You’ve continually ignored the science on transgenderism.
Your hateful and bigoted statements against trans people really are just like racism.
Because a supermajority is more reflective of a real sea change in opinion than a majority is. It protects us against whim of the moment, or whim of a certain section of the country.
In what way would you prefer that the Founding Fathers had designed the Constitution in order to better support your political beliefs?
Would you still imply he was a racist if he didn’t find attraction to fat or skinny people and expressed that lack of attraction?
the fact that you’d liken me, a born male with a Y-chromosome and a penis, to a “female” who got surgery to look like a woman, despite having those same things, is extremely insulting to nature and short men (part of nature in a visible, more than metaphysical/gender-studies way). Historical figures included short men (Victor Emmanuel III, and many others). Not trans. It will never, EVER, be the same thing, for a girl to not want a guy for being short as it is for a man not to want a transwoman because she has a penis. EVER.
I think for most part the Constitution is very well designed. My only contention is when words are perverted to reach a desired outcome.
For example the much abused regulate commerce clause.
If he repeatedly insulted fat or skinny people, called them “repulsive” and “disgusting” repeatedly, and insisted on doing so in public while demanding that he not be criticized for doing so, as he’s done for trans people in this thread, then I’d certainly assume he’s bigoted against fat or skinny people. You wouldn’t?
Not a racist-like a racist.
Well, it’s gone well past merely expressing a lack, and even if one label doesn’t fit, there are others that will and are just as uncomplimentary.
Well, your contention that brought me into this thread was income tax, which was specifically authorized by the 16th Amendment. Do you then agree that the method of amending the Constitution (unchanged since 1789) is appropriate, or do you believe that the Constitution should be amenable to change by a simple majority vote of all citizens?
Disagree.
From an article on this subject:
The statement – written by Dr. Michelle A. Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, Dr. Quentin Van Meter, vice president of the American College of Pediatricians and a pediatric endocrinologist, and Dr. Paul McHugh, university distinguished service professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital – cites eight reasons why “gender ideology” instead of treatment based on biological facts is harmful to children.
The first point is, “Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: ‘XY’ and ‘XX’ are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder,” with the purpose of male and female being “the reproduction and flourishing of our species.” It notes “exceedingly rare exceptions of sexual differentiation,” which are disorders but do not represent a “third sex.”
Secondly, “No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.”
The statement added that self-awareness develops over time and can be “derailed” by the experiences and information a child receives from infancy forward. Further, no matter what sex a person imagines themselves to be, they remain either a biological male or a biological female.
The third point is that, “A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking” or the child could suffer from gender dysphoria – “an objective psychological problem … that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such.”
Fourth, “Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous” by inhibiting growth and fertility, according to the position statement.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the statement says, “as many as 98 percent of gender confused boys and 88 percent of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.”
The sixth point is that “children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer."
The seventh point states, “Rates of suicide are 20 times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT–affirming countries.”
The eighth point calls chemical and surgical treatment of children based on “gender ideology” child abuse. “Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to ‘gender clinics’ where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will ‘choose’ a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.”
Check out the link about Dr. Paul McHugh and his research back in post 169. We’ve already covered this.
Are Doctors Cretella and Van Meter as thoroughly discredited on this issue as Dr. McHugh?
It is self evidently bigoted. Upping the rhetoric won’t change his point of view. He wants to believe body identity is a choice.
Derek let me ask you this. If society hated you, your family hated you, your religion hates you, and you had to live in fear of abuse and beatings would you choose to adopt a trait that led to that? You think most people in a marginal group want to be marginalized? Look at Lil Kim for an example of how strong societal pressure is. If octopus is convinced that this is in large part biology debate should be settled.
You apealed to popular opinion to support your beliefs. Now you are ducking away from your own argument.
That is not persuasive.
A lot of evidence has been provided in this thread and others regarding transgender issues, gender dysphoria, and any number of related issues for which you have failed to provide any real evidence against, relying on the personal beliefs of people who have not actually studied the issues, (and who routinely mischaracterize the issues in their objections).
Frankly, your implied claim that there has been no scientific evidence in regards to the phenomena rings hollow when you fail to provide the actual scientific objections and then fall back on popular beliefs.
Your assertions that transgender issues are nothing more than cross dressing and is a choice reflects nothing more than your personal belief for which you have failed to provide any evidence. There are a lot of people who persist in believing the sexual orientation is also a personal choice, and there is ample evidence that that is not the case.
Based on those facts, your choice to attack the fairly benign efforts to protect a small group of people from harassment by the larger community is exactly the same as condoning racism.
<snip>
This comes as no surprise from an organization that thinks that gay couples should not be legally allowed to adopt children. It’s a super-religious right-wing splinter group from mainstream pediatrics, because the mainstream pediatric organizations were not anti-gay or anti-trans enough for the handful of bigoted pediatricians.
I’ll only accept short men if i can freely proclaim how disgusting they are without social censure. Real men are taller than women.
You know what? It’s not the same. Does a woman’s rejection of a short man result in physical danger for that guy? Because it absolutely CAN for a transwoman. You’re hung up on a particular physical attribute that in your mind defines gender/sex. I’m hung up on a different attribute. you find my statements insulting to short men. i find your statements insulting to transgender individuals. Hell, i find them insulting to thinking, rational people.
You don’t want to be called out for your insults. Why then do you feel you have the right to call me out?
The comparison is only insulting to you because of your deep-seated prejudices. Height, like gender identity, is a morally and ethically neutral characteristic. Being either does not make you a better, or worse person, and there’s absolutely no reason to be offended by a comparison with either group.
Not really. There’s very, very few studies on taking cross-sex hormones; in fact, as far as any trans-specialized doctor I’ve heard talk knows, there are precisely zero actual randomized control trials that can establish causality. For instance, the research on blood clots and strokes for taking estrogen are actually based on cis-women taking estrogen, usually from the unusually high doses of estrogen contained in 1970s and 1980s hormonal birth control medicine, combined with their natural estrogen.
Likewise, the studies on testosterone are based on studies on the complications of elderly cis-men taking testosterone supplements, nowhere near the same as a 20-something trans-man taking it.
Then why did you ask me?
We’ve tried the science and reason, and I’ve tried appealing to his humanity and compassion. None of that has worked – he still repeats hateful (and entirely false) things about trans people. Maybe pointing out how incredibly hateful and bigoted the things he says might get something through to him.
Which is pretty much irrelevant to any part of this discussion, since there is no effort by any group or individual to compel any person to date, much less marry, a person whom they do not find appealing for whatever reason.
It is a non-issue, except when raised as some sort of “gotcha” against an argument not actually proposed.