- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 13,061
- Reaction score
- 5,128
- Location
- USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
He didn't do any of the 11 studies. Are you daft?
I'll post all 11. You then acknowledge he was right and you are, in fact, the troll.
No thanks. I don't have the time to read his nonsense.
His reputation speaks volumes.
I have read the first few previously. His bias was obvious. I don't need to read any more. He has discredited himself sufficiently that his work will be ignored by everyone but people like yourself who reject medical science and the scientific method.He didn't do any of the 11 studies. Are you daft?
I'll post all 11. You then acknowledge he was right and you are, in fact, the troll.
I have read the first few previously. His bias was obvious. I don't need to read any more. He has discredited himself sufficiently that his work will be ignored by everyone but people like yourself who reject medical science and the scientific method.
I have read his work. Post them and I will fact-check them for you. You won't believe the fact-checks because this is a religious quest to you. Your mind is made up and you jump on anything that supports your transphobic ideas.What part of "he didn't do any of the studies" do you not understand?
Again. Not his work. You are hung up on him. He had become your belezebubba. He didn't do the studies.I have read his work. Post them and I will fact-check them for you. You won't believe the fact-checks because this is a religious quest to you. Your mind is made up and you jump on anything that supports your transphobic ideas.
The Blanchard theory is discredited nonsense.Again. Not his work. You are hung up on him. He had become your belezebubba. He didn't do the studies.
It's a religious quest for me, yet you have predetermined to ignore the only 11 studies on desistance... which all found similar outcome - must kids desist by the time puberty is completed. There are no other studies on desistance. No studies found anything different.
All 11 are linked in the article I cited. You can find them easily, starting with the one from 1972.
Wiki/CantorTranssexuality
Cantor has written that transsexuality is a phenomenon of the brain, stating that MRI research has verified the Blanchard theory of there being two different kinds of male-to-female transsexuals. One of these types (called "homosexual transsexuals") have brains like gay men, which possess some features more common among women, and another type (called "autogynephilic transsexuals" or "heterosexual transsexuals") which possess features that differ from typical brains, but not in a feminized direction.[35][36] Cantor supports a "bill of transsexual rights": "People choose whether to transition, but one does not choose to be dysphoric about the sex they were born into.
Quick posting; in my car on my phone. I'll hit the others later I hope.I'll post all 11. But only if you then acknowledge he was right, and you are the troll.
You are showing your own bias, Lisa. The 11 studies are, supposedly, independent of Cantor. Therefore reading any of Cantor's work does nothing in judging these other works, unless you find reference in them going back to Cantor. When told that they are not by Cantor, and then arguing that Cantor's work is discredited, you engage in a strawman argument because there is no claim that the 11 are Cantor's work.I have read his work. Post them and I will fact-check them for you. You won't believe the fact-checks because this is a religious quest to you. Your mind is made up and you jump on anything that supports your transphobic ideas.
The Blanchard theory is discredited nonsense.
Wiki/Cantor
How many times and how many ways do I need to explain it to you before it sinks in? Cantor supports Ray Blanchard's theory of autogynephilia. Autogynephilia was discredited 25-30 years ago. The fact that you would continue to support a transphobe is a given. You will blindly support anyone who tells you that your transphobic ideas are correct, regardless of their lack of scientific credibility.Again. Cantor didn't do any of the studies. Not a single one. So, I have no idea what you are on about.
Your claim of physical reality being more important only works for those watching, not those being.
We are talking about what people are, not what they do.
Schizophrenia.
Using "they" in the singular would cause confusion if you were talking about a particular person in a group and provided no other way of identifying them.Of course languages can and do change. And you can use whatever pronoun you want, whether clarifies or muddles. But the question posed still stands. What is a woman? What is a man? Use whatever verbiage and language you think is appropriate.
I'm not sure how eliminating pronouns will prevent confusion. Using the word "they" in the singular adds confusion, it doesn't prevent confusion.
Quick posting; in my car on my phone. I'll hit the others later I hope.
That's not exactly how that works. I could easily post multiple discredited studies and claim them as accurate. We would have to see the studies, look to see if there might have been a bias to them (similar to that write up about Cantor), and what the peer review was. Even an honestly intended study could have procedural errors within.
Given how far back these studies stretch, and how small several of them are, I’m going to focus on the two most recent studies, which together have a larger sample size than the rest of the literature combined. One, “Factors Associated With Desistance and Persistence of Childhood Gender Dysphoria: A Quantitative Follow-Up Study,” was lead-authored by the gender-dysphoria specialist Thomas Steensma and published in 2013 in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. The other one, the clinical psychologist Devita Singh’s 2012 dissertation, is unpublished, but you can read it in PDF form here.
