If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   News: Child lives as a girl and has been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder Fark: at age four   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 328
    More: Interesting, Gender Identity Disorder Fark, Thomas the Tank Engine, NHS  
•       •       •

9739 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Feb 2012 at 11:07 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



328 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-21 06:11:07 PM

bhcompy: Smackledorfer: Do tomboys want to swap out their plumbing for that of a boy, or do they just like playing outside and sports? Why would you even think the two compare?

This boy didn't make any attempt to swap out his anatomy. He attempted to mutilate himself. Self-mutilation is common and sign of mental disorder or distress, not an obvious sign of GID. Tomboys are girls that act like boys, dress like boys, play like boys, maybe even want to be a boy, or sometimes just "be one of the boys". This boy is acting like a girl(sometimes called a tomgirl).


For the umpteenth time, please share with us your bona fides. Or at least some sources to back up these smart-sounding claims. It's not that you're necessarily mistaken, but it sounds to me like you're generalising from a vague mishmash of things you've learned, rather than a solid background in these subject areas. I will gladly accept your bona fides, and from that defer to your assertions, but without that I have to say that this really is just your unqualified opinion. I'm sure it seems solid and sound to you, but it ain't necessarily so.

omeganuepsilon: law


Law is a fully contrived societal construct. It's a very poor analogy for the science of medicine, which is inextricably bound to natural physiology.

neutronstar: How does a 4 yr old even understand the difference between the sexes?


I certainly did when I was that age. I actually assumed, until now, that everyone did. I'm frankly astounded at adults claiming they did not at that age; it seems impossible to me. In any case, though, your views and mine aren't comparable to those of people who are specially schooled and make a professional study of the subject.

doubled99: There really is no point trying to be something you're not, as everyone already IS everything.


The hothouse harvest in Cali is apparently unusually good this winter. (Thanks for rubbing it in and making the rest of us jealous.)
 
2012-02-21 06:12:17 PM

sp86: PsiChick:

Okay, then. Let's try a different tack. What would happen if you forced her to be male? Well, they already tried that--she tried to farking cut her penis off.

And when they leave her alone, let her be female, and STFU, she is perfectly happy and stable.

So if the problem only arises when other people start interfering, how is being transgendered inherently distressful or dysfunctional?

Because his desire does not match reality or what is possible. And as the two are irreconcilable the most compassionate thing to do would be to attempt to correct his malfunction as early as possible. Irrespective, your suggestion that society accommodate this malfunction returns me to my original (admittedly snide) comparison.


So what part of the penis makes it physically impossible to wear skirts, play with dolls, call yourself 'she'? And what part of you is incapable of googling 'third gender' and doing some basic research on why sex does not equal and has never equaled gender?
 
2012-02-21 06:22:04 PM

omeganuepsilon: Children are highly imprintable, in that they can also bite on leading questioning and believe it for truth. Give me 3 hours a week with your kid, and well inside of 6 months I could easily get him to openly admit that Mommy and Daddy do unwanted things to his "privates".

A kind but very pro GBLT questioner could easily lead a child into "believing" they're a different gender, and conceivably, completely by accident, especially at the age of 3-4.


So the pro GBLT questioner is the one being dishonest here? You openly admit that you would do the exact same thing to the kid, only this time their "disorder" would suit YOUR needs.
 
2012-02-21 07:10:44 PM

omeganuepsilon: sno man: That you confuse me for religious amuses me greatly.
Thanks for the laugh.

Again, you suck at reading.

You, comparably, sound like religious people. So I got snarky with it, walk it off, you'll be ok there junior. Just don't get into a career where reading is important.


I had been walking it off, as you say, all you are doing at this point is being an ass.
The point that you had made about being able to talk the kid into this, is bullshiat. I suggested that if a kid could be talked into it, they could be talked out of it too. And then you agreed with me that that couldn't happen, so smart guy... How does that only work your one way? Please tell me Dr Speedy....
 
2012-02-21 07:20:30 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: omeganuepsilon: law

Law is a fully contrived societal construct. It's a very poor analogy for the science of medicine, which is inextricably bound to natural physiology.


Way to take it off the rails.

I'm talking about how people argue on the internet, and what they tend to take for granted as "proof" that they are "correct".

The tactic is the same. It's not an analogy or comparison, it is the same thing. It is an actual logical fallacy.
http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/appeal-to-law-fa l lacy/

halotosis: what I see suggests you have a serious ego problem


As is common with people who tend to operate on Belief, you will only see what you want to see.

halotosis: I'm not sure you have any right to diagnose me or anyone else with anything.


Rights to diagnose? Nay, it is merely my opinion of you, such as you have your opinion of me. I don't have the right to an opinion? Now you have gone off the deep end.

halotosis: conjecture


You make that sound like an accusation of fault.

