Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've never said any word could mean anything. You obviously still fail to understand the basics of my argument.

A words meaning comes from understanding it's usage by groups who use it.

Since nobody uses the word "cis" to mean "cat" then it's clear that cis does not mean cat.

That's contradictory in itself.

You are saying that a word CAN mean anything once enough people use it to mean whatever they want.

It's clear that a man is a male. It's the definition.


Just because you choose to believe that it means "anyone that wants to be a man" is the complete opposite of a definition and is incorrect and frankly absurd.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's contradictory in itself.

You are saying that a word CAN mean anything once enough people use it to mean whatever they want.

It's clear that a man is a male. It's the definition.


Just because you choose to believe that it means "anyone that wants to be a man" is the complete opposite of a definition and is incorrect and frankly absurd.

I don't believe it means "anyone who wants to be a man".

Again you do not understand how definitions work. They are approximations of meaning.

Yes it's true a word can mean anything if people use it as such. It's the very basis of language. I suppose you have an issue that the word "aloud" means "ancient" in Dutch?

BavarianCare

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've given you the relevant part. You're clearly trying to imply anyone with feelings of gender nonconformity are mentally ill. The DSM definition does NOT support that and the expert groups completely disagree with you as I have proven.

'relevant part?!
I asked for DEFINITION - that is the full definition.

SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION (of a psych disorder)

SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION of woman vs man is not in question.

Anyway, you're in a rabbit hole and never coming out.
Goodnight.

BavarianCare

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't believe it means "anyone who wants to be a man".

Again you do not understand how definitions work. They are approximations of meaning.

Yes it's true a word can mean anything if people use it as such. It's the very basis of language. I suppose you have an issue that the word "aloud" means "ancient" in Dutch?

NEVER IN SCIENCE

NEVER

BavarianCare

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't believe it means "anyone who wants to be a man".

Again you do not understand how definitions work. They are approximations of meaning.

Yes it's true a word can mean anything if people use it as such. It's the very basis of language. I suppose you have an issue that the word "aloud" means "ancient" in Dutch?

Oh Lord. Get help.

definition
[ def-uh-nish-uhn ]
See synonyms for definition on Thesaurus.com
noun
the act of defining, or of making something definite, distinct, or clear

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/definition?s=t

LLMMLL

BavarianCare wrote: »

Critical... I see.

Give me the ACTUAL DEFINITION of GD?

PS: Just a quick question; does 2+2=4?

===
I don't think you have an open mind at all but no harm done.
However, before I go, I'll leave you with a 'reference' which you DID NOT

This 'reference' is not SCIENCE. It's wiki...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5

PS: When asked for definitions in future - use proper sources. wiki does not qualify.

All you've aid has made me think even more about this topic and makes me feel that far more people are deluded about this than I previously thought.
It is sad.

Goodnight & take care.

I said the reference could be found in Wikipedia. I assumed you could find it yourself. Here it is. I.hope you're not going to claim the APA is not an appropriate reference:

https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM-5-Gender-Dysphoria.pdf

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't believe it means "anyone who wants to be a man".

Again you do not understand how definitions work. They are approximations of meaning.

Yes it's true a word can mean anything if people use it as such. It's the very basis of language. I suppose you have an issue that the word "aloud" means "ancient" in Dutch?

No. It's a different language.

And anyway, aside from language, you advocate that biological men and women are accepted as the opposite sex if they identify as trans. It's more than a language issue.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No. It's a different language.

And anyway, aside from language, you advocate that biological men and women are accepted as the opposite sex if they identify as trans. It's more than a language issue.

I agree. It's a human rights issue as well.

Tokyo

Deleted User wrote: »

I just don't accept that a man can be a woman or a woman can be a man.

Deleted User wrote: »

A man is a man because of their biology. A woman is a woman because of their biology.

It's not an opinion. It's a fact.

The fact that you think it's an opinion is laughable and pitiful in equal measures.

Mod: You're entitled to that opinion. However there is no room in this forum for the "trans men are not real men and trans women are not real women" discussion. Don't post in the thread again.

BavarianCare wrote: »

"-Any statement that asserts or implies that transgenderism is a mental illness. "

Mod: The World Health Organization explicitly defines transgenderism as NOT being a mental illness. We are going to stick with their definition, and any posts to the contrary will be actioned/deleted.

suicide_circus

Rodin wrote: »

Anyone who thinks a transwoman is female should be considered to be akin to a flat earther.
The concept doesn't stand up to even the most minimal scrutiny.

