I think those things apply. But I would not do so here because A) it would be immature and rude and not becoming of me or be my style and C) it would be against the rules.

IrishTrajan

IrishTrajan wrote: »

But do they not come down to the same point? It's their irrational belief.

No. Percisely no. Because there is no irrational belief in the second group I described. There is a _very real_ neurological problem there. Nothing irrational or false or illusionary about it.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

that doesn't mean the second isn't delusional.

What aspect of the second _is_ delusional then? OEJ certainly has not even tried to show what it is - perhaps you could do it for me as a favor because I am genuinely not seeing it.

Links234

walshyn93 wrote: »

John Hopkins University pioneered the surgery and now doesn't perform it because they say it's not the best treatment pathway.

The gender identity clinic at Johns Hopkins was shut down because Paul McHugh, an extreme right wing catholic, was appointed head of psychiatry during the 70's. McHugh is an incredibly controversial and infamous character, extremely anti-LGBT, and if you'll forgive me pilfering from a previous post on the subject, is certainly not a trustworthy source:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/aug/21/20020821-041050-7378r/

If you found the clergy sex abuse scandal shocking, prepare for another jolt: the Catholic bishops are getting their "expert" advice on pedophilia from people who have covered up or even defended sex between men and children.

The bishops recently chose Dr. Paul McHugh, former chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at John Hopkins University School of Medicine, as chief behavioral scientist for their new clergy sex crimes review board. Yet Dr. McHugh once said Johns Hopkins' Sexual Disorders Clinic, which treats molesters, was justified in concealing multiple incidents of child rape and fondling to police, despite a state law requiring staffers to report them.

"We did what we thought was appropriate," said Dr. McHugh, then director of Hopkins' Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, which oversaw the sex clinic. He agreed with his subordinate, clinic head Fred Berlin, who broke the then-new child sexual abuse law on the grounds that it might keep child molesters from seeking treatment. Dr. Berlin admitted he had covered for the sex criminals, angering legislators, child-advocacy groups and state officials. But his actions were not surprising, because "at least eight men have been convicted of sexually abusing Maryland children while under [Dr. Berlins] treatment there," according to the March 23, 1988, issue of the Capital.

'This is a man who famously said that the child rape commited by members of the clergy was "Homosexual predation on catholic youth", so just take a moment and let the enormity of that quote sink in, because according to Paul McHugh this is something gay people are doing to catholics. The man is deeply anti-gay, calling it an "erronous attraction", he supported Prop 8 in California and filed an amicus brief stating in his professional opinion that sexuality was not an innate characteristic like race and gender. Now, I could give way more examples of just what a piece of work this guy is, but that would take days and I think you get the idea of his character. He's a deeply religious anti-gay bigot.'

This is the same nonsense that gets brought up, from the same handful of posters, every single time a thread remotely related to trans people comes up. Yet no matter how many times this nonsense is debunked, it keeps coming up again, much like the Regnerus study keeps getting brought up with regards to LGBT families.

IrishTrajan

Deleted User wrote: »

No. Percisely no. Because there is no irrational belief in the second group I described. There is a _very real_ neurological problem there. Nothing irrational or false or illusionary about it.

A neurological problem is a mental disorder, is it not? They're not being rational, they're being irrational due to that problem.

Deleted User wrote: »

What aspect of the second _is_ delusional then? OEJ certainly has not even tried to show what it is - perhaps you could do it for me as a favor because I am genuinely not seeing it.

Their beliefs themselves are irrational. If most everyone without that disorder does not dress as a female, then doing so is irrational, no? It's not about what they think is rational.

While not strictly related to cross-dressing, I did find this

Transsexual and Other Disorders of Gender Identity: A Practical Guide
James Barrett, Consultant Psychiatrist

From the psycho-dynamic perspective, the transsexual symptom passes the tests to establish whether a belief is delusional, and this position is only mitigated in the highly special environment of a gender clinic, and among gender disorder-friendly mental health workers, where arguably the belief is a cultural norm. Out-with this setting, the belief remains a delusion, and treatment to collude with it is counter-therapeutic and ethically questionable.
Contributing to this position is an observation that gender-disordered people are more certain of their gender than normal. For everyone, gender identity is a complex compromise, made up of maternal and paternal identifications, of differential biological drives, of sexual proclivities and of general body perception. If I say "I am a man", this is shot through with more doubts, insecurities and uncertainties than a female-to-male patient saying the same thing during a gender reassignment assessment. This very lack of doubt, this very certainty, is a component of transsexualism, and is more characteristic of a delusional belief than is the precarious and fluid compromise that is normal gender identity.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except it is not and we can just add this to the list like "you are just incorrect" of things you simply throw out but _never_ argue or qualify.

And how summarising my argument falsely instead of replying to anything in it means _my_ logic is messed up and not yours - is anyones guess. You are floundering now.

I'm not floundering at all. I'm genuinely perplexed by your making allowances for one thing, and not the other, when both scenarios are based upon the person's neurology?

You're working with an incomplete data set in both scenarios, and yet one you take more seriously than the other.

It's no different to the way you're saying you have statistical evidence and studies which backs up your opinion, like you imagine you can weigh it against an individual's lived experience. Where do you think the "my truth" stuff comes from exactly?

That is not so and I explained that. I repeat:

"All I have said is that in Case A) You can very clearly show the people believe something contrary to reality. In Case You can not even remotely do so."