The Amsterdam study reported on 127 adolescents, 79 of them boys, and found that 80 of those adolescents, or about two-thirds, had desisted — that is, now identified as cisgender — at the time of followup. Singh, meanwhile, found that of the 139 former GIC patients she got in touch with, all of them natal males (that is, born with a penis), 122, or 88 percent, had desisted.
Ten subjects who exhibited feminine behavior and cross-dressing as young boys are described. At follow-up, 8 to 10 years later, 4 are heterosexual, 2 are homosexual, 1 is transsexual, and the outcome is uncertain in 3. Of the eight who met DSM III criteria when evaluated, three are heterosexual, two are homosexual, one is transsexual, and the outcome is uncertain for two. Gender dysphoria appears to be a necessary but not sufficient factor in a transsexual outcome. The strength, rigidity, and persistence of cross-gender behavior through latency may be a good predictor of transsexual outcome.
How many times and how many ways do I need to explain it to you before it sinks in? Cantor supports Ray Blanchard's theory of autogynephilia. Autogynephilia was discredited 25-30 years ago. The fact that you would continue to support a transphobe is a given. You will blindly support anyone who tells you that your transphobic ideas are correct, regardless of their lack of scientific credibility
Depends whom you put your query to. People have been asking and answering that question for centuries. Here are some examples just for fun:What's the definition, or what are the definitions, if there are multiple usages.
To me, I define a woman as an adult human female, and a man as an an adult human male.
Female as denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes. I define male as denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
These definitions do not require that a primate be fertile in order to be considered male or female. In primates as in other mammals, the sex is determined chromosomally, so an infertile female is still female, etc. But an analysis of chromosomes.
Humans have a lot of different ways of thinking about things, and complex emotional and psychiatric thoughts and feelings. So, it is certainly possible that a person will "identify" as something other than their sex, and therefore they might call themselves a woman or a man, when their sex is not female or male, etc. However, that doesn't change their sex. The person would still be a sexually a woman or a man, without reference to gender identity.
.... I mean, feel free to "be" the person running with your eyes shut towards a wall you therefore can't percieve. I would, however, recommend you perform this experiment at half-speed. Let us know your results.
We are talking about whether or not perception or feelings trump physical reality.
How many of those kids in that discredited study had ever stated that they were trans and desired HRT to transition? How many of them had sought a mental health diagnosis from a psychologist? How many times do you need to be reminded that they can not desist if they were never trans to behind with?LOl. You are silly. So, post your study showing that most kids don't desist after puberty. Don't waste your time. Not a single one exists, you religious fanatic.
How many of them had sought a mental health diagnosis from a psychologist?
They were at the gender clinic because they displayed behaviors that were not CIS and heterosexual typical. Some crossdressed, some questioned traditional gender roles, some played with non-typical gendered toys, etc. That doesn't in any way means that they were trans.They all had diagnosis from psych. That's why they were at the gender clinic. 8 of the 10 met the criteria of the dsm3. Only 1 persisted. 6 desisted and 2 were lost to follow up (likely desisted).
They were at the gender clinic because they displayed behaviors that were not CIS and heterosexual typical. Some crossdressed, some questioned traditional gender roles, some played with non-typical gendered toys, etc. That doesn't in any way means that they were trans.
What faith articles? Did you forget that I was an atheist, to do you now know what the word atheist means either?They have diagnosis. They met the requirements of the dsm. I have multiple studies confirming my position. You have faith and huff post articles. Anyway. I'm done with you again. Cya.
Actually, later it was discovered with a genetic test that she was not transgender. She was intersex female. XXY.
The word transsexual is considered to be very offensive and wrong. People do not change their sex. They change their gender.
From her verified Twitter account, 17 October 2017.
Buck Has a gift for that because he is emotionally driven and does not think objectively. This is akin to a religious crusade for him, just like it is with homophobes to attack LGB people
OK. Kleinfelter's and trans is quite a combination.Sorry, XXY is Klinefelter's syndrome, which is a male intersex condition.
EDIT,OK. Kleinfelter's and trans is quite a combination.
I'm reasonably certain that you know who Caroline Cossey is.
The testes are small (about half typical size) and quite firm. After puberty, the ejaculate contains no sperm. Other effects of Klinefelter are quite variable. Boys with Klinefelter are usually born with male genitals that look like other boys. But at puberty, they may not virilize very strongly—they may not develop much body hair, or they may experience breast development. If the boy \*wishes\* to virilize, testosterone (either through injections or via patches) can help him to do so.
Although most boys with Klinefelter Syndrome grow up to live as men, some do develop atypical gender identities, and some do develop female gender identities.
How many times and how many ways do I need to explain it to you before it sinks in?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?