What would it take?

Forum rules
Here, you can discuss your Politics. Post political memes and quotations, and discuss your Political beliefs. If you don't want to see Politics being discussed, please respect the rights of the people here to do so in peace. We respect that right, that's why this forum was created. Discussion should always be respectful of the people here and thier beliefs. Discussions will be respectful. We recognize that political discussions can sometimes become incendiary and we will step in from time to time if it does in order to cool things down. Posts that use terms and descriptions of others such as "Wing Nuts", "Libtards", "Rethuglicans", DemocRATS", and others of a demeaning nature will be deleted. Keep discussions on point, centered on facts, and based on the principal that two individuals can come to different conclusions based on the same information and can disagree, but discuss those disagreements in an agreeable manner. Please contribute to the discussion, not try to tear down an individual because he disagrees with you. Make you comments be on the post, and not the person posting.
User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: What would it take?

#121

Post by sarge » Wed Jun 01, 2016 5:12 pm

My impression is that when a child is born and the parents ask if its a boy or a girl, the Doctor does not say "It depends on the context."


You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: What would it take?

#122

Post by GregD » Wed Jun 01, 2016 5:32 pm

BillyBob66 wrote: It seems you do not want to answer, which I suppose is why you did not do so when I first asked. It really is a simple question about scientific facts more than it is about feelings. Clearly sometimes one's physiology is different from one's self image. But I was only asking you the scientific facts regarding if a man, born with XY and male body parts( those parts as defined by science through human history until maybe the last few years) becomes a female once we inject him and surgically alter him, or even if we don't do that but he feels he is a woman.

Is a surgically altered/injected man a woman, scientifically speaking? Now I bet if we were discussing evolution or creation you would tell me something like "there are no feelings in science, and no faith, only the facts.". Right? Science ( your realm ) is voltage/resistance= current, for example. For most of human history, and scientifically speaking, the terms man and woman have not had context determining their meaning. But in case they have, reconsider all of my questions using the terms male and female.

Can one born genetically XY and with male organs be changed into a female by injections of female hormones, blocking of male hormones, cutting off a body part and installing other silicon body parts? Is that male now a female, scientifically speaking? Yes or no?

If yes, if some of this happens accidentally to a male, and/or he is castrated and/or given female hormones and/or male hormones blocked, is that male now a female from the scientific view point? What does the scientist in you say, Yes or no?

And finally, getting back to feelings before having done any of the above, is a physiological male( by medical science definitions which have stood for hundreds of years) changed into a physiological female if he thinks he is a female, or if he wants to be a female? Would that be what you guys call magical thinking?

EDIT: Or, maybe it really is that you feel there is no scientific means of knowing if one is a male or female?
I do not want to play word games. The questions you ask have obvious answers. You seem intent on quibbling about how the answers are articulated.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: What would it take?

#123

Post by GregD » Wed Jun 01, 2016 5:53 pm

sarge wrote:My impression is that when a child is born and the parents ask if its a boy or a girl, the Doctor does not say "It depends on the context."
It is my impression that the doctor can only comment on whether the child has a vagina or a penis.

Your comment seems insensitive to those individuals who don't fit the boy/girl stereotypes. For example, an earlier post where the doctor told the parents, effectively, "your choice".

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: What would it take?

#124

Post by sarge » Wed Jun 01, 2016 6:22 pm

Science, in general, is insensitive to feelings. It deals with empirical truths. There is a definite scientific definition of male and female.

It surprises me you're so anti-science.

I thought you were a Democrat.

Only Republicans are anti-science.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: What would it take?

#125

Post by sarge » Wed Jun 01, 2016 6:40 pm

Here's the thing:

I am definetly not insensitive to transgendered people.

But Billy Bob asked you a direct question, you gave an evasize answer.

The true answer is this:

The surgery will bring the person's physical appearance into line with their mental image of themselves, and they will be able to live their lives withn the confines of that mental image.

But the surgery is cosmetic, much of the rest of thier appearance will be dependent on the consumption of hormones, and they will have to take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of thier lives.

Niether the surgery, hormones, or drugs will change their DNA, which will remain male.

If you want to be truly sensitive, it helps to be truthful.

But this has nothing to do with unisex or gender non-specific bathrooms. Those would allow persons of any sex to use the bathroom of their own choosing whether they have had surgery or are in the pre-operative transitioning stage under the care of a psychologist and physician or not.

But those people have been using the bathrooms of thier choice for decades now with no problem.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: What would it take?

#126

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:19 pm

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote: It seems you do not want to answer, which I suppose is why you did not do so when I first asked. It really is a simple question about scientific facts more than it is about feelings. Clearly sometimes one's physiology is different from one's self image. But I was only asking you the scientific facts regarding if a man, born with XY and male body parts( those parts as defined by science through human history until maybe the last few years) becomes a female once we inject him and surgically alter him, or even if we don't do that but he feels he is a woman.

