I think this kind of comment fundamentally misunderstands the difference between GD and GQ. Asking the same factual question over and over is obnoxious; but debating something that has already been debated in the past is a different story (or, if you are the type of person to find that obnoxious as well, you can just give the board a pass). People come here because they want to debate, not because they want to read information from an old thread.
This is a great point. Or at least it is an atmosphere in which progress will tend to move more slowly. It strikes me as similar to the “standard model” orthodoxy Stephen Pinker confronts (and demolishes) in his book The Blank Slate. That edifice is crumbling; but it should have happened much faster had there not been so much PC pressure not to challenge it (and I should know, having a mother with a sociology Ph.D. and a wife with a masters in the field)
Personally, I find it rather sad that there are people who make a living teaching “female comportment”. I certainly could not have respect for anyone I met who had that job.
I am quite content with my modest six inches, that has served me just fine.
But your interlocutor seems to be saying that these results do not have predictive power. That they are retrospective and equivalent to numerology or seeing Mary in a tortilla. Can you refute that?
Oh, get over yourself, Miss Hyperbole. Sheesh. I wonder what you think of Cecil’s column, linked upthread and archived on this very site.
I do suggest though that you work on your own unexamined bias that automatically considers describing someone as mentally ill an insult, or “hate speech”. (“You wanna call my friends crazy?”) As I pointed out to Marley (“nuts and flakes”, “real illness”), this is highly insensitive to the mentally ill, and further stigmatises them when we need to be working in the other direction.
I certainly believd those differences exist, but I don’t believe for a second that such differences are visible to the naked eye unless you count a naked eye looking thorough a microscope.
Three people have made it clear we don’t believe your claim. Please either produce a reliable cite or admit you made a stupid claim that you can’t back up.
What’s also troubling to me, is there are studies out there (the thread about Cecil’s Column actually has a lot of citations) that show some experimental evidence of brain differences (caveat: small part of the brain, the differences are only in size and really the conclusions are not much more than size abnormalities in MtF trans men’s BSTc making their size more consistent with a healthy female’s) but like I said we’re still very ill informed on our understanding of lots of the brain’s functions and how that relates to various disorders. Schizophrenia has been diagnosed and treated in vastly more people than GID, and for far longer, and even researchers on the brains of schizophrenia patients wouldn’t make the sort of all-knowing proclamations that people are making about the brains of people with GID. It’s an assertion of certain knowledge in a field where even the experts are cautiously uncertain.
Yes. Notice the lack of complaints? I’d appreciate it if you made a better effort to understand what I wrote. I even took the time to explain it further, and all I’m getting is “Nope! I’m staying offended.”
I think I came across as more confrontational than I meant to when I replied to you. I can see and understand that you are trying to understand this subject, and I think you are trying very hard to word things in a way that isn’t hurtful to others. I applaud you for trying so hard to comprehend something that can be so difficult to really “get”. Obviously this is a confusing topic. If I came across as angry with you, I apologize. I genuinely wasn’t.
Marley, I stand by my interpretation (of your post as well as miss elizabeth’s), and note that one person who was generally very irked by what I had to say still acknowledged that I had a point about this objection.
I think this kind of comment fundamentally misunderstands how hurtful it must be to someone when you think it’s fun to debate their very existence. The things you are saying are hurtful and cruel, and they affect real people. This isn’t just a bunch of freshman staying up late in the dorm, talking hypotheticals; this is people’s lives.
I certainly couldn’t have respect for anyone who could post this. What a disgusting thing to say.
I’ve lived with and loved mentally ill people, ranging from mild depression to full on schizophrenia. I understand how the stigmatization of the mentally ill harms treatment, probably better and more intimately than you ever will. The only stigmatization happening here is coming from you. You are the one who thinks people with diagnosed illnesses are “delusional”. You are the one who called legitimate medical treatments “mutilation”. You are the one setting back progress, with this hateful, disgusting, ignorant thread.
For you to flip this around now, and accuse me of having “unexamined biases” is obvious deflection. Furthermore, I reject your interpretation of my posts. Your inability to comprehend this matter is not my problem. You are the embodiment of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
You’re not interpreting my post; you’re choosing to take offense. I explained my meaning, but you’ve decided to react to something I didn’t say (and would never say) rather than addressing the substance of what I said. In a way this is kind of similar to your claims that you know more about how TG people think than the actual TG people do.
And, what: “dispersing the poor”, voter ID laws, abortion rights, or wage stagnation don’t involve “people’s lives”? If this board is only intended for the purpose of debating hypothetical subjects like what effect teleportation would have, let’s make that clear, and get those other threads locked; I will then reassess whether I’m interested in participating. (At the same time, I note the irony of the fact that when the tennis hypothetical was discussed, with just the one real life example of Renee Richards, it was dismissed *because *it was mostly hypothetical.)
