Being transgender is hard

[epepke]

Well of course I only objected to the point I found objectionable. What would you expect one to do?

Not sure. Discuss things? Naw, that would be bad.

 

[truethat]

Not the last one, no. Is it definitive? Some here seem not to think so. I have read a few books, including some you may not have read.

In any event, I like scientific papers. They speak to me in a way that personal accounts don't. Furthermore, I'm approaching this from the perspective of scientific skepticism. Science is what I like to do. It's what I was trained for. And really, there's a lot of good stuff in science. Maybe you don't like that, but so what?



You've asked twice, and it's pretty obnoxious, I think. Why should I need a reason? Is it forbidden? Does one need a license to ask a question on a skeptical forum?

In any event, I've already mentioned that I'm tight with some transgender advocates and advocacy groups. If that isn't sufficient to explain to you why I'm asking questions, I don't think I can help you.



I can empathize. I'm not doing that.



No. And if you can't see that I've asked for scientific evidence, not proof (a word I hardly ever use), then I really don't know what I can say to you.



I explained it extremely clearly, several times.



I have stated this, several times. I have no problem with transgendered children's transitioning, even possibly involving the pre-pubescent administration of hormones, provided that the diagnosis is sufficiently predictive.



Please read, or at least try. I never asserted that gender reassignment surgery was performed on pre-pubescents. In fact, I disagreed with someone who said they did.



OK. Now we're getting somewhere. HELL YES, I DO. Yes, truly and surely I do ask for evidence about medical diagnoses. All the damn time. Especially when they are based on the DSM, a highly political document which, in case you weren't aware, pathologized homosexuality until 1987.



In the words of Krazy Kat, possibly the first transgendered character in modern comics, "deewee me." Your presumption only seems matched by your reading difficulties. You would have a great deal of difficulty persuading people who have known me for years that I am a member of the scientific laity. Suffice it to say that I was the only recipient, ever, of a cash "thank you" gift from a major pharmaceutical company for my contributions. However, I do not pull rank here. I do this partially out of respect for James Randi, an actual member of the laity who has contributed inestimably to scientific skepticism. I do it partially because this forum is a culture of addressing the argument and not the arguer, a concept that seems beyond your comprehension.



Yes, and I've gotten some, but not from you.



So, let's see. I count several Youtube videos, a news item, a Wikipedia article, and a Stanford encyclopedia article.



How about "no." I'll continue to ask for them, because it's worked. You can continue to stereotype, not listen, blather, and fail to demonstrate reading skills. Works for me.

The papers and information I have linked several times in this page alone are not youtube videos or novelty links.

You have not answered a question that I asked, what makes you qualified to question information you will find in scientific papers? What is your educational background?


To me you sound like someone who doesn't understand evolution and keeps being given the information and then dismissing it or mistakenly thinking that your lack of understanding actually amounts to an argument.

It is clear that you and many others on the thread do not understand this issue. And while it is fine to talk about it, in my opinion you can't pick and choose what you want to look at and what you don't.


You sound like a creationist who will say things like "But how do we know that dinosaurs are related to birds? How can we really be sure since we can't go back in time?"

The questions and statements you think are legitimate, have been answered for decades. Go educate yourself if you want to have a conversation.


Also saying that you are "tight" with some transgendered groups etc while still insisting that years of scientific and medical research should be challenged because you don't understand it, is akin to saying the bell curve has merit but some of your best friends are black.

There is true questioning which stems from true education. Then there are lazy people who want us to hand them "scientific" papers so they can point out something that doesn't make sense to them and pretend they've actually made an argument.

So annoying. LOL

 

[truethat]

Not sure. Discuss things? Naw, that would be bad.

You do understand that it is not a "DISCUSSION" if one of the parties doesn't have a clue what they are talking about right?

If I don't understand how IVF works and I don't get it but I decide that my stance should be "all pregnancies should be natural because this seems really dangerous to me and risky, how do we know years down the line these kids conceived with IVF aren't going to turn up with some sort of serious deficiency? We owe it to these children and have an obligation to society to make sure we are 100 percent sure it's safe."


Am I having a discussion or am I making up a nonexistent issue because I don't understand it?

 

[epepke]

The papers and information I have linked several times in this page alone are not youtube videos or novelty links.

As I pointed out, the one paper that I know you linked to, I read.

You have not answered a question that I asked, what makes you qualified to question information you will find in scientific papers? What is your educational background?

