[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /civ/ - 4265



File: 1484943458205.png (30.31 KB, 300x180, trans.jpg)

No.4265

I wrote this huge response and, bam, reply limit. So I thought: why not create a new thread on the topic, and on the correct board this time.

I hope it doesn't anger anyone too much that the opening post presents strong opinions that go contrary to the common orthodoxy.

>>>/cult/5956

Consider the following definition of "(mental) disorder": something that negatively effects your livelihood in and on itself, without the effect of society.

According to that definition, being gay is not a disorder. But feeling horrible about your own body, no matter what the cause, is a disorder. It could be anorexia, "bigorexia" (i.e. muscle dysmorphia; a reverse anorexia like obsession with getting bigger and bigger muscles), sex dysphoria (I use this term to distinguish between distress over one's sexual anatomy [sex dysphoria] and distress stemming from internalized/subconscious attachment to traditional sex roles or subjectively held sex stereotypes [gender dysphoria], although it's not official terminology), or any other kind of body dysmorphic disorder.

On a side note: one of the most annoying things when debating transgender related topics is, there is nothing even nearing a consensus among different groups and individuals that could be said to comprise the transgender/activist community, when it comes to the question: what defines transgender. According to some, sex dysphoria as defined above is a prerequisite to be considered "truly" transgender. According to others, this former group are bigots derisively called "truscum" who erase the experiences of those transgender people who don't experience any sex dysphoria...

But leaving that aside, if you defined transgender through sex dysphoria, then it would clearly be a disorder. It could be a neurological or a psychological one, but it's certainly a disorder.

When it comes to people who don't have sex dysphoria and seem to base their transgenderism purely on traditional sex roles (or their own subjectively held sex stereotypes), I'm extremely skeptical to the claim that there's anything inborn and inherent to their condition. EVEN IF there were similarities among their brains (and I'm pretty sure no study has ever targeted non sex dysphoric trans people specifically), that would at most an indication that people with a certain brain structure are more likely to fall for the trap of internalized sex stereotypes, most likely based on having a particularly effeminate or a particularly masculine personality (which may very well be related to certain brain structures) but a male body or a female body respectively. (Effeminate/male or masculine/female I mean.) In the case of those people, if their distress is serious, one may see it as a socially induced psychological disorder. (It's induced by society, but becomes a disorder according to the definition I initially gave because the person would continue to feel obsessed over the idea of being in the wrong body.)

If they don't even feel distress over that though, and just nonchalantly claim to "identify as the other sex/gender", that's not a disorder; that's just a delusion. (And I don't mean that as an insult; I mean it very literally: "a false belief that is resistant to confrontation with actual facts.")

  No.4266

>>4265
>But leaving that aside, if you defined transgender through sex dysphoria, then it would clearly be a disorder. It could be a neurological or a psychological one, but it's certainly a disorder.

>If they don't even feel distress over that though, and just nonchalantly claim to "identify as the other sex/gender", that's not a disorder; that's just a delusion.


This is basically my stance as well.
If you feel feminine as a man, that's perfectly fine. I suppose you could call it a delusion.

If however, you feel feminine as a man, and that fact leads you to feel the need to change your body (through transition) to the point that it is significantly disturbing and affects your daily life, then you suffer a disorder.

  No.4271

>>4266
>I feel to decide what is a disorder and what is not because of reasons pulled out my ass

  No.4272

>>4271
"Personality disorders are a group of mental disturbances defined by the fourth edition, text revision (2000) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) as "enduring pattern[s] of inner experience and behavior" that are sufficiently rigid and deep-seated to bring a person into repeated conflicts with his or her social and occupational environment."

"Mental Illness" on Merriam-Webster:
" any of a broad range of medical conditions (such as major depression, schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder, or panic disorder) that are marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, or emotions to impair normal psychological functioning and cause marked distress or disability and that are typically associated with a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning"

An important point included in most, if not all, definitions is that a mental disorder becomes a disorder when it impairs normal functioning of a person (in society).

Hence,
>to the point that it is significantly disturbing and affects your daily life, then you suffer a disorder.

  No.4273

> something that negatively effects your livelihood in and on itself, without the effect of society.
>without the effect of society
There's so much wrong with this. What's a negative effect? Is it something that harms you or just something that hurts your feelings?
If I believed that I was a leprechaun, but that my Irish powers would only become manifest after dying a natural death, you may be right in saying that would not have a negative effect on me...*save that I would be believing something that is not true*...

  No.4274

>>4272
Hey, you are not a doctor or a scientist, you are an idiot like me writing on an imageboard, forcing some description found online thinking it will make your opinion have more value but it will not change any fact, it's nothing more than just rationalized gut feeling.

