It has't evolved much. Whether it's a choice or not is a bit philosophical for most people - politically who cares?



I don't speak for (or care much about) the democrat party which has always been a right wing party to me. But we weren't lying about it not being a choice - arguably it isn't a choice. The mistake was in the argument that it mattered that it wasn't a choice when, when we think about it now, it doesn't matter a jot whether it's a choice or not. This is how attitudes progress.

It's like the old plea for 'tolerance'. We have partially progressed past that now.

You said earlier that a big concern was Parents forcing their questioning children into getting gender reassignment therapy, and here we have two parents following the suggested treatment for dysphoria and NOT having their child have reassignment surgery, and you have a problem with it.

Your problem is with transgendered people, not with any supposed boogeyman you have dreamed up.

To maybe NOT mutilate their genitals and permanently alter their biologic chemistry in pursuit of treatment - especially in children.

Can you explain why people are no more self-satisfied after transitioning than before? Please also demonstrate credence to those who have regretted transitioning or transitioned back.

If you are going to suggest a lack self-satisfaction after transitioning is due to society's disapproval, do you also hold the acceptance part of society responsible for the damage they have done to those who have regretted undergoing life altering procedures?

Finally - what are you opinions on treatments for other dysmorphias - anorexia and those who consider themselves "trans-able" come to mind?

Provide examples of the bolded

You complain when described as a bigot and then you act just like it. Hahahaha?

What evidence do you have of this?

No, no, no, when people transition it isn't just a case of the psychologist affirming, not affirming, or remaining neutral to their life choices. There's actual treatments associated here; hormone therapy or surgery may be involved. I'm not just talking about talk therapy here, I'm asking if you think the actual medical intervention involved is recommended and aided by clinicians even though the prevailing consensus on research is that they shouldn't?


I don't think this is true. If I wanted the freedom to eat the hearts of my enemies I'm pretty sure you'd oppose that freedom. Or, for real life examples, do you oppose the desires of NAMBLA to molest children? Isn't that a restriction on NAMBLA's freedom?

We all oppose some forms of "freedom" and support others.

Why should we disavow anything based on your stereotypes and ignorance?

Actually, according to the DSM V, SRS is recommended for some, and not all, who are going through this type of trouble. There are also clearly defined sets of differences for both diagnosis and treatment between children and adolescents/adults.

I doubt you have actually read the DSM V, but thats presumptuous. Have you?

Why?

You posted a couple paragraphs above about how all you care about is freedom and being able to do what you want. Who are you to take away the right of somebody to tell somebody else what their true gender is? Seems like you want to do some heavy censoring there.

sorry but i don't know anything about politics on your side of the pond but i do like how you guys shout at each other during the government meetings. i feel that i would thrive in that environment.

The two bolded thoughts are 100% at odds with each other. How do you reconcile that?

The DSM V Acknowledges the existence of the Alters in the patients mind, and the main suggested treatment is to get the patient to work on making the alters be not so dissociative from their main identity, and understand that a full fusion of personalities may never occur. Therapists also often request to speak with these alters, affirming that while they may not be Physically inside another person, the brain very much has them separated.

"Many people use the word integration to refer solely to fusion, which is the permanent merging of alters within a person with Dissociative Identity Disorder. Full integration, known as final fusion, into a single identity is not essential for healing to take place: it is only part of a long-term process, with many improvements to daily life occurring on the way. Some people mistakenly believe that the only goal of treatment for Dissociative Identity Disorder is simply to have a single identity rather than multiple identities. Read more: http://traumadissociation.com/dissociativeidentitydisorder"

Well B.Sanders might have self-proclaimed himself as a socialist, but he's a senile old goat, so that's really besides the point. He is not, he's just another Donkey at heart. The rest of this spew is nothing more than bog-standard Elephantile talking points.

So... in the span of just a few hours... your understanding, and in how you use your own words... the word "Leftist" has somehow transitioned from this mysterious scale that is orthogonal to our standard US scale... to... wait for it... just still another way to name-call the Donkeys. So, as of right now (but I'm sure you'll flip flop around again like a lady bug in the wind), as you use your own words, we all have this...

"Leftist" == SJWer == Donkey

Again, yes, and I don't find the doctors any more culpable than the therapists. It's a service, and surgeons and doctors who do transitions shouldn't be counseling their patient. They're getting paid to chop off the dick not life coaching.


Ugh, annoying that we have to do this one. I mean come on.

No, you may not kill and eat someone because they have the freedom to be not killed and eaten. This is where the constitutional government comes in. We can have government sponsored cages where we lock away those who want to kill and eat hearts.

No, NAMBLA may not molest children. Because the children have the freedom to not be molested. I actually support the right of self identified pedophiles to assemble and have some kind of therapy or support group, though. It would be better if we could just ship them off to an island but that would be a violation of their freedom.

I consider this a form of lying to pretend like you think the term "freedom" encompasses killing and molesting. don't be so dishonest.

No you may not prevent black people from using your services if you allow every other type of person to use your services, because black people are people and have the freedom to engage in the same activities and services as every other person.

See how that works?

it's absolutely pathetic that you can't get off this point of me not wanting to name more groups. shows how far gone the left is. completely obsessed with placing people into a group and then treating them based on the group identity. i'm done responding to this point, i've taken my final lap on this ******ed merry go round.

it's really strange and bizarre how often the left blatantly lies. it must be unintentional and subconscious at this point. even the smallest point can't be conceded. "actually, bernie isn't a socialist." you have to be in the serious grip of ideology to say something like that. reality be damned.

he says he's a socialist, i think that's pretty good evidence.

i believe in freedom. if you want to open "master's sub shop" and hang a sign in the door that says NO BLACKS that should be totally legal.

and then me, and other like minded people, would never eat there, and you would quickly go out of business.

See how freedom works? you condescending dummy.

your version of freedom is to utilize the government to point a gun at anyone who would hang the NO BLACKS sign in their door. wow, you're so tolerant. how about you just don't eat there and tell your friends not to eat there.

no, they aren't at odds with each other. i already said anyone should be allowed to transition. i should be allowed to tell you not to. you should be allowed to tell me to shut up and i'm a nazi. everyone's a winner (or loser)

DSM is a political document. They're evolving to fit with the times politically, not the other way around.

the way people treat other people, in general

Hahahahaha?

You believe in freedom except for peoples ability to define their gender. Got it.

Funny how nearly everyone that screams about freedom actually means freedom to act exactly how they think people should act and no different.

Also interesting how the example of said freedom is ALWAYS the freedom to discriminate.

So... how exactly are we supposed to come to a unified treatment of psychological problems? Or in your whole EVERYONE SHOULD BE FREE TO DO WHATEVER ALWAYS screed, then anyone can become a psychiatrist and use whatever junk science they want to treat people? How do you protect those in a free market from going to a quack psychiatrist who will cause harm vs. going to an actual psychiatrist who uses generally accepted science to treat their patients?

Your ideas are horribly inconsistent

I've never advocated pointing a gun at anybody.

People that choose not to follow the CRA can receive fines, ever increasing for each instance until they change their minds about discriminating against protected classes or go out of business. Works the exact same way as just telling my friends not to eat there right, with the added benefit that a bunch of racist dick bags can't keep the other racist dick bag in business.

Are you against the CRA?