What's Makes A Man/Woman?

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
The Rogue Wolf said:
Dreiko said:
Man: courage, strength, generosity, the act of competition.
Woman : kindness, beauty, softness, the act of soothing.


There, solved!
Except that there are plenty of men who are kind, or care about their appearance, or "soft", or soothing. And there are plenty of women who are courageous, or strong, or generous, or competitive.

So, except for how you're wrong, you're right!
I think you're answering a different question. When you ask "what makes a bird" and someone answers "flying", this doesn't mean that NOTHING else flies. It just means that that's the more pronounced element of birds. When someone answers "what makes a spider" with "webs!", their answer isn't incorrect because a species of spiders manages to fly distances that even most birds struggle to cover by using its web as a parachute of sorts. Just because there's an exception or just because ones most dominant traits are shared by others in a lesser degree that does not make them any less dominant for the original group.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Jul 16, 2013
3,031
357
88
renegade7 said:
Except when they aren't. The problem with this biological argument is that it can't account for counter-examples. For instance, if women evolved to nurture children, then why do fewer women than men want children: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/actually-men-have-always-wanted-children-more-than-women/article23681771/?arc404=true and furthermore, why do so many women lack interest in having children at all, and why is interest in having children so dependent on social factors like education and wealth? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_childlessness#Statistics_and_research.
Evolution is about the survival of the species not the individual. It's why animal populations go extinct once they reach a critical number. For a species that sexually reproduce(like humans) evolutionary success is measured by offspring. If 80% of the population reproduce(though I believe it's 50-60% for men) than that is an exceptionally high success rate. Humans are hardwired to act in ways that are evolutionary advantageous to them and even if individuals don't 'succeed'(either voluntarily or involuntarily) than that hardly threatens the population. The amount of children is definitely dependent on social and economic variables. For lots of men ehm..'reproductive access' is much more difficult(hence the lower numbers) which could explain why many of them want children more.
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
Honestly mate, it's as simple as this.

Meat and two veg = Man
Vagoo and ovaries = Woman

On a slightly unrelated note, I will say, I was a bit miffed at the Austrian singer at the 2014 Eurovision song contest.
Nothing to do with her being transgender (or drag. Actually I've no clue if he/she was either, it doesn't matter anyway), my only issue was from a point of jealousy. His/her beard was absolutely magnificent, and if I try to grow a beard, it's a fuzzy mess of random face furniture. But good singer. And IIRC Austria won that year.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,697
2,881
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
stroopwafel said:
renegade7 said:
Except when they aren't. The problem with this biological argument is that it can't account for counter-examples. For instance, if women evolved to nurture children, then why do fewer women than men want children: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/actually-men-have-always-wanted-children-more-than-women/article23681771/?arc404=true and furthermore, why do so many women lack interest in having children at all, and why is interest in having children so dependent on social factors like education and wealth? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_childlessness#Statistics_and_research.
Evolution is about the survival of the species not the individual. It's why animal populations go extinct once they reach a critical number. For a species that sexually reproduce(like humans) evolutionary success is measured by offspring. If 80% of the population reproduce(though I believe it's 50-60% for men) than that is an exceptionally high success rate. Humans are hardwired to act in ways that are evolutionary advantageous to them and even if individuals don't 'succeed'(either voluntarily or involuntarily) than that hardly threatens the population. The amount of children is definitely dependent on social and economic variables. For lots of men ehm..'reproductive access' is much more difficult(hence the lower numbers) which could explain why many of them want children more.
I remember seeing a study that for men its only like 20%. Also, it was suggested from that study, that monogamy is far more beneficial for males as it lets more males find a partner, where before most didn't (at least to procreate)
 

