Okay, well, let us agree that there is no conclusive answer as to why people might have a persistent belief that they are a different gender than the one their genitalia might indicate. And let us also say that we have before us a five year old who seems to have such a belief, and let us say it seems to be unusually persistent. Though I am troubled by two things – one is, how it can have been persistent for as many years as is suggested and simultaneously be "like, boom, he turned five years old…"as the article says. Still, a shrink was brought in at least two years ago and made a diagnosis which suggests that the parents didn’t just leap at the chance to dress their boy toddler as a girl. The other thing that troubles me is the mother’s use of the word intersex, which suggests to me that the, um, evidence presented by the child’s genitalia is not as conclusive as it might be. Still, again, the evidence suggests that the child went regularly to the pediatrician so i assume it would have come up.
But unless you think the parents are just using their child in some kind of social experiment, the question remains – what response by the parents would have been, in your view, not troubling?
It was not used to rebut a primary citation, it was in response to a false claim made by a poster. I provided another cite saying the same thing. Nobody has actually disproven anything said in the wiki article, or the other article I linked to. I think dictionaries and encyclopedias are considered pretty definitive. They are not the end all be all, but what is?
And a study done by scientist is less likely to be influenced by bias? I think you are overestimating the objectivity of studies.
Actually, in many cases encyclopedias are actually forbidden as sources; primary sources (journal articles, monographs) are required.
I love and regularly edit Wikipedia, but I find it interesting you’re upselling its accuracy and downplaying that of the peer-reviewed articles that have been put in front of you.
Well, you’re welcome to think that, but there’s a reason why most college professors will mark you down if you cite either as a primary research source in a paper.
Primary research conducted using contemporary data.
Yes, vastly, provided its peer reviewed.
And I think you’re vastly overestimating the reliablity of general reference resources.
Isn’t there a thread on the reliability of Wikipedia you could be having this debate in? Or you could go help me vandalize Uncyclopedia s’more.[/wiki debate, please]
Look, I’m sorry. But whenever I see some study to the effect of “Billy has 23 goobleneeder cells, & is male; Jenny has 2200 goobleneeder cells, & is female; therefore goobleneeder cells tell us whether we are male or female,” it sets off my BS meter. It’s a non sequitur. What, the kid can’t derive his own sense of what is normal for his anatomy by experience? What’s impossible, exactly, about being a man who cognitively resembles a woman, but is comfortable in his penis? Why can’t a woman have the brain function of a man, while being content with a vagina? What’s the mechanism?
Nothing’s impossible about those things; I know several people that could be described in that way. The contrary is also possible, and happens. This would be because people are different from one another, and accordingly, physical/mental/sexual/psychological states such as transgender and transsexualism have different features from one person to the next.
Why must all gender-variant people to need surgery, for some gender-variant people to need surgery?
Certainly. That’s why SRS is not performed before age 18. By then, she may be certain what she wants with her body. If by then she decides she does not wish to have SRS - or a fortiori if he no longer identifies as female - well then, tant mieux. If she still needs surgery, again, tant mieux. If she hasn’t decided yet, then she can stay on the androgen blockers until she has.
You seem to be under the impression that since Nicole identifies persistently as a girl, she will be railroaded into surgery as soon as her parents can get someone to sign off on it. Not at all. AFAICT, all that her family and associates are doing now is respecting Nicole’s own sense of her identity, ensuring that she is accepted and cared for properly, keeping her options open, and preparing to help her weather the storms of her childhood.
I don’t think anyone is trying to inform her as to who and what she is. Instead, they’re keeping their ears open for her to inform them.
It doesn’t necessarilly suggest that. If GID is due to neuroanatomy, then those people are intersexed.
Foolsguinea As Miller pointed out, I have evidence backing my position. Where’s your evidence of inborn cannibalism?
Re Wikipedia
I never have advanced it as a reliable source in GD. I sometimes cite it in CS threads. I trust it to be correct about comic books and Star Trek. I may also use it as a picture source. I don’t trust it on matters of consequence.
Imagine having to live with that the rest of your life. Especially if (as is entirely possible) the kid is just going through a phase and ultimately decides he’s male. And straight.
When someone is diagnosed with diabetes, do you say ‘Oh, it’s probably just a phase’? Do you question the medical profession about everything, or is this tendency to think your uneducated opinion is probably more correct than theirs limited to issues of sexuality and gender?
And what was the medical or psychological institute that calibrated your BS meter, pray tell?
It’s pretty much indisputable that men and women have different brain structures. There seems to be some strong evidence that people who are transgendered have the brain structure of the gender with which they identify, as opposed to the one with which they were born. Where’s the non sequitur, here?
Well, that’s pretty much the entire point of the research, innit? If we knew the answers to all those questions, we wouldn’t need to debate it, would we?
Sure. As I say, the rest of the article didn’t bring it up so I just discounted it in thinking about it myself. But it is an interesting word to use. It could be my own experience but that experience is that people use variations of “trans” to talk about transgender and “intersex” usually is used to refer to a person of indeterminate sex or where, as they say, a mistake was made.
But the family circumstances rather discounted that option in my mind.
The track record of medical experts on understanding & defining sexuality, & on prescribing solutions for sexual deviance, does not in me inspire confidence.
And there are some truly messed up parents in the world, even ones who love their children & are trying to do right by them.
(Not because lions are cannibalistic, but because they genuinely favor human flesh if they get a taste of it, & are pretty close to us cladistically for something that eats us. Lord, I’m just exploding my post count on this thread.)
So, rather than admit you compared a claim backed by evidence to one without evidence, you now propose to study if cannibalism is inborn by studying the brains of another species which has no inborn drive to eat either human beings or each other.
Your proposed experiment is as flawed as your posts in this thread.
Hey, while you’re waiting for that, maybe you could comment on what Miller pointed out to you:
Can you answer his question by explaining how, in light of that information, your previous statement:
is accurate?
All you have to do is back up what you’ve said. Or even just explain it. Elaborate on why your perspective doesn’t need to change based on this new information, perhaps.