  No.4275

>>4274
>make a claim
>provide a reasonable argument

>Hey, you are not a doctor or a scientist, you are an idiot like me writing on an imageboard, forcing some description found online thinking it will make your opinion have more value but it will not change any fact, it's nothing more than just rationalized gut feeling.


Come on....

  No.4276

STOP SPAMMING THIS LIBERAL PROPAGANDA YOU FAGGOT.

Jesus Christ you mods are biased.

  No.4277

>>4276
Bro, relax.

  No.4283

>>4278
Ok. Listen up, lads.

I recognize the current situation where some people are gloating and some people are salty about the United States and it's political atmosphere. However, this doesn't mean you guys are allowed to break the rules, shitpost, and act like idiots.

Also,>>4276 you need to go take this to /q/ and get ready to be amazed when some of us are MAGA and will still ban your ass for breaking the rules.

So, if you have a concern, please post in /q/ and it will be responded to when one of the mods get a chance.

  No.4286

>>4275
That's obvious, who agrees with such a feeling doesn't recognize it as a worthless opinion on a phenomenon, we could argue it, I could have my opinions too, and we could discuss them, but this wouldn't change the fact, it's just lost time, the discussion would be "won" just from who has the better dialectical skills and not who says the right thing, just as for any argument.

  No.4287

File: 1484993200427.png (95.13 KB, 200x35, 2017-01-15-11-52-30+0100.png)

>>4273
>What's a negative effect? Is it something that harms you or just something that hurts your feelings?
A "negative effect on your livelihood" is something that decreases your enjoyment of life. That would broadly be physical and emotional pain.

>If I believed that I was a leprechaun, but that my Irish powers would only become manifest after dying a natural death, you may be right in saying that would not have a negative effect on me...

Yes, one could compare such a belief to harmless religious or other superstitious beliefs.

Pic related is sex dysphoria, by the way. (I hope that lainon wouldn't be offended if they knew I use their post to further my arguments on whose details they may be in disagreement with...)

  No.4291

Tranny blogpost to fuel discussion further, and also kinda "response" to a person in previous thread that claimed(which is true) that transpeople have shorter and worse lives.

From what i know, there are two opposite very vocal sides. Positive side(my therapist, most mtf and "progressive" fags) and negative side(people who dislike you cause you exist). I try not to think about either side, because they are annoying at bet. People who don't give a shit cause it's not their life, even though they are sometimes disgusted, are nice. They don't make you wish you were transparent as much a other positive/negative people do.
I think "gender dysphoria"(or any kind of hardcore self-image distortion, just gender dysphoria is more aimed) is that slowly growing black tumor in your head. You can distract yourself with various stuff(like painting or playing music) but it will catch up to you sooner or later. In my case, i started transitioning, because i knew what was wrong, but i fooled myself that i will be able to distract myself from that.
But, you start the transition knowing it will be fucking hell and will shorten your lifespan by a lot. Why? To do something, have a goal, live one more day. I'd kill myself if i was forced to live in that body longer, transition doesn't help me accept myself much, but it helps me have some long time-goal, like "yeah i am shit, but i am working on it".

  No.4299

>>4265
>something that negatively effects your livelihood in and on itself, without the effect of society.
The issue I have with this is the fact that it is nearly impossible to separate the effect of society. A major talking point in the previous thread is the notion of how much of our self image is governed by the societal norms, and it's obvious that at least some of that can be seen in traditional gender roles.

I really think that most of the psychological effects come from the perception of society. I'd say that with your definition, people who are much taller than they'd like and wish they'd be shorter (and perhaps have surgery to shorten their bones) are also mentally ill, and it can't be said whether they're feeling bad because they are sad for having a "wrong body" or because the surrounding society makes them feel such.

Furthermore, a definition like this is a bit quick to judge people who are just different from the general population. Even though there might be no explicit bias against such a person or pressure to change, being different is not unlikely to cause the person to feel bad or wrong in a way.

It is true that there can be definitions by which trans people count as having a mental disorder, but as far as I can tell, they are mostly quick to call things disorders, which then causes another problem with is the perception of how people should act regarding disorders. Special pleading aside, they usually include things that most people agree are OK, meaning that they don't necessarily imply that being trans is wrong or delusional.

I'd also like to make the note that very few trans people are arguing against biology, that is, saying that their genitalia isn't there or that they have different chromosomes than they actually have, it's almost always a claim about the societal role they feel like they fit in better, at least in my understanding. (which kind of heads back to the sex vs gender and are they the same discussion, which is one of the core concepts to reach an agreement on before moving on to more complex things)

  No.4300

>>4299
>I really think that most of the psychological effects come from the perception of society.