Wiki
A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but is thought to be true and has not been disproven. Karl Popper pioneered the use of the term "conjecture" in scientific philosophy. Conjecture is contrasted by hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a testable statement based on accepted grounds. In mathematics, a conjecture is an unproven proposition or theorem that appears correct.

So you are saying I appear to be correct?
Or what I have said is not a theory?(I'll agree that it's not scientifically formal, that's a pedantic argument, as a formal theory has more to do with organization and delivery).

Seriously, you're going to have to do better than that. I provide a theory that could explain X. In some cases, it is certainly true(Kids are not reliable, and they do and say stupid things, all without any of the deeper meaning that some of you are trying to inject.) It's a point that doesn't need citations to anyone who's been around kids very much at all.

I doubt experts and Tranny recruiters alike, when it comes to a diagnosis of a 3-4 year old, based on Ordinary Incredulity.
Sure, it is possible that I am wrong, in this specific case. But I am right, in that due to ordinary observation common amongst all peoples, is that just as I have described children, that IS how they(young children) can be seen to behave(stupidly). It's also possible that I am correct. The article wreaks of bad parenting, and attention whoring. I mean, who lets their kids be unsupervised long enough to even come close to attempting cutting off of any appendage?...and then BRAGS about it?

It's as if we're holding a debate, and I accuse you of breathing, and because I offer no website that PROVES it, it's not true. I move that because we can all see it, it is, indeed, fact. Further supported by common knowledge, that if you do cease to breath, you will not be able to continue to argue.

We ALL KNOW, for a fact, that children at 3-4 are not to be held to the standards of adults, it is simply not rational to believe it should be otherwise. Any class on child developement, even high school level, will tell you that they just then are merely beginning on a lot of real learning. It is not my job to route through google and pick one out of millions of sources of this knowledge. If you've lived a life so secluded that you cannot and will not Believe that children 3-4 really are not anywhere near as responsible as adults(and won't even resemble them for another 8-15 years), well, I pity you. You've apparently had a very sad up bringing, If you would like to catch up to the rest of humanity I am sure there are some programs that you could get into.

...
conjecture
LOL

Get stuffed.
 
2012-02-21 07:24:41 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: omeganuepsilon: Children are highly imprintable, in that they can also bite on leading questioning and believe it for truth. Give me 3 hours a week with your kid, and well inside of 6 months I could easily get him to openly admit that Mommy and Daddy do unwanted things to his "privates".

A kind but very pro GBLT questioner could easily lead a child into "believing" they're a different gender, and conceivably, completely by accident, especially at the age of 3-4.

So the pro GBLT questioner is the one being dishonest here? You openly admit that you would do the exact same thing to the kid, only this time their "disorder" would suit YOUR needs.


You missed a whole lot there.
Could =/= Would
Also, I did not infer a questioner would necessarily be dishonest, I stated very plainly that it could be done accidentally.

I love it when some ignoramus tries to make my theory of a possibility into a bigoted absolute. Great indicator of their brigade membership.
 
2012-02-21 07:27:58 PM

sno man: I had been walking it off, as you say, all you are doing at this point is being an ass.
The point that you had made about being able to talk the kid into this, is bullshiat. I suggested that if a kid could be talked into it, they could be talked out of it too. And then you agreed with me that that couldn't happen, so smart guy... How does that only work your one way? Please tell me Dr Speedy....


Not only are your comprehension skills lacking, so is your ability to summarize.
And again, for your individual needs.
Shouldn't =/= Couldn't

You all seem to have the same mental deficiencies.
 
2012-02-21 07:30:56 PM

omeganuepsilon: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: omeganuepsilon: law

Law is a fully contrived societal construct. It's a very poor analogy for the science of medicine, which is inextricably bound to natural physiology.

Way to take it off the rails.

I'm talking about how people argue on the internet, and what they tend to take for granted as "proof" that they are "correct".

The tactic is the same. It's not an analogy or comparison, it is the same thing. It is an actual logical fallacy.
http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/appeal-to-law-fa l lacy/

halotosis: what I see suggests you have a serious ego problem

As is common with people who tend to operate on Belief, you will only see what you want to see.

halotosis: I'm not sure you have any right to diagnose me or anyone else with anything.

Rights to diagnose? Nay, it is merely my opinion of you, such as you have your opinion of me. I don't have the right to an opinion? Now you have gone off the deep end.

halotosis: conjecture

You make that sound like an accusation of fault.

Wiki
A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but is thought to be true and has not been disproven. Karl Popper pioneered the use of the term "conjecture" in scientific philosophy. Conjecture is contrasted by hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a testable statement based on accepted grounds. In mathematics, a conjecture is an unproven proposition or theorem that appears correct.

So you are saying I appear to be correct?
Or what I have said is not a theory?(I'll agree that it's not scientifically formal, that's a pedantic argument, as a formal theory has more to do with organization and delivery).

Seriously, you're going to have to do better than that. I provide a theory that could explain X. In some cases, it is certainly true(Kids are not reliable, and they do and say stupid things, all without any of the deeper meaning that some of you are trying to inject.) It's a point that doesn't need citations to anyone who's ...


Welcome to my ignore list. You are a troll. You should spend a bit of time reading what I posted on this thread, but you won't do that because your a lazy, snide, rude asshole. I read every single comment on this thread and one things stands out... YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
 
2012-02-21 07:45:48 PM

omeganuepsilon: sno man: I had been walking it off, as you say, all you are doing at this point is being an ass.
The point that you had made about being able to talk the kid into this, is bullshiat. I suggested that if a kid could be talked into it, they could be talked out of it too. And then you agreed with me that that couldn't happen, so smart guy... How does that only work your one way? Please tell me Dr Speedy....

Not only are your comprehension skills lacking, so is your ability to summarize.
And again, for your individual needs.
Shouldn't =/= Couldn't

You all seem to have the same mental deficiencies.


If we are all wrong, maybe it's not us. Just sayin'...

Clearly you feel you have a superior intellect and hey knock yourself out, you are clearly too cleaver by half to actually have to lower yourself to answer any questions...
And please don't lower yourself further by replying to this.
 
2012-02-21 07:59:29 PM

sno man: too cleaver


Indeed.

sno man: If we are all wrong, maybe it's not us. Just sayin'...


No, if you equate "should" and "could" or "would", you are, indeed, wrong. There is no "if", and no "maybe".

halotosis: You should spend a bit of time reading what I posted on this thread, but you won't do that because your a lazy, snide, rude asshole.


Sort of like your being too lazy, snide, and rude, to actually discuss the points I talk about, and instead just throw a label on me and seek an easy "win" by telling me that I'm now on an ignore list.

Genius.
 
2012-02-21 08:02:54 PM

omeganuepsilon: it is simply not rational to believe


The problem isn't that you're necessarily right or wrong, but that your only support for your arguments is "I doubt," "I believe," various absolute or essentialist assertions like the above, and so on. That's individually reflexive, not forensic. (E.g, It's the only thing that makes sense to me, I believe it, therefore it must be so, and those who disagree are clearly mistaken. -- rather than: Considering the literature I've seen on the subject, or my direct relevant experience of the same or similar, I figure such-and-such.) It's perhaps optimistic to expect that be very persuasive.

omeganuepsilon: You all seem to have the same mental deficiencies.


Your profile says "Dr." What exactly does that refer to?
 
2012-02-21 08:30:10 PM

omeganuepsilon: Ah, so the argument boils down to you calling me a liar.


The argument boils down to me saying you're talking out your ass. There's a subtle, but important difference. In order to lie, you have to KNOW that what you're uttering is an absolute falsehood, yet proceed with it in full knowledge

I've no doubt you actually believe this.

I also know it in no way stops you from being abysmally incorrect

The argument boils down to me telling you that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm right, by the way. You don't. Though I've no doubt that you think you do. You're not lying. You're simply out of your depth.


And no, I don't give a wet slap about two letters and a bit of punctuation in your profile. I'll put "Mr." in mine to show you precisely how much it means to me.


omeganuepsilon: And please, no pictures of kids that young having sex. I know it may be your thing, but really, it's simply not right.


Good lord you're an idiot.

omeganuepsilon: Want to disprove the theory of what amounts to androgyny in small children, give a citation or three.


How about I substitute it for a citation more relevant to YOUR disorder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

Enjoy.
 
2012-02-21 08:58:26 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: The problem isn't that you're necessarily right or wrong, but that your only support for your arguments is "I doubt," "I believe,"


The problem isn't that you are necessarily wrong, but that you see my doubt as support of the argument, but not as the argument itself.

A stance of doubt, obtained by reasons listed, is the way it sits. I have doubt because...Not, as you imply.... Because I have reasonable doubt.

Now, when I'm confronted that my doubt is unreasonable, or that all doctors not be questioned. That's when I call others on being, as you put it "those who disagree are mistaken". It is a silly notion, that a doctor, because he's a doctor, should be Believed when he tells us drinking urine and eating feces is perfectly natural and healthy for a being. I mean, you don't need a "scientifically peer reviewed"(what is that anyhow, shouldn't being "peer reviewed" be enough...?) to know that eating shiat can be bad for you.

Yes, I feel those people are mistaken, there is a place for common sense and common intelligence to be able to question any given "expert" testimony, and many have in this thread. Not many less than those who oppose them. If it were irrefutable fact, you'd think there would be no debate within the thread, no?

I'm not saying all Doctors are wrong all of the time, as some are pretending I and others are. It's historical fact that some can be wrong some of the time, and a distinct possibility that all of them could be wrong when it comes to RandomTheoryX(and there is precedent for it, several within the history of medicine.).

A bit of skepticism or doubt, is on average, is a part of intelligence, the very counter to blind Belief that some of you spout off about.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch:

omeganuepsilon: You all seem to have the same mental deficiencies.

Your profile says "Dr." What exactly does that refer to?


Does one even need (the) "Dr." to be correct in telling you that should =/= could =/= would and that equivocating them is wrong(not morally, but logically)?
No?
Didn't think so.

The "Dr." is irrelevant as to the correctness of the content of my posts, in fact anything you dig out of my profile is irrelevant to the discussion itself.

Maybe it's basket weaving, maybe it's in beer drinking, or maybe it's a field of Psychology, or Philosophy, or Law.
Nothing matters a drop if what I am saying is that 1 +1 = 2(the bit about should/would/could), the statement is correct, whether I am a tranny, a pedo, a clown, or a government official, a muslim missionary, or a beat cop, or none of the above. It's still fact.

Different people, that both equivocate the same sets of words, at nearly the same time, would indeed seem to have the same deficiency. It could* even indicate Alt like typing. Stranger things have happened.

/* Note....Could. no "sh" or "w" present at all.
 
2012-02-21 09:00:56 PM
Sylvia_Bandersnatch:

Seriously. Not an expert? Then it's just your opinion, and it's worth no more than mine.

For the last time: NO ONE IN THIS THREAD IS QUALIFIED TO OFFER ANY KIND OF EXPERT OPINION ON THE MATTER. PERIOD.


No one here offering the opinions that you disagree with, has stated, or even implied, that they are an expert. They are simply stating their opinions on the subject, which as you clearly stated, are no more, or less valid than yours.

Yet every single person you disagree with, you attack them for having an opinion and insinuate that their opinion is not valid because they are not an expert. Yet yours somehow is, despite the fact that you are not an 'expert' either.

This whole 'shut you u no expert u no talk' thing is basically just a thought-terminating statement you're using to dismiss every opinion you don't agree with.

I mean I get what you've got going on. You're taking all your negative experiences, and attributing a perception of everyone who disagrees with the prognosis as your childhood bullies, and the people who will give this kid a hard time, etc. Sure, there are a couple of those here, but for the most part, the dissenting opinions are mostly in the nature of the 'it's fine if this kid decides as a young adult that he's a woman in a man's body, but 4 years old is a bit young to start assigning children sexual identity disorders.' And it's a pretty fair argument considering *how kids learn* at that age, and how utterly abstract and unconfined their thought processes can be.

If you had the ability to step outside your head for a moment, and re-read all your posts, you might notice that your tone is more that of someone who desperately *wants* this kid to be a transexual, rather than someone who just wants him to figure out who he is. I suspect if you revisit this story a few years later, and find that the kid went back to being a boy, you'd be disappointed and would be suspicious that he was pressured into being 'normal' rather than just accepting he's happy as a boy trapped in a boys body. You have a dog in this race, and a closet full of unresolved issues, so you are literally the last person on earth who would be able to offer an unbiased opinion.
 
2012-02-21 09:21:29 PM

omeganuepsilon: The "Dr." is irrelevant


If it signified anything, you would have said so. So it's clearly just some kind of joke. You're not any kind of doctor. Which makes a lot more sense than if you were.

Look, I don't know if you're a bit nutty, or just drunk, or what, but this isn't any kind of conversation at this point. You're just rambling now. You want to argue about arguing, which is probably the only thing more boring than arguing. I'm really sorry, but this just isn't happening.

You made your case, some people agreed, some others didn't. The rest is just crying about it. And that truly is irrelevant. We'll just have to agree to pancakes.
 
2012-02-21 09:29:19 PM

SkunkWerks: omeganuepsilon: Want to disprove the theory of what amounts to androgyny in small children, give a citation or three.

Because I cannot. So instead I'll resort to personal attacks that will may appear to discredit the theory.



Nice try.

Ad hominem
Equivocation
Appeal to Authority(listed as law above)

Any other very clear fallacies that you people want to parade about instead of discussing the topic at hand?
Ah, I see my mistake, I asked in that last sentence about desire, not ability.

Are you capable of withholding from your fallacy pride parade?

There's one that I can't think of a name for at the moment, maybe someone know's one more fitting than what I dug up below... When someone refuses any counter argument by simply pretending it doesn't exist or is incorrect, and simply saying "you're wrong" over and over and over, redundantly and repetitively..