You mean I haven't given you a free rim job. You want my CV? Advertise a job.

To me you sound like someone who doesn't understand evolution and keeps being given the information and then dismissing it or mistakenly thinking that your lack of understanding actually amounts to an argument.

Think what you like, and have a nice life. Or not.

It is clear that you and many others on the thread do not understand this issue. And while it is fine to talk about it, in my opinion you can't pick and choose what you want to look at and what you don't.

No; you arrogate that to yourself.

The questions and statements you think are legitimate, have been answered for decades. Go educate yourself if you want to have a conversation.

Hmm... Questions that I have, which only became relevant with the latest version of the Harry Benjamin protocols in 2001, have been know for decades? Really neat trick! I suppose you have a sooper seekrit time machine. Which of course, as a member of the laity, I'm not entitled to ask about.

Also saying that you are "tight" with some transgendered groups etc while still insisting that years of scientific and medical research should be challenged because you don't understand it, is akin to saying the bell curve has merit but some of your best friends are black.

No, it's like thinking that even though there is more than 2000 years of history of the use of plants containing salicylic acid, that there are still things to be questioned about NSAIDs. Such as the recent introduction of COX-2 inhibitors such as Vioxx, which was taken off the market.

I do not expect you to understand this. At all. I don't even expect you to read it.

So annoying. LOL

Talking about yourself again.

 

[epepke]

Am I having a discussion or am I making up a nonexistent issue because I don't understand it?

You, of course, are engaging in unreading, unthinking, unreasoning stereotypy.

 

[truethat]

So far, in order to get around the data, we've had people compare transexuals to animals, and now we're on to plants.

Fun.

 

[truethat]

You do understand that it is not a "DISCUSSION" if one of the parties doesn't have a clue what they are talking about right?

If I don't understand how IVF works and I don't get it but I decide that my stance should be "all pregnancies should be natural because this seems really dangerous to me and risky, how do we know years down the line these kids conceived with IVF aren't going to turn up with some sort of serious deficiency? We owe it to these children and have an obligation to society to make sure we are 100 percent sure it's safe."


Am I having a discussion or am I making up a nonexistent issue because I don't understand it?

Try reading this again. You want to have a "discussion" WHY? Because of the Harry Benjamin protocols? Yet you keep bringing up giving hormones to children when it is NOT DONE the way you seem to think it is.

Also children are given hormones for all sorts of reasons. So why is it such a big deal to you here? Are you out there fighting the fight against other hormones?

You have a prejudice and are trying to justify it as a "discussion." This is what I objected to on page 2 of this thread and I'm sad to see I was correct.


Young girls are often put on birth control pills which contain hormones. Do you object to this as well?

Birth Control Medications Introduction

Birth control (contraceptive) medications contain hormones (estrogen and progesterone, or progesterone alone). The medications are available in various forms, such as pills, injections (into a muscle), topical (skin) patches, and slow-release systems (vaginal rings, skin implants, and contraceptive-infused intrauterine devices [Mirena]).

Choosing which estrogen and progesterone dose, type, and administration method is highly patient specific, meaning that the choice greatly depends on factors unique to an individual. General goals are to choose a product that provides good menstrual cycle control with the fewest adverse (side) effects and to use the lowest hormone dose possible. After beginning birth control medications, it may be necessary to adjust the dose or to choose a different product.

The estrogens and progesterones contained in birth control medications available in the United States include the following:

You are pretending to have a discussion. If you work as a pharmaceutical consultant you surely know that young adults are given hormones on a regular basis in this country. Why is this so different?

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/understanding_birth_control_medications_contrace/article_em.htm

 

[epepke]

So far, in order to get around the data, we've had people compare transexuals to animals, and now we're on to plants.

Which I didn't do. Not that you noticed. You're just interested in stereotyping a group of people.

 

[truethat]

Please answer the question about giving young people hormones. Are you concerned with giving birth control to teenage girls? If not why is this SO DIFFERENT as to cause concern in you.

 

[epepke]

Try reading this again. You want to have a "discussion" WHY? Because of the Harry Benjamin protocols? Yet you keep bringing up giving hormones to children when it is NOT DONE the way you seem to think it is.

That's why I'm asking for scientific references. Which you have constantly said that I am not qualified to know. I have repeatedly said that if the accuracy of the diagnoses were good enough, I wouldn't have any objection. So far, you haven't given any indication that you can even read these simple, repeated statements.

