“real women have vaginas” and “trans rights are men’s rights”. Melbourne TERFs, "The Untamable Shrews" use events to push their own agenda.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know if trans rights are mens' rights or not. Honestly, I think they are unhappy people who want to cling to a greater majority because they are in the minority despite the media.

I really don't have a dog in the hunt. I've worked with a couple of trans people and I call them by their chosen pronoun because eh, who cares. It's not like I'm sitting around work and arguing whether or not they are men or women. I have work to do.

I roll my eyes at trans people who insist they are the opposite sex just like bio men or women, but again, whatever.

The ones that I think are bizarre are the ones who write internet articles claiming that not dating a trans person is transphobia. That is total bullshit. I want a person that looks like an actual woman and has an actual vagina as these things are deal killers for me. I imagine that most gay men want to fuck people who look like men and have dicks. If you are trans, you have to live with the consequences of a smaller dating pool.

[–]azazelcrowley 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EsraYmssik 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]HotDealsInTexas 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EsraYmssik 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

I would say, yes they are.

No not really.

There is no such thing as "trans", it is a morpheme without a lexeme and thus is complete gibberish.... but I'm going to take to mean that you are referring to the mentally ill; the "transgenders".

No. The mentally ill do not have rights in and of themselves by virtue of their mental illness. The rights are already allotted to men in that regard.

There are MEN who want to become women. There are women who want to become MEN.

Actually neither of those are true.

There are only people that are mentally ill, or showing signs of factitious disorder .

I.e. "Factitious disorder is a mental disorder in which a person acts as if he or she has a physical or mental illness when, in fact, he or she has consciously created the symptoms. These people are willing to undergo painful or risky tests to get sympathy and special attention."

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]TheMythof_Feminism -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EsraYmssik 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]EsraYmssik 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

There are only people that are mentally ill, or showing signs of factitious disorder .

Your claim. So back it up.

Still, since you want to play that game:

https://wire.ama-assn.org/ama-news/ama-takes-several-actions-supporting-transgender-patients

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria

https://www.glad.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ama-resolution-fact-sheet.pdf

That's the americans, though. They're weird. How about Britain? They're much more rational:

https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2866

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/

Of course anglophones are odd. Let's take national bias out of the equation by looking at what international bodies say:

https://www.bustle.com/p/the-world-health-organization-will-no-longer-classify-gender-dysphoria-as-a-mental-illness-9557139

Oh look, a shit ton of articles (and from reputable medical bodies) supporting the phenomenon of people suffering such discomfort between their sex (their physical identity) and their gender (their social identity) that they are driven to undergo hormone therapies and surgery to bring the two more in line.

So back to you.

In defiance of a world wide medical consensus, you claim that transmen and -women are exhibiting Munchausens Syndrome.

That is a positive claim on your part. So pony up with some evidence.

[–]RacelessSexlessName 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Your claim. So back it up.

Back what up? there is no third option.

Specifically, before the DSM went full retard, gender dysphoria was a form of mental illness that would fall within the purview of psychosis.

That is to say, a man that thought he was a woman was suffering a disconnect between reality and his perception of reality, aka psychosis.

Those that were not suffering this form of psychosis were simply suffering factitious disorder. These aren't "claims", especially not claims that require sourcing. They are axioms, otherwise I would not have used them. If a patient is exhibiting the symptoms in question ("transgenders" symptoms) , it is one or the other, there is no third option.

Again these are axioms........ well axioms for anyone that has even a cursory knowledge of psychiatry .....

Three confirmation bias'd ,useless links

It is always tedious when I have to explain to another adult what a child should already know. When formulating a premise, a blind link is not able to be a part of your argument. What you are doing is telling the other person to do the work for you.

Use an excerpt and then drop the link to verify that it was indeed sourced. Dropping a blind link is meaningless and disrespectful.

I also like that you used "glad" as a source, lol..... and as I have repeatedly referenced, the DSM V went full retard and lost a great deal of its prestige. Generally speaking, it is [IIIIIIIIIIIIIII-] close to being thrown out altogether.

The DSM was a publication that was supposed to clarify what certain forms of mental illnesses and disorders were, along with precise descriptions to facilitate diagnosis. The DSM V utterly faceplanted and started flirting with notions like "psychosis is not a mental illness" and "playing video games might be added to the DSM as a mental disorder"; in other words, your links, which I am positive you didn't even read, are garbage on multiple levels.

The AMA link is political propaganda .... I understand you have no clue how to formulate a premise, so the best you can offer is a poorly constructed argument from authority.... still, I urge you to actually aspire to the level of "child" in future attempts.

Now, let's distill this thesis to its essence;

Leftist: A "transgenders" is a man that thinks he's a woman. This is not a mental illness. And it is also real.

Actual medical professional : No. By definition it is a form of mental illness, falling within the broad purview of psychosis, specifically a derivative known as "gender dysphoria", failing that it is simple factitious disorder.

Breakdown:

" No, your argument is false and here's why...... here are the alternatives that carry significantly greater merit. "

Since you are making the claim, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that a "transgenders" is not mental illness.... and an argument from authority is not going to cut it.

How about Britain? They're much more rational

Is this a joke?

The U.K., the nation that arrested a man for carrying a potato peeler, the nation that believed it reasonable to imprison Tommy Robinson for the heinous crime of journalism, the nation that saw fit to process Lauren Southern as if she were being prepared for a gulag, the nation that went after Count Dankula for a dog video on the internet.... THAT is more rational?

/rolleyes

I tend to assume the person I am addressing is at least on my level until they demonstrate otherwise. You have demonstrated otherwise.

a shit ton of articles

The fact that you think those articles mean anything is strongly indicative that you have no clue about any of this. You are talking complete and utter nonsense.

Rhetoric and hard-data are two separate things of course, but they go hand in hand. You have failed a both on an extremely fundamental level.

and from reputable medical bodies

Lol? the NHS is a "reputable medical body"?

No, no it isn't. Although the WHO and the AMA have lost a lot of prestige lately, they still far, FAR outperform the NHS which is a laughing stock in comparison.

You are showing a combination of confirmation bias and extreme ignorance on how the field of medicine works. I think I can safely say, you're a dumbass.

In defiance of a world wide medical consensus, you claim that transmen and -women are exhibiting Munchausens Syndrome.

Munchausen Syndrome isn't used anymore, that's why I use the modern term "Factitious disorder". In any case, nice strawman argument.

I don't remember saying that a "transgenders" was exhibiting factitious disorder, I said they are suffering from mental illness.... OR, failing that, then they are exhibiting factitious disorder.

Your bullshit strawman argument is noted and dismissed.

You are arguing purely from emotion, like a hysterical woman.

You have absolutely nothing of value to say.... and while I dislike pulling rank, you do not appear to understand anything else;

I'm a medical professional and university professor, I hang out with engineers, surgeons and attorneys on a daily basis. I follow the publications of the AMA, the WHO and those related to my field. I am extremely confident that I know what I am talking about and that my premise is solid.

Conversely, you rely on confirmation bias, strawman arguments, VERY poorly constructed arguents from authority, failure to understand the most basic levels of onus probandi.

You are a very special person with absolutely nothing of value to say. You are dismissed.

[–]EsraYmssik 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

So... no sources then?

You've asserted a point: that trans (yeah, I'm using the term since it ought to be blindingly obvious what I mean given the context of the discussion¹⁾ people are "mentally ill, or showing signs of factitious disorder."

That struck me as rather a strong claim so I asked for sources, which you declined, bragging, "I could source all of that, no problem."

Yet NOW you don't need sources. NOW it's simply axiomatic.

Since you like pointing out logical fallacies, I'm gonna do it myself. (That's a tu quoque BTW)

Moving the goalposts. Now you don't HAVE to provide sources, because it's all axiomatic
"I'm a medical professional and university professor" Ooh, argument from authority.
"How about Britain? They're much more rational" "Is this a joke?" Yes. Well spotted. OK, being a humourless twat isn't really a logical fallacy. Indulge me.
Citing a source in support of an argument is an "Appeal to Authority"? Dunno if that one has a name. It ought to.
"before the DSM went full retard, gender dysphoria was a form of mental illness that would fall within the purview of psychosis" Appeal to common practice. Also, homosexuality USED to be in the DSM. Plus, claiming the DSM went "full retard" is a pretty bold statement. Care to point out how you drew THAT conclusion?
Talking of which, "full retard?" If I had a dollar for every time I've heard medical professionals use that term... I'd be broke.
That's OK though, because apparently I'm a dumbass. Really? You're getting angry and throwing insults because someone engaged with you and asked you to explain your argument? I feel sorry for your (alleged) students.
Using the term "Munchausen's Proxy" rather than "factitious disorder" because it is more commonly understood is NOT a strawman. It's using loaded language.

tl;dr So... no sources then?

¹ We're not, for example discussing different types of fats, or the system whereby energy moves from the engine of a car to the wheels, or the Gauls who live on the OTHER SIDE of the Alps from Rome.

[–]Imnotmrabut[S] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why play games

It gets really tedious when people like you make such asinine arguments/innuendo.

At the point where someone demanded evidence from me, the guy using the Null Hypothesis, that's when you should have asked him "why play games". Asking me is nonsensical.

Furthermore, my premise has been made crystal clear from the beginning and I can expand on every single point. The propagandist I was responding to will reveal increasingly more severe lapses in logic as he espouses his BS ideology......

You seem to be fascinated with accruing debating points over addressing issues

Sounds like someone that has never been in a debate.

One of the main rules of debate is to ensure that what is being discussed is accurate. The person in question couldn't accurately define a sack of potatoes. So your deflection is noted and dismissed.

I try to avoid making character arguments but your kind is tremendously tedious; You have nothing of substance to say , coupled with the low/no self-awareness to fall back on a character argument that isn't accurate to begin with.

Utter trash.

[–]v573v 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]v573v -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]v573v 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Scientifically, transgender people are more real than white people.

Nope.

Let's see these excerpts of yours, perhaps you have something of substance.

Overall the weight of these studies and others points strongly toward a biological basis for gender dysphoria.

...... are you serious? you don't read medical publications often and it shows.

The above quoted is what we call INCONCLUSIVE . To attempt to base an argument on it is laughable.... at best, it would justify further research, which I would agree is a good idea.

Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other (Figure 2).

Again, are you serious?

When we're talking about genotype variability, we are specifically referring to objective notions, axiomatic concepts..... "things we know to be true". The very excerpt you lifted references this directly. WTF. Not to mention that excerpt is taken way out of context because the premise forwarded is utterly nonsensical. The races are extremely well defined, here are a few facts that are not debatable; Kawazaki's disease (young asians), sickle cell anemia (blacks), decreased lung cancer tendency even under equivalent stimulus [Smoking] (asians), specific medicine that functions more effectively on one race. To even insinuate that race isn't incredibly well defined is to express your hardcore ignorance on the most very basic facts of human physiology.

The only possible way you could forward an argument as asinine as "white people are not real" or anything remotely resembling that, is if you are a mentally ill psycho that is simultaneously decrying the validity of genotype, phenotype, evolution and the basic concept of natural selection.

In other words, your argument is unbelievably terrible and giving you the benefit of the doubt was a horrendous mistake.... there is nothing further to say. You are dismissed.

[–]v573v 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrway_1000 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments