How Will This Affect LGBT Lawsuits? Against Religion, States, Or Just Anyone Who Disagrees?

[Skylar]

Ultimately, it's a game. You can call a man a woman, you can put him in a dress, cut off his penis, give him hormone shots that make his boobs grow and shave all his body hair off. Guess what, he's still a man. Until he drops that Y chromosome and gets a second X, it's all a make believe game.

I have a buddy who is going through gender reassignment right now. She's full hormone replacement and will be going under the knife in February. In her case, she's genetically intersex. She's XXY, literally sporting 47 chromosomes.

Which means that she manifests both male and female traits genetically. Including a small penis (which makes me feel kinda bad for all the time we made 'lil chub' jokes I made when we were younger). The testosterone her body produced was causing extensive inflammation issues as much of her body rejected it. Since taking medication to suppress the testosterone, her health has markedly improved. She says her thinking is clearer and her mood vastly improved after taking estrogen hormones. And after about 3 years made the decision to live as a female.

How would your theory incorporate her who has both male and female genes? Intersex folks are much more common than many folks realize, with some estimates putting them as high as 1 in 1000.

There is also XXXY, tall, high-pitched voice, usually heavy with breasts and sterile, and the real he-men, XYY and XYYY who can be serious scary fuckers with violent tempers from all the juice in their veins.

Probable XY females, Ann Coulter and Jamie Lee Curtis. One never married, neither has biological children.

Its my understanding that anyone with more than the 46 chromosomes will be sterile. My friend certainly can't have kids.

 

[Silhouette]

Shall we do an emperical study of genetic testing of people saying they're transgender? Or does the APA forbid the scientific process now? Should we just rely on "words" instead of numbers as the neo-APA's "CQR" method suggest we do?

And if the studies don't say what you want, you will just wrap them up into your conspiracy, insisting gays 'infiltrated' biology just like you claim gays 'infiltrated' the media and 'infiltrated' the polling agencies Just like you did any polling data that contradicts you. Just like you do any study that affirms that the children of same sex are fine.

An evidence based conversation isn't for you. As you assess credibility of evidence by its agreement with what you already believe. You're the avatar of confirmation bias.

This is a conversation for folks who use evidence.

And yet from your tone and projecting, it sounds as if you don't want to test each and every person calling themselves (self diagnosing without a psychological or medical degree) "transgender".

It sounds as if your "theory" that all "transgenders" are genetically malformed with excess Y or X chromosomes is not one you want to prove up with actual testing.

Typical stance of the neo-American Psychological Association: shy away from actual science and date collecting and promote the Cult values blindly...OR ELSE..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I am not convinced that all, or even a significant percentage, of those who want to pretend they are of the opposite gender fall into that category.

They don't, the point is male is not always XY nor female XX, especially since there are X0 females, just one X, so we can't use genetics to figure out what sex, meaning gender in this case, someone actually is. There are many sexes and many genders. Life is complicated so black and white thinking, pink and blue thinking, is dumb, and wrong.

Pink, BTW, used to be a strong color 100 years ago so mothers dressed little boys in it. Blue was for girls.

True that. Though the doctor's Oped did make one really good point: if the satisfaction level of patients before surgery is the same after then what psychological benefit is there to the surgery?

I can wrap my head around someone wanting to live as another gender. But the genital surgery doesn't actually produce the genitalia of the opposite sex. It produces a far less functional approximation. Some transgender folks can't ever achieve orgasm due to nerve damage after the surgery. Its a significant occurrence, so much so that folks in process of getting the surgery are warned to be prepared for that outcome.

Speaking from a practical stand point, I would think that sticking with the most functional genitals would be the way to go....from a risk assessment perspective, ROI, expense and practical usage angle.

Male to female produces quite good results, but you can't have children of course, and while you could keep the same junk, some do, there's no reason it can't be altered. We change what nature provides all the time. The problem here is, all of this is up for grabs and people, like Sil, want to slam the door shut one way or the another, simple answers to complicated situations. There are no simple answers here. Just by looking at the genetic question, your friend for example, we can see this is not back or white.