JUMBO PALACE

Elite Member
Legacy
Jun 17, 2009
3,552
7
43
Country
USA
McElroy said:
JUMBO PALACE said:
I also really enjoy receiving anal sex from women. That doesn't make me less of a man.
Yet you lift to compensate for that. But sure, we believe you. :^)
Haha hey I can't help it if heavy deadlifts build a butt the girlfriend can't resist!
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Jul 16, 2013
3,031
357
88
trunkage said:
I remember seeing a study that for men its only like 20%. Also, it was suggested from that study, that monogamy is far more beneficial for males as it lets more males find a partner, where before most didn't (at least to procreate)
I hope I'm not stepping on any toes but it's well known women are the choosier sex. Marriage could indeed traditionally be considered a social construct for more men to reproduce than the 20% that (attractive and fertile) women desire. I think intuitively people know things are a certain way even if they can't pinpoint the exact reasons. Evolutionary speaking it makes sense women are choosier as they have a nine month gestation period whereas a man has no such consequence. Humans are mostly selected on immune system as this provides the highest survival rate for offspring(espescially when these systems adapted during the pleistocene) so attraction is based on the outward signs and behavioral traits of genetic fitness and healthy immunology. Since women pay a heavier price when they invest wrongly it makes sense that they are pickier in their mating strategy.
 

RedRockRun

sneaky sneaky
Jul 23, 2009
618
0
0
BeetleManiac said:
That's more environmental than biological. Living with an identity crisis you can't articulate, or being able to do so but fearing for your safety if you try can be pretty emotionally traumatizing. Combine that with the fact that there is still a significant portion of the public and even the quiltbag community itself that is overtly hostile to trans people and you've got a recipe for some bad feelings.
You quote my post but its meaning seems to be lost on you. It is only environmental to a point. Do all the so-called right things, and there is still a 21% chance of attempting suicide (Haas, Rogers, & Herman). That is not a small number and far more indicative of a mental illness.

BeetleManiac said:
Living with an identity crisis you can't articulate...
What do you think identity is? It all originates in the brain, and the brain is a nerve center composed of neuron connections, electrical impulses, neurotransmitters, and receptors. If a person's identity crisis is dire enough that it leads to a pronounced probability of suicide then we are not talking about environmental stimuli but a native disorder.

BeetleManiac said:
bad feelings
I hope you're not one of those people who think that depression is just, "A bunch of bad feelings," or, "Having a bad day."

BeetleManiac said:
By all means, trans people should seek out medical professionals and therapists if they're having trouble, but they don't need to be cured of anything. Figuring out who you are when you're cisgendered is tough enough as it is (see: any high school or college). Being a sexual minority that most of the public doesn't understand does not make it any easier. We all need a little help sometimes.
I don't know. Would you consider an average 1/5 chance to attempt to kill yourself trouble (Haas et al., 2014) Also yes, they do need to be cured of it because it's a biological disorder. You speak of a hostile community, but I consider the most harmful people to be those who enable the delusions of people who say that they are the opposite gender when, as I first stated, there are studies available to the public which conclude that no matter what transgender people do and what kind of environment they are in, the suicide rates remain fairly constant on average. In other words, a transgender person brought up in an accepting family with accepting friends who has gender reassignment and hormone therapy will still have around a 1/5 chance of attempting suicide (Haas et al., 2014).

BeetleManiac said:
Being a sexual minority that most of the public doesn't understand
Yes, most of the public has been taught to believe that gender is some mystical, mercurial thing that can change with the seasons and be swapped about based on how a person feels when waking up. The willingness to believe that gender is a social construct further reinforces my argument that mental health is such a verboten topic, that it's more socially acceptable to speak openly about matters of pseudoscience or outright fantasy.

Being transgendered is not an illness. It's just a thing that happens. The best thing you can do for trans people is to treat them just like everyone else. Identify them by the names and pronouns they ask you to use and you'll find many of them are as happy to have a conversation as anyone else.
"A thing that happens."

What kind of thing? Chromosomal? Neurological? Hormonal?

Happens when? Congenital? Early onset? Adolescence? Young adulthood?

BeetleManiac said:
The best thing you can do for trans people is to treat them just like everyone else. Identify them by the names and pronouns they ask you to use and you'll find many of them are as happy to have a conversation as anyone else.
And then at best, after that nice conversation is finished they will still have a much higher chance of suicidality than the national average. Pronouns, different names, all of it is just base courtesy. The only way you can go in terms of chance of suicide as transgender is up, not decreasing below 21% on average.

"Not an illness."

Then explain the 1/5 suicide rates for people who don't report any harassment, family issues, or external factors? To quote Haas, Rogers, & Herman (2014) in, Suicide Attempts Among Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Adults,

"Overall, the most striking finding of our analysis was the exceptionally high prevalence of lifetime suicide attempts reported by NTDS respondents across all demographics and experiences." (p. 2)

Other sources of note:
Meanings and political implications of "psychopathology" in a gender identity clinic: a report of 10 cases. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105079]
Long-term follow-up of transsexual persons undergoing sex reassignment surgery: cohort study in Sweden. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364939]
Anxiety and depression in transgender individuals: the roles of transition status, loss, social support, and coping. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23398495]
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,322
6,826
118
Country
United States
RedRockRun said:
I don't know. Would you consider an average 1/5 chance to attempt to kill yourself trouble (Haas et al., 2014) Also yes, they do need to be cured of it because it's a biological disorder. You speak of a hostile community, but I consider the most harmful people to be those who enable the delusions of people who say that they are the opposite gender when, as I first stated, there are studies available to the public which conclude that no matter what transgender people do and what kind of environment they are in, the suicide rates remain fairly constant on average. In other words, a transgender person brought up in an accepting family with accepting friends who has gender reassignment and hormone therapy will still have around a 1/5 chance of attempting suicide (Haas et al., 2014).
I dunno, I figure a lifetime of other people saying "it doesn't matter what the science says, you're still delusional and need to be cured" might have something to do with that.

Also, risking assault andtime you need to use the restroom. Can't imagine how psychologically taxing that it.
 

ScaredIndie

Guy who makes gamey things
Oct 21, 2014
28
0
0
Well to answer op and not the train wreck that followed, I think men and women are divided into groups by generalities and or common biological factors neither of these groupings (being as broad as they are) are necessarily applicable to an individual and anyone trying to mesh fully with these generalizations is going to find a lot of contradictions and misery.

Don't try to be anything but the best version of who you happen to be, what ever that means to you.
 

renegade7

New member
Feb 9, 2011
2,046
0
0
stroopwafel said:
renegade7 said:
Except when they aren't. The problem with this biological argument is that it can't account for counter-examples. For instance, if women evolved to nurture children, then why do fewer women than men want children: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/actually-men-have-always-wanted-children-more-than-women/article23681771/?arc404=true and furthermore, why do so many women lack interest in having children at all, and why is interest in having children so dependent on social factors like education and wealth? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_childlessness#Statistics_and_research.
Evolution is about the survival of the species not the individual.
Right, and?

If 80% of the population reproduce(though I believe it's 50-60% for men) than that is an exceptionally high success rate.
Modern humans, unlike animals, do not face practical barriers to reproduction in the modern world. If you really wanted to reproduce it would be very easy to do so, and it's becoming easier with each passing year. So why is the number of individuals interested in reproducing steadily decreasing?

As for only 50-60% of men having children, I'm having trouble finding those statistics.

Humans are hardwired to act in ways that are evolutionary advantageous to them and even if individuals don't 'succeed'(either voluntarily or involuntarily) than that hardly threatens the population.
Indeed they are, but evolution is more complicated than "produce as many offspring as possible" especially with animals like humans that require vast amount of time and resources to reproduce and in which reproduction carries significant risks. It turns out that we do not naturally desire to reproduce as part of a mechanism to keep us from wasting resources by mating with potentially inferior partners. So the evolutionary trick is that that inhibition gets turned off by sufficient sexual arousal, which in nature would ideally indicate that you're with a suitable mate. http://theconversation.com/maternal-instinct-and-biology-evolution-ensures-we-want-sex-not-babies-46622

With this perspective in mind, it's pretty easy to see the actual reason why men are more likely to want children: the cost of reproduction is lower for males than for females.
 

RedRockRun

sneaky sneaky
Jul 23, 2009
618
0
0
altnameJag said:
RedRockRun said:
I don't know. Would you consider an average 1/5 chance to attempt to kill yourself trouble (Haas et al., 2014) Also yes, they do need to be cured of it because it's a biological disorder. You speak of a hostile community, but I consider the most harmful people to be those who enable the delusions of people who say that they are the opposite gender when, as I first stated, there are studies available to the public which conclude that no matter what transgender people do and what kind of environment they are in, the suicide rates remain fairly constant on average. In other words, a transgender person brought up in an accepting family with accepting friends who has gender reassignment and hormone therapy will still have around a 1/5 chance of attempting suicide (Haas et al., 2014).
I dunno, I figure a lifetime of other people saying "it doesn't matter what the science says, you're still delusional and need to be cured" might have something to do with that.

Also, risking assault andtime you need to use the restroom. Can't imagine how psychologically taxing that it.
Refer to study I linked which says that people who don't experience harassment still have a higher probability of having mental disorders. Read my post.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,697
2,881
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
stroopwafel said:
trunkage said:
I remember seeing a study that for men its only like 20%. Also, it was suggested from that study, that monogamy is far more beneficial for males as it lets more males find a partner, where before most didn't (at least to procreate)
I hope I'm not stepping on any toes but it's well known women are the choosier sex. Marriage could indeed traditionally be considered a social construct for more men to reproduce than the 20% that (attractive and fertile) women desire. I think intuitively people know things are a certain way even if they can't pinpoint the exact reasons. Evolutionary speaking it makes sense women are choosier as they have a nine month gestation period whereas a man has no such consequence. Humans are mostly selected on immune system as this provides the highest survival rate for offspring(espescially when these systems adapted during the pleistocene) so attraction is based on the outward signs and behavioral traits of genetic fitness and healthy immunology. Since women pay a heavier price when they invest wrongly it makes sense that they are pickier in their mating strategy.
As with all things to do with this, tends to needs to be added. i.e. woman tends to be chooiser. (This could cover the whole thread not just your point. Personally, I think this leads to more arguments than what is actually said.)
Another point that not disagreeing with you: Marriage, before Roman times, made sure not many men could procreate. Usually wealthy and powerful people had way more than the average. But what do you do with these men that aren't procreating? One thing could be send to war, since they naturally a bit more aggressive than females. While I'm not one to deny that there are physical difference between the sexes, I would note that social constructs have reinforced natural attributes. I think Non-monogamous marriage reinforces aggression and killing as a male trait, especially when you think about the heroes from an army would have been given women to marry.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
RedRockRun said:
That being said, I believe that it should be treated as a mental illness and not normalized, as the studies I have read suggest high rates of suicidality in transgender people regardless of background or personal experience. In other words, suicide rates are not mitigated by gender reassignment and hormone therapy.

It is a mystery to me why mental health is still a taboo subject in this day and age of legal gay marriage - more so when it's seen as socially acceptable for children to undergo gender reassignment.

OP, I suggest you go to Psychology Today and look for a therapist who has experience helping people with gender dysphoria and later, a psychologist who can administer a psychological evaluation to determine a diagnosis which will aid a psychiatrist in prescribing medication.

The statistics show that you have at least a 1/5 chance of attempting suicide, and though I don't know you, I do not wish to see you add to that statistic.
You also don't know what you're talking about. After all, the studies that are there have also said gender reassignment and HRT is effective treatment of gender dysphoria to trans people that want it. More conclusively, it is the social implications when one comes out that heighten their instances of suicidal ideation. In the same way the suicide rate spikes during periods of high familial rejection.

But then again, no one would say being gay makes you inherently suicidal. It might have something to do with an abusive parent or colleagues, or social rejection from former friends...

For starters, 90% of depression cannot be appropriately treated with medication. It requires a plethora of psychological services depending on the underlying triggers or cause. Such as PTSD in soldiers, you can't throw drugs at them to make them better. Hence why the cost of rehabilitating soldiers spirals.

Drugs are inevitably cheaper than paying psychologists to run through CBT or IPT. Moreover, many of the triggers for high suicide rates amongst soldiers involves things like banks foreclosing on homes while on duty, break up of marriages, returning to towns with little psychological resources to implement. After all, 70% of soldiers came from poorer, smaller towns and cities like in the MidWest.

Not from large urban communities.