Would hardly say so. DID and most other disorders actually are very limited to the self, without any need for societal standards to have negative effects.

>The issue I have with this is the fact that it is nearly impossible to separate the effect of society.


When it comes to transgenders specifically, I'd say this is easy.
Being unhappy about having a penis to the point where it significantly disturbs your everyday life en mental wellbeing is a clear indication of a disorder.
There is no need for the intervention of some 'perception of society'.
If any 'perception' plays a role here, it's only that of 'Nature'.

>they are mostly quick to call things disorders, which then causes another problem with is the perception of how people should act regarding disorders.


> Let's not tell her she she's suicidal, or else people will look differently at her.

> Kills herself a week later.

I know this is a blown-out example, but the point remains: If we think something is a disorder, we should treat it as such, no matter how society will react.

>it's almost always a claim about the societal role they feel like they fit in better,


Hardly.
>>4291
Clearly mentions doing a transition. Let's make it clear we;re talking about transsexuality here, which falls under the term transgender.

Wanting to transition has nothing to do with societal standards, but instead comes down to changing according to 'natural' standards (males have penises etc).

I should note here that I suppose I'm mostly talking about transsexuals.
I would simply say that in their specific case we're definitely talking about a disorder. (Again, only when the individual can't function properly.)
Taking the whole area of transgenders makes things slightly more muddy.

  No.4370

I don't understand why cis people worry about this so much, why cant you just let people do what they want with their lives?

  No.4371

>>4370
because cis opinions are always obligatory and correct in every conversation, and also because trans people are icky >:^(

filthy dumb cis scum

  No.4373

>>4370
this is the same argument people trotted out for gays, gays marrying, and gays raising children. not-so-coincidentally all the links inevitably stay blue when it's found out gays *do* have a negative adverse affect on children, how they are raised, and how well-adjusted to society they may be (usually measured by the lack of depression pills).
and then there's the push for "inclusiveness" in which a gay must be shown despite gays themselves only being a very, very small part of society. The argument here is that it "normalizes" gays so cis-scum will like gays. also it drives home that people aren't gay by choice, but because of their brains. That argument is blown out of the water by the forever-blue links which show a strong correlation of *adopted* children of gays and the predilection of gay choices.
Not even getting into the societal consequences of letting children (society's base unit) be raised in such an environment (which I'm sure trans will not be much different than gays in that regard) that these children will be a net-burden on society, encouraging people to become trans by turning a blind eye and know they will, by the statistics, most likely commit suicide or live in extreme unhappiness and depression is not something I want to do. There must be other alternatives.

  No.4376

File: 1485246349618.png (86.1 KB, 200x200, 9f86108af07e79d46e32f032ecad9454b86991d52335aadab0b5d747414f6cd7.jpg)

>>4373
boy you sure convinced me with those hot opinions, non-arguments, and literally 0 links to the studies that are the base of your theory on "teh gayz"

don't worry, we're comming for you, breeder scum.

  No.4377

Holy shit you're a moron.

>Consider the following definition of "(mental) disorder": something that negatively effects your livelihood in and on itself, without the effect of society.

Which is a weak fucking definition. Not even the DSM in the 1970s when it classified transgender people as mentally ill used that definition. You know nothing about mental illness. You are ignoring environmental factors, genetics, brain damage, isolation, and the list goes on for plenty of more source causes and contributors, which may or may not had been exacerbated or directly dealt by society. Human beings themselves are fucking cancer. Have you ever heard of abusive trauma?

>According to that definition, being gay is not a disorder.

Ok, why does this matter? The homophobia is strong in you. The lack of respect for people with different fundamental desires is strong in you -- the defining characteristic of a contemptible person.

>But feeling horrible about your own body, no matter what the cause, is a disorder.

Where do you fail to see why sexuality and dysmorphia are incomparable? One is a behavior with normal gratification urges, another is feeling trapped. A gay person doesn't hate the gayness itself, unless they are self-loathing. That's associated with low self-esteem. This is supposed to be really fucking obvious.