Is a surgically altered/injected man a woman, scientifically speaking? Now I bet if we were discussing evolution or creation you would tell me something like "there are no feelings in science, and no faith, only the facts.". Right? Science ( your realm ) is voltage/resistance= current, for example. For most of human history, and scientifically speaking, the terms man and woman have not had context determining their meaning. But in case they have, reconsider all of my questions using the terms male and female.

Can one born genetically XY and with male organs be changed into a female by injections of female hormones, blocking of male hormones, cutting off a body part and installing other silicon body parts? Is that male now a female, scientifically speaking? Yes or no?

If yes, if some of this happens accidentally to a male, and/or he is castrated and/or given female hormones and/or male hormones blocked, is that male now a female from the scientific view point? What does the scientist in you say, Yes or no?

And finally, getting back to feelings before having done any of the above, is a physiological male( by medical science definitions which have stood for hundreds of years) changed into a physiological female if he thinks he is a female, or if he wants to be a female? Would that be what you guys call magical thinking?

EDIT: Or, maybe it really is that you feel there is no scientific means of knowing if one is a male or female?
I do not want to play word games. The questions you ask have obvious answers. You seem intent on quibbling about how the answers are articulated.
OK then, I see you don't want to answer. Except to say the questions have obvious answers, but which you don't want to articulate. Probably because it goes against how you feel things should be. I suspect your feelings about how things should be are battling your training as a scientist. Since I never took a biology or anatomy and physiology( and I took quite a few of them) class where male and female did not have specific/exact definitions. And during 36 years giving anesthesia in surgery, I never met a physician confused about whether his/her patient was biologically/physiologically/scientifically male, or not. And with the exception of the tiny, tiny % of ambiguous/hermaphrodite, I never met any obstetrician who could not give, at the moment of birth, a confident, immediate answer to the question: "Doc, is it a boy or a girl?". I never heard one say " I don't know for sure, though it does have a penis and testicles(or not)". Simple biological science, not even rocket science.

Though you will not articulate them, the answers which you at least admit are obvious are: no, cutting off a males sexual organs, or castrating him, either by accident or on purpose for medical treatments or so called sexual reassignment, ( and/or plus injecting female hormones and/or blocking male hormones- aka chemical castration) does NOT make that man a female. If it does not make a cancer patient getting such treatments, or a man accidentally mutilated, into a female then doing so does not make a different male into a female(or vice versa), just because he desires it to be so. Magical thinking does not make it so, not in science.

Those are the obvious scientific answers, at least until scientists recently became infested with PC. ( the answer are still the same, but not all scientists are willing to state them) I am surprised that you of all people, the man of science, would not clearly state them. Giving female hormone shots do not magically transform a male into a female. (luckily for us, as many older and especially obese males have elevated estrogen levels(sometimes higher than their wives) Just as if you stop giving them the shots they do not magically transform back into males. They were male the entire time, just males with artificially elevated estrogen.

Which then begs the question: why are so many people in our country, especially in our governments, insisting that so called females who are actually biologically and genetically male be allowed into the girls restrooms and locker rooms and showers? Including those who have not even gone through the so called change, which does not convert a male into female, but does allow them to pretend it does. He ends up sort of looking like a female, or at least like a man in drag. Nope, all that is needed is his self identity. today, as a female. Good to go. So why is science being rejected even by the scientific types? I can only think that our country has gone totally insane, a form of mass hysteria. And that is the most benign explanation I can think of. We have receded to the days of Galileo. Only now, Galileo is- instead of claiming that the earth orbits the sun- is saying "hey, he says he's a woman but science indicates he is a man". And the Pope is saying "You better recant that blasphemy/heresy, or we are going to make you sorry". Plus, now the Pope is Obama and his justice department.

Galileo: " I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.".

Inquisition to Galileo, ordering him: "to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.". Sounds like the NY Human Rights commissions orders to citizens to use the whatever pronouns some one wants them to, calling him a her, a her a he, or maybe even a "hir" or "Ze" or face the consequences.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: What would it take?

#127

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:03 pm

I should add that during my rotations through the psychiatric clinics/hospitals, and or working in emergency rooms, we would occasionally encounter a patient who felt some part of their body did not belong to them or they just did not like it. For example, very rarely some one would- one might say- self identify as an amputee, and seek to make that happen, and even more rarely accomplish that before we could stop them via commitment. I started working in hospitals/ERs as an on the job training lab technician in 1968, and was soon exposed to many wild and crazy things, which continued through my years as a military medic, and on up until my retirement from anesthesia. In all that time I never met any medical/nursing personnel who thought it was a good idea to help any of these mentally ill individuals achieve their goal to become an amputee. But I did read about the world of sexual reassignment ( now paid for by tax payers in our prisons and by medicaid? ), which did seem to want to help folks with their desire to amputate various otherwise healthy body parts.

