>>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.
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