>sex dysphoria (I use this term to distinguish between distress over one's sexual anatomy [sex dysphoria] and distress stemming from internalized/subconscious attachment to traditional sex roles or subjectively held sex stereotypes [gender dysphoria], although it's not official terminology)

Yeah, a bunch of silly and incompetent definitions. It should be completely accepted for a female to transition to male and yet behave like a sissy girl. Or a gender fluid to lean more to one gender and fail to meet the criteria for what an asshole says is real femininity, because it's about self-sentiment. No one chooses their sex at birth, and very few escape gender conditioning. Just like a tomboy can have no self-sentiment to actually be male, or wish they were considered male yet no one questions their legitimacy or mental condition, a person can choose to be or feel strongly about wanting a different gender without question. It is so god damn ridiculous the level of hypocrisy in anti-trans people.

>On a side note: one of the most annoying things when debating transgender related topics is, there is nothing even nearing a consensus among different groups and individuals that could be said to comprise the transgender/activist community

Why would you want conformity dumbass? There a plenty of stupid trans people, like Caitlyn Jenner.

>When it comes to the question: what defines transgender

Appeal to "nonexistent widely definition" reasoning is illogical. Human stereotypes don't need to be written down somewhere coherently. It's a very complex formula, that especially isn't just dependent on sex or the binary gender analogy.

>According to some, sex dysphoria as defined above is a prerequisite to be considered "truly" transgender.

Well these "some people" are wrong. Tansgenders are people who have changed their gender, including nonbinary genders. This criteria is pushed only by assholes, or arrogant transgender people that need people to feel just as bad as them in order to be trans. Such phenomena of arrogance even applies to trans people. They don't escape it. Intellectuals bully each other, boys are usually showing off their pain tolerance, girls sabotage reputations, etc. The competition is pathetic everywhere.

>According to others, this former group are bigots derisively called "truscum" who erase the experiences of those transgender people who don't experience any sex dysphoria...

Yeah, switch derisively with deservedly.

  No.4378

>But leaving that aside, if you defined transgender through sex dysphoria, then it would clearly be a disorder.
How much longer are you going to keep pretending self-resentment is not what being transgender is? I think it was proven above self-resentment isn't necessary too. Jesus Christ. You even know these arguments exist and you can't put the pieces together. People that make sex dysphoria the sole criteria are WRONG.

>When it comes to people who don't have sex dysphoria and seem to base their transgenderism purely on traditional sex roles (or their own subjectively held sex stereotypes), I'm extremely skeptical to the claim that there's anything inborn and inherent to their condition.

I won't attack skepticism, but here's a piece of advice: stop being an asshole. I would concede at least 10% were made this way by non-congenital conditioning or hormone imbalance. Maybe it's 50%, however there is so no evidence of such. It seems like you are defaulting to a higher number because your clear transphobia.

>EVEN IF there were similarities among their brains (and I'm pretty sure no study has ever targeted non sex dysphoric trans people specifically), that would at most an indication that people with a certain brain structure are more likely to fall for the trap of internalized sex stereotypes, most likely based on having a particularly effeminate or a particularly masculine personality (which may very well be related to certain brain structures) but a male body or a female body respectively.

If this hypothetical were true, is this supposed to de-legitimize transgenders because it's a stereotype? Good one, but gender itself is a stereotype. Hypothetically I would argue you wouldn't find an anatomical or significant processing order trait because rates of stereotype trap avoidance has only been indicated to exist in autistic people. The variance in regular people is likely negligible.

>In the case of those people, if their distress is serious, one may see it as a socially induced psychological disorder

Point taken, except I fail to see where you're getting at. Unless I trust my gut and go with you think this de-legitimizes them more. What is it???? Huh???!

  No.4380

>and just nonchalantly claim to "identify as the other sex/gender", that's not a disorder; that's just a delusion.
Yeah, I think to anyone with some sense this proves you're an asshole building a criteria list that thinks transgender people are disgusting. Hence you calling them "delusion." Fuck you.

In summary, you made a sick attempt to make a silly distinction of transgender people with your silly definitions of sex dysphoria and gender dysphoria to get at and win over a very small portion of them in an effort to picture them all as stupid or mentally ill. Everyone that isn't a blind bigot sees this. Really, go fuck yourself.

I will not respond to any responses since I only imagine this developing into a conflict worse if I chose to. I can only hope you make amends, which does not require you admitting here wrongness, just that you never open your mouth on this again.

That's all.

  No.4381


  No.4382

>>4377
> Such phenomena of arrogance even applies to trans people. They don't escape it. Intellectuals bully each other, boys are usually showing off their pain tolerance, girls sabotage reputations, etc. The competition is pathetic everywhere.
This is an interesting argument coming from you. You rely on the human condition here as support for your argument, but your argument defies the human condition: that if humans en-masse disagree with something then it is concluded to be wrong. Might makes right.