Also children are given hormones for all sorts of reasons. So why is it such a big deal to you here? Are you out there fighting the fight against other hormones?

Sometimes, yes, and not just hormones. Back in the day, I was critical of the administration of SSRIs to adolescent boys. Guess what? Some of them killed themselves, and so, they stopped doing it.

You could probably decide that I only did that because I was massively prejudiced. This really seems to be your style. Bad, bad me.

You have a prejudice and are trying to justify it as a "discussion." This is what I objected to on page 2 of this thread and I'm sad to see I was correct.

That's your belief. You obviously enjoy this belief extremely much, so I'm calling bull on your statement that you are sad. You haven't paid attention, nor have you given the slightest impression that you value paying attention. It must be fun to believe that everybody it out to oppress you because of their prejudices, and it has nothing to do with you, even if you don't show a lot of interest in reading what they write.

So go ahead. Believe what floats your boat.

Oh, and BOOGABOOGABOOGA! I am the spawn of Satan and Anita Bryant, and I have come to suck your superior brain!

Have a nice life. Or not.

 

[truethat]

SSRIs are not hormones are they? I asked you directly about birth control pills which are regularly prescribed to young girls. You make it sound like it is a dangerous terribly unusual thing to give Gender Identity Disorder kids hormone blockers and even hormones.

So again I ask, why? What is so bad about it? Some hormone therapies cannot be reversed, so obviously great caution would be used.

Also I'd like to see any lawsuits out there (I haven't checked it out yet) of young people forced to take hormones who later changed their minds about gender issues.


Also I'm not transgendered so I don't worry about people "oppressing me." I just don't like prejudice and uneducated discussion. I'm sorry it offends you so much that I have been saying that before you have a discussion you need to educate yourself about it. My how terrible of me.

Straight white female married with three kids. Thanks.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I have to say, truethat, that you're shooting your cause in the foot. With an anti material rifle.

Although, I have to ask, since I see it flying around, what are the protocols that you have problems with, epsexe?

 

[tyr_13]

Not sure. Discuss things? Naw, that would be bad.

Well you certainly have been doing a great job of discussing things with such artful dodges.

We are discussing things, or we were. If you don't want to discuss the things I was saying, that's fine.

 

[Earthborn]

There is a distinction between Transgender and Gender Identity Disorder.

No, there isn't.

One is a state of being and the other is a diagnosis.

One is the state of being diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder, and the other is the diagnosis of being transgendered. The terms refer to the exact same people with the same "state of being"; one is favoured by the transgender community, the other by the medical establishment.

Being transgender need not be a "disorder" any more than being gay is having a "sexual orientation disorder"

Which is why the inclusion of GID in the DSM is a controversial issue within the transgender community. Some feel that it needlessly pathologises their state of being.

The point is that a child can be diagnosed as having Gender Identity Disorder and grow out of it by the time they hit their teens. A transsexual will not.

By definition a transsexual is someone with GID who does not grow out of it; I think you should make a distinction between "transgender" and "transsexual".

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/transgender.aspx

Doesn't support your claim. It only argues that being transgendered is not a mental disorder. It does not argue that it is not a disorder, or that it is something different from "Gender Identity Disorder".

 

[truethat]

I have to say, truethat, that you're shooting your cause in the foot. With an anti material rifle.

Although, I have to ask, since I see it flying around, what are the protocols that you have problems with, epsexe?

I'm not here to make friends. This isn't "my cause."

It's actually very annoying to be on an educational forum where people think they are having a discussion when they don't answer simple direct questions and also do not think they need to do even a modicum of research before attempting to "discuss a topic."

It's frankly, ridiculous for someone to attempt to discuss something they don't understand.


Direct questions get ignored because the "discussion" is not about true discourse but rather about asking for people who are more knowledgeable to provide evidence that will be selectively picked over.


Why does the poster take issue with hormones being given to teen agers when teenaged girls are usually put on birth control hormones no problem?

 

[truethat]

No, there isn't.

One is the state of being diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder, and the other is the diagnosis of being transgendered. The terms refer to the exact same people with the same "state of being"; one is favoured by the transgender community, the other by the medical establishment.

Which is why the inclusion of GID in the DSM is a controversial issue within the transgender community. Some feel that it needlessly pathologises their state of being.

By definition a transsexual is someone with GID who does not grow out of it; I think you should make a distinction between "transgender" and "transsexual".

Doesn't support your claim. It only argues that being transgendered is not a mental disorder. It does not argue that it is not a disorder, or that it is something different from "Gender Identity Disorder".

Sorry but that's not how I've interpreted it or how anyone I know has interpreted it. I guess we will agree to disagree. It could be that there is a distinction between transgender and transsexual which would make sense. Many times the umbrella term of transgender is used interchangably with transsexual which is how I tend to use it and most of the people I talk to. I think it's clear we are talking about people who feel they were born in the opposite body in this thread. But of course you can disagree on that as well.

Also the distinction about it being a medical diagnosis has a lot more to do with it being recognized as a medical condition so that surgeries and treatments are covered by medical insurance. I think that's a separate issue though.

 

[L.Y.S.]

So then you agree? Hormone blockers are used when the child is young to prevent puberty. I'm also a bit curious. Are you against the use of any hormones in a teens body? What of the use of birth control pills?

I doubt a doctor will give a child irreversible hormones unless it is very clear that a child is a transsexual.


And once again, just because you don't understand how this distinction is made, doesn't mean the medical community, parents or transgendered child is confused, so stop projecting your confusion as an uncertainty that should be respected by others.

We get it, you are confused and unsure, so are many others on this thread. You are allowed to be so. It doesn't mean you are correct. Keep learning until you catch up.

It is obvious that you did not read my subsequent statement and indeed did seek out confrontation. By the way in which you argue, you make others want confrontation with you. You seek out the negative in others arguments. This argument is of course too close to your chest for you to pragmatically discuss. I'm willing to bet you look at the statements and cringe. I have to paraphrase a statement made earlier by Alt+F4, "you are indeed a self-righteous fool".

I don't think the any use of hormones in "CHILDERN" which is what I said. I'll wait for you to find a statement in which I said it wasn't advisable to use hormones in teenagers. I'll tell you now, you won't find it. I don't care if a teenager makes the choice to do this. In fact I've seen that most in this thread including Alt+F4 are not adverse to the idea of persons in their late teenager years or early adult years making the decisions.

However, the primary point of the contention has been and remains the use of hormone therapy in a child, even if we are "sure" the child is transgender. Many are arguing about the ethicality of providing hormones to young children, including the use of hormone therapy before puberty. We are not arguing however, about the ethicality of delaying puberty. We don't give 10 years birth control so why should we give them hormone therapy? By the way the logical fallacy in the argument is on your behalf, by again, misquoting my statement and conducting a strawman as you have several times in this thread.

You never cease and desist with your use of strawmen.

 

[truethat]

WHY ARE YOU BRINGING UP THE USE OF HORMONES IN CHILDREN when it is not done?

For the last freaking time, no one gives hormones to YOUNG CHILDREN who have been diagnosed with GID so stop perpetuating a lie upon which you can build a non existent argument.

Since this is what you all have been pretending to discuss it's just a bunch of baloney.


Also I would suggest you look up birth control pills being given to young girls. It is certainly done. Educate yourself for the last time. I don't even bother to read your posts they are long and filled with utter nonsense.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Why does the poster take issue with hormones being given to teen agers when teenaged girls are usually put on birth control hormones no problem?

Again, strawman, no one has argued about the ethicality of using hormones in teenagers. We are arguing about the ethicality of using them in 10 years, which are definitely not teenagers. 10 year olds defacto don't have enough life experience to make such a critical decision. It doesn't say that they don't understand, simply that they may be correct, but we as a society do not want 10 year olds making such huge decisions. So the only ethical option is to delay puberty until the child is old enough and responsible enough to make such a large decision by themselves.

 

[L.Y.S.]

WHY ARE YOU BRINGING UP THE USE OF HORMONES IN CHILDREN when it is not done?

For the last freaking time, no one gives hormones to YOUNG CHILDREN who have been diagnosed with GID so stop perpetuating a lie upon which you can build a non existent argument.

Since this is what you all have been pretending to discuss it's just a bunch of baloney.

Why are you bringing up the argument of using it in teenagers. I surely did not see anyone talking about it being wrong for a teenager to use hormones? I'll wait for you to find a statement that agrees with the above. Which I highly doubt you can do.

It is clear that you are not emotionally detached from this arguement and therefore can not objectively discuss the situation. Therefore, I suggest you opt out of coming to this thread in order to prevent your own skin from boiling. In fact, I think everyone who is too close to the issue should avoid this thread. It's clear that this thread is becoming too personal for you.