Appeal to Force
Audience members "shout down" a debater whom they disagree with in order to prevent a case from being heard. This is, unfortunately, common enough to qualify as a logical fallacy. (new window)

A Subfallacy of This:
One sidedness (new window)

Here's a neat website, if you decide you want to attempt not looking like a troll-ish idiot any longer.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html

All in all, the point of a debate or discussion, is to talk of the points, not ignore them, and discredit the speaker. But thanks for being a perfect example of something I mentioned above.

omeganuepsilon: Their

[very young children] grasp of reality is so tenuous that it's scary when you get down to it, teenagers are hardly better, and adults, well, if we all had our heads on straight there wouldn't be a politics tab at all, there would not be suicide bombers dying for their religion, abortion clinic bombings, or a crap ton of other really farked up things "normal" adults are capable of.

/Have a nice evening.
 
2012-02-21 09:45:17 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: You want to argue about arguing, which is probably the only thing more boring than arguing. I'm really sorry, but this just isn't happening.


No. If a child is pulling a tantrum instead of being reasonable and rational, they deserve to be explained to, why they're being an irrational lout, and there is a LOT of that from some of the people on your side of the argument.

Sure, some people slip, or miss a point in text, our posts do get lengthy, but continuous and repetitive disregard of very rational arguments, really, is not a grown up way to handle contention with an opposing viewpoint.

Address the viewpoint, if, I, IF IF you can. IF you cannot, and you want to instead pull discourteous fallacies out of your ass, and attempt to lay boobytraps for people to step into, that's your right, but don't cry when you get caught and admonished for it. That's how society works, be it incivilities, or actual crime, there will be consequences, even if they're measly internet consequences.

I'm less than congenial, and you don't catch me crying about someone calling me an asshole up above.(unless they use it as discrediting an irrelevant fact).

You don't get out of a parking ticket(or murder, or rape, or any other behavior that society makes law) by telling the judge she's being petty for punishing you.

That last part, "this isn't happening", takes it a step further into that irrational area. IF you don't want to take part, walk away, that's within your rights to, don't make a long post about how you don't want to take part...kind of defeats the purpose.
 
2012-02-21 09:57:36 PM

glassbottomboatcaptain: Sylvia_Bandersnatch:

Seriously. Not an expert? Then it's just your opinion, and it's worth no more than mine.

For the last time: NO ONE IN THIS THREAD IS QUALIFIED TO OFFER ANY KIND OF EXPERT OPINION ON THE MATTER. PERIOD.

No one here offering the opinions that you disagree with, has stated, or even implied, that they are an expert. They are simply stating their opinions on the subject, which as you clearly stated, are no more, or less valid than yours.

Yet every single person you disagree with, you attack them for having an opinion and insinuate that their opinion is not valid because they are not an expert. Yet yours somehow is, despite the fact that you are not an 'expert' either.

This whole 'shut you u no expert u no talk' thing is basically just a thought-terminating statement you're using to dismiss every opinion you don't agree with.

I mean I get what you've got going on. You're taking all your negative experiences, and attributing a perception of everyone who disagrees with the prognosis as your childhood bullies, and the people who will give this kid a hard time, etc. Sure, there are a couple of those here, but for the most part, the dissenting opinions are mostly in the nature of the 'it's fine if this kid decides as a young adult that he's a woman in a man's body, but 4 years old is a bit young to start assigning children sexual identity disorders.' And it's a pretty fair argument considering *how kids learn* at that age, and how utterly abstract and unconfined their thought processes can be.

If you had the ability to step outside your head for a moment, and re-read all your posts, you might notice that your tone is more that of someone who desperately *wants* this kid to be a transexual, rather than someone who just wants him to figure out who he is. I suspect if you revisit this story a few years later, and find that the kid went back to being a boy, you'd be disappointed and would be suspicious that he was pressured into being 'normal' rat ...


First of all, chill. It's Fark, not Jerry Springer.

Second, I never expressed an opinion about TFA, if that's what you mean. I trust the experts, and leave it at that. That's how I deal with a lot of things, and it seems to work out fine. My cat is healthy, my car's in good shape, and my computer works fine. And thanks to my (real) doctors, I feel pretty good myself.

I never condemned anyone's opinion, or anyone for having one. I only pointed out that the tone and manner some people were using seemed to express a degree of certainty that's overly confident, considering their lack of expertise. If I say, "My car runs badly," that's an opinion. If I insist that it's because my mechanic did something wrong, and I'm not a mechanic myself, I'm overreaching. That's the only point I'm trying to make. Everyone's free to suppose that the parents or therapists or NHS or all of the UK is wrong, but to just flatly assert it as fact, and back it up with nothing more than personal beliefs, with not a shred of education comparable to professionals directly involved in the case is just asinine.

Third, I'm not trying to shut anyone down. How could I even hope to do that, even if I wanted to? I'm no modmid, after all. This makes no sense to me. Disagreeing with people isn't an attempt at censorship. If you feel threatened or constrained by anything I say, it's for reasons of your own, and nothing to do with me.

Fourth, you and others continue to advance expert-sounding arguments without any supporting expertise whatsoever. What you feel and believe is only that. You can say it however many times you want, but you won't convince me or many others that you know better than real experts do, especially those directly involved in the case. Your argument is based on an article on the Daily Mail. Do you have the slightest idea what that means? It's barely forgivable journalism on the best of days, and it doesn't have too many of those. Do you honestly believe that you've gained a meaningful understanding of this story -- or really, any understanding at all -- from this one short crappy piece? There's a reason they call it the Daily Fail over there. And projecting your frustrations on me doesn't change anything, either. You should be asking yourself why you care what I think of what you have to say. (Of course, that's only my opinion.)

Fifth, I take pains to write clearly, so that no one has to parse my 'tone' to understand my meaning. If you detect a tone of irritation, it's from a girl who grew up in a family of scientists and has witnessed uncounted fools ignoring actual science in preference of their own gut feelings, religious or political values, or in deference to their own bigotry and fears. I have no respect for that level of idiocy. Humans can do better, a lot better, and they should. That so many people seem to invest so much based on so little baffles and saddens me. And yes, irritates me very much. Because I love the world, and I feel strongly that it could be lot better if only people could be better. And I believe they can be, but for whatever reason that I can't fathom are disinclined to.

I don't have a stake in this kid's case, and I don't understand all the people who seem to be acting like they do. I don't know the family, the clinicians, or really very much relevant at all. And even if I did, whatever I thought I understood wouldn't be relevant either, because I'm not an expert in the field. I have no hopes for the kid either way, or any way, not the least because I don't have anywhere near enough knowledge to rationally compose any. It just disgusts me that so many people feel the need to weigh in as if they know things they can't possibly know, and disregard the actual experts involved. I find that asinine and contemptible. That's my one and only argument in this thread, and it's got almost nothing to do with the kid. If you're seeing something else, something more, that's your deal, not mine.

Finally, I don't get where all this bizarre accusation is coming from. Why do you even care what I think? What is it to you?
 
2012-02-21 11:48:34 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: It just disgusts me that so many people feel the need to weigh in as if they know things they can't possibly know, and disregard the actual experts involved. I find that asinine and contemptible.


These so called "experts" are not, of necessity, infallible. That you imply they are is asinine and contemptible.

You're still arguing with the fallacy, "Appeal to Authority". Because they are a doctor, does not make us necessarily wrong. Because, newsflash, not ALL doctors think that's the right thing either.

The general consensus between doctors from both sides is that:

If it is a phase, humoring them and supporting them can lead to problems later.(even legitimate GIID can iron itself out with the onset of adolescence/puberty)
If it's not, the opposite could be true, and not helping them could be bad. There are few indicators in children for this part. Measuring the level of depression is no simple task.(because when a kid know's he's being monitored, reliability all but gets up and flies out a window)

Don't decide FOR the child at age 3-4, that they ARE transgendered, because he wanted to play with dolls once, and kind of likes pink.

That's as creepy as "Toddlers & Tiaras".

Quick little article, but explains that there are lots of variables, and few concrete answers. (new window)
Excerpts:
The symptoms of gender identity disorder may begin when a person is as young as 2 or 3 years old, and they may also begin as late as adulthood.
...
Most people outgrow childhood signs of gender identity disorder, such as being drawn to cross-gender activities, by adolescence, but a small number grow into adulthood identifying themselves as transsexuals.
...
therapists differ on how to treat the patient. Some therapists will encourage children to live as the gender with which they feel most comfortable, while other therapists will try to help kids appreciate their biological sex and associated gender.


Note the wording in that last part. Try to help the kid appreciate... Not "slap them around and make them do boy things." There are some peopel that act like anything that displeases a child, ever, is ABUSE.

If you want a test of stubborn, try getting a kid to taste something he's arbitrarily decided that he doesn't like. Kids, do, at times, latch onto things. Be it a toy, a favored/hated food, for no real reason, or out of imitation of what they see an adult do honestly.

So your kid swears up and down that he hates XX, but you dress it up as YY, and he doesn't know he eats it, and does like it, if you present it as XX again and explain it to him, he could(and many do) continue to insist that they don't like it and refuse to eat it. I've seen kids carry on an irrational latched onto fabricated opinion, for years, until they're old enough to understand the entire thing.

When anyone talks about a young child that refuses, REFUSES, to behave, dress, act, eat, like they're told, I see an unlucky parent.
But guess what, nearly every one of us went through that at one point or another, to one degree or another.