>No one chooses their sex at birth, and very few escape gender conditioning

Newborn babies (literally days from birth) show preference for their gender's typical choices, e.g. female babies identify with toys/objects that little girls would later play with and the same goes for boys.

>Well these "some people" are wrong. Tansgenders are people who have changed their gender, including nonbinary genders

"Transgender" people, despite the name, are people who have taken hormone pills to counteract the natural balance of hormones in their body. They will still be XX/XY.

>Good one, but gender itself is a stereotype

Different cultures can place different expectations on the genders which may create some stereotypes, but this is because males and females are so different from one another. Since you used it as an example, a tomboy (a woman who acts kinda manly), may have a certain stereotype to her, but that's because the tomboy is still a woman and not a man. No matter how "manly" (or "boyish") she acts, she is still a woman and will follow the female imperative driven by the chemical and DNA makeup which she was given at birth.

All in all, your arguments are very weak. They rely on substantial amount of bickering about various definitions (and why they aren't correct) but fail to provide your own. You spend a lot of time using meaningless insults instead of driving home a point other than "you are stupid for having an opinion I don't agree with."

  No.4383

>>4376
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

>Children of homosexual parents:

>Are much more likely to have received welfare
>Have lower educational attainment
>Report less safety and security in their family of origin
>Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
>Are more likely to suffer from depression
>Have been arrested more often
>If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

>Children of lesbian parents:

>Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
>Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
>Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
>Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
>Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6437a1.htm

>Men who have sex with men represent approximately 2% of the U.S. population. However, in 2013, MSM accounted for 67% of all new HIV diagnoses

>including 3% who were also injection drug users

  No.4384

>>4383
The Family Research Council is a pro-life Christian organization and their claims are not statistically valid or scientific. You are almost certainly trolling at this point to link to them here and I feel bad even feeding you.

  No.4385

>>4384
Since you apparently will accept the CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf

There's a ton of eye-opening information in there. Some tidbits:
>Nearly half of bisexual women will be raped between the ages of *11-17* years compared to just over a fourth for heterosexual women.
Between eleven and seventeen years of age. I'll let you connect the dots.
>Nearly half of bisexual women (48.2%) and more than one-quarter of heterosexual women (28.3%) experienced their first completed rape between the ages of 11 and 17 years
>More than one-third of lesbian women, more than half of bisexual women experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner.

Here's 'advocate.com', which you may think is more in line with your thinking:

http://www.advocate.com/crime/2014/09/04/2-studies-prove-domestic-violence-lgbt-issue
>21.5 percent of men and 35.4 percent of women living with a same-sex partner experienced intimate-partner physical violence in their lifetimes
>compared with 7.1 percent and 20.4 percent for men and women, respectively, with a history of only opposite-sex cohabitation.

http://www.domesticviolenceroundtable.org/effect-on-children.html
>The Effects of Domestic Violence on Children

http://www.nctsn.org/content/children-and-domestic-violence
>Long-term effects, especially from chronic exposure to domestic violence, may include:
>Physical health problems
>Behavior problems in adolescence (e.g., juvenile delinquency, alcohol, substance abuse)
>Emotional difficulties in adulthood (e.g., depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD)

  No.4386

>>4300
>DID and most other disorders actually are very limited to the self, without any need for societal standards to have negative effects
I am highlighting trans people as not fitting the definition, making the definition either ambiguous in the case of trans people or it not being a definition, and I'm fine with either, since I wouldn't deny the possibility of some sort of related thing to be a disorder. (I don't think being trans is inherently (or even likely) a disorder, is what I'm saying here)

>When it comes to transgenders specifically, I'd say this is easy.

Your breakdown still applies to people who are just very tall, which can be distressing on various levels, depending on the person.

>If we think something is a disorder, we should treat it as such

This doesn't necessarily prove that being trans is a disorder and more importantly, that it should be treated.

>Hardly

The point I was making there (perhaps a bit hastily) was about the idea that identifying as another gender is mostly closely tied to the social contract aspect of gender, (with gender != sex, that is) meaning that people aren't fine with the assigned role, choosing to pursue another one.

I concede the point that it might not be as large a number as I first thought, but it is still a nearly inseparable concept from the issue, since we can't escape the societal pressure to follow the contract, even if it's just internal from our upbringing.

>Wanting to transition has nothing to do with societal standards

Saying that it has "nothing" to do with it is just plain wrong, especially when considering where a large portion of the pressure comes from.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're doing with the definitions there, it seems to just muddle the thing up, almost as if special pleading.

(Also thanks for being far more reasonable than some other posters.)

>>4370
Trying to reason about various things and what they mean doesn't need a justification. This can be an interesting topic to a lot of people, so there's just nothing wrong or bad about discussion on it, since, at the very least, it can raise awareness.

