Utah creates 5 person commission to regulate one trans girl playing sports

[tstorm823]

You made several truth claims.

You make no truth claims. Your posts are the equivalent of fart noises.

prove me wrong with evidence

Proof is a stupid standard. I've said that many times. I'm not asking one to prove anything, I rarely even ask for evidence, I just want Buyetyen to consider contributing to the conversation.

Why should anyone put in more effort than you do.

I'm not asking for that. I'm not asking for proof or evidence or any of that. What I'd prefer is for people to stop making posts that add literally nothing to the conversation. "You're wrong" or "you don't know what you're talking about" mean absolutely nothing.

It's Tstorm, all he does is goal post and make non-sensical arguments. You would have better conversations with Starscream.

You just keeping reading all my posts and loving them, don't you?

But the purpose of coming up with simple rules is to test them against reality and, when they fail (because they will) to find out why. Ultimately, the point is to arrive at a theory that is more complex and complete, that has as few exceptions as possible or ideally no exceptions at all. That is how the understanding of reality grows and develops, not by picking a simple rule and dogmatically sticking to it because it works sometimes and that's good enough.

This is an excellent perspective, now apply it. Circling back to the ideal gas law: the exceptions and complexities mean that the equation is insufficient in many circumstances, it does not mean that the premise of the equation is faulty. Given a fixed quantity of gas particles, the pressure, volume, and temperature are related to one another. That remains true, just imprecise. 99% of the time, gamete production/chromosomes/genetalia/secondary sex characteristics all correlate, and because of rare exceptions, you want to throw out the rule entirely. You've said that sex is not material reality, and is rather an ideological construct, previously claiming that if it were a natural law it would fit cleanly and without exception. You are not trying to grow or develop the understanding to capture the exceptions to the simple rule, you are denying that there's anything physical there to understand in the first place.

I am the one here allowing for exceptions to the rule. You are not.

 

[Cheetodust]

I'm not asking for that. I'm not asking for proof or evidence or any of that. What I'd prefer is for people to stop making posts that add literally nothing to the conversation. "You're wrong" or "you don't know what you're talking about" mean absolutely nothing.

You're post meant absolutely nothing. You expect us to find a study that shows that trans people aren't just suffering from depression? You've made a completely baseless claim influenced by a hateful worldview and expect others to prove it wrong. Fuck that noise.

 

[Trunkage]

Also, we are now unsquatting things. If they can come back after 30 years, so can fem marines

 

[Buyetyen]

You make no truth claims. Your posts are the equivalent of fart noises.

Irrelevant. You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

Proof is a stupid standard.

Then you are as dishonest as you are foolish.

I'm not asking for that. I'm not asking for proof or evidence or any of that. What I'd prefer is for people to stop making posts that add literally nothing to the conversation. "You're wrong" or "you don't know what you're talking about" mean absolutely nothing.

You made a lazy, stupid claim. You can't back it up. I'm not required to do your work for you.

I am the one here allowing for exceptions to the rule. You are not.

No you're making unscientific claims and throwing tantrum that you're being told to back them up with something other than, "Because I said so, stop being mean to me, WAAAAHHHHHH!!!"

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I'm not asking for that. I'm not asking for proof or evidence or any of that. What I'd prefer is for people to stop making posts that add literally nothing to the conversation. "You're wrong" or "you don't know what you're talking about" mean absolutely nothing.

The problem is, you're always wrong, and you never know what you're talking about, so your posts mean absolutely nothing.

 

[Silvanus]

This is an excellent perspective, now apply it. Circling back to the ideal gas law: the exceptions and complexities mean that the equation is insufficient in many circumstances, it does not mean that the premise of the equation is faulty. Given a fixed quantity of gas particles, the pressure, volume, and temperature are related to one another. That remains true, just imprecise. 99% of the time, gamete production/chromosomes/genetalia/secondary sex characteristics all correlate, and because of rare exceptions, you want to throw out the rule entirely. You've said that sex is not material reality, and is rather an ideological construct, previously claiming that if it were a natural law it would fit cleanly and without exception. You are not trying to grow or develop the understanding to capture the exceptions to the simple rule, you are denying that there's anything physical there to understand in the first place.

I am the one here allowing for exceptions to the rule. You are not.

You're misrepresenting the opposing viewpoint. Nobody here is calling to completely disregard the notion of biological male and female. Terminal explicitly says to build a model that's more complete and complex (I.e., one that encompasses data points which are not included in the original model).