That's the issue with this thread. We're arguing points of faith. I can no more believe this stuff than i can believe that Noah filled the Ark with all the animals of the world, two by two*.

Whatever about arguing that the word "woman" should include men who believe themselves to be women, arguing that a male who believes themselves to be a woman is in fact a female....this leaves no common ground to start a fruitful discussion on the matter. And perhaps that's the intention. #nodebate. Creating a context in which no debate can start is a strategically wise move when the position you hold cannot stand up to logical scrutiny.

*even the fictional Noah understood basic biology.

Ted_YNWA

Dobbytoes wrote: »

Don't worry. I won't...

Mod.

Good to know.

Self threadban upgraded to Mod actioned one as per your request.

Gatling

Tokyo wrote: »

The World Health Organization

Says covid didn't come out of a Chinese laboratory..

While transgenderism may not be considered an illness by the who ,It wasn't really discussed self identify is a loose ideology where any one be identify as anything they like , litterally there is no boundaries, people are claiming this is science no sorry it has zero base in science ,it's essentially personal choice and you can change back and forward depending on your mood and needs,
But dysphoria is not a personal choice , dysphoria of any kind is treated through psychology , like many other conditions it'
effects People psychologically again not transgenderism or self identify
There is numourus dysphorias all treated with primarily psychology,

Cestmoi 111

It never stops. Instagram today shows photos of signs from the Sarah Everard vigil that insist that certain males be centred in the fight against violence on women.
Not surprising considering the topic a few pages back showing that some, in their own words, find being the victim of male violence wonderfully validating and womanly.

Natterjack from Kerry

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No. It's a different language.

And anyway, aside from language, you advocate that biological men and women are accepted as the opposite sex if they identify as trans. It's more than a language issue.

I think it probably is a language issue and that both can co-exist peacefully as it were. There are trans people who understand man or woman to include transmen and transwomen respectively. Which is fine for them to do so if they wish, without imposing it on others.
And possibly some trans people who don't, and who go with transwomen or transman being sufficient in themselves as descriptors without modifying the wider worlds use of the words man and women to tranpeople in the reversed descriptors.

And then the wider world who still accepts and uses a traditional, dictionary, and everyday usage of the words man and women, male and female, gender and sex. And probably unaware that some understand them with different definition. Which is fine for them to do so too.

It's only when the two meet where the confusion and controversies or misunderstandings arise.

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Says covid didn't come out of a Chinese laboratory..

While transgenderism may not be considered an illness by the who ,It wasn't really discussed self identify is a loose ideology where any one be identify as anything they like , litterally there is no boundaries, people are claiming this is science no sorry it has zero base in science ,it's essentially personal choice and you can change back and forward depending on your mood and needs,
But dysphoria is not a personal choice , dysphoria of any kind is treated through psychology , like many other conditions it'
effects People psychologically again not transgenderism or self identify
There is numourus dysphorias all treated with primarily psychology,

This is being proved to be more and more categorically, and demonstrably, untrue with each passing study.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10843193/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19341803/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20562024/

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html


You may not understand it, you may not even like it, but the scientific merit is, most assuredly, there.

Rodin

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is being proved to be more and more categorically, and demonstrably, untrue with each passing study.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10843193/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19341803/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20562024/

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html


You may not understand it, you may not even like it, but the scientific merit is, most assuredly, there.

Do you know what a p-value is?

"The number of neurons in the BSTc of male-to-female transsexuals was similar to that of the females (P = 0.83)."

Tell me about the statistical significance of this "finding".

Rodin

If I may ask of the mods...

This is the original question posed..

"What is your opinion on gender identity?"

Why then are certain opinions not allowed?

In certain posts, facts are being shut down. Not even opinions. I know now how Galileo felt.

Gatling

Deleted User wrote: »

This is being proved to be more and more categorically, and demonstrably, untrue with each passing study.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10843193/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19341803/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20562024/

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html

Again were not taking about self identify anything else is apparently off limits , but what you posted suggests that their is differences possibly in the make up of the brain or nural pathways which makes it's a condition treated through psychology ,

Yes ???

