The term 'Cis gendered'

[calamity]

Not correct. It could be that the wiring for the brains of those that are transgendered doesn't react the same to the hormones for masculinity or femininity as the wiring in the brains of cisgender people. It could be more than just hormones.

And, if conclusive evidence for this is found and presented, I would change my position in a heartbeat. In the meantime, we have a bunch of quacks making a lot of money by mutilating human beings and pumping them full of hormones.

 

[roguenuke]

Small percentages versus much larger percentages...


In the end...well, I hope you read the conclusion.



I'm not sure why you people ignore hard evidence that contradicts your beliefs. But, doing so makes your arguments appear rather dogmatic, your cause akin to zealotry.

It's not hard evidence though when she isn't showing all the info and it has been shown where the flaws are in it.

 

[calamity]

It's not hard evidence though when she isn't showing all the info and it has been shown where the flaws are in it.

I'm sure that if you don't like what you see, you can find reason to ignore it.

 

[CLAX1911]

I believe it is a combination of social conditioning and hormonal activity. Men, of course, have higher levels of testosterone, for example.

But that has no effect on the brain?

 

[calamity]

But that has no effect on the brain?

Brain behavior not its structure. Someone said behavior does not define the person...now who was that?

 

[CLAX1911]

Brain behavior not its structure.

What is brain behavior?

To my knowledge the brain doesn't exhibit any behavior.

Someone said behavior does not define the person...now who was that?

Common use of English.

 

[calamity]

What is brain behavior?

To my knowledge the brain doesn't exhibit any behavior.


Common use of English.

Oh really, what do you have driving your behavior? Most of us have a brain. I guess there may be exceptions though. Do tell.

 

[CLAX1911]

Oh really, what do you have driving your behavior?

Well a brain but it exhibits no behavior of its own.

Most of us have a brain. I guess there may be exceptions though. Do tell.

Most of our brains don't exhibit any kind of behaviour. People do, organs even do.

That's funny that you try to insult me because I pointed out your imbecilic comment.

 

[calamity]

Well a brain but it exhibits no behavior of its own.


Most of our brains don't exhibit any kind of behaviour. People do, organs even do.

That's funny that you try to insult me because I pointed out your imbecilic comment.

I didn't say the brain "exhibited" behavior. You did.

 

[CLAX1911]

I didn't say the brain "exhibited" behavior. You did.

You said brain behavior. I asked you what brain behavior was. You ignored that to post some petty little attempts at insults.

So let's start over now that you are finished throwing your little fit.

What is brain behavior?

 

[CLAX1911]

I didn't say the brain "exhibited" behavior. You did.

In all the time I studied psychology ice never heard of "brain behavior." I even did a Google search to see if it's something else and I turned up nothing for "brain behavior."

I am at a loss, what does that mean?

 

[calamity]

In all the time I studied psychology ice never heard of "brain behavior." I even did a Google search to see if it's something else and I turned up nothing for "brain behavior."

I am at a loss, what does that mean?

ice??

 

[CLAX1911]

Excuse me

ice??

In all the time I studied psychology I've never heard of "brain behavior." I even did a Google search to see if it's something else and I turned up nothing for "brain behavior."

I am at a loss, what does that mean?

 

[calamity]

Excuse me

In all the time I studied psychology I've never heard of "brain behavior." I even did a Google search to see if it's something else and I turned up nothing for "brain behavior."

I am at a loss, what does that mean?

Simple. Behavior is not the same as brain structure. Is that better for you?

 

[CLAX1911]

Simple. Behavior is not the same as brain structure. Is that better for you?

Human behavior? You said brain behavior.

Behavior is how something acts in its environment.

 

[Absentglare]

It isn't so much that I think the term itself is offensive or insult, but I would consider it personally disrespectful in that I've asked to not be referred to in that way. I get it though, you're the arbiter of which preferences should be respected and which shouldn't.

No, i don't. If you make a case for why something offends you, i will consider that and may adjust my behavior. I'm open to reason. I appreciate that there is complexity in this world that i'm not personally privy to.

I dont think I impled 'infinite' malleabilty.

Oh i get it. You think YOU are the sole arbiter, not only that, but EVERYONE else is wrong.

 

[Lursa]

Oh i get it. You think YOU are the sole arbiter, not only that, but EVERYONE else is wrong.

Looking for an easy out?

I was writing pretty much the opposite.

 

[Absentglare]

This is what I said:






We can't speculate whether or not MLK would have abandoned his homophobia, but it's clear, the MLK that did exist, would be rejected by SJW's today, and as I have shown, in some circles, he is.


I will administer as I see fit.

Bahah oh okay. I understand now. Your bizarre hypothetical requires an MLK that time travels, having grown up in a different context that was ignorant of a great many things we now know, and then you use that ignorance to demonstrate that MLK would supposedly be exiled.

And you think these are FACTS !?!??!?!?!?!?!?!!?

This is hilarious. You use the context of an old standard to declare that new standards are incorrect. If Thomas Jefferson would be a racist by modern standards, does that prove we've gone to far ? Obviously not.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Incorrect again, CC



There is no such thing as male or female brain. Just the human brain.

