On sexual orientation and gender identity...

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by dewolf

You are ****ing mental case if you can equate kiddy fiddling with a person being transgender. What a warped, ****ed up individual you are.

Please explain how they differ under the argument you previously made.

Both groups would tell you that what they do us normal, healthy and they are predisposed to what they do. Both groups exploit children...transsexuals...to expand their ranks and to gain societal acceptance. They gave just done a little better promoting themselves in the west...while "kiddy fiddlers" have promoted their cause better in the Iskamic world.

When you can show biological evidence that transvetities are any different (by physiology) than said "kitty fiddlers"...you may have a point. Until then, it is just a mental illness as it had been assessed prior to recent campaigns to make it acceptable...and pretending it is not prevents proper treatment and causes irreversible damage both mentally and physically.

Your feigned outrage is a far cry from you purported scientific/medical evidence you though would sell. It does not successful substitute for a real, reasoned argument. In fact, it is more a surrender of your case.

[dewolf]

Originally Posted by fintstone

Please explain how they differ under the argument you previously made.

Both groups would tell you that what they do us normal, healthy and they are predisposed to what they do. Both groups exploit children...transsexuals...to expand their ranks and to gain societal acceptance. They gave just done a little better promoting themselves in the west...while "kiddy fiddlers" have promoted their cause better in the Iskamic world.

When you can show biological evidence that transvetities are any different (by physiology) than said "kitty fiddlers"...you may have a point. Until then, it is just a mental illness as it had been assessed prior to recent campaigns to make it acceptable...and pretending it is not prevents proper treatment and causes irreversible damage both mentally and physically.

Your feigned outrage is a far cry from you purported scientific/medical evidence you though would sell. It does not successful substitute for a real, reasoned argument. In fact, it is more a surrender of your case.

Oh shut up you imbecile.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by dewolf

Oh shut up you imbecile.

My, aren't we touchy about gender today. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings...it appeared you wanted an adult discussion of the issue and merits of your argument.

Have a nice day!

[manbridge 74]

dewolf an adult?

That's rich...

[Norm K]

Originally Posted by dewolf

Oh shut up you imbecile.

Now there's a highly-reasoned, well thought out response to fint's post which clearly showed no reason or thinking.

Way to kick his arse, dewolf!

_

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by fintstone

If one assumes that your "study" is correct and there is proof that there is a biological assignment of gender that may not match the sexual equipment that one is born with, it should be easy to sort out those who are broken and fix them. By all means, do so, but stop teaching young children that they are likely transgender and letting them choose their gender based on fad or preference.

Of course we both know that isn't the case (we really cannot find biological evidence) and this study...like many, is just a bunch of silliness foisted on a brain-numbed populace by special interests. You could likely prove that abusing ones children, pedophillia, etc. are just as predetermined...so let those folks do what come natural as well. Live and let live. Who gives a ****?

Just because we have failed to find any biologic evidence does not mean it is not there. Even if we were to identify a "fixable" problem, it does not necessarily follow that it will be a simple fix. It ain't like swapping out a bad relay on a 40 year old VW.

[sereyll]

A lot of ignorance from the above. What IROC is describing is something you have not experienced. Easy from your perspective.

[widebody911]

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Just because we have failed to find any biologic evidence does not mean it is not there. Even if we were to identify a "fixable" problem, it does not necessarily follow that it will be a simple fix. It ain't like swapping out a bad relay on a 40 year old VW.

Agreed...and just because we have failed to find evidence...it is even harder to conclude it is there.

Just pointing out the gap in logic...if you claim that "science" has proved that it is physiological, then it seems that one might concluded that the same mechanism that determined that was the case could identify those affected...then we would not have to let 5 year old boys opt to be girls without really being sure.

Having been a "scientist" and research analyst...(before I realized that engineering paid a lot better), I can tell you that I can prove almost anything to the level of proof we accept for subjects like this (note the posted article). We will simply accept anything that tells us we or our friends and loved ones are normal. We would never tell a person with a resting heart rate of 100 that it was normal to make them feel better...or do open heart surgery on a person who appeared perfectly normal and healthy in every way because they felt like a person with a heart attack deep inside. Yet we are perfectly willing to tell a 5 year old that if they feel like the opposite gender, medicine/science tells us that they are in the wrong body...and just hang on a few years and we will cut their weiner off and make them the woman they were meant to be.

[JD159]

I would disagree that the harder it is to find evidence results in something increasingly likely to not be true.

Was pretty hard to find a lot of scientific discoveries until recently and we have literally just started scratching the surface.

Not being able to find evidence just means that we have not found any evidence.

We need evidence that supports the contrary.