I've seen enough people that were highly questionable(atypical) as kids, grow up to be happy and well adjusted "normal" straight adults with lives, careers, children, and healthy social habits. The kids I see that grow into messed up adults are abused(to include pampered / sheltered), or a minority by a vast margin, kids who didn't have a chance, drug babies, retardation, etc.

Pardon me if I'd rather see error on the side of caution for the greater number of children that will end up just fine if not a little, perceivably(but not necessarily), over controlled.
If the cost of saving the minority of lifelong trannies(who by all accounts, carry their misery into adult hood much of the time anyhow) is messing up the majority of life-long normals, the cost to the majority is largely disproportionate.

Like I said in the beginning of the thread.
ADD/ADHD is out of style, the new sensation is over-prescribing and mistreating for Trans-ism.

fark mis-diagnosis of children, and blaming bad/obsessive/sheltering/pampering/helicopter parents. That's never the problem. Right?
Of course, in a society where the whole autism/vaccine non-connection can carry on and survive as it has....They may be the stupidest bunch of coonts out there, but surely, there are progressive shades of gray...
 
2012-02-21 11:56:13 PM

omeganuepsilon: These


I'm going to amend my remarks. I'm no expert, and you're not either, but I'm starting to think that you may indeed have a deep familiarity with mental illness after all.
 
2012-02-22 12:13:35 AM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: omeganuepsilon: These

I'm going to amend my remarks. I'm no expert, and you're not either, but I'm starting to think that you may indeed have a deep familiarity with mental illness after all.


Ooohh, scathing..
I'll be sure to get help asap.

/*yawn
 
2012-02-22 06:04:44 PM

Exception Collection: Here's a handy chart:


so then a man, who thinks he is a woman, but is sexually attracted to women is a heterosexual lesbian?

here's a chart:
www.timecube.com

i always get a kick out of these threads

here' another chart:

group A: people that can deal with reality

group B: people that use charts to complicate simple things
 
2012-02-23 10:16:12 AM

PsiChick: sp86: PsiChick:

Okay, then. Let's try a different tack. What would happen if you forced her to be male? Well, they already tried that--she tried to farking cut her penis off.

And when they leave her alone, let her be female, and STFU, she is perfectly happy and stable.

So if the problem only arises when other people start interfering, how is being transgendered inherently distressful or dysfunctional?

Because his desire does not match reality or what is possible. And as the two are irreconcilable the most compassionate thing to do would be to attempt to correct his malfunction as early as possible. Irrespective, your suggestion that society accommodate this malfunction returns me to my original (admittedly snide) comparison.

So what part of the penis makes it physically impossible to wear skirts, play with dolls, call yourself 'she'? And what part of you is incapable of googling 'third gender' and doing some basic research on why sex does not equal and has never equaled gender?


You should really look up the medical definition of gender, because you're only using half of it.

"Medical Dictionary

gender gen·der (jěn'dər)
n.

The sex of an individual, male or female, based on reproductive anatomy ..."

Irrespective, we've invented the terminology to accommodate an innocuous malfunction, but that doesn't make it not a malfunction.
 
2012-02-23 12:49:08 PM

sp86: PsiChick: sp86: PsiChick:

Okay, then. Let's try a different tack. What would happen if you forced her to be male? Well, they already tried that--she tried to farking cut her penis off.

And when they leave her alone, let her be female, and STFU, she is perfectly happy and stable.

So if the problem only arises when other people start interfering, how is being transgendered inherently distressful or dysfunctional?

Because his desire does not match reality or what is possible. And as the two are irreconcilable the most compassionate thing to do would be to attempt to correct his malfunction as early as possible. Irrespective, your suggestion that society accommodate this malfunction returns me to my original (admittedly snide) comparison.

So what part of the penis makes it physically impossible to wear skirts, play with dolls, call yourself 'she'? And what part of you is incapable of googling 'third gender' and doing some basic research on why sex does not equal and has never equaled gender?

You should really look up the medical definition of gender, because you're only using half of it.

"Medical Dictionary

gender gen·der (jěn'dər)
n.

The sex of an individual, male or female, based on reproductive anatomy ..."

Irrespective, we've invented the terminology to accommodate an innocuous malfunction, but that doesn't make it not a malfunction.


So please explain to me exactly what your plan is and why it will work.
 
2012-02-23 07:32:42 PM

I drunk what: so then a man, who thinks he is a woman, but is sexually attracted to women is a heterosexual lesbian?


A transsexual woman (for those that are a bit slow, that means male to female) that is sexually attracted to women is either lesbian or bisexual. They would not be heterosexual; that would require attraction solely to men.

When it comes to attraction, the parts involved do not matter. Just the psyche and the presentation.

/From my viewpoint.
//Would I sleep with a crossdresser? Fark no. Would I sleep with a MtF transsexual? Very possibly. Would I sleep with a FtM Transsexual? Probably not.
 
2012-02-23 08:30:48 PM

sp86: PsiChick: sp86: PsiChick:

Okay, then. Let's try a different tack. What would happen if you forced her to be male? Well, they already tried that--she tried to farking cut her penis off.

And when they leave her alone, let her be female, and STFU, she is perfectly happy and stable.

So if the problem only arises when other people start interfering, how is being transgendered inherently distressful or dysfunctional?

Because his desire does not match reality or what is possible. And as the two are irreconcilable the most compassionate thing to do would be to attempt to correct his malfunction as early as possible. Irrespective, your suggestion that society accommodate this malfunction returns me to my original (admittedly snide) comparison.

So what part of the penis makes it physically impossible to wear skirts, play with dolls, call yourself 'she'? And what part of you is incapable of googling 'third gender' and doing some basic research on why sex does not equal and has never equaled gender?

You should really look up the medical definition of gender, because you're only using half of it.

"Medical Dictionary

gender gen·der (jěn'dər)
n.

The sex of an individual, male or female, based on reproductive anatomy ..."

Irrespective, we've invented the terminology to accommodate an innocuous malfunction, but that doesn't make it not a malfunction.


You don't cite your source, but I'm guessing it's this one, or an equivalent, which says in *full*:
gen·der (jndr)
n.
1. The sex of an individual, male or female, based on reproductive anatomy.
2. Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.

Looks like your C&P got partly truncated somehow.

It's also worth mentioning that that's only the second one on the page, out of half a dozen. Here's a different one:
gender
[jen′dər]
Etymology: L, genus, kind
1 the classification of the sex of a person into male, female, or ambivalent.
2 the specific sex of a person. See also sex.

Or how about:
gender
Sex; one's personal, social, and legal status as ♂ or ♀, based on body and behavior, not on genital and/or erotic criteria. See Gender-identity/role.

And also this:
gender [jen´der]
sex (def. 1); see also gender identity and gender role.
gender identity disorder a disturbance of gender identification in which the affected person has an overwhelming desire to change their anatomic sex or insists that they are of the opposite sex, with persistent discomfort about their assigned sex or about filling its usual gender role; the disorder may become apparent in childhood or not appear until adolescence or adulthood. Individuals may attempt to live as members of the opposite sex and may seek hormonal and surgical treatment to bring their anatomy into conformity with their belief (see transsexualism). It is not the same as transvestism.


MediLexicon offers:
"Category to which an individual is assigned by self or others, on the basis of sex."

Or Medical Online Dictionary:
The totality of characteristics of structures and functions differentiating the male from the female organism. SEX includes sexology, the study of the differences and interactions between the sexes. It does not include various sexual factors in epidemiology and statistics or the role of the sexes or differences in behavior, psychology, and sociology.

(Note clarifying language.)

Merriam-Websters's MedlinePlus Medical Dictionary (also Aetna InteliHealth):
Main Entry: gen·der
Pronunciation: \ˈjen-dər\
Function: noun
1 : sex 1
2 : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex


Boy, those cherries sure are tasty, aren't they?
 
2012-02-23 10:13:15 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Boy, those cherries sure are tasty, aren't they?


PsiChick: sex does not equal and has never equaled gender?
Sylvia_Bandersnatch:
1. The sex of an individual, male or female, based on reproductive anatomy.



You saying something stupid, and then getting called on it, is not cherry picking. You made a statement that was incorrect, even by your own posted possible definition.

I already covered the situation above:

omeganuepsilon: No. If a child is pulling a tantrum instead of being reasonable and rational, they deserve to be explained to, why they're being an irrational lout

 
2012-02-23 10:44:51 PM

omeganuepsilon: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Boy, those cherries sure are tasty, aren't they?

PsiChick: sex does not equal and has never equaled gender?
Sylvia_Bandersnatch: 1. The sex of an individual, male or female, based on reproductive anatomy.



You saying something stupid, and then getting called on it, is not cherry picking. You made a statement that was incorrect, even by your own posted possible definition.

I already covered the situation above:
omeganuepsilon: No. If a child is pulling a tantrum instead of being reasonable and rational, they deserve to be explained to, why they're being an irrational lout


Are you farking JOKING? (new window)

I'm sorry, but you're looking at a four-year-old who is perfectly happy and healthy when she wears dresses and plays with dolls, and instead of leaving her the fark alone, you're going and actively trying to make her suicidal. How the hell can you call yourself a human being by doing this? That's sick and wrong.
 
Displayed 28 of 328 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report