Intersexed people? Sil and her kind won't believe they exist even though they have always been with us...

 

[Skylar]

Then you'd be fine with testing all people saying they are transgender to be sure they are genetically malformed before any therapy or surgery could be prescribed to them?

I'm not suggesting 'mandatory testing'. I'm offering an concrete example of someone who is transgender who is genetically intersex. And seeing if the genetic component has any effect on the approach of some to transgender issues.

Again, Sil.....this is an evidence based conversation. You're a conspiracy theorist. The two are mutually exclusive.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ultimately, it's a game. You can call a man a woman, you can put him in a dress, cut off his penis, give him hormone shots that make his boobs grow and shave all his body hair off. Guess what, he's still a man. Until he drops that Y chromosome and gets a second X, it's all a make believe game.

I have a buddy who is going through gender reassignment right now. She's full hormone replacement and will be going under the knife in February. In her case, she's genetically intersex. She's XXY, literally sporting 47 chromosomes.

Which means that she manifests both male and female traits genetically. Including a small penis (which makes me feel kinda bad for all the time we made 'lil chub' jokes I made when we were younger). The testosterone her body produced was causing extensive inflammation issues as much of her body rejected it. Since taking medication to suppress the testosterone, her health has markedly improved. She says her thinking is clearer and her mood vastly improved after taking estrogen hormones. And after about 3 years made the decision to live as a female.

How would your theory incorporate her who has both male and female genes? Intersex folks are much more common than many folks realize, with some estimates putting them as high as 1 in 1000.

There is also XXXY, tall, high-pitched voice, usually heavy with breasts and sterile, and the real he-men, XYY and XYYY who can be serious scary fuckers with violent tempers from all the juice in their veins.

Probable XY females, Ann Coulter and Jamie Lee Curtis. One never married, neither has biological children.

Its my understanding that anyone with more than the 46 chromosomes will be sterile. My friend certainly can't have kids.

Not true. It very much depends upon the extra chromosomes, like trisomy 21 (Down's kids)

Q: Are adults with Down Syndrome sterile?
A: Women with DS are fertile. Men with DS have traditionally been considered sterile; however, there have been two documented cases of adult men with DS fathering children.

 

[Skylar]

Shall we do an emperical study of genetic testing of people saying they're transgender? Or does the APA forbid the scientific process now? Should we just rely on "words" instead of numbers as the neo-APA's "CQR" method suggest we do?

And if the studies don't say what you want, you will just wrap them up into your conspiracy, insisting gays 'infiltrated' biology just like you claim gays 'infiltrated' the media and 'infiltrated' the polling agencies Just like you did any polling data that contradicts you. Just like you do any study that affirms that the children of same sex are fine.

An evidence based conversation isn't for you. As you assess credibility of evidence by its agreement with what you already believe. You're the avatar of confirmation bias.

This is a conversation for folks who use evidence.

And yet from your tone and projecting, it sounds as if you don't want to test each and every person calling themselves (self diagnosing without a psychological or medical degree) "transgender".

I'm projecting nothing. You've made up elaborate conspiracies for any evidence that contradicts you. There's no reason you wouldn't do the same if the 'genetic testing' contradicted you.

You simply don't use evidence. Making an evidence based conversation with you a waste of both our time.

 

[Silhouette]

Then you'd be fine with testing all people saying they are transgender to be sure they are genetically malformed before any therapy or surgery could be prescribed to them?

I'm not suggesting 'mandatory testing'. I'm offering an concrete example of someone who is transgender who is genetically intersex. And seeing if the genetic component has any effect on the approach of some to transgender issues.

Again, Sil.....this is an evidence based conversation. You're a conspiracy theorist. The two are mutually exclusive.

Why not? Why not test each and every person identifying themselves as transgender to see if there's an actual genetic marker that would predispose them to these feelings?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Shall we do an emperical study of genetic testing of people saying they're transgender? Or does the APA forbid the scientific process now? Should we just rely on "words" instead of numbers as the neo-APA's "CQR" method suggest we do?