In science, if you have a functioning theory and then find outlying data that doesn't fit it, you do not just stick with the original theory and insist that those data points must fit into it regardless. And neither do you throw it away most of the time (which nobody here said we should do anyway). You adapt it into a form that functionally explains those outlying data points.

And no, dismissing it as mental illness-- completely against the medical consensus-- is intellectually lazy and anti-scientific; a result of placing one's own prejudices above reason.

 

[tstorm823]

You're post meant absolutely nothing. You expect us to find a study that shows that trans people aren't just suffering from depression? You've made a completely baseless claim influenced by a hateful worldview and expect others to prove it wrong. Fuck that noise.

No, I don't expect any of that. I just said I don't expect any of that.

Irrelevant. You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

Nobody is proving anything. Nobody even asked for evidence from either side of this argument at any point.

No you're making unscientific claims and throwing tantrum that you're being told to back them up with something other than, "Because I said so, stop being mean to me, WAAAAHHHHHH!!!"

This is pure projection.

You're misrepresenting the opposing viewpoint. Nobody here is calling to completely disregard the notion of biological male and female. Terminal explicitly says to build a model that's more complete and complex (I.e., one that encompasses data points which are not included in the original model).

As always, I recommend you not try and defend other people's views for them. Terminal has pretty explicitly been trying to analyze a non-biological concept of sex, and that is not what you are attempting to defend.

 

[Buyetyen]

Nobody is proving anything. Nobody even asked for evidence from either side of this argument at any point.

Alright then. Show us your evidence.

 

[tstorm823]

Alright then. Show us your evidence.

I have little but my own perspective and experiences. And that's ok.

 

[Buyetyen]

I have little but my own perspective and experiences. And that's ok.

Nope. Your perspective is a fish-eye lens of reality and your experiences are woefully inadequate. You said that trans people aren't really trans, they're just looking for an explanation for their depression. Show me the evidence.

 

[Silvanus]

As always, I recommend you not try and defend other people's views for them. Terminal has pretty explicitly been trying to analyze a non-biological concept of sex, and that is not what you are attempting to defend.

I'm not trying to defend other peoples' views. What you're saying flies in the face of both science and basic human compassion. You happened to also misrepresent what your opponent said at the same time, but that's almost by-the-by.

 

[tstorm823]

Nope. Your perspective is a fish-eye lens of reality and your experiences are woefully inadequate. You said that trans people aren't really trans, they're just looking for an explanation for their depression. Show me the evidence.

"2 in 3 transgender and nonbinary youth report symptoms of major depressive disorder."
Those identifying as transgender have increased rapidly in number in recent years.
"Littman hypothesizes that ROGD (rapid onset gender dysphoria) can be cast as a maladaptive coping mechanism for other underlying mental health issues such as trauma or social maladjustment"

The way things look to me, there are incredibly rare individuals who have a sex-related body dysmorphia causing them to identify themselves as the opposite sex, and then you have a rapidly growing segment of the population, one that correlates directly with mental health issues and depression), that adopt a new gender identity in their teens or early adulthood. The latter group are the people whose problems I don't think are actually gender-related. Which is not to say their problems aren't real, only that the diagnosis (typically self-diagnosis) is not accurate.

 

[Buyetyen]

"2 in 3 transgender and nonbinary youth report symptoms of major depressive disorder."
Those identifying as transgender have increased rapidly in number in recent years.
"Littman hypothesizes that ROGD (rapid onset gender dysphoria) can be cast as a maladaptive coping mechanism for other underlying mental health issues such as trauma or social maladjustment"

The way things look to me, there are incredibly rare individuals who have a sex-related body dysmorphia causing them to identify themselves as the opposite sex, and then you have a rapidly growing segment of the population, one that correlates directly with mental health issues and depression), that adopt a new gender identity in their teens or early adulthood. The latter group are the people whose problems I don't think are actually gender-related. Which is not to say their problems aren't real, only that the diagnosis (typically self-diagnosis) is not accurate.

Your first link establishes only correlation with depression. It in no way says that depressed trans people are not trans.

Second link is a paywall, but I'm willing to bet it doesn't back you up either.

Your third article presents a lot of speculation, but no hardcore causal evidence. Rapid onset gender dysphoria is also not recognized by any major professional health organization as a legitimate diagnosis.

None of this is evidence that trans people aren't really trans. You are taking speculation and promoting it as a gospel. In other words: you make shit up.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Lmao "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" is just "my kid doesn't trust me with information and I didn't notice" pretending to be a diagnosis.