>>4377
Some of the things he brings up (and you take issue with him for bringing them up) come from him responding to my posts in the previous thread.

Seriously though, you're muddling your point up with an insane amount of insults, elimination of which would make your points shorter and easier to get to.

>>4382
>Might makes right.
That's just an outright strawman with no basis in the post, the previous poster basically said the opposite and the point in the place you quoted was rather about non-inherent properties of being trans instead of appeal to popularity.

>(literally days from birth)

I've read the studies, I talked about them in the previous thread, and this is not what they show, at all.

>are people who have taken hormone pills

That's just a weird definition that seems to come from nowhere.

>counteract the natural balance of hormones in their body

Which doesn't matter, unless you're saying that the natural balance is somehow how it's _supposed_ to be, in which case it's an appeal to nature and still doesn't matter.

>They will still be XX/XY [or other combinations, seen in millions upon millions of people]

Trans people don't (at least the vast, vast majority) claim otherwise, so you're in agreement there.

>female imperative driven by the chemical and DNA makeup which she was given at birth

Either you're making a false claim here or you're speaking about determinism, in which case we can very easily say that trans people also follow what their brains are saying.

>>4383
See, all of those are either non-inherent properties (which means that the possible, non-inherent outcome might be the bad thing, which doesn't imply the disposition itself being bad in any way) or just falsehoods. The second study you cite falls in the first group, for reasons I really hope I don't need to explain, and the first one... now that one's fun as a case study of researcher bias. (I've seen it before and it being brought up always amuses me)

First of all, more than half of the people responding _never_ lived in a household with their parent's same sex partner, with a third never having lived with their same sex parents at all or having lived with them very briefly. Then, some of the people whose data was used to make these conclusions were giving highly implausible data, meaning they were extremely unlikely to be serious. It's not a problem by itself, but the people who conducted the study still decided to include the data, which is below amateurish. The remaining less than a quarter of people don't present enough data to make any meaningful conclusions, and there are no significant differences between people raised in different households for those cases.

>>4385
Not doing better, you seem to cherrypick a lot here (and also lie completely, which isn't nice.). The points you're claiming the study contains aren't there, like the first one, which isn't actually the statistics for how likely a rape is to occur, it is from a _breakdown of when the rape happens for rape victims_. To explain this more simply, from women who get raped, bisexual women get raped earlier in life.

Also, a fun tidbit for you here - lesbians get raped less than heterosexual women (13.1% vs 17.4% in the study), so I guess by your logic, being straight is better than being bi, but worse than being lesbian?

And even if those claims meant anything, it's a non-inherent property and it's obviously not their fault for experiencing sexual violence, so it is ultimately a moot point.

You seem to connect the amount of domestic violence (which was the only valid study you linked in this entire thread) to the effect on children, but the overall consensus on same sex households with children is simple in that there is no significant difference. If you want to rebuke the methodology, you can look at this one. https://goo.gl/zWlUwZ

  No.4387

>>4386
>[or other combinations, seen in millions upon millions of people]
Basing policies on outliers is not how anything works.

>Cherrypicked

>domestic violence (which was the only valid study you linked in this entire thread)
>The points you're claiming the study contains aren't there, like the first one
When confronted by hard-evidence literally copy-pasted from the CDC, deny the evidence and claim the study isn't valid!

>it's obviously not their fault for experiencing sexual violence

The CDC fails to provide data on homosexual couples *and* children, most likely because its a politically charged subject, but the the pamphlet linked was about violence from a partner. When the data comes back in nearly every category that homosexual couples will have nearly double the amount of violence than a heterosexual couple then it becomes a real disaster for children in those environments regardless if the CDC wants to link that data officially or not.

  No.4388

>>4386
Also, I forgot to mention, I expected you to connect the dots which I should not have done. I specifically copy/pasted the first statistic because it directly backs up three points I made earlier:

>Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual

>Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
>Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will

The outlier of having women are who bisexual be raped as such a large rate during the ages of 11-17 may be used to correlate heterosexual to homosexual behavior, which the CDC doesn't do for obvious reasons. These bisexual women *are* in a bisexual relationship and experienced their first rape at such an age to indicate parental abuse which may lead one to conclude bisexual tendencies are trauma induced.

  No.4389

>>4387
>Basing policies on outliers is not how anything works.
I was adding on what you were previously saying, that was not the argument there.

>When confronted by hard-evidence literally copy-pasted from the CDC, deny the evidence and claim the study isn't valid!

