Different attitudes homosexual and transgender individuals
 

Why won't you answer my question? Do you really think that sexual identity is determined by cultural programming? In the absence of said programming, would sexual orientation be essentially random?

I was directly responding to a post about transgenderism...not homosexuality.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post13789749


Obviously you could see this, since you quoted my post. That is quite a disingenuous representation of my position.

Thus, I suppose we won't be debating this topic any further.

Why do you think being transgender is a mental defect but homosexuality is not?

Because homosexuals don't mutilate their bodies/take hormones in an attempt to become something that they are biologically not. Also, if we consider gender norms a societal construct, nobody is born "transgender". Homosexuality is not based upon such constructs; it is based upon sexual attraction, which is more instinctual.

This discussion is probably more appropriate for the transgender-specific thread.

So, you think anyone who "mutilates" their bodies/take hormones to be something they are not "biologically" is the problem. Why is that a mental defect but homosexuality isn't when that is not what "biology" intended either? We don't know what the cause of homosexuality is any more than we know what causes people to be transgender. Your distinction makes no sense.

First, I can see that you are making an attempt to twist my words in order to cover a broad spectrum of conditions. I am talking very specifically about this one issue.

What I've said makes perfect sense. But I am not going to debate it here any further.

What makes you think all transgender people mutilate their bodies or take hormones?

What makes you think all homosexuals do NOT mutilate their bodies or take hormones?

What makes you think NO straight people mutilate their bodies or take hormones?

The transgender kid in my son's class didn't mutilate their body or take hormones. Is it still insane if you are basing your judgement on a false premise?

By that definition, neither is anyone born cis-gendered. Are you only cis-gendered because you believe yourself to be based on social norms? But if they are only social norms, nothing prevents one from being transgender. Hm.


(Of course, there is a bunch of biology that suggests that transgenderism is has a more physical root than that, but I'm guessing you aren't ready for that discussion.)

I raised a boy and one of my friends raised a girl of the same age. We both noticed our kids had strong gender identities very early on despite both of us being single parents who were pretty sure we were not instilling gender identities in our kids. She was dismayed her little girl was into princesses, Barbie and pink. My son was into batman and toy cars. Probably there were influences from TV and daycare but still, that could not explain all the gender identity traits kids develop at young ages. Biology had to have primed the pump.

Going to take your nipples and go home?

There's lots of biology that suggests that.

Robert Sapolsky: Brain Gender

Good talk

First, you're hallucinating if you're seeing me "making an attempt to twist (your) words. I repeated what you said and then asked you "Why is that a mental defect but homosexuality isn't when that is not what "biology" intended either?" based on YOUR condition of "biology". That you cannot answer that with a logical and rational reason is why you aren't going to "debate it here any further." Stop peeing on my leg cuz we all know it ain't rain.

To clarify and elaborate on this for those less well versed in Biology / Physiology:
1. Sex hormones drive sexual differentiation, during embryological development, into male or female. Almost the entirety of the "male" part of the Y-chromosome (i.e. the part that makes it the Y-chromosome as opposed to the X-chromosome) is the SRY gene, which codes for testosterone receptors. (Androgens like testosterone are associated with male development whereas estrogens are associated with female development; but both are produced in both genders, serving different developmental and regulatory functions)

2. Different parts of the human body develop at different times during embryological development. In particular with respect to gender identity and orientation, genitalia and brain undergo sexual differentiation at different times.

3. Hormone levels during embryological development fluctuate. Meaning that fetal development of gonads may take place when hormonal levels are different than when structures in the brain develop. There are multiple factors than can change hormone levels during fetal development; or affect the fetus's response to those hormones.

One example, of many, is that there are classes of compounds similar enough to native sex hormones that they are capable of affecting the body to a greater or lesser extent like those hormones. Some of these compounds can be introduced into the body from what we eat. For example soy products are supposedly high in phytoestrogens: plant-based compounds that can affect the body like native estrogens. Both phytoandrogens AND phytoestrogens are known to cross the placental barrier during pregnancy.

I agree 100%. As for nature vs nurture/society/ parental influence, etc., I've always said that clay and playdough can both be molded and shaped, but clay will never be playdough and playdough will never be clay. We are what we were born when it comes to certain things: our cis-homo-bi-whatever sexuality and our gender identity or two. No one "turns".