How is anything in that paragraph - a paragraph you predictably did not even reply to - "made allowances for other peoples reality"? Nothing in that paragraph does _any such thing_.

You are - as usual - making stuff up.

Because you're constantly shifting between subjective reality and objective reality! In one case you make allowances for subjective reality because it suits you, and in the other you're placing the burden of proof on the person to meet your standard of objective reality. You can't be wrong no matter which way you go!

More of your distortions. Nothing I said is "scaremongering". All I have said is there is good reason to think - and I linked in one post to actual papers on this topic - that having your individual expression repressed - and not finding support and understanding in your parents on your early years voyage of self discovery - can both be more harmful than people think as well as less beneficial for the goals the parents usually express while saying they do them.

Claiming that naive parents actions may lead to long term damage of their child, is scaremongering. Those reasons are good enough for you to think what you do, but they're not good enough reasons for other people, because those other people, have other things going on in their lives that you won't find in statistics and studies.

Given that humanity has been around now for how long, they weren't all expressing themselves, they had other influences in their lives which formed their experiences and their opinions. Pulling data from another society and trying to map it onto our own, shows absolutely nothing. It's completely devoid of any proper context.

In response to this you have distorted and misrepresented my position - declared me "incorrect" but refused to explain how or why - and even completely made up things I never even _remotely_ said and then claimed I said them - such as the comment about parents with their hearts on their sleeve.

And you wonder why you are having trouble understanding my position? Predominantly because you have displayed no _actual_ intention to engage with that position is the reason.

I'm having difficulty understanding your points, simply because I'm having difficulty understanding your english. I want to understand what you're saying, but I haven't got a fcuking clue what you're actually saying!!

frostyjacks

Links234 wrote: »

The gender identity clinic at Johns Hopkins was shut down because Paul McHugh, an extreme right wing catholic, was appointed head of psychiatry during the 70's. McHugh is an incredibly controversial and infamous character, extremely anti-LGBT, and if you'll forgive me pilfering from a previous post on the subject, is certainly not a trustworthy source:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/aug/21/20020821-041050-7378r/



'This is a man who famously said that the child rape commited by members of the clergy was "Homosexual predation on catholic youth", so just take a moment and let the enormity of that quote sink in, because according to Paul McHugh this is something gay people are doing to catholics. The man is deeply anti-gay, calling it an "erronous attraction", he supported Prop 8 in California and filed an amicus brief stating in his professional opinion that sexuality was not an innate characteristic like race and gender. Now, I could give way more examples of just what a piece of work this guy is, but that would take days and I think you get the idea of his character. He's a deeply religious anti-gay bigot.'

This is the same nonsense that gets brought up, from the same handful of posters, every single time a thread remotely related to trans people comes up. Yet no matter how many times this nonsense is debunked, it keeps coming up again, much like the Regnerus study keeps getting brought up with regards to LGBT families.

Paul McHugh is a distinguished psychiatrist, an expert in his field. He gave reasoned views on transgenderism, but of course that is enough to be demonised in their eyes.

"People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”

Why on earth fathers would stand by and watch their sons fall pray to this cult is beyond me.

jobbridge4life

Sweet Jesus, do we really have to put up with people referring to transgender people as a 'cult'?

jobbridge4life

frostyjacks wrote: »

Paul McHugh is a distinguished psychiatrist, an expert in his field. He gave reasoned views on transgenderism, but of course that is enough to be demonised in their eyes.

"People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”

Why on earth fathers would stand by and watch their sons fall pray to this cult is beyond me.

Frosty, don't presume to lecture others on demonizing people... much less in the same post where you refer to transgender people as being part of a cult and moreover one that preys on children.

That is not just offensive, not just hurtful, not even merely hateful. It is dangerous rhetoric.

frostyjacks

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Frosty, don't presume to lecture others on demonizing people... much less in the same post where you refer to transgender people as being part of a cult and moreover one that preys on children.

That is not just offensive, not just hurtful, not even merely hateful. It is dangerous rhetoric.

Any questioning of transgenderism is met with hysterical overreaction from the permanently offended, or character assassination. Same thing happens with criticism of Scientology or those Mormon fundamentalists.

Cult - a sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner.

One eyed Jack

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Frosty, don't presume to lecture others on demonizing people... much less in the same post where you refer to transgender people as being part of a cult and moreover one that preys on children.

That is not just offensive, not just hurtful, not even merely hateful. It is dangerous rhetoric.

It's not any more dangerous rhetoric than using the potential welfare of people's children to scaremonger them in trying to promote an ideology. That too, is an attempt at being offensive and hurtful to people who don't share your opinion.

jobbridge4life

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not any more dangerous rhetoric than using the potential welfare of people's children to scaremonger them in trying to promote an ideology. That too, is an attempt at being offensive and hurtful to people who don't share your opinion.

No sorry OEJ I am all for the rough and tumble of debate and I love brash discussions but I'm calling bullsh!t on this right now. Whatever ones opinions are on transgender people or so called 'transgenderism' referring to them as a 'cult' and one that preys on children is beyond the bounds of civic discourse and debate.

The insinuation is plainly clear. I'd call it a dog whistle but its too blatant for that.

Sometimes OEJ, as I feel you must know internally, you have to rebuke people on your own side. I call on you, respectfully, to do that now.

Wibbs

And…. we're done. Interesting topic for a thread and for the most part it went OK, with folks being generally respectful of opposing positions and points of view, but sadly it's going nowhere but downhill fast at this stage and would likely result in folks getting actioned. Thanks.