But then again, no one would say being a soldier makes you inherently suicidal.

People who run your argument seem to neglect social rejection and isolation have reportedly caused suicide since time immemorial, and by pretending like the problem has specifically to do with trans people inherently it's almost as if people can dust their hands off from pretending socialor environmental triggers for depression do not exist.

After all, 90% of depression cases is environmental and social in origin. Those 90% of depression sufferers, if left untreated (simply throwing drugs at them), have a high rate of suicide as well. If you are one of those non-melancholia depression sufferers (and you overwhelmingly are likely to be), your doctor simply throwing drugs at you isn't helping you.

That's not to say drugs can't ease the problem, but for the grand majority of depression sufferers drugs alone is a crutch without systematic behaviour review. Rather you start feeling as if it is the status quo. That it can't be treated, but in truth they aren't providing appropriate services to treat the problem to begin with.

Speaking from personal experience, the only time I wanted to kill myself as a trans person was when I was thrown out on the street at 16 for coming out to my parents. Not since then when I found myself employment, and since lead a charmed life of financial and academic success. Of course, my example of a charmed existence is not the status quo of your average person, much less trans people. Who are overwhelmingly more likely to suffer crippling poverty and social rejection.

And if you speak to any trans person somewhere. When you come out and start transitioning is rife with discord. You lose friends, you lose contact with family, and you lose employment ... youget treated like garbage in hospitals, and yes even in Australia and other places of the supposedly enlightened West... not just the U.S. Being trans doesn't make for an easy life, and the statistics show that regardless of where you are. There is also plenty of conclusive studies to show things like financial stress have a significant statistical correlation to depression and suicide.

I can attest to that well enough. After all, being trans and yet not once having suffered depression and suicidal ideation barring one event in life.

That says a lot, don't you think? Miraculously that cleared up when I had a job, and people were telling me I was good at it. When I could build a savings pool. Use that to further invest, go into academia... it's amazing what social inclusion and economic security can do to improve one's sense of empowerment and belief that one can thrive.

Now one can write that off as me simply being amazing, but a more honest interrogation of events is a combination of luck, the right support at the right time, and the right people I could call friends and associates. Something many times less 'lucky' than if I wasn't trans.

(edit)You're talking about a group of people who are over three times more likely to be living under the poverty line in the U.S. And they're people from a multiplicity of socioeconomic levels to begin with. Given such an outrageous degree of iniquity and hardship, do you honestly expect it to be merely a case of financial stress or no real stressors at all?

Or is it fundamentally more likely that the level of iniquity suffered by trans people is directly relevant to the degree of their likely exposure of multiple forms of iniquity in interpersonal relations in general?

After all, I came from a wealthy parental background ... still wanted to kill myself when people threw me out on the street. How exactly do you think that will be written up if I became a statistic? I'msure someone like you would pretend that me in those statistics is 'evidence' that trans people are somehow inherently suicidal despite their apparent socioeconomic background.

Regardless of the realities of looking at the lives of trans people and the reasons they commit suicide.

Rich people get depressed and sometimes want to commit suicide, it's just that they can usually afford decent therapists so that they don't do so.

That means fuck all when you can't be open with why you're depressed, nor if you do so face social and familial rejection for it. After all, once again, most forms of depressive disorders have environmental and social issues that reinforce low moods. You having to hide being trans because of social and familial rejection both confounds treatment for depression, moreover the erosion ofsupport structures if you do come out has a similar effect on reinforcing cyclical depressive events.

After all, I wasn't mentally unwell for being trans ... I was unwell because I was depressed that my family and friends responded poorly to me coming out. Hence why it's gender dysphoria. It doesn't makethe argument you will alwaysbe dysphoric. Some trans people will be, others won't be, but in both situations HRT and gender affirming surgery can be incredibly effective treatment when sought by the person in question.

HRT and gender affirming surgery alone cannot cure depression. Because that is more akin to the psychosocial effects of having gender dysphoria.

Just like how you don't blame the surgery you do get not also treating the subsequent golden staph infection because of the surgery.

It's two separate issues requiring two separate solutions, and one of those may never be realised due to the parties involved. But that doesn't make the assumption the initial surgery wasn't worth it. It might of saved someone's life even if the infection later on takes it.

After all, we have evidence of the positive outcomes when treatment is performed ethically... in terms of relative success of HRT and gender affirming surgery for the grand bulk of receivers who want it in treating gender dysphoria, it's actually one of the downright best complicated treatment regimens available in medicine for the treatment of any complex issue.

Treating a headache with paracetemol is statistically more likely of providing poorer outcomes for the patient. I don't see right-wingers denouncing Tylenol.

So it's beyond the skeptics' disapproval of it as a treatment regimen, but then again no surgery or medication will stop people being awful to someone for being trans.

It's like blaming innocent black people for being outside, and thus 9 times more likely of being shot by a cop. Clearly the problem is that they'refree and outside in the first place? Or maybe there should simply be less racist cops?
 

RedRockRun

sneaky sneaky
Jul 23, 2009
618
0
0
BeetleManiac said:
The greatest philosophers of history have debated that same question for years. I am well aware that everything psychological is biological. But pointing to the word, "biology" and declaring the argument closed is disingenuous.
The difference being that things like philosophy exist to fill in the gaps in anticipation of empirical, scientifically proven data. If you want to talk about being disingenuous, why not read the source I linked which says that post-op transgender people actually have a statistically higher chance of attempting suicide. What's disingenuous is declaring gender dysphoria to be normal and blaming society for the high suicide rates without once looking into studies that examine that correlation.

BeetleManiac said:
I have major depression and have contemplated suicide more than once in my 30+ years on this earth.
Join the club. MDD, two attempts in 29 years. I am just surprised that you would refer to symptoms of depression as, "Bad feelings," when feelings are but the expression of chemical imbalances.

BeetleManiac said:
Repeating 1/5 ad nauseum does not an argument make.
Declaring my point wrong does not an argument invalidate.

BeetleManiac said:
You're looking at the statistics, but there's a lot of context and environmental factors that you seem to just handwave away
Are you talking about the context and environmental factors in the study I keep referring back to. I refer to the 1/5 chance of suicidality because that is, in the context of that study, the lowest number they were able to find. The probabilities exceed 50% when considering environmental factors such as harassment, nonacceptance by family, economic shortcomings, ethnicity, etc. but the point of the 1/5 statistic is that it represents a best case average scenario. In lieu of these environmental factors that add to the statistics the numbers still move toward a 1/5 average chance of suicidality which is nearly double the national average of the US.

BeetleManiac said:
because numbers look kind of scary.
Ad hominem.

BeetleManiac said:
Your arguments are the same as people who sought to "cure" homosexuality.
Tu quoque, Straw man.

BeetleManiac said:
That doesn't make you a bad person, you're just mistaken.
Mistaken according to the straw man argument you so deftly burned down. Also this is neither here nor there. I am talking about gender dysphoria and not homosexuality. If you would like to talk about homosexuality then do so in another thread.

BeetleManiac said:
Think about this. Do you really want to pursue this logic? Do you want to be using the same arguments as the people who believe they can torture gay people into being straight? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you don't.
Loaded question. Also I resent your comparison of the medical and scientific world to religious homosexual torture camps.

BeetleManiac said:
I've spent a lot of time with mental health professionals. I know bullshit armchair diagnoses when I see them.
Anecdotal. I've spent a long time with mental health professionals as well. What exactly is the bullshit armchair diagnosis here? Don't argue with me. Read my sources and attack them. I came to the beliefs I currently hold by reading such studies, so if you have a bone to pick with my opinions then play your sources against mine.

BeetleManiac said:
No, most of the public think closer to what you do: that sex and gender are the exact same thing, written in stone and rigidly binary with absolutely no exceptions.
Sex and gender are words. Words change meaning overtime. If you'd like to debate etymology, then I'm down for that too. In short though, I don't put my trust in definitions that can be changed du jour i.e. goal posts that can be moved. If your argument boils down to semantics over sex and gender describing different things then I want numbers to back up such an assertion. Show me peer-reviewed studies which indicate that either gender or sex is something one can naturally evolve as one's identity while the other is biological.

