[AATW]

Yes, apologies for feeding the troll having previously suggested to others that we shouldn’t.

TL;DR - these are complicated issues which too many people pretend are simple ones.

[Tom Bishop]

So the New Testament states that homosexuals are shameful, not normal, sinful, and deserve penalty. Your rebuttal is "you're trolling".

It has been understood for a millennia that the Bible doesn't like gays. Your interpretation appears to be based solely on the "Love your neighbors" line, as if it means that we should suddenly accept pedophiles and their abuse of children, or accept murderers who kill innocents. No, it doesn't mean that the sins previously outlined in the Bible are abolished. The New Testament, and Jesus himself, outlines that murder, sexual offenses, theft, et all. are still bad.

[Iceman]

[Action80]

In that way, I'm not sure that reassignment surgery and mutilating one's genitalia is appropriate.

Mutilating is absolutely the incorrect word. Surgery is not a violent disfigurement. No one says, "hi, I'd like to make an appointment for my breast mutilation."

Yeah, that is why so many live to regret the surgery later on, even utilizing the word, "mutilation," once time has passed.

Females do not feel mutilated and "less than" after a mastectomy.

[rooster]

In that way, I'm not sure that reassignment surgery and mutilating one's genitalia is appropriate.

Mutilating is absolutely the incorrect word. Surgery is not a violent disfigurement. No one says, "hi, I'd like to make an appointment for my breast mutilation."

Yeah, that is why so many live to regret the surgery later on, even utilizing the word, "mutilation," once time has passed.

Females do not feel mutilated and "less than" after a mastectomy.

Regretting a surgery does not make it mutilation. It makes it a surgery they regret. And regretting transitioning, while tragic, is not the topic at hand. The word mutilation for surgeries in this thread is only being used for outrage effect.

[Dr David Thork]

Regretting a surgery does not make it mutilation. It makes it a surgery they regret. And regretting transitioning, while tragic, is not the topic at hand. The word mutilation for surgeries in this thread is only being used for outrage effect.

When you take a perfectly healthy functioning set of genitalia and you chop at them with a scalpel and leave them now unable to perform the functions of genitalia ... that is a mutilation.

Definition of mutilation
1: an act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal

It is the perfect description of what is happening. It is not a description used for outrage effect.

[rooster]

Mutilation has a connotation of violence though. Like "the axe murderer mutilated the person so it's going to be a closed casket funeral."

mu·ti·late
verb
inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on.

But it doesn't matter, I won't argue semantics about this anymore. It's incredibly rude to people who have gender reassignment surgeries but I know you're not concerned about that.

[Dr David Thork]

Mutilation has a connotation of violence though. Like "the axe murderer mutilated the person so it's going to be a closed casket funeral."

mu·ti·late
verb
inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on.

FGM is considered mutilation. That's not axe murderers. It is usually religious figures doing something vile as part of a ceremony. Much like doctors doing something vile as part of an unnecessary procedure.

It's incredibly rude to people who have gender reassignment surgeries but I know you're not concerned about that.

You can't keep shying away from conversations because you perceive someone might get upset. Your bank doesn't give a shit about upsetting you if you lose your job and can't pay your mortgage. They'll tell you straight. We're taking your home. We don't care how much that ruins your life. You will not be considered a victim and no one will defend you. But somehow "you are not going to be a woman but instead a mutilated man" is far worse. What upside down liberal logic is this?

[rooster]

FGM is considered mutilation. That's not axe murderers. It is usually religious figures doing something vile as part of a ceremony. Much like doctors doing something vile as part of an unnecessary procedure.

Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting (FGC) or just known as female circumcision.

The FGM is likely called what it is because "Female Genital Mutilation comprises all procedures involving the removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." And because it's illegal in the States so we want it to sound terrible because words matter.

Transgender reassignment surgery is treatment for a medical condition - gender dysphoria.

You can't keep shying away from conversations because you perceive someone might get upset. Your bank doesn't give a shit about upsetting you if you lose your job and can't pay your mortgage. They'll tell you straight. We're taking your home. We don't care how much that ruins your life. You will not be considered a victim and no one will defend you. But somehow "you are not going to be a woman but instead a mutilated man" is far worse. What upside down liberal logic is this?

Who's shying away from a conversation? If the conversation is whether it should be considered an illegal mutilation then yeah I won't have that one with you because that's not the reality.

[Dr David Thork]

The FGM is likely called what it is because "Female Genital Mutilation comprises all procedures involving the removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons."

And gender reassignment for 'transwomen' is a procedure to remove the external male genitalia for non-medical reasons.

Now I know you are going to squeal that it is a medical reason and that it is for gender dysmorphia, but it doesn't cure the patient. The patient is not turned into a woman and gender dysmorphia is a psychological problem, not a physiological problem. Instead they end up with extensive genital injuries and many end up with catheters, urinary tract problems and other complications and you have these problems because you were not cured, you were mutilated.