Incorrect. I've already shown evidence that there are differences in parts of the brain. So did your article. I always enjoy it when you post articles that prove you wrong.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The issue is, you consider yourself an expert on the subject, and that very well may be, I don't know. This was in response to your 90-95% claim.


Can you provide the source for that?

You, yourself, cannot be the source, I think that was a sticking factor in our discussions regarding this topic.

No, I believe I sourced it before. Here are the sources again:

The objective of this study was to evaluate the features and calculate the frequency of sex-reassigned subjects who had applied for reversal to their biological sex, and to compare these with non-regretful subjects. An inception cohort was retrospectively identified consisting of all subjects with gender identity disorder who were approved for sex reassignment in Sweden during the period 1972-1992. The period of time that elapsed between the application and this evaluation ranged from 4 to 24 years. The total cohort consisted of 218 subjects. The results showed that 3.8% of the patients who were sex reassigned during 1972-1992 regretted the measures taken. The cohort was subdivided according to the presence or absence of regret of sex reassignment, and the two groups were compared. The results of logistic regression analysis indicated that two factors predicted regret of sex reassignment, namely lack of support from the patient's family, and the patient belonging to the non-core group of transsexuals. In conclusion, the results show that the outcome of sex reassignment has improved over the years. However, the identified risk factors indicate the need for substantial efforts to support the families and close friends of candidates for sex reassignment.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9570489

The above study demonstrated a 96.2% satisfaction rate among post-op transsexuals. Those who regretted cited lack of family support and lack of contact with other transsexuals.

This study examined factors associated with satisfaction or regret following sex reassignment surgery (SRS) in 232 male-to-female transsexuals operated on between 1994 and 2000 by one surgeon using a consistent technique. Participants, all of whom were at least 1-year postoperative, completed a written questionnaire concerning their experiences and attitudes. Participants reported overwhelmingly that they were happy with their SRS results and that SRS had greatly improved the quality of their lives. None reported outright regret and only a few expressed even occasional regret. Dissatisfaction was most strongly associated with unsatisfactory physical and functional results of surgery. Most indicators of transsexual typology, such as age at surgery, previous marriage or parenthood, and sexual orientation, were not significantly associated with subjective outcomes. Compliance with minimum eligibility requirements for SRS specified by the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association was not associated with more favorable subjective outcomes. The physical results of SRS may be more important than preoperative factors such as transsexual typology or compliance with established treatment regimens in predicting postoperative satisfaction or regret.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12856892

In this study, though not listed in the abstract, 94% responded that they were happy with the results. Only 6% stated some regret.

Many man-to-female-transsexuals prefer sex reassignment surgery. Surgical complications are common, most frequently a stenosis of the vagina as well as the urethral ostium. In up to 24% of patients secondary corrective surgery is necessary. Regret and feelings of doubt can occur in up to 8% of the cases. In the setting of an interdisciplinary team the postoperative somatic, psychological and socio-economic situation can be improved. This review is based on a Medline literature search and summarizes the pertinent literature of the last 22 years.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19997841

This study is more longitudinal an access 22 years of literature on post-op transexuals. 92% were happy with the results.

Everything, as I said, is >90% in the satisfaction area.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

He has a vested interest in the subject. CC has stated he works in the field treating Transgender people. Thus, I would not consider him an expert, but rather someone with a very biased opinion. I liken it to a petroleum engineer debating the merits of solar energy. He knows more than nothing, but his interests clearly lie on one side of the debate.

Incorrect. I do not claim to be an expert, but I am FAR more knowledgeable than the average person, and light years more knowledgeable than you... as I have proven conclusively in this thread.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Did they alter the hormone levels? If not, then of course the "experiment" failed.

BTW, CC says you can't use a single case to prove anything. On that point, I actually agree with him.

The case of which roguenuke refers is very revealing. It demonstrates the difference between one's "brain sex" and one's anatomical sex. And yes, they adjusted the hormones. In treating transsexuals, for example, adding hormones that are consistent with one's anatomical sex does NOTHING to alter the discrepancy. That and the case that rogue discusses demonstrate CLEARLY that the problem is hardwired and is not resolvable with hormones. Once again, you prove that you know nothing on the topic.

I'd read that LA times article I posted above very closely, if I were you. It's quite revealing.

Apparently you didn't read it carefully. It didn't say what you wanted it to say.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

And, if conclusive evidence for this is found and presented, I would change my position in a heartbeat. In the meantime, we have a bunch of quacks making a lot of money by mutilating human beings and pumping them full of hormones.

Actually, what we have is a mess of agenda-driven folks ignorant on this topic denying all of the research and evidence that demonstrates that they are agenda-driven and ignorant.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I'm sure that if you don't like what you see, you can find reason to ignore it.

That is precisely what you do on this topic every time you discuss it. It's why you are so easy to debunk.

 

[calamity]

Incorrect. I've already shown evidence that there are differences in parts of the brain. So did your article. I always enjoy it when you post articles that prove you wrong.

Not conclusive differences strong enough to justify mutilating humans and pumping them full of hormones on some quack theory that those people have brains which do not match their born-sex.