And if the studies don't say what you want, you will just wrap them up into your conspiracy, insisting gays 'infiltrated' biology just like you claim gays 'infiltrated' the media and 'infiltrated' the polling agencies Just like you did any polling data that contradicts you. Just like you do any study that affirms that the children of same sex are fine.

An evidence based conversation isn't for you. As you assess credibility of evidence by its agreement with what you already believe. You're the avatar of confirmation bias.

This is a conversation for folks who use evidence.

And yet from your tone and projecting, it sounds as if you don't want to test each and every person calling themselves (self diagnosing without a psychological or medical degree) "transgender".

It sounds as if your "theory" that all "transgenders" are genetically malformed with excess Y or X chromosomes is not one you want to prove up with actual testing.

Typical stance of the neo-American Psychological Association: shy away from actual science and date collecting and promote the Cult values blindly...OR ELSE..

Intersexed people is science, little psycho.

 

[Skylar]

Ultimately, it's a game. You can call a man a woman, you can put him in a dress, cut off his penis, give him hormone shots that make his boobs grow and shave all his body hair off. Guess what, he's still a man. Until he drops that Y chromosome and gets a second X, it's all a make believe game.

I have a buddy who is going through gender reassignment right now. She's full hormone replacement and will be going under the knife in February. In her case, she's genetically intersex. She's XXY, literally sporting 47 chromosomes.

Which means that she manifests both male and female traits genetically. Including a small penis (which makes me feel kinda bad for all the time we made 'lil chub' jokes I made when we were younger). The testosterone her body produced was causing extensive inflammation issues as much of her body rejected it. Since taking medication to suppress the testosterone, her health has markedly improved. She says her thinking is clearer and her mood vastly improved after taking estrogen hormones. And after about 3 years made the decision to live as a female.

How would your theory incorporate her who has both male and female genes? Intersex folks are much more common than many folks realize, with some estimates putting them as high as 1 in 1000.

There is also XXXY, tall, high-pitched voice, usually heavy with breasts and sterile, and the real he-men, XYY and XYYY who can be serious scary fuckers with violent tempers from all the juice in their veins.

Probable XY females, Ann Coulter and Jamie Lee Curtis. One never married, neither has biological children.

Its my understanding that anyone with more than the 46 chromosomes will be sterile. My friend certainly can't have kids.

Not true. It very much depends upon the extra chromosomes, like trisomy 21 (Down's kids)

Q: Are adults with Down Syndrome sterile?
A: Women with DS are fertile. Men with DS have traditionally been considered sterile; however, there have been two documented cases of adult men with DS fathering children.

Looks like 50% of women who have downs are fertile. My 'understanding' just got hip checked.

Sexuality Down Syndrome - National Down Syndrome Society

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why not? Why not test each and every person identifying themselves as transgender to see if there's an actual genetic marker that would predispose them to these feelings?

Most of them are, but it hardly matters except for adjusting their treatment.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ultimately, it's a game. You can call a man a woman, you can put him in a dress, cut off his penis, give him hormone shots that make his boobs grow and shave all his body hair off. Guess what, he's still a man. Until he drops that Y chromosome and gets a second X, it's all a make believe game.

I have a buddy who is going through gender reassignment right now. She's full hormone replacement and will be going under the knife in February. In her case, she's genetically intersex. She's XXY, literally sporting 47 chromosomes.

Which means that she manifests both male and female traits genetically. Including a small penis (which makes me feel kinda bad for all the time we made 'lil chub' jokes I made when we were younger). The testosterone her body produced was causing extensive inflammation issues as much of her body rejected it. Since taking medication to suppress the testosterone, her health has markedly improved. She says her thinking is clearer and her mood vastly improved after taking estrogen hormones. And after about 3 years made the decision to live as a female.

How would your theory incorporate her who has both male and female genes? Intersex folks are much more common than many folks realize, with some estimates putting them as high as 1 in 1000.

There is also XXXY, tall, high-pitched voice, usually heavy with breasts and sterile, and the real he-men, XYY and XYYY who can be serious scary fuckers with violent tempers from all the juice in their veins.

Probable XY females, Ann Coulter and Jamie Lee Curtis. One never married, neither has biological children.

Its my understanding that anyone with more than the 46 chromosomes will be sterile. My friend certainly can't have kids.

Not true. It very much depends upon the extra chromosomes, like trisomy 21 (Down's kids)

Q: Are adults with Down Syndrome sterile?
A: Women with DS are fertile. Men with DS have traditionally been considered sterile; however, there have been two documented cases of adult men with DS fathering children.

Looks like 50% of women who have downs are fertile. My 'understanding' just got hip checked.

Sexuality Down Syndrome - National Down Syndrome Society

No worries. Regardless, trisomy is never a good thing.

 

[Skylar]

Then you'd be fine with testing all people saying they are transgender to be sure they are genetically malformed before any therapy or surgery could be prescribed to them?

I'm not suggesting 'mandatory testing'. I'm offering an concrete example of someone who is transgender who is genetically intersex. And seeing if the genetic component has any effect on the approach of some to transgender issues.

Again, Sil.....this is an evidence based conversation. You're a conspiracy theorist. The two are mutually exclusive.

Why not? Why not test each and every person identifying themselves as transgender to see if there's an actual genetic marker that would predispose them to these feelings?

Mandatory testing is your schtick. I've told you why I'm bringing up the issue of genetically intersex people. And exactly as you do with any source that contradicts you, you ignore it and just make up whatever you'd like.

I'll stick with my own rationale and leave you to yours.

 

[Silhouette]

Then you'd be fine with testing all people saying they are transgender to be sure they are genetically malformed before any therapy or surgery could be prescribed to them?

I'm not suggesting 'mandatory testing'. I'm offering an concrete example of someone who is transgender who is genetically intersex. And seeing if the genetic component has any effect on the approach of some to transgender issues.

Again, Sil.....this is an evidence based conversation. You're a conspiracy theorist. The two are mutually exclusive.

Why not? Why not test each and every person identifying themselves as transgender to see if there's an actual genetic marker that would predispose them to these feelings?

Mandatory testing is your schtick. I've told you why I'm bringing up the issue of genetically intersex people. And exactly as you do with any source that contradicts you, you ignore it and just make up whatever you'd like.

I'll stick with my own rationale and leave you to yours.

No, you first brought up the idea of transgenders being legitimately linked to genetic anomolies for sex with the X and Y chromosomes. So it's YOUR "schtick".

Why not test every person saying they're transgender in order to approve hormones or surgery "therapy" for them instead of just regular mental therapy?

 

[Skylar]

Then you'd be fine with testing all people saying they are transgender to be sure they are genetically malformed before any therapy or surgery could be prescribed to them?

I'm not suggesting 'mandatory testing'. I'm offering an concrete example of someone who is transgender who is genetically intersex. And seeing if the genetic component has any effect on the approach of some to transgender issues.

Again, Sil.....this is an evidence based conversation. You're a conspiracy theorist. The two are mutually exclusive.

Why not? Why not test each and every person identifying themselves as transgender to see if there's an actual genetic marker that would predispose them to these feelings?

Mandatory testing is your schtick. I've told you why I'm bringing up the issue of genetically intersex people. And exactly as you do with any source that contradicts you, you ignore it and just make up whatever you'd like.

I'll stick with my own rationale and leave you to yours.

No, you first brought up the idea of transgenders being legitimately linked to genetic anomolies for sex with the X and Y chromosomes. So it's YOUR "schtick".

I've brought up the idea that transgender people can be genetically intersex. And have given a concrete example of it that I'm very familiar with.

'Mandatory testing' is you and only you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why not test every person saying they're transgender in order to approve hormones or surgery "therapy" for them instead of just regular mental therapy?

Gender is neither genetics not genitals. The brain is the organ that works that out and even if the other two match, that doesn't mean all three do. It's not that simple so there is no reason to say, well, you are standard XY so your brain is wrong therefore we can't help you. Help needs to be provided either way and maybe that is nothing more than couch time. That depends upon the individual and what's best for them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is the only one calling for mandatory testing.

