• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Different attitudes homosexual and transgender individuals

Foster Zygote

Dental Floss Tycoon
Foster Zygote
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
22,062
Warp12 said:
Well, since I don't think it is a mental defect, I wouldn't advocate portraying it as such.
Click to expand...

Also Warp12 said:
Well, I think it is a mental illness..or more accurately, a mental defect. It is an anomalous and unhealthy mental condition, in my view.
Click to expand...

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?

Posted By: jimbob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Foster Zygote said:
Warp12 said:
Well, since I don't think it is a mental defect, I wouldn't advocate portraying it as such.
Click to expand...

Also Warp12 said:
Well, I think it is a mental illness..or more accurately, a mental defect. It is an anomalous and unhealthy mental condition, in my view.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...


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

Warp12 said:
Well, I think it is a mental illness..or more accurately, a mental defect. It is an anomalous and unhealthy mental condition, in my view. So, I don't want it being taught to my kids as "normal". People who suffer from schizophrenia are not "normal", and we don't pretend so.
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13789749#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.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Why do you think being transgender is a mental defect but homosexuality is not?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Warp12 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Warp12 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
Because homosexuals don't mutilate their bodies/take hormones in an attempt to become something that they are biologically not.
Click to expand...
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?

Warp12 said:
Also, if we consider gender norms a societal construct, nobody is born "transgender".
Click to expand...
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.
 
Warp12 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Going to take your nipples and go home?
 
Upchurch said:
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.)
Click to expand...

There's lots of biology that suggests that.

Robert Sapolsky: Brain Gender
 
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
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.
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
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.
Click to expand...
Warp12 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
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.
Click to expand...

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".
 
Warp12 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
angrysoba said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Warp12 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Warp12 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Quick question: Is your high horse a stallion or a gelding?
 
angrysoba said:
On the other hand, if a grown man chooses to mutilate their bodies by ear piercing, fake boobs, chopping off their wang, etc... I am not one to stand in their way. In fact, I believe in a little something that you right-wingers seem to have forgotten.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bruto said:
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.
Click to expand...

I ...what? Are you talking about the DeSantis law in Florida?
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
angrysoba said:
Cleft pallets, no, but circumcision is having part of your wang cut off. How do you now know this?

I know that in some benighted parts of the world, lopping off bits of a boy's wang is done when a child is an infant! For Gawwwd's sake! They get zero say in this!

I hope you are against this barbaric practice, otherwise I will consider you to be the worst person in the world for the crime of unthinking hypocrisy.

On the other hand, if a grown man chooses to mutilate their bodies by ear piercing, fake boobs, chopping off their wang, etc... I am not one to stand in their way. In fact, I believe in a little something that you right-wingers seem to have forgotten.

A thing for which people of all and no genders and have laid their lives on the line.

A thing called Liberty!

Oh yes, and freedom too!

It would be cruel of me to expect NPC MAGAbots to understand these things, and doubly cruel to engage in intellectual argument with people so blatantly unequipped for debate, but I will leave you with a warning.

If you try to counteract your plumetting testosterone levels with exogenous testosterone, you can end up growing a pair of moobs. This is colloquially known as gyno.

This could have disastrous impact on your social life when you turn up to the Dave Rubin Show that someone gifted you tickets for (when they found out he was a "groomer"), as you might get singled out in the crowd and told to "Go back to Disneyland!"
Click to expand...

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.
 
HansMustermann said:
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
Click to expand...

You're probably thinking of virility.
 
bruto said:
Not directly
Click to expand...
Nor indirectly. There is nothing like that in the Florida law.

bruto said:
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.
Click to expand...
I was not under the impression that had anything to do with teachers.
 
angrysoba said:
Cleft pallets, no, but circumcision is having part of your wang cut off. How do you now know this?

I know that in some benighted parts of the world, lopping off bits of a boy's wang is done when a child is an infant! For Gawwwd's sake! They get zero say in this!

I hope you are against this barbaric practice, otherwise I will consider you to be the worst person in the world for the crime of unthinking hypocrisy.

On the other hand, if a grown man chooses to mutilate their bodies by ear piercing, fake boobs, chopping off their wang, etc... I am not one to stand in their way. In fact, I believe in a little something that you right-wingers seem to have forgotten.

A thing for which people of all and no genders and have laid their lives on the line.

A thing called Liberty!

Oh yes, and freedom too!

It would be cruel of me to expect NPC MAGAbots to understand these things, and doubly cruel to engage in intellectual argument with people so blatantly unequipped for debate, but I will leave you with a warning.

If you try to counteract your plumetting testosterone levels with exogenous testosterone, you can end up growing a pair of moobs. This is colloquially known as gyno.

This could have disastrous impact on your social life when you turn up to the Dave Rubin Show that someone gifted you tickets for (when they found out he was a "groomer"), as you might get singled out in the crowd and told to "Go back to Disneyland!"
Click to expand...
:D :thumbsup:
 
bruto said:
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.
Click to expand...

: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
theprestige said:
You're probably thinking of virility.
Click to expand...
 
HansMustermann said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Emily's Cat said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it's not.
Examples of fertility in a Sentence
She studied the effects of pollution on the fertility of the local fish population. The doctor ordered a test of his fertility. The area is known for its soil fertility. the fertility of his imagination
Click to expand...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fertility

The relevant definition of fertile is:
: capable of breeding or reproducing
Click to expand...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fertile

And virility is not related to reproduction:
Definition of virility

: the quality or state of being virile:
a : manhood sense 3
b : manly vigor : masculinity
Click to expand...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virility
 
HansMustermann said:
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.
Click to expand...

Emily's Cat said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
Not hard for things to get kooky when you make them up. I think it tells you more about yourself than anything else.
 
Warp12 said:
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.
Click to expand...
To which liberals are you referring, specifically?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom