Re: Transsexuality and Rights - challenge to WILGA
Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:54 pm
Hey Serafina; check your PM's.
You know that even if that study does say transsexuals got less testosterone due to a defect it would also mean that,Serafina wrote:
Significant brain development takes place prior to birth. Abnormal development could be one of the causes of transsexuality.
Note that the latter doesn't necessarily mean that the brain is fully female. Indeed, that would be unlikely since development continues after birth, especially if we include your previous findings.
While it is a interesting concept i would consider that very dubious as conclusive material even if it had been tested witch it has not.Essentially, if a transsexuals brain was identical to that of a woman, one could expect to find phantom limb syndrome after GRS.
I am not dismissing later studies (even though the subjects were also taking hormones prior to the testing) however i do consider the first one debunked due to its limitations and incorrect results.Generally, i do not think that it is fair to dismiss pre-birth development as a cause for transsexuality out of hand. There are several conflicting studies, taking one over the other without reason is just not fair.
It does show that the hormones do cause the effect the earlier study claimed they did not,Your study merely showed that further development can take place in adults,
and indicates that the brains of transwomen (transmen) are still different from biological women (men).
Perhaps i suppose it depends on the hormone but regardless that is mearly a lesser normal effect rather than a opposite effect.Serafina wrote: Actually yes, it does just that.
If the signals of testosterone are weaker, then the effects will also be weaker.
They react differently to hormones.
I would not dismis a pattern because of a few minor errors in fact as you pointed out yourself personalities vary so i would expect a greater LACK of consistancy. And that brings us back to ppl saying what they want the establishment to hear rather than being completly honest, the varety you talk about should to a certain extent lack consistancy.But if you have consistent reports between different age groups and social groups, taken by people who are trained to analyze for such consistency, there is a pattern you have to explain.
You can't dismiss a pattern based on a few errors in it.
The data shows an association between dermatoglyphics and sexual orientation, not transsexualism per se and dermatoglyphics.Edit:
Some extra evidence, tough it's a bit exotic
Yet more evidence for pre-birth differences between transsexuals and non-transsexuals.
How does the third point follow AT ALL?1. If the above is correct and it is a defect it could and likely will be treated and the required chemicals suplimented in the womb as medical knowledge develops.
2. Also if it is mearly a lack of testosterone in early development it could also be suplimented before or after birth or perhaps even at a older age.
3. Does the "defect" appear in the brains of JUST transgenders or in homosexuals ect as well and if so would that not mean transitioning is mearly a lifestyle choice.
No, it would be quite simple:While it is a interesting concept i would consider that very dubious as conclusive material even if it had been tested witch it has not.
Phantom limb is phantom limb and has nothing to do with sexuality, we know from stroke patients that neural pathways reform so they can use limbs paralized from the stroke. To claim that neural pathways would not develop over the many years the individual was the proud owner of a Knob would be dishonest i think.
Actually, the study itself was not wrong, at best the conclusions.I am not dismissing later studies (even though the subjects were also taking hormones prior to the testing) however i do consider the first one debunked due to its limitations and incorrect results.
Yes, but as you said - not showing something doesn't mean it's not there.It does show that the hormones do cause the effect the earlier study claimed they did not,
That particular study does not show that the brains of transmen/women are any differant than men/women (respectivly) in the first place, however your later study may.
Well, incidentally, the fingerprint-test i edited into my last post includes a large group including all of those and supports my conclusion.A good test group should really include known members of the hetrosexual and gay community AND transexuals who have not taken ANY hormone treatment.
Why would it have to be opposite? I dropped that claim, i misread your post, i said so.Perhaps i suppose it depends on the hormone but regardless that is mearly a lesser normal effect rather than a opposite effect.
You are ignoring my point.I would not dismis a pattern because of a few minor errors in fact as you pointed out yourself personalities vary so i would expect a greater LACK of consistancy. And that brings us back to ppl saying what they want the establishment to hear rather than being completly honest, the varety you talk about should to a certain extent lack consistancy.
Quite.The data shows an association between dermatoglyphics and sexual orientation, not transsexualism per se and dermatoglyphics.
Now, that can mean one of two things, or both:Homosexual male and female transsexuals combined differed from male and female controls combined.
If Kor actually gives the theory i demanded, then yes, propaby.Mr. Oragahn wrote:Yeah well now that you're here, how about you and Kor get that SW debate rolling?
I dunno man, I'd be pretty pissed if I was a transsexual and someone was basically arguing for the right to be a shithead to me. Now this is the net and all that but still.Praeothmin wrote:I don't think society has the right to "permit" or "deny" anything of that nature.Serafina wrote:There is no harm done to society, but there IS great harm to transsexuals if society doesn't permit it.
You feel you are a woman, then live as a woman.
It's your right as a human being to live anyway that you deem right, as long as it is not detrimental to others.
And in your case, it clearly isn't...
But you have to understand that not all around you will accept that, no matter how justified you feel about it.
Getting worked up over the opinion of someone you don't even know in RL, whom you'll probably never meet and who has no importance in your life isn't worth it, IMO...
This still doesn't mean that insults are more acceptable in constructive debates, or that the word "retard" is more acceptable then the word "trannie"...
That's not what you said, and you know it.WILGA wrote:That's really funny: I argued that transwomen, who have a male sex, are to be treated as men are treated.
Men where never discriminated - at least not in Western societies.
In other words:Maybe, if the transsexuals in Western societies are beginning to be a little bit more open-minded, they would see that this is not the necessary conclusion. They would consider the possibility of being something that is neither a woman nor a man but something else.
......
In South Asia there are such terms already: For example in India there are people who are called hijra. These are physiological males who adopt feminine gender identity, women's clothing and other feminine gender roles – or with other words, they are what we would call transwoman.
So black people, Jews etc. are a different social class from you? How lovely /sarcasm
Even if a third social class is created for transgenders, does this not mean that they have to be discriminated. I mean, I do not discriminate black people, Jews, women or gays either.
And i argued that their self-identity is female (transwomen) or male (transmen).All I argued is that a transwoman is not a woman and a transman is not a man. They can wish what they want, that will not change these facts.
You determine this by deliberately limited data.And only if a transwoman is determined to be not a man (with female gender) and if he is obviously not a woman, he has to be something else. That is the conclusion to which Serafina forces me.
See, here is the thing:I prefer to treat him as a man with female gender as I treat e.g. a homosexual man as a man with a homosexual orientation or a male transvestite as a man with an affinity for cross-dressing.
The brain is the seat of ones personality.But that does not make him a woman. And a bug in the brain, the existence of a few female characteristics in the brain, does not make him a woman either. Even if the whole brain would be a typical female brain does this not make him a woman. He stays a man, albeit a man with a female brain.
Hence, the difference is quite small. Big deal. We still know that it is a barrier that can not be crossed by nurture.That's really funny: I argued that transwomen, who have a male sex, are to be treated as men are treated.
Men where never discriminated - at least not in Western societies.
And what tells you that these differences are not the ones that are the most important ones for ones identity?It is also known that in a transwoman the brain is not a typical male brain, that there are female characteristics too.
No, it's not. The question is whether these differences account for gender identity, which is not yet decided either way.The question now is what a pathologist would say to the brain of a transwoman.
What would a regulation that applied to belief be, if enforced? We're talking about 1984-style thought police now.The Dude wrote:I dunno man, I'd be pretty pissed if I was a transsexual and someone was basically arguing for the right to be a shithead to me. Now this is the net and all that but still.Praeothmin wrote:I don't think society has the right to "permit" or "deny" anything of that nature.Serafina wrote:There is no harm done to society, but there IS great harm to transsexuals if society doesn't permit it.
You feel you are a woman, then live as a woman.
It's your right as a human being to live anyway that you deem right, as long as it is not detrimental to others.
And in your case, it clearly isn't...
But you have to understand that not all around you will accept that, no matter how justified you feel about it.
Getting worked up over the opinion of someone you don't even know in RL, whom you'll probably never meet and who has no importance in your life isn't worth it, IMO...
This still doesn't mean that insults are more acceptable in constructive debates, or that the word "retard" is more acceptable then the word "trannie"...
If by "being an asshole" you mean "disagreeing with a real or imagined social consensus," he's allowed to do that. He's required to be polite while doing so, but he could be trying to convince us that there is a Zionist conspiracy to rule the world with a hundred-armed Vishnu-like government for all that the rules are concerned.Frankly I'm curious as to when JMSpock intends to discipline WILGA or if he intends to just let all this slide. Looks pretty bad when you say you want a forum where all are welcome and one of your members gets to be an asshole without repercussion.