 

[Skylar]

I am not convinced that all, or even a significant percentage, of those who want to pretend they are of the opposite gender fall into that category.

They don't, the point is male is not always XY nor female XX, especially since there are X0 females, just one X, so we can't use genetics to figure out what sex, meaning gender in this case, someone actually is. There are many sexes and many genders. Life is complicated so black and white thinking, pink and blue thinking, is dumb, and wrong.

Pink, BTW, used to be a strong color 100 years ago so mothers dressed little boys in it. Blue was for girls.

True that. Though the doctor's Oped did make one really good point: if the satisfaction level of patients before surgery is the same after then what psychological benefit is there to the surgery?

I can wrap my head around someone wanting to live as another gender. But the genital surgery doesn't actually produce the genitalia of the opposite sex. It produces a far less functional approximation. Some transgender folks can't ever achieve orgasm due to nerve damage after the surgery. Its a significant occurrence, so much so that folks in process of getting the surgery are warned to be prepared for that outcome.

Speaking from a practical stand point, I would think that sticking with the most functional genitals would be the way to go....from a risk assessment perspective, ROI, expense and practical usage angle.

Male to female produces quite good results, but you can't have children of course, and while you could keep the same junk, some do, there's no reason it can't be altered.

'Good' in comparison to female to male surgeries perhaps. But not good in comparison to functional natural genitals. Which is my point. The surgery is risky (at least to your orgasm), painful (electrolysis on your genitals is a mandatory component of the surgery), expensive, produces inferior results, apparently doesn't improve psychological satisfaction levels and doesn't produce opposite sex organs.

There seems no upside to me.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I am not convinced that all, or even a significant percentage, of those who want to pretend they are of the opposite gender fall into that category.

They don't, the point is male is not always XY nor female XX, especially since there are X0 females, just one X, so we can't use genetics to figure out what sex, meaning gender in this case, someone actually is. There are many sexes and many genders. Life is complicated so black and white thinking, pink and blue thinking, is dumb, and wrong.

Pink, BTW, used to be a strong color 100 years ago so mothers dressed little boys in it. Blue was for girls.

True that. Though the doctor's Oped did make one really good point: if the satisfaction level of patients before surgery is the same after then what psychological benefit is there to the surgery?

I can wrap my head around someone wanting to live as another gender. But the genital surgery doesn't actually produce the genitalia of the opposite sex. It produces a far less functional approximation. Some transgender folks can't ever achieve orgasm due to nerve damage after the surgery. Its a significant occurrence, so much so that folks in process of getting the surgery are warned to be prepared for that outcome.

Speaking from a practical stand point, I would think that sticking with the most functional genitals would be the way to go....from a risk assessment perspective, ROI, expense and practical usage angle.

Male to female produces quite good results, but you can't have children of course, and while you could keep the same junk, some do, there's no reason it can't be altered.

'Good' in comparison to female to male surgeries perhaps. But not good in comparison to functional natural genitals. Which is my point. The surgery is risky (at least to your orgasm), painful, expensive, produces inferior results, apparently doesn't improve satisfaction levels and doesn't produce opposite sex organs.

There seems no upside to me.

Sometimes the look is enough. I doubt Ms. Jenner is going to be having a lot of sex, or planning to. That's not the point in her case.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sil is the only one calling for mandatory testing.

Yes, because she's a loon...

 

[BlindBoo]

Wow this is new huh? Oh wait no it;s not.

Surgical Sex by Paul R. McHugh Articles First Things

Coming out to the Wall Street Journal IS new though. And so will be the political ramifications of such a high-ranking "defection" from the Rainbow Reicht.

Who defected again?

Properly? The Wall Street Journal: Paul McHugh Transgender Surgery Isn t the Solution - WSJ

ie: the MSM. Because learned doctors have been saying this for a long time but the media has utterly squelched their voices. Check the OP for links and information about that.

The first question was: "Yes, finally a superior psychologist has spoken out. Others will follow his lead." But the Dr has been speaking his opinion about it for at least 11 years and apparently has had that opinion for much longer than that.