I explained why it wasn't valid, which, if you need a refresher, was the fact that you had misread the study and made claims that it wasn't actually saying, as explained in my previous post.

You quoted the "Nearly half of bisexual women (48.2%) and more than one-quarter of heterosexual women (28.3%) experienced their first completed rape between the ages of 11 and 17 years" as if that showed that bisexual women are more likely to get raped earlier in life, while heterosexual women experience it later. From the dataset that gives these numbers, 100% of women were raped, because those numbers weren't about the prevalence of rape in general population, but rather the ages at which women who get raped experience the first rape.

Also, remember the part about non-inherent properties.

>The CDC fails to provide data on homosexual couples *and* children, most likely because its a politically charged subject

CDC doesn't look at the children as a part of family part at all. Since the amount of violence in same sex relationships is usually ascribed to the stress of being a minority (this is not me justifying it, just explaining), it stands to reason that couples in places that allow adoption would have less of this stress, leading to less violence, leading to a smaller impact on children, which is actually supported by the study I linked. If you think there is problem with it, please explain why the methodology is wrong.

>>4388
>I expected you to connect the dots which I should not have done
I did, I just don't think it's either not a valid point or not a point at all.

That is, if you're implying that sexual assault might lead to a larger chance of being bisexual, then it's not a point, just an observation that doesn't imply any morality about being bisexual. If you're are making the point that it is bad because of it, then it's not a valid one, since the possible origin in separate cases doesn't imply the moral value of it in any way.

  No.4390

>>4287
>>4287
>physical and emotional pain
So if you get chastised for being a rude little twit, but that experience makes you a better person, was that negative because you felt "emotional pain" when you were punished?
Or if you run a marathon, is that negatively because you felt physical pain?

(Your definitionsite are bad, is what I'm getting at.)

  No.4393

>>4383

This bias of a site named "Family Research Council" is staggering.

Any scientific studies?

  No.4394

File: 1485334473348.png (264.64 KB, 200x107, 2cd2ecb4d6905d930c304ac1b69c726f507eda88f85e22b102bcdd2f09b8311c.jpg)

I will just leave this pic here

  No.4395

>>4393
Well they also believe in a fairy named Jesus who's mother was a virgin so it's safe to conclude that they don't know much about sex or sexuality to begin with.

  No.4397

>>4394
Whilst I think this image could be a little more academic and perhaps "gentle", I wholeheartedly agree with everything it postulates. However, to consider all transitioning people as this argument regards is crass and unfair; There are post-transition people that are grounded and mentally stable, and this image may (unintentionally) paint all transitioning people with this same brush of instability. Those unstable transitionees do however exist, but the ratio is something we could never quantify.

Most people who change their body expect a guaranteed happiness on the other side, or that they are taking the first step in a journey that will solve all their problems and fill all their voids. The truth is: we don't have enough transitioned people talking about how their problems were not magically solved, and the mental-health result of a transition is never guaranteed.

This is probably because 1. The media/progressive sub-community has such a strong bias for transitioning that any rational criticism is denounced, and 2. The majority of people who didn't find peace after transitioning have killed themselves. In fact, as the image says and as some examples show (Narcissa aka Cosmo), it is often the case that the media advocates so thoroughly for transitioning that little-to-no medical evaluation is sought by the prospective transitioning person, who in turn sources their own 'bespoke' treatment of HRT, inevitably leading to problems like further modification and suicides.

It is my belief that Narcissa is a high suicide risk owing to her self diagnosis and treatment. Just as was the case with the cat man. But I believe it is important that we don't assume all trans people are as unstable as the examples presented most loudly.

We need to be advocating transitions as a strict medical/psych procedure and not as an alternative lifestyle.

  No.4475

>>4397
>Most people who change their body expect a guaranteed happiness on the other side, or that they are taking the first step in a journey that will solve all their problems and fill all their voids.
oh god this so much, i mean my therapists believes in exactly what you wrote(change of the body is the cure) and i can't make her understand that this is only a little step, which might or might not help.

  No.4481

>>4394

Anecdotal evidence is backed up with pictures of ugly people. You've litterally cherry picked at example of one fringe case to use as a representation of the whole.

But let me guess, you don't accept modern science, or even modern statistics because it doesn't agree with your world view

  No.4558

Why the hate for trans people? Seriously, I don't get it at all.

  No.4566

>>4394
This really is just anecdotal evidence with claim of some empirical evidence, but with none presented. There is this really weird misconception around, which is that taking hormones causes suicide and such, but the mental distress these individuals feel doesn't come from the hormones, it's just that they don't help as much as they'd like. The pressure from society also remains there, and I've seen no studies comparing people who don't identify with their sex that aren't on HRT to those who are.

The biggest problem I have with this thread is people like >>4558 claiming hate or similar things without actually engaging in the discussion, where a lot of misconceptions could be cleared by just talking about it.

Gender and sex are separate concepts, and this is not some "SJW invention" or anything like that, they've been separate words with separate meanings for longer than most people realize.

If people claim that it's a non-issue that is made up, we have some pretty clear research backing this up, that is, there being actual brain differences and furthermore, brain not being just female or just male.

There are those that talk about DSMV, "Gender dysphoria" and "Gender identity disorder" without actually reading DSMV (which, admittedly, is a book with so many problems that it shouldn't be used as a basis for anything anyway). DMSV actually doesn't state that identifying as something else than your sex is a disorder, but rather, that it _can_ be in some cases. It says that you can have the disorder and not be trans, and similarly, be trans and not have the disorder. There are some secondary sources with different conclusions, some of which come from the DSMIV, but right now, this is what the current DSM states.



Some links for those interested.
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468.abstract
https://www.endocrineweb.com/professional/meetings/transgender-research-role-biology-gender-identity-development
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969295/

  No.4568

>>4558
Tell me who hates trans people more
The ones that see them struggling with mental illness, killing themselves inevitably because they cant find happiness whether or not they change their bodies, and that want to see them get better

Or people that nod and have half hearted smiles directed at trans people then like ignorant idiots they weep crocodile tears after 100th time they kill themselves. That USE trans people as political tool of "see? Oppression.".

Who really hates trans people?

  No.4569

>>4481
By a study conducted in Sweden (no bullying of trans people in that safe heaven) 80% of pre operation trans kill themselves and 90% of post operation trans kill themselves.

This is stats that are higher than even Japan or Jews during WW2.
Only stats that come close to those are of shizophrenic people.

  No.4572

>>4566
>>4569
>that want to see them get better
I don't see the methods of helping them presented here, beyond claiming that it's a mental disorder that needs to be treated without giving a sufficient basis or a sufficient course of action to actually help anyone.

>people that nod and have half hearted smiles directed at trans people then like ignorant idiots they weep crocodile tears after 100th time they kill themselves

This is not what is happening, this is either a weird conflation or just an outright strawman.

>By a study conducted in Sweden (no bullying of trans people in that safe heaven) 80% of pre operation trans kill themselves and 90% of post operation trans kill themselves.


Well, I happen to know what study you're likely referring to, but I can't be sure, so I'll assume it's
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

It doesn't reach anyhwere near the conclusion you are presenting, (It actually shows) so you're either talking about some unknown study, haven't read the study or you're blatantly lying. If you can show the data you are referring to, I would appreciate it.

The study also has no comparison between pre-op and post-op people, just post-op vs general population, even though it is frequently cited by anti-trans people as showing such.

Here's another study that looks at regret after sex reassignment surgery, and it has wildly different findings than what you are claiming.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3996/dd2ccf4a7e3d789b6feb9accae2b3d2a4e9d.pdf

  No.4578

>>4569
>By a study conducted in Sweden (no bullying of trans people in that safe heaven) 80% of pre operation trans kill themselves and 90% of post operation trans kill themselves.

80 and 90%?! [Citation needed]

Sounds like you just pulled those figures out of your behind to try and make a nonexistent point.

  No.4636

>>4578
So post-op trannies in Sweden represent, um, 2 out of 100 who survive?
Plague, you are so full of shit.

Whoops, sorry mods.
Plague, I am concerned that you may be full of shit, could you please check your shit levels, because I think you're full.

  No.4700

>>4568

I'm going to go with the people who aren't yelling "die tranny faggot" and aren't screaming about "muh degeneracy", and "ruining my country"

Saying the anti-trans crowd wants to see them get better or wish the slightest bit of anything but malice on them is dishonest at the very least.

  No.4705

Is there big money in sex change operations? I ask this because if that market actually exists, these people need to be careful about who is whispering them to go through with it.

I'm willing to bet it's not cheap but the demand is somehow created by convincing the mentally ill to spend their last dollars on surgeries. Like where the fuck do people get the money for this? It's not something that is readily covered by insurance or any health care program (as far as I know). Otherwise hopeful transsexuals would be flocking to that place.

  No.4707

>>4705
A few resort to prostitution or porn.
I know Chi Chi La Rue used to put her non-porn friends in high heel or wrestling fetish vids to help them pay the bills.
You know, Chi Chi may look like Divine these days, but back in the 90's I swear I saw her do a backflip into an elbow drop.