[KevinP73]

Anybody who has ever raised a child will tell you, starting at about two years old a child will do exactly the opposite of what he/she is told. It's how they learn boundaries.Tell a two year old boy that the dolls are not for him or that dresses are for his sister and dolls and dresses are all he's going to want. He's relying on the parents to define his boundaries even if they are just social constructs.
What's the old expression ? The best way to get something done is to tell a teenager he's not allowed to do it. Have you ever told a teenage girl her boyfriends a loser and she's not allowed to see him anymore ? Yea. That works.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by JD159

I would disagree that the harder it is to find evidence results in something increasingly likely to not be true.

Was pretty hard to find a lot of scientific discoveries until recently and we have literally just started scratching the surface.

Not being able to find evidence just means that we have not found any evidence.

We need evidence that supports the contrary.

Although I did not suggest that, I will take the bait and disagree. If you cannot find scientific evidence after intense study, it is more likely not true. The inability to find evidence to support your hypothesis does not give you any bit more confidence your theory was correct. In fact, it makes it more unlikely. It is true, however, that there are many things we do not understand nor can prove scientifically how they work. That does not the the opposite is true (that the less evidence, the more likely). It just doesn't work that way. Claims of scientific proof when there are none...are just hypothesis without any scientific basis...fairy tales.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by KevinP73

Anybody who has ever raised a child will tell you, starting at about two years old a child will do exactly the opposite of what he/she is told. It's how they learn boundaries.Tell a two year old boy that the dolls are not for him or that dresses are for his sister and dolls and dresses are all he's going to want. He's relying on the parents to define his boundaries even if they are just social constructs.
What's the old expression ? The best way to get something done is to tell a teenager he's not allowed to do it. Have you ever told a teenage girl her boyfriends a loser and she's not allowed to see him anymore ? Yea. That works.

Exactly...as we have believed for many years...this is likely a psychological problem...and until there is real evidence otherwise, claiming it is physiological is more dangerous than helpful...even if it makes some folks feel better that they are "tolerant."

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by JD159

I would disagree that the harder it is to find evidence results in something increasingly likely to not be true.

Was pretty hard to find a lot of scientific discoveries until recently and we have literally just started scratching the surface.

Not being able to find evidence just means that we have not found any evidence.

We need evidence that supports the contrary.

You need to go back and re-read PPOT's and PARF's rich history of "god" threads, wherein our "scientifically" inclined contributors go on ad nauseum concerning the inability to prove the non-existence of something.

We cannot conclusively prove the non-existence of the sasquatch, unicorns, leprechauns, garden fairies, and on and on. However, our inability to find any examples, after giving it a pretty good go, would lead most thinking men to conclude there are none. There are, however, those that continue to hold out hope, to fantasize about their existence.

[JD159]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

You need to go back and re-read PPOT's and PARF's rich history of "god" threads, wherein our "scientifically" inclined contributors go on ad nauseum concerning the inability to prove the non-existence of something.

We cannot conclusively prove the non-existence of the sasquatch, unicorns, leprechauns, garden fairies, and on and on. However, our inability to find any examples, after giving it a pretty good go, would lead most thinking men to conclude there are none. There are, however, those that continue to hold out hope, to fantasize about their existence.

So because we haven't after some intensive searching found cures for various diseases and conditions, chances are they are not curable? We have given cancer research a pretty good go, but haven't "cured" it yet. So we probably never will.

There is so much about the body and how it works that we do not know -- yet.

Also.


We cannot conclusively prove the non-existence of the sasquatch, unicorns, leprechauns, garden fairies, and on and on. However, our inability to find any examples, after giving it a pretty good go, would lead most thinking men to conclude there are none. There are, however, those that continue to hold out hope, to fantasize about their existence.

So I'd be ruling out god and Christianity as well based on your logic.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by JD159

So because we haven't after some intensive searching found cures for various diseases and conditions, chances are they are not curable? We have given cancer research a pretty good go, but haven't "cured" it yet. So we probably never will.

There is so much about the body and how it works that we do not know -- yet.

When we find a cure, we will rejoice. It will change our lives in a fundamental way. But, we do not yet have that cure, and for anyone to carry on as if we did would be rather foolish.

Originally Posted by JD159

Also.

We cannot conclusively prove the non-existence of the sasquatch, unicorns, leprechauns, garden fairies, and on and on. However, our inability to find any examples, after giving it a pretty good go, would lead most thinking men to conclude there are none. There are, however, those that continue to hold out hope, to fantasize about their existence.

So I'd be ruling out god and Christianity as well based on your logic.

Many have, for precisely that reason.

As a matter of fact, one of our more strident atheists - Mike (IROC) has stated that position repeatedly with regards to the existence or non-existence of a "god". Yet here he was, on this thread, espousing a baseless, faith-based position regarding gender preference and identification. A position for which no scientific evidence exists, yet he knows someone who is supposedly "afflicted" with this non-existent condition, so he claims it to be "real". He fails to meet his own oft-stated standards of evidence.

I guess his dichotomy somewhat serves to illustrate the pitfalls inherent in being a sheep, following along in the flock of popular "politically correct" opinion, when one does not really understand the issues. Folks like this spend their lives desperately trying to appear "informed" and "intellectual" by latching onto the currently trendy positions on the issues. They all eventually wind up looking like fools, bogged down in a quagmire of contradictions they cannot understand.

So, yeah, keep looking for your unicorn. If he's out there, someone will eventually find him. There are certainly no shortage of people who have joined in your search. Just don't expect the rest of us to go along when you pretend to find him. We will need some pretty solid evidence. Until we are presented with such, there is simply no reason to pay any heed to this foolishness.

[dewolf]

Originally Posted by Norm K

Now there's a highly-reasoned, well thought out response to fint's post which clearly showed no reason or thinking.


_

It doesn't deserve one. I guess you guys don't mind people that defend kiddy fiddling priests.

[Concestor0]

If this issue is to be studied in a scientific manner this particular study doesn't seem to carry much weight within the scientific community.

Nature or nurture, either way, it is no business of anyone else's who they prefer to be, be with or love.


A New Regnerus? Anti-Equality Groups Promote New Study on Sexual Orientation and Gender
Submitted by Peter Montgomery on Monday, 8/22/2016 2:49 pm

Anti-equality organizations are enthusiastically promoting a new study on sexual orientation and gender, hoping it will be new culture war ammunition.

The study by Dr. Lawrence Mayer and Dr. Paul McHugh appears in “The New Atlantis,” a journal co-published by the right-wing Ethics and Public Policy Center and the Center for the Study of Technology and Science, which shares an address with EPPC. The New Atlantis is not a peer-reviewed journal, and has critiqued peer review, widely considered the gold standard in scientific publishing.

Among the authors’ contentions are that the belief that sexual orientation and gender identity are innate or fixed properties is “not supported by scientific evidence.” The study also says that the stress of social stigma is not a sufficient explanation for higher rates of mental health and substance abuse problems in LGBT communities.

In his preface, co-author Mayer dedicates his work to the LGBT community, “which bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared the population as a whole,” and to “scholars doing impartial research on topics of public controversy.” He declares himself a supporter of equality and opponent of anti-LGBT discrimination.

Mayer says that McHugh initially approached him to review a monograph he had written and the project expanded from there. The prominent but controversial McHugh is a Catholic in his mid-80s who has described himself as “religiously orthodox, politically liberal, and culturally conservative – a believer in marriage and the Marines, a supporter of institutions and family values.” The new study builds on a body of work that dismisses the notion of transgender identity. TransAdvocate and others challenged McHugh’s “selective reading of transgender medical literature” two years ago, and ThinkProgress critiqued his work in 2015.

Brian Brown at the National Organization for Marriage can hardly contain his excitement about the new study, writing in a letter to supporters, “The importance of this new study cannot be overstated.” He urges people to “help spread the word” to “make sure that this groundbreaking research gains the wide hearing it deserves despite what will surely be a concerted effort by the media to bury its findings.”

Also participating in the roll-out is the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson, one of the most prominent opponents of marriage equality. Anderson says the study’s findings undermine the Obama administration’s requirement that schools accommodate transgender children as well as the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling.

Anderson has written a book and spoken widely about how the anti-equality movement should reject and resist the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling. Anderson has urged the anti-equality movement to conduct new research (citing the widely discredited Mark Regnerus study on “family structures”) to create “new insights” that future Supreme Court justices could use as justification for overturning Obergefell.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by Concestor0

If this issue is to be studied in a scientific manner this particular study doesn't seem to carry much weight within the scientific community.

Nature or nurture, either way, it is no business of anyone else's who they prefer to be, be with or love...[/I]

I believe it is very much a parent's business who their minor children are with...or even if their children are introduced to the topic or not. As a taxpayer funding the behavior, one certainly has the right to question the Federal Government's push to mainstream and finance gender change propaganda and health care.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by fintstone

I believe it is very much a parent's business who their minor children are with...or even if their children are introduced to the topic or not.

Absolutely. To have public schools and other gubmint bureaucrats decide when and what is "right" on topics such as this goes unquestionably over the line. It is not within their charter, our mandate to them. Yet the same half wits that demand we accept unproven tenets regarding "sexual identity" under the guise of "diversity" will not accept the fact that it is every parents' right to determine when it is appropriate to introduce this subject matter to their children. Good, solid, morals based parenting is not acceptable under their umbrella of "diversity".

Originally Posted by fintstone

As a taxpayer funding the behavior, one certainly has the right to question the Federal Government's push to mainstream and finance gender change propaganda and health care.

I think we need to be very careful about demanding control of one another's controversial behaviors under the auspices of this (financially) "shared responsibility" idea. I drive fast sports cars. I ride motorcycles. In my circle of friends, we have rock climbers, scuba divers, skiers, sky divers, pilots, and on and on. All activities with risk factors above the norm. Do we tell these people they must stop, or the rest of us in society won't cover for them if they continue their risky behaviors? Where would that end, once that camel gets his nose under our tent? Suddenly, you eat too much red meat, you don't exercise enough...