Rodin

Gatling wrote: »

Again were not taking about self identify anything else is apparently off limits , but what you posted suggests that their is differences possibly in the make up of the brain or nural pathways which makes it's a condition treated through psychology ,

Yes ???

The findings are not statistically significant. It could just be chance. There's nothing proven at all.

These zealots need to be confronted with facts, science and intellectual rigour.
There are very dark forces at play here.

Wibbs

Gatling wrote: »

Again were not taking about self identify anything else is apparently off limits , but what you posted suggests that their is differences possibly in the make up of the brain or nural pathways which makes it's a condition treated through psychology ,

Yes ???

No. That's not how the brain works or psychology works or could work. If you're a man, do you think any amount of psychology or treatment could convince you that you're a woman? Or if you're straight, that you're gay?

GreeBo

Wibbs wrote: »

No. That's not how the brain works or psychology works or could work. If you're a man, do you think any amount of psychology or treatment could convince you that you're a woman? Or if you're straight, that you're gay?

Or that you are not actually obese or that your nose isn't too big?

Your premise starts with "if you are a man", it seems you have missed the point of this thread though. Being a man is now meaningless, as it's based on what you believe at the moment and nothing more.

Rodin

GreeBo wrote: »

Or that you are not actually obese or that your nose isn't too big?

Your premise starts with "if you are a man", it seems you have missed the point of this thread though. Being a man is now meaningless, as it's based on what you believe at the moment and nothing more.

"I believe that Im skinny and identify as a thin person. Nevermind my actual biology and BMI of 30"

Natterjack from Kerry

Rodin wrote: »

"I believe that Im skinny and identify as a thin person. Nevermind my actual biology and BMI of 30"

Thats a a good example. The person is perfectly entitled to call themselves thin. The can even legitimately say it is a fact, as they regard a BMI of 30 as thin. And that is fine in their own mind. As also is someone else who takes the conventional view of BMI classifications and regards them as obese. Both are correct from their own perspective, but not from both perspectives. As long as each are talking to people with the same definitions, everything is fine. But when they intersect, one thinks 'you are offending me and a discriminating BMIphobe' and the other thinks 'gee your sense of reality is gone'. Yet both are right from their own perspectives, but their is no reconciling such mutually exclusive interpretations.

Gatling

Mods has there been any discussion to lock this thread?

A question was asked but yet the discussion has been forced to be very one sided it's not been a free and fair discussion literally everytime something comes up we get new warning this is off limits , reported posts have gotten actioned yet others reported posts for ignoring mod warnings and personalised posts have gone unchecked ,

Is there any real reason to keep it open ,it's essentially been used by some I believe for nothing but increasing post count and there is posting in poor and bad faith , while for others we have the constant threat of mod actions including bans hanging over every post.

Quantum Erasure

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't believe it means "anyone who wants to be a man".

Again you do not understand how definitions work. They are approximations of meaning.

Are we getting into Silence of the Lambs levels of psychology here? A man is anyone who believes themselves to be a man, who truly *is* a man, it's not enough just to *want* to be a man...?

"Billy is not a real trans-sexual, but he thinks he is. He tries to be."

suicide_circus

Rodin wrote: »

Do you know what a p-value is?

"The number of neurons in the BSTc of male-to-female transsexuals was similar to that of the females (P = 0.83)."

Tell me about the statistical significance of this "finding".

Can you elaborate on this?

Bannasidhe

Rodin wrote: »

The thread doesn't need locked. It just needs to not be censored.
There's far too much locking, banning, deleting just because someone doesn't like an opinion being put forward.

If a person says "in my opinion" there is zero issue with that - but that is not what has been happening.
What has been happening is pronouncements as if they are facts.

suicide_circus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What has been happening is pronouncements as if they are facts.

The irony

Natterjack from Kerry

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If a person says "in my opinion" there is zero issue with that - but that is not what has been happening.
What has been happening is pronouncements as if they are facts.

There are nevertheless such things as facts. They need no "in my opinion" and stand on their own as unarguably correct.

Bannasidhe

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

There are nevertheless such things as facts. They need no "in my opinion" and stand on their own as unarguably correct.

The complaint from several people here is they are not being allowed to express their opinion, I merely pointed out that the words "in my opinion" rarely features when such 'opinions' are being expressed.


It is a fact that gender dysphoria is not classified as a mental illness.