Like, shit dude: *my* parents would probably claim that if they were assholes. It's telling that Littman didn't bother asking the actual trans people

 

[Thaluikhain]

Also, that trans people tend to be depressed isn't news. Some of the people inventing strange reasons for this might just want to invest in a mirror.

 

[Silvanus]

"2 in 3 transgender and nonbinary youth report symptoms of major depressive disorder."
Those identifying as transgender have increased rapidly in number in recent years.

There are much more obvious interpretations of these statistics than the one you're utilising, which are more consistent with the medical consensus.

Depression tends to be higher among people who face high rates of stigma, abuse, and disownment. And the number of people willing to identify as something will rise as it gains awareness and acceptance. This is all obvious.

 

[Agema]

"Littman hypothesizes that ROGD (rapid onset gender dysphoria) can be cast as a maladaptive coping mechanism for other underlying mental health issues such as trauma or social maladjustment"

Littman's reseach is controversial, and has little if any corroboration from other studies. This could be seen in the wider context of a field in which research is both sparse and often not very robust, but one way or another I would treat it with high levels of caution.

 

[tstorm823]

Your first link establishes only correlation with depression.

That is all I intended to use it for.

Second link is a paywall, but I'm willing to bet it doesn't back you up either.

The only thing that matters is the large increase in prevalence, which I doubt you'll dispute.

None of this is evidence that trans people aren't really trans. You are taking speculation and promoting it as a gospel. In other words: you make shit up.

I am stating a position. Even better, I explicitly qualified "the way things looks to me". None of that is "promoting as gospel".

Depression tends to be higher among people who face high rates of stigma, abuse, and disownment. And the number of people willing to identify as something will rise as it gains awareness and acceptance.

These two sentences are somewhat contradictory. Are more people identifying as something with gains in acceptance, or are they depressed because of high rates of stigma? Not saying it is impossible for those two things to be true at once, but I don't think an apparent contradiction is the most obvious interpretation.

Littman's reseach is controversial, and has little if any corroboration from other studies. This could be seen in the wider context of a field in which research is both sparse and often not very robust, but one way or another I would treat it with high levels of caution.

Those are reasonable concerns, but also reasonably explained, as we are discussing a very recent phenomenon related to a controversial topic. I don't want to be the researcher that tries to replicate that study.

 

[Silvanus]

These two sentences are somewhat contradictory. Are more people identifying as something with gains in acceptance, or are they depressed because of high rates of stigma? Not saying it is impossible for those two things to be true at once, but I don't think an apparent contradiction is the most obvious interpretation.

They're not mutually exclusive, and they're both true. Wider recognition and acknowledgement of dysphoria has led more people to find out the reasons behind the way they feel and/or to feel able to come out. Simultaneously, stigma and abuse is still very widespread. In fact, stigma and abuse often come hand-in-hand with the growing pains of new visibility.

Both things are also true of homosexuality. Rates of self-identification as gay have risen hugely in the past 50 years or so. So have recorded instances of abuse and stigma. And, commensurate with that, the rates of depression among gay people is higher than among straight people.

Unless you wanna go down the route of telling me I only like men because I'm depressed, which utilises exactly the same logic and has exactly the same rebuttal.

 

[tstorm823]

They're not mutually exclusive, and they're both true. Wider recognition and acknowledgement of dysphoria has led more people to find out the reasons behind the way they feel and/or to feel able to come out. Simultaneously, stigma and abuse is still very widespread. In fact, stigma and abuse often come hand-in-hand with the growing pains of new visibility.

Both things are also true of homosexuality. Rates of self-identification as gay have risen hugely in the past 50 years or so. So have recorded instances of abuse and stigma. And, commensurate with that, the rates of depression among gay people is higher than among straight people.

Unless you wanna go down the route of telling me I only like men because I'm depressed, which utilises exactly the same logic and has exactly the same rebuttal.

You seem to think that couldn't be the case. People with problems look for both ways to rationalize them and to cope. Funny enough, I personally don't think sexuality is a clean system with concrete roles, and I think anyone could develop an attraction to basically anything at any time. I can definitely imagine people developing new sexual habits as a response to hard times.

Wider recognition and acknowledgment of all sorts of mental states has led more people to "find out the reasons behind the way they feel". That doesn't mean they are correct. You say rates of self-identification as gay have risen hugely, but I don't think that's true. Must polls on the subject ask if people are "LGBTQ", and it's the "BTQ" that captures at least the majority of the increase.