And because it's illegal in the States so we want it to sound terrible because words matter.

Are you defending female genital mutilation? A proud day for women everywhere I'm sure. 🙄

Transgender reassignment surgery is treatment for a medical condition - gender dysphoria.

In the same way as a course of leeches is a cure for homosexuality, sure.

If the conversation is whether it should be considered an illegal mutilation then yeah I won't have that one with you because that's not the reality.

So now that the liberals have what they want (the ability to mutilate vulnerable people because it makes them feel good), it is no longer up for debate. We can't make this predatory medical practice illegal?

[garygreen]

wearing spectacles doesn't resolve the underlying disorder, therefore wearing glasses is bad you should just go see a therapist about getting over your vision issues

[rooster]

Now I know you are going to squeal that it is a medical reason and that it is for gender dysmorphia, but it doesn't cure the patient.

I already did point out in my post that it is to treat gender dysphoria (not dysmorphia). Whether or not you like that doesn't matter.

Are you defending female genital mutilation?

No

So now that the liberals have what they want (the ability to mutilate vulnerable people because it makes them feel good), it is no longer up for debate. We can't make this predatory medical practice illegal?

Why is this a political matter? Constantly saying anyone who supports sex reassignment surgery is a liberal is incorrect, just look at Caitlyn Jenner. And also I'm not a liberal.

Until you come up with a better way to treat people that isn't already in place and is proven to work then what's the point in discussing it further? Since you have no medical experience, no ongoing academic or medical studies into gender dysphoria, and very little understanding of history and gender in general then it would just be your whiny opinions.

[Dr David Thork]

wearing spectacles doesn't resolve the underlying disorder, therefore wearing glasses is bad you should just go see a therapist about getting over your vision issues

Requiring glasses is a physiological problem. Therefore spectacles will help. However, if you identified as short-sighted and even though you aren't and absolutely insisted that you required glasses, those glasses wouldn't help you. In fact ... they'd make your vision worse.

Now I know you are going to squeal that it is a medical reason and that it is for gender dysmorphia, but it doesn't cure the patient.

I already did point out in my post that it is to treat gender dysphoria (not dysmorphia). Whether or not you like that doesn't matter.

No, as you said, words matter.


Interestingly ... this 'gender dysphoria' nonsense explodes in 2008
click for interesting graph
Clearly someone is funding this propaganda. Soros maybe? Just imagine ... the word cisgender didn't even exist in 2001. Someone literally made it up about 20 years ago. It also explodes in 2008. What happens in 2008? Mmmm, Obama gets in. The Dems start immediately tugging on the levers of power. 🤔

Why is this a political matter?

These are the culture wars. It is highly political.

Constantly saying anyone who supports sex reassignment surgery is incorrect, just look at Caitlyn Jenner.

What, he's 'cured' is he? A fully fledged woman? ... Reality check - he's a bad drag act.

And also I'm not a liberal.

I don't care how you identify.  you hold liberal views ... you are a liberal. This entire identifying thing ... you don't do the identifying. Everyone else does. You don't get to tell me that you are a man, or a conservative or attractive. I make up my own mind on those things. You don't get to control how I think about you. And this authoritarian brow beating is why people hate you fucking liberals so much.

Until you come up with a better way to treat people that isn't already in place and is proven to work then what's the point in discussing it further?

I have a better way. Tell them ... Sir, you are not a woman. I'll see you same time next week for another session.

Since you have no medical experience, no ongoing academic or medical studies into gender dysphoria, and very little understanding of history and gender in general then it would just be your whiny opinions.

I just looked up the history. The whole thing was fabricated in 2008 when Obama got in. It's a political movement. It has nothing to do with medicine.

[rooster]

I don't care how you identify.  you hold liberal views ... you are a liberal. This entire identifying thing ... you don't do the identifying. Everyone else does. You don't get to tell me that you are a man, or a conservative or attractive. I make up my own mind on those things. You don't get to control how I think about you. And this authoritarian brow beating is why people hate you fucking liberals so much.

Whew, good thing I'm not a liberal then.

I just looked up the history. The whole thing was fabricated in 2008 when Obama got in. It's a political movement. It has nothing to do with medicine.

"The term “gender dysphoria syndrome” was proposed in 1973, which includes transsexualism in addition to other gender identity disorders. Gender dysphoria is used to describe the resulting dissatisfaction of the conflict between gender identity and assigned sex."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1665579615000071#:~:text=The%20term%20%E2%80%9Cgender%20dysphoria%20syndrome,gender%20identity%20and%20assigned%20sex.

It's only recently that it's no longer considered a syndrome or disorder. But it's in no way a recent thing.

"Sumerian and Akkadian texts from 4500 years ago document transgender or transvestite priests known as gala and by other names. A grave of a possibly transgender person in Europe has been identified from 4500 years ago, and likely depictions occur in art around the Mediterranean from 9000 to 3700 years ago. In Ancient Greece, Phrygia, and Rome, there were galli priests that some scholars believe to have been trans women, and records of women who passed as men in order to vote, fight, or study during times when these things were forbidden for women. Roman emperor Elagabalus (d. 222) preferred to be called a lady (rather than a lord), sought sex reassignment surgery, and has been seen as an early trans figure. Hijras on the Indian subcontinent and kathoeys in Thailand have formed trans-feminine third gender social and spiritual communities since ancient times, with their presence documented for thousands of years in texts, which also mention trans male figures. Religious iconography in these cultures includes depictions of androgynous figures with bodies that are male on one side and female on the other, like Ardhanarishvara. Today, at least half a million hijras live in India and another half million in Bangladesh, legally recognized as a third gender, and many trans people are accepted in Thailand. In Arabia, khanith today (like earlier mukhannathun) fulfill a third gender role attested since the 600s. In Africa, many societies have traditional roles for trans women and trans men, some of which survive in the modern era amid recent widespread hostility. In the Americas prior to European colonization, as well as in some contemporary North American Indigenous cultures, there are social and ceremonial roles for third gender people, or those whose gender expression transforms, such as the Navajo nádleehi or the Zuni lhamana."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history

So weird how none of those dates say or refer to 2008.

[Dr David Thork]

Yup, so I just had a look for

"Sumerian and Akkadian texts from 4500 years ago document transgender or transvestite priests known as gala and by other names.

And being as transgender was invented in 1986, I cast some doubt on your 'transgender' individual from 4500 years ago. What is happening is that the left are trying to rewrite history again.

PS - I'm not accepting a wikipedia entry written by a blue-haired liberal arts student as a counter source for the hard data on word usage that I provided.

[rooster]

Yup, so I just had a look for

"Sumerian and Akkadian texts from 4500 years ago document transgender or transvestite priests known as gala and by other names.

And being as transgender was invented in 1986, I cast some doubt on your 'transgender' individual from 4500 years ago. What is happening is that the left are trying to rewrite history again.

So essentially, "nuh uh! They didn't use this exact word in Sumeria and Akkadia!" Ya got me there.

PS - I'm not accepting a wikipedia entry written by a blue-haired liberal arts student as a counter source for the hard data on word usage that I provided.

Wikipedia is a great place to start for someone who has no concept of the past outside of the bible. But you can get a free JSTOR subscription which will let you read up to 100 articles a month (during COVID).

[Dr David Thork]

Yup, so I just had a look for

"Sumerian and Akkadian texts from 4500 years ago document transgender or transvestite priests known as gala and by other names.

And being as transgender was invented in 1986, I cast some doubt on your 'transgender' individual from 4500 years ago. What is happening is that the left are trying to rewrite history again.

So essentially, "nuh uh! They didn't use this exact word in Sumeria and Akkadia!" Ya got me there.

I think it fairly obvious they were transvestites. The idea that you can change your gender just by believing that you can, is ironically a very modern view. Not even 4500 years ago did they believe you could wish yourself the opposite sex and it would be so. They'd still put on a dress and pretend, but crucially the rest of society didn't pander to them.

 

[garygreen]

Requiring glasses is a physiological problem. Therefore spectacles will help.

awesome, sounds like we're in complete agreement that treating physiological problems is helpful.

However, if you identified as short-sighted and even though you aren't and absolutely insisted that you required glasses, those glasses wouldn't help you. In fact ... they'd make your vision worse.

i'm not talking about anyone's identity. i'm talking simply about a person having a physiological problem and then treating it. your argument was that that's bad because you can't go against your dna or whatever — your dna says you are a boy, so it's bad to make yourself look like a girl, change your hormones, etc.

i'm just trying to figure out why it super duper matters what my dna says in one case but not others. like, i can fry my fucking eyeballs with lasers and you're cool with that, even though my dna says i am nearsighted. but i can't use lasers to make myself look different because that goes against my dna and is suddenly bad for some reason?

[Iceman]

Awh man, can we go back and delete the last few posts so we can go back to Obama creating transgender people?

[Dr David Thork]

Awh man, can we go back and delete the last few posts so we can go back to Obama creating transgender people?

You're too late. No one wanted to take me up on that one. With no rebuttal, we must all just accept it as tfes lore now.

Requiring glasses is a physiological problem. Therefore spectacles will help.

awesome, sounds like we're in complete agreement that treating physiological problems is helpful.

Except gender dysmorphia is a psychological problem. The issues are in your head. Not your body.

i'm not talking about anyone's identity. i'm talking simply about a person having a physiological problem and then treating it. your argument was that that's bad because you can't go against your dna or whatever — your dna says you are a boy, so it's bad to make yourself look like a girl, change your hormones, etc.

i'm just trying to figure out why it super duper matters what my dna says in one case but not others. like, i can fry my fucking eyeballs with lasers and you're cool with that, even though my dna says i am nearsighted. but i can't use lasers to make myself look different because that goes against my dna and is suddenly bad for some reason?

I have no idea what you are talking about ... and that makes two of us.