Biology only counts when it comes to having a penis or a clitoris at birth. Otherwise, it's just a liberal sickness. :rolleyes:

It’s rare to find Americans who are so against circumcision as you are! Bravo!

However, I do hear that some people benefit from hormone replacement therapies and various surgeries that improve their quality of life. I get it that some people think this is “unnatural” but frankly natural is over-rated. Children born with cleft pallets etc…. probably benefit from such surgeries.

Yes, circumcision and cleft pallet surgeries are exactly like men lopping their wangs off and having their privates fashioned into a pretend makeshift vagina.

All of this has already been covered. One thing is for sure, if any conservative needs a great reason to support the FL legislation and condemn Disney, this thread delivers in spades.

The ridiculous nature of some of the leftist input has exceeded all of my expectations.

The ridiculous nature some of the rightist input has put forth has fully met my expectations. If there is any reason not to support the right-wing's barely hidden agenda to legalize bigotry and homophobia, this thread delivers it in spades.

Proclaiming being transgendered is a mental defect in glaring opposition to medical and psychiatric/psychological organizations' saying it is not is pure narcissism. The "I don't care what the experts say, I know better for.....reasons" argument doesn't work well with people who actually have critical thinking abilities.

Quick question: Is your high horse a stallion or a gelding?

:D

I hope you realize they're not countering the right wingers' argument. The whole point of the "groomer" outrage is the scare that kids will be misled to do irreversible^* stuff at ages where they don't actually have the mental capacity to fully understand what they're doing. That it's (more) ok to do that as an adult is actually part of their argument.


^* Apparently including even wearing tight underwear to try to hide the boy parts can irreversibly reduce one's fertility, as those cells don't just slow down at higher temperatures, they can actually just up and die. And the company in the link sells them only in sizes ranging from age 4 to teenage.

Though I'm not sure how the Florida bill is supposed to do anything about it. The whole Florida argument is that such things should be in the hands of the parents, aaand... surprisingly enough, it's parents who buy the underwear at that age. I don't think any school started giving out underwear.

No, but some people should perhaps beware what they ask for. They're going to preserve the morals of society by giving teachers an excuse to probe their children's pants.

I doubt there's any kind of pants that would affect a boy's fertility, no matter how convinced they might be that they're actually a girl.

I ...what? Are you talking about the DeSantis law in Florida?

Apparently it can. Well, by the time it starts to matter.

Though I'm still not sure why it's a problem for the conservatives. I mean, that would solve whatever trans genes there might be in the long term. You know, Darwinian style.

Oh... wait... they'd first have to be onboard with Darwin :p

The statement was "Because homosexuals don't mutilate their bodies/take hormones in an attempt to become something that they are biologically not."

Sorry, I disagree with the sentiments of the poster you are replying to, but you aren't arguing against what he actually said.

You're probably thinking of virility.

Not directly - I'm talking about getting uptight about whether some kid has suspiciously tight-looking underwear, which it appears some are trying to lump under the heading of "grooming" that must be curtailed.

No, the claim is literally that the cells producing the spermatozoa die over time if they're kept at body temperature. Has nothing to do with virility.

Nor indirectly. There is nothing like that in the Florida law.

I was not under the impression that had anything to do with teachers.

Personally I like the Genderbread Person.

:D :thumbsup:

:confused: Are you quibbling with the term "fertility" or are you questioning that the underwear could actually damage a male's ability to produce sperm and cause sterility?

ETA: Answered

Fertility is a female-specific term, virility is a male-specific term.

So let's just sidestep all of that, and say that pushing a child's testes up into their inguinal canals and using very tight-fitting underwear to force them to stay inside their bodies can most assuredly cause sterility.

Ah. Well, my limited knowledge of English strikes again. Thanks for the correction.

No, it's not.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fertility

The relevant definition of fertile is:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fertile

And virility is not related to reproduction:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virility

Oh, I'm sure that won't be a worry for too long. Probably some "experts" will soon publish a paper that suggests early surgical mutilation is best. It is "gender-affirming care", after all.

Thinking about this makes me chuckle...briefly. It is like the goal for some liberals is to literally create a society of dickless men. We must then refer to these people as "women"...or else.

Pretty kooky.

Not hard for things to get kooky when you make them up. I think it tells you more about yourself than anything else.

To which liberals are you referring, specifically?