More hyperbole. Is your outrage meter permanently pegged to 11? I mean, I can imagine someone being like “Oh, I don’t know…I don’t think being a ‘female comportment teacher’ is all THAT bad”. But for it to be “disgusting” to denounce this profession? You’d think I just said I couldn’t have any respect for anyone who worked as a social worker (like my best friend), a special education teacher (my wife), or who worked with mentally ill adults (me). Priorities…
Maybe a better nickname for you would be “miss penelope”, after the Kristin Wiig character who is always just a little more ______ than anyone else she talks to. At least you left that “probably” caveat in there, which I think you’ll need as an out–since in addition to my having personally worked for years with the mentally ill (though it was admittedly for pay, not as a volunteer or anything), mental illness took my father’s life, and perhaps (at least, so he always believed) my grandmother’s as well. (If you experience mental illness more intimately than that, you have my sympathy despite your having called me an “enemy”.)
Nor am I the one calling the mentally ill “crazy”, “nuts”, “flakes”. And it would be a serious mistake for you to assume that because I characterise as “delusional” a belief in one’s “actually” being the opposite sex from what they were born as (and note that since the OP I exempted those born with ambiguous genitals or chromosomal defects) that I meant this as an insult to those suffering through the hardship of experiencing these delusions.
Interesting, and hypocritical, that now you are implicitly calling me delusional. But I am not insulted. I believe you’re incorrect, but I’m really far too intellectually advanced to be offended by such an assertion.
What’s sad is NOT that there are people who teach “female comportment” for a living but that it is so necessary for a woman (of any sort) to have “female comportment” if she wants to succeed in many professions in corporate America. It’s not enough that a woman be competent in corporate America, she also has to be “properly” feminine or she will be overlooked, if not actually ostracized or “eased out the door”. For those of us for whom it doesn’t come “naturally” (meaning that, for whatever reason, we didn’t pick up on the cues and absorb the knowledge during our youth) it’s a horrible struggle. We’re not doing something we are supposed to do, but no one tells us what we’re doing wrong, or what we are supposed to be doing, they just tell us we’re wrong and we don’t fit in.
It’s no different than people who teach table manners to adults whose families didn’t model them growing up, or people who teach public speaking, or how to dress appropriately in “business casual” attire, or how to properly shake hands. Comportment teachers serve a need and should not be looked down upon because they help individuals better fit into society. After all, no one is forced to go to a “female comportment” teacher, this is something people choose to do in hopes of improving their situation. It’s not that different from cosmetic dentistry (though one hopes less painful!). Not everyone needs it, but for those who perceive a need and want it, it’s definitely a benefit.
ISTM that you’re the opposite of what Una was describing, despite your quote of her post.
She is saying that trans people don’t pick up the mannerisms and habits of their mental gender despite very much wanting to because they don’t get the chance to socialize with that gender and much of this is learned. (For which reason they sometimes overdo it when making the switch, in order to compensate.) You’re saying that in your case, you didn’t pick them up (despite presumably socializing with girls/women) because you disliked it. That’s not the same thing.
She’s not calling you delusional. She’s saying you’re unaware of the flaws in your thinking and/or your argument. In an earlier post you said miss elizabeth has an unexamined bias on this issue. There is no evidence her view is based on a lack of examination; it appeared you’re just assuming you’ve thought more deeply about the issue than she has.
That being said, both of you need to dial it back and not turn this into a personal dispute. If you want to go after each other on that level, start a threat in The BBQ Pit.
Lack of complaints is not quite the same as believing that he was not correct. Your response to Slacker’s asking whether transexualism is a mental illness more than a disorder of the wong body parts was:
Perhaps such was not your intent but yes some others of us also read that as saying that having a mental illness is being flakes or nuts (transsexuals are not flakes or nuts therefore the condition is not a mental illness). The op did not say that transsexuals are flakes or nuts; merely placed the issue as a brain/mind one with the follow up being that therefore treating the brain/mind should be the approach. I have learned during this thread that he is wrong but the response to him as having been insulting or “stupid” seemed wrong as well.
The issue with GID is a mismatch between what the brain says gender is (in a fairly hard-wired manner) and what the external body says gender is. The problem is not in the brain or the external body per se but the lack of concordance. The issue is that there is apparently no way to change the hard-wired brain gender identity (and many attempts to do so cause much more harm than good) and there are ways to alter the external appearance of the body. Hence if support and psychotherapy are insufficent for an individual to be able to deal with that discordant state then the only means to achieve concordnace is by altering the external appearance.
Broomstick, your post expands on what I get so confused about. You have a strong distaste for traditional female gender roles and perhaps even preferred to hang with males out of shared interests. And you strongly identify as female believing the problem is the limitations society places on gender expectations, not that you really should be male. How do we parse out what is roles and what is identity?
Ok. Do you accept the explanation I gave in post #96, or would you insist that doesn’t count?
My entire point was that the OP’s comments were of a piece with arguments that characterize transgenders as flakes or nuts and say they don’t have a real medical condition. In the first couple of posts the OP said identifying as TG is a delusion, that the bodies of post-OP transgenders are “mutilated” and that he is “opposed” to that treatment because it’s “self-harm” and “disturbing” - in hindsight that was kind of revealing - and that “let’s face it: their sex is not changed,” as if this were something everybody really agrees about but some people won’t admit.
I for one don’t understand the significance of what you wrote in post #96. ISTM that you were distinguishing between people who have delusions (or misplaced shame) and people with other conditions. But it’s not clear why that distinction matters.