BeetleManiac said:
An odd nit to pick.
What's odd about taking issue with you saying that gender dysphoria just happens, offering nothing more?

"What's the flu?" "It's just something that happens."
"What's gravity?" "It's just something that happens."
"What's the bystander effect?" "It's just something that happens."

You say it's an odd nitpick, but it's the most important thing at the core of this argument. What's the cause of gender dysphoria? How does it occur? What is its biological basis, and how does it manifest itself? I'm not trying to be pithy; I would honestly love to know why some people believe that they are of the opposite gender?

BeetleManiac said:
That's not actually how statistics work. They also do not establish causality. You need qualitative research for that.
Special pleading.
No qualitative research? The study examines numerous environmental factors, arriving at the numbers by comparing different qualities i.e. underlying causes.

And of course you don't touch the sources I provided.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Jul 16, 2013
3,031
357
88
renegade7 said:
Modern humans, unlike animals, do not face practical barriers to reproduction in the modern world. If you really wanted to reproduce it would be very easy to do so, and it's becoming easier with each passing year. So why is the number of individuals interested in reproducing steadily decreasing?
Problem is it's not. It's true that in the developed world birth rates have decreased due to individualization and social/economic pressures but in general overpopulation is actually a severe problem. Infant survival rate is way higher than it was in earlier times and people also no longer have to fear epidemics obliterating 30% of the population. Nature actually counts for way higher loss rates than modern humans hence overpopulation. So even while in the developed world people might have fewer children you can be pretty much sure populations are replenished due to low infant morbidity. Both the quality of life and the heavy taxation on the eco system would improve with less mouths to feed. So in today's world people having less or no children is actually beneficial to the human population.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,322
6,826
118
Country
United States
RedRockRun said:
altnameJag said:
RedRockRun said:
I don't know. Would you consider an average 1/5 chance to attempt to kill yourself trouble (Haas et al., 2014) Also yes, they do need to be cured of it because it's a biological disorder. You speak of a hostile community, but I consider the most harmful people to be those who enable the delusions of people who say that they are the opposite gender when, as I first stated, there are studies available to the public which conclude that no matter what transgender people do and what kind of environment they are in, the suicide rates remain fairly constant on average. In other words, a transgender person brought up in an accepting family with accepting friends who has gender reassignment and hormone therapy will still have around a 1/5 chance of attempting suicide (Haas et al., 2014).
I dunno, I figure a lifetime of other people saying "it doesn't matter what the science says, you're still delusional and need to be cured" might have something to do with that.

Also, risking assault andtime you need to use the restroom. Can't imagine how psychologically taxing that it.
Refer to study I linked which says that people who don't experience harassment still have a higher probability of having mental disorders. Read my post.
Hey, you first.

Unless the study you linked was taken in a fictional society.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,910
1,775
118
Country
United Kingdom
RedRockRun said:
The difference being that things like philosophy exist to fill in the gaps in anticipation of empirical, scientifically proven data.
Hahaha.. no.

Things like philosophy exist to determine, among other things, why "empirically evidenced data" is more useful or valid than other data, and under what circumstances it can be used to form reasonable conclusions.

RedRockRun said:
I am just surprised that you would refer to symptoms of depression as, "Bad feelings," when feelings are but the expression of chemical imbalances.
That's a weak and reductive account of depression, though. In fact, the symptoms of clinical depression cannot be traced to chemical imbalances at all, since all that's required for diagnosis are recurring and persistent patterns of negative thoughts and feelings which do not disappear over time. If these were solely the result of chemical imbalances, then only drug treatments would be effective (which isn't true), those treatments would be universally effective (which isn't true) and cognitive factors would have no impact on depressive symptoms (which isn't true).

There's a complex interplay between neurochemical, cognitive and environmental factors in the case of depression which is often very particular to the individual, which is why people respond very differently to the same treatment.

RedRockRun said:
Are you talking about the context and environmental factors in the study I keep referring back to. I refer to the 1/5 chance of suicidality because that is, in the context of that study, the lowest number they were able to find. The probabilities exceed 50% when considering environmental factors such as harassment, nonacceptance by family, economic shortcomings, ethnicity, etc. but the point of the 1/5 statistic is that it represents a best case average scenario.
Right, but it's a best case scenario by the frame of reference set out in the study, which may not be adequate to account for the full range of environmental factors.

For example, you are serving as an environmental factor right now. You are sitting there as a cisgendered person who essentially has no direct experience or basis on which to form an opinion, lecturing people on which of their experiences constitute a mental illness. Absurd, isn't it. No person outside of that little bubble of self-reinforcing cognitive bias which allows you to see your experience as the "normal" yardstick by which others should be judged would possibly think this was a reasonable way to behave, and yet here you are. Clearly you think it is normal, and you're not alone either. Many, many cis people share your opinion. This thread contains countless evidence of that.

No trans person lives in a society in which they are accepted. They will always be surrounded by people like you, people who are not engaging in "harassment" by any legal definition but who have this bizarre, dare I say pathological compulsion to pass judgement on the authenticity of other people's lives regardless of their lack of any meaningful observation or basis on which to make a comparison.

And yeah, I can already here the plaintive cry of "..but I read a study! I'm not just an ignorant transphobe, I have real opinions." Cool, you still formed an independent analysis based on your personal interpretation of that study's meaning, and interpretation you haven't even bothered to cross reference with the qualitative observations of a single person who actually has experience of what you're talking about. Great work there.

BeetleManiac said:
I am talking about gender dysphoria and not homosexuality.
Why aren't you talking about homosexuality?

Homosexuality is also associated for higher than normal rates of suicidality. Homosexuality has also historically been defined as a mental illness. Today, we understand that higher than normal suicide rates among gays and lesbians are linked both to higher instances of immediate stressors like family rejection, homelessness or violence, but also to "minority stress". Social exclusion, marginalisation and stigmatization leading to poor self-esteem, isolation and a lack of appropriate emotional support. Why would trans people, who are even more marginalized to the point where you consider it entirely normal to publicly denounce us as mentally ill, be less prone to minority stress than gays and lesbians?

BeetleManiac said:
Sex and gender are words. Words change meaning overtime.
Words describe things. Words change meaning because there is a need to adequately explain observations or experiences for which the old meanings are inadequate, or because the theoretical background has moved on in response to new knowledge or new observations.

The sex/gender distinction has been around, in some form, for a very long time. It's certainly been around longer than the concept of biological sex as we understand it today (people were writing about masculine men and feminine women in the 17th century, because it's incredibly obvious that the ideas about what men or women should wear or how they should speak or behave are not magically determined by their genitals - or, to avoid anachronism, by their levels of vital heat). The first attempt to produce a metric scale of gender expression took place before the second world war. Gender identity came to be recognized as distinct from gender expression in the 70s because psychologists needed a more detailed vocabulary to describe the (actually incredibly obvious) difference between external expression and internal identification.

Like, if you do not need a specialized or technical vocabulary to talk about these concepts, then you really have not given them much thought. Pretending you've read a study when, at best, you've just skimmed it for numbers and slapped on a conclusion which makes sense to you, doesn't change that.
 

QuiteEnjoyed2016

New member
Dec 29, 2016
30
0
0
KissingSunlight said:
I am going to attempt to crowdsource my existential crisis.

If you don't know, I recently accepted that I was transgender. Right now, I am figuring out I am just simply gender nonconforming or I am a woman in a man's body.

A question came to me recently that I do not have an answer to. What's the difference between a man and a woman? Besides, their physical differences. Is there anything really different between the genders? The only differences I can think of are just social construct that society just places on both genders.

So, please help me. I am genuinely curious what other people opinions about the differences of each gender. Maybe this will help me.
I am not sure to be honest. I'd make sure to consult some suitably trained counselling, it sounds like a challenging time. I'd be careful before undertaking any surgical treatment, there are growing number of cases where reversal has been required. The suggestion seems to be the that the rush to be accepting has pushed some people into the think they have an desire that is not actually there; not to suggest that it applicable to you in anyway.

Not that universities will allow you to study this phenomenon!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-41385299