If I have not already done so, I must fess up to something. I actually self identify as something other than how most folks see me. Though I hope to get some surgery someday which will ease my struggle. If I ever make it to one of your Texas group hangs, I am hoping that I won't get any weird looks, rolled eyes or worse from you guys when I tell you the truth that I am a 5 year old, 7 ft tall, 120 lb Chinese girl. Since I have not been able to have any surgery yet for race/sex/age/weight reassignment, I'm hoping you guys will respect my choice of self identification, despite what may be my appearance as a 6'1", 215 lb, older white male curmudgeon. And BTW, if their are public restrooms/showers for females, as a 5 year old Chinese girl, I will be using those. I hope you are a tolerant bunch, and not a bunch of redneck bigots.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: What would it take?

#128

Post by GregD » Thu Jun 02, 2016 7:28 am

sarge wrote: But those people have been using the bathrooms of thier choice for decades now with no problem.
Not true. Some Google results:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/us/as ... .html?_r=0
http://www.koamtv.com/story/26580807/tr ... mmodations
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/26/health/sc ... uspension/

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: What would it take?

#129

Post by GregD » Thu Jun 02, 2016 7:40 am

BillyBob66 wrote: OK then, I see you don't want to answer. Except to say the questions have obvious answers, but which you don't want to articulate. Probably because it goes against how you feel things should be. I suspect your feelings about how things should be are battling your training as a scientist. Since I never took a biology or anatomy and physiology( and I took quite a few of them) class where male and female did not have specific/exact definitions. And during 36 years giving anesthesia in surgery, I never met a physician confused about whether his/her patient was biologically/physiologically/scientifically male, or not. And with the exception of the tiny, tiny % of ambiguous/hermaphrodite, I never met any obstetrician who could not give, at the moment of birth, a confident, immediate answer to the question: "Doc, is it a boy or a girl?". I never heard one say " I don't know for sure, though it does have a penis and testicles(or not)". Simple biological science, not even rocket science.

Though you will not articulate them, the answers which you at least admit are obvious are: no, cutting off a males sexual organs, or castrating him, either by accident or on purpose for medical treatments or so called sexual reassignment, ( and/or plus injecting female hormones and/or blocking male hormones- aka chemical castration) does NOT make that man a female. If it does not make a cancer patient getting such treatments, or a man accidentally mutilated, into a female then doing so does not make a different male into a female(or vice versa), just because he desires it to be so. Magical thinking does not make it so, not in science.

Those are the obvious scientific answers, at least until scientists recently became infested with PC. ( the answer are still the same, but not all scientists are willing to state them) I am surprised that you of all people, the man of science, would not clearly state them. Giving female hormone shots do not magically transform a male into a female. (luckily for us, as many older and especially obese males have elevated estrogen levels(sometimes higher than their wives) Just as if you stop giving them the shots they do not magically transform back into males. They were male the entire time, just males with artificially elevated estrogen.

Which then begs the question: why are so many people in our country, especially in our governments, insisting that so called females who are actually biologically and genetically male be allowed into the girls restrooms and locker rooms and showers? Including those who have not even gone through the so called change, which does not convert a male into female, but does allow them to pretend it does. He ends up sort of looking like a female, or at least like a man in drag. Nope, all that is needed is his self identity. today, as a female. Good to go. So why is science being rejected even by the scientific types? I can only think that our country has gone totally insane, a form of mass hysteria. And that is the most benign explanation I can think of. We have receded to the days of Galileo. Only now, Galileo is- instead of claiming that the earth orbits the sun- is saying "hey, he says he's a woman but science indicates he is a man". And the Pope is saying "You better recant that blasphemy/heresy, or we are going to make you sorry". Plus, now the Pope is Obama and his justice department.

Galileo: " I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.".

Inquisition to Galileo, ordering him: "to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.". Sounds like the NY Human Rights commissions orders to citizens to use the whatever pronouns some one wants them to, calling him a her, a her a he, or maybe even a "hir" or "Ze" or face the consequences.
Your "scientific" analysis is inconsistent with the data that an individual's sexuality is not completely described by physiology. There is more to a person than body parts and hormones. You don't account for that in your assessment, so your assessment is inadequate.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: What would it take?

#130

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Jun 02, 2016 8:36 am

GregD wrote:
Your "scientific" analysis is inconsistent with the data that an individual's sexuality is not completely described by physiology. There is more to a person than body parts and hormones. You don't account for that in your assessment, so your assessment is inadequate.
I did not ask you about the scientific view- in the opinion of a science person like you - of a persons sexuality. Sexuality might have all sorts of definitions or characteristics depending on who you ask, and how they "feel". I asked you about things related to scientific definitions of male and female, and whether or not some shots or surgically removing parts could convert an XY chromosome male into a female. And if so, does that mean that males who must under go similar medical treatments are therefore also converted into female?

But you have consistently refused to answer, to simply give your scientific opinion on the simple physiology and biological scientific facts of the situation. I think the reasons for that refusal are apparent. Then you try to still sound like the man of science by saying " Your "scientific" analysis is inconsistent with the data", while refusing to give your own scientific analysis of the physical facts and data. Being a good liberal ( that is not being insulting, I would assume you are proud of that ) you want to bring feelings into the science.

Unless of course the subject is creation vs so called evolution millions of years ago. Then it is "just the (so called ) facts please, your feelings have no place in science". (paraphrase from previous discussions)
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: What would it take?

#131

Post by GregD » Thu Jun 02, 2016 9:46 am

BillyBob66 wrote: But you have consistently refused to answer, to simply give your scientific opinion on the simple physiology and biological scientific facts of the situation. I think the reasons for that refusal are apparent. Then you try to still sound like the man of science by saying " Your "scientific" analysis is inconsistent with the data", while refusing to give your own scientific analysis of the physical facts and data. Being a good liberal ( that is not being insulting, I would assume you are proud of that ) you want to bring feelings into the science.
What body parts a person has does not change based on how a person feels. Question answered. What is your point?

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: What would it take?

#132

Post by sarge » Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:14 am

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote: But you have consistently refused to answer, to simply give your scientific opinion on the simple physiology and biological scientific facts of the situation. I think the reasons for that refusal are apparent. Then you try to still sound like the man of science by saying " Your "scientific" analysis is inconsistent with the data", while refusing to give your own scientific analysis of the physical facts and data. Being a good liberal ( that is not being insulting, I would assume you are proud of that ) you want to bring feelings into the science.
What body parts a person has does not change based on how a person feels. Question answered. What is your point?

His point is that how someone feels does not change their DNA or chromosomes.

That's a point that psychiatrists and surgeons make sure that a person contemplating gender reassignment surgery knows and understands before they perform the surgery.

Why would that be insensitive, and why not just come out and say it?

Transgendered and transitioning persons know all this and understand it as a condition of treatment, why can't we say it without being labled as hateful?
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: What would it take?

#133

Post by GregD » Thu Jun 02, 2016 12:02 pm

sarge wrote: His point is that how someone feels does not change their DNA or chromosomes.

That's a point that psychiatrists and surgeons make sure that a person contemplating gender reassignment surgery knows and understands before they perform the surgery.
I thought this was obvious to everyone.

sarge wrote: Why would that be insensitive, and why not just come out and say it?

Transgendered and transitioning persons know all this and understand it as a condition of treatment, why can't we say it without being labled as hateful?
Where did insensitive and hateful come from? I see nothing insensitive or hateful about the way you stated the facts above.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: What would it take?

#134

Post by sarge » Thu Jun 02, 2016 12:11 pm

GregD wrote:
sarge wrote: His point is that how someone feels does not change their DNA or chromosomes.

That's a point that psychiatrists and surgeons make sure that a person contemplating gender reassignment surgery knows and understands before they perform the surgery.
I thought this was obvious to everyone.

sarge wrote: Why would that be insensitive, and why not just come out and say it?

Transgendered and transitioning persons know all this and understand it as a condition of treatment, why can't we say it without being labled as hateful?
Where did insensitive and hateful come from? I see nothing insensitive or hateful about the way you stated the facts above.
Dude.

You've used ther word "insensitive" about a dozen times in the past couple of posts.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: What would it take?

#135

Post by sarge » Thu Jun 02, 2016 12:14 pm

Apropos of sensitivities.
Maya Dillard Smith, interim director of the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, has resigned over the ACLU’s position on who can use which public restrooms. The resignation occurred after her two daughters were traumatized by encountering men in the women’s restroom. Dillard Smith explained:
I have shared my personal experience of having taken my elementary school age daughters into a women’s restroom when shortly after three transgender young adults, over six feet [tall] with deep voices, entered. My children were visibly frightened, concerned about their safety and left asking lots of questions for which I, like many parents, was ill-prepared to answer.
Dillard Smith complained that the ACLU has become “a special interest organization that promotes not all, but certain progressive rights” and that the “hierarchy of rights” the ACLU chooses to defend or ignore is “based on who is funding the organization’s lobbying activities.” Further expressing her disillusionment, Dillard Smith stated:
I understood it to be the ACLU’s goal to delicately balance competing rights to ensure that any infringements are narrowly tailored, that they do not create a hierarchy of rights, and that we are mindful of unintended consequences. I believe there are solutions that can provide accommodations for transgender people and balance the need to ensure women and girls are safe from those who might have malicious intent.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

Post Reply

Return to “Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest