Bruce Jenner Needs Counselling, Not Support

[Alice Amell]

I will not suppose to know what is going through their head, what their childhood was like, but this is still behavior that often leads down a rabbit hole of addictive self-abuse. To purposely handicap oneself in order to gain some perceived advantage is an act of desperation.

 

You obviously feel there is an advantage to this elective surgery and taking of hormones, because otherwise you would not be doing it and then you would accept yourself as who you are, no matter what you look like.

 

How does my behavior "lead to a rabbit hole of addictive self-abuse." Can you explain and justify that statement?

 

I will not suppose to know what is going through their head, what their childhood was like, but this is still behavior that often leads down a rabbit hole of addictive self-abuse. To purposely handicap oneself in order to gain some perceived advantage is an act of desperation.

 

 

I only take hormones and want surgery because it helps my body align with my feelings. There is no "advantage" to it except that it will help me accomplish that. There are a great many disadvantages, in fact. But I will face them because it means that much to me. 

 

 

Instead of pursuing self-knowledge (as in why you might feel this way, what might have happened in your life, what lead to this point, what childhood factors have made the person) you are electing to undergo permanent irreversible self-mutilation in the hope/wish/belief that this will address the issue.

 

Surgery is not taken lightly. It is extremely risky and dangerous. It is permanent and can result in injury, disfigurement, or death. You are not handicapped, you are a perfectly functioning healthy human being, you only THINK you are handicapped. The problem is in the mind, not the body. Your condition is not life-threatening unless you let it become life-threatening (which you are choosing to do). The mind can be worked with, but the body is permanent, and when you start amputating and damaging things instead of turning to alternative solutions for your mind, you are committing self-violence. Right now you are not in danger, except from hurting yourself. You do not have a life-threatening disease, you have a condition, a state of the mind. There have been amazing developments in this field, and you would be amazed at how we can lie, deceive, and deny to ourselves, but by working through these things we can learn to truly love who we are, exactly AS we are.

 

Please please please think about what you are doing. Think about the consequences. Think about the risks. Think about the inability to have children. This is gene-death. It is sacrificing the future for now. Having children is the most profound experience in the world and gives people's lives meaning. Biologically this is the only reason we have for existing, and everything we do revolves around child birth/raising.

 

Please stop looking for reasons not to seek therapy, to read about self-acceptance, to seek out support groups dedicated to self-acceptance. I am not a therapist or qualified in any way, but even I would be willing to try and talk with you through this process if it means I can stop you from picking up the knife and help you learn to love yourself exactly how you are.

 

 

I do not appreciate your assumptions about me; I am in fact going to therapy right now, as well as reading about self-acceptance. Going to therapy HELPED me to accept who I am - as a woman. I have felt this way as long as I can remember. When I was 13 I discovered transgender people existed and there was treatment for it. Yet despite that, for 6 years I did not follow them. I tried to be normal, I was afraid of rejection, afraid to tell my parents. Only last year did I finally come to terms with who I am and finally start hormones and finally tell my parents. I HAVE explored my thoughts and feelings about it. I HAVE and DO consider the risks. I would struggle, not knowing why I felt this way. Where did it come from? I can't say I know the cause but I have accepted the feelings won't go away.

 

Would you tell a gay person it is just in their head, that they can fix it? That if they are in a gay relationship it is gene-death and that they are awful for giving that up? That it takes away their future? That they have to love themselves and their natural born instinct of heterosexuality? That is what I feel you are telling to me.

 

Also, being trans is not equivalent to gene-death. Transgender people can and do have natural born children, as you alluded to within that same post in reference to the interviewee. However, before starting hormones a transwoman must freeze sperm if she wants to have children.

 

You say there are "developments in this field" about lying to oneself. How can you know this applies to transgender people? What "developments" are you referring to? Is it not your prejudice that is making these unsupported claims?

 

 

There is nothing wrong with being different. You don't have to conform to a gender. You don't have to be anyone or anything but yourself. If your mind is not in harmony with your body, this is an issue with self-acceptance and self-esteem. Self-acceptance does not involve picking up a knife and carving up your body, so please don't try to twist self-mutilation into some form of self-acceptance

 

You say that you suppressed these woman feelings for years, but by undergoing surgery and self-medicating you are only avoiding the real issue and trying to suppress your anxiety towards your biology and appearance.

 

In the video about the straight Transgender (no genital surgery) couple that had children, the newscaster interviewed the transgender couple and asked the woman "Do you feel happier now that you have made this change?" and the woman responded "I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off my shoulders". This is not happiness, this is suppression. This is the same thing an addict to Xanax would say about taking Xanax to ignore the real problems that are causing the anxiety in the first place.

 

Pain is a motivating factor. It says something is wrong, and you need to change it. There is obviously something that needs to change, but you are trying to bring your body into an issue that exclusively about the mind. You would also feel extremely traumatizing pain if you were to mutilate your body, but if you do the procedure I am sure you would choose to be put under with drugs, and ignore that the pain is saying "STOP this is wrong"!!!

 

 

Is it not self-acceptance? I accept my identity - I dislike my body. I could just as easily say rejecting my feelings is anti-self-acceptance. Am I required to like my body? I do not agree with that. I don't like my body, and not because it's inadequately masculine but because it's inadequately feminine. I can't like my body unless I change it. I accept my feelings. You want me to get rid of those feelings, I presume. I do not believe they can go away. Can you stop being your sexuality or your gender identification?

 

The issue is not exclusively about my mind. My mind has feelings about my body. I am changing my body in alignment with my feelings; you would suggest, I presume, to disregard my feelings in favor of my body. But the thing is, I can't do that. And I don't want to, naturally, because the feelings make me want to change my body.

 

Of course I would go under and not feel the pain - who wouldn't? I don't see the argument you are making - you are pointing out that I'd prefer not to feel pain, and therefore ..what exactly?

 

How can you claim that to know the woman in the interview is suppressing her feelings and is not happy? Is that not a presumptuous and unfounded claim?

 

 

Downvoted. GuzzyBone, you have absolutely no idea what your doing or saying. Your head spinning is not a sign that things are amiss "out here" but "in there". You made so many assumptions about Alice, her struggle, her journey, her choices, and her history that you have no idea about. You think you're trying to help, but you're being very destructive.

 

Reparative therapy alive and well here at Freedomain Radio.

 

sheesh.

 

Thank you Nathan for defending me.

 

I have to admit to personally struggling with understanding this topic. I do have a lot of sympathy for people that find themselves in the position of considering transgender as something they want to go through. I don't have any personal moral issue with it either, since it's entirely voluntary (at least for adults). In no way can I equate transablism or transracism with that of transgender either. But it does concern me that we are somehow compelled to normalise it, without question. That we are told that all those questions have been answered. When a lot of evidence shows many transgenders often regret having surgery afterwards. The suicide rate I don't think can be entirely correlated to transphobism alone either. Admittedly anecdotal, but I've seen and met transgenders and they were rarely if ever discriminated against.

 

My main concern with normalisation, is that many children are being put through this process, with little questioning. Often as young as 9 years old. It's one thing for adults to choose this process, but quite another for children I think. Until there is overwelming evidence that this is more than just a pschological issue with some messed up brain chemistry. Brain chemistry possibly caused by childhood trauma, either in the womb or in infancy I have to remain skeptical. This of course does not excuse being hateful or hurtful towards those that identify as transgender of course.

 

Thank you for your honesty about your struggle with this topic. I will try to explain where I am coming from more.

 

I am not (or if I am, do not mean to) compel you to normalize it without question. The fact that I am explaining myself and answering questions I think is evidence to the contrary.

 

I never claimed the suicide rate was only due to transphobism, though it does play a huge role, in my opinion. Here is why I think that:

 

"A staggering 41% of respondents reported attempting suicide compared to 1.6% of the general population, with rates rising for those who lost a job due to bias (55%), were harassed/bullied in school (51%), had low household income, or were the victim of physical assault (61%) or sexual assault (64%)."

 

The 41% and 1.6% they did say is not a fair comparison because the 1.6% comes from a federal study in which they only inquire about the past year. The study on transgender people asked if they ever had attempted suicide. Further down I reference another study which gave the annual rate at 11% in Canada.

 

"Forty-three percent (43%) maintained most of their family bonds, while 57% experienced significant family rejection. In the face of extensive institutional discrimination, family acceptance had a protective affect against many threats to well-being including health risks such as HIV infection and suicide."

 

"Those who expressed a transgender identity or gender non-conformity while in grades K-12 reported alarming rates of harassment (78%), physical assault (35%) and sexual violence (12%); harassment was so severe that it led almost one-sixth (15%) to leave a school in K-12 settings or in higher education."

 

Taken from the National Transgender Discrimination Survey

http://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NTDS_Report.pdf 

 

There is a lot more info in this study if you want to look at it but those are a few of the many things they gathered data on.

 

In regard to children: as far I know it is not acceptable practice to give hormones to someone who is 9. They will wait until puberty and give puberty-delaying drugs if the child wants it and wait until they are age 16. At that point, if they still identify the same way, they will begin hormone therapy. It is the child's decision. Many are very afraid of puberty because it will make their body develop in ways they do not want. Are you suggesting they should not delay puberty and should have to endure those unwanted and irreversible changes?

 

 

My head is spinning because you guys are dancing in circles with abstract, subjective, intangible, or relative concepts, labels, and names rather than sticking to the actual issue (SELF-MUTILATION). We're all human, and gender/sex/orientation whatever is merely degrees (we all start as Female in the womb and we all have both Testosterone and Estrogen to varying degrees). You guys are arguing over where to "draw the line" with dictionary labels instead of focusing on the self-violence which is most important issue at hand.

 

We are not. Sex is a biological reality dictated by chromosomes.

 

"Gender is generally conceived as a set of characteristics or traits that are associated with a certain biological sex (male or female). In non-western countries, gender is not always conceived as binary, or strictly linked to biological sex. As a result, in some cultures there are third, fourth,^[1] fifth^[2] or "some"^[3] genders. The characteristics that generally define gender are referred to as masculine or feminine."

 

From Wikipedia.

 

 

Nathan, you conveniently avoided addressing anything I've said and instead decided to make a statement that has no rational foundation whatsoever, and with no evidence to back it up.

 

~ Welcome to Reality ~

 

THIS IS ME: Please don't pick up a knife and mutilate your body, You are perfect how you are, and you should love yourself for who you are, exactly how you are. Do not injure your body in hopes you will somehow feel better afterwards.

 

THIS IS YOU: It's perfectly reasonable to pick up that knife and let the amputation and mutilation begin! You will feel better afterwards and be your TRUE self.

 

Let's see, which side is "destructive"....

 

- My stance is to discourage the permanent physical damaging of flesh, organs, and body.

 

- Your stance is to encourage the permanent physical destruction of flesh, organs, and body.

 

So when exactly did up become down and the sky turn red? I must have missed this dramatic reversal.

 

Man it's really sick... Have some responsibility for your twisted values. If she were a cutter, suicidal, or anorexic, you wouldn't even dream of condoning this behavior (I'd hope).

 

Truly shameful.

 

I don't assume to know anything about Alice and I have stated that plainly. All I know is what she has told me, which includes the intention to commit an act of violence upon oneself (with the belief that this action will bring happiness or satisfaction).

 

Violence: "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, AGAINST ONESELF, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation"

 

Surgery is self-violence by very definition. Healthy people don't commit self-violence (undergo surgery).

 

It doesn't seem to me like you are making an argument.  Reframing my argument as the destruction of flesh, self-mutilation and violence is not an argument. Of course no one would want the destruction of flesh, but you then equate surgery with violence itself. If you are against surgery, why are you opposed to my minority surgeries and not much more common surgeries like rhinoplasties? I do not think I've received a lot of empathy from you and instead am being intimidated. You call my values "twisted," "shameful," and void of responsibility. Your most recent post, though you claim to be in favor of empathy, continues this trend calling me "sick and desperate," having a mental disorder, and being indecent for not saying you're right.Those are shaming adjectives, not arguments. I am not sure continuing to engage in this conversation with you would be very productive.

 

 

No, Nathan.  That's not the problem.  The problem is that Alice is just one person, but transgenders are hundreds or thousands of people. 

 

Jpahmad listed the following:

 

DSM-5 Criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder

Presence of five or more of the following in many contexts beginning in early adulthood:

• Frantic efforts to avoid abandonment
• Unstable interpersonal relationships in which others are either idealized or devalued
• Unstable sense of self
• Self-damaging, impulsive behavior in at least two areas, such as spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, and binge eating
• Recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures or self-injurious behaviors (e.g., cutting self)
• Marked mood reactivity
• Chronic feelings of emptiness
• Recurrent bouts of intense or poorly controlled anger
• During stress, a tendency to experience transient paranoid thoughts and dissociative symptoms

In response, Alice Amell said, "But I'm not like that, and I'm not like that, and I'm certainly not like THAT." But none of these are the point.

 

Do the overwhelming majority of transgender individuals experience: "Frantic efforts to avoid abandonment"?  (Absolutely.)  Do the overwhelming majority of transgender individuals experience: "Unstable interpersonal relationships, in which individuals are either idealized or devalued?"  (Definitely.)  Do the majority of transgender individuals experience, "Unstable sense of self?"  (Yes.) 

 

The entire list reads, "Definitely.  Of course.  Yes.  Absolutely." for the majority of transgender individuals. 

 

But in response you want us to say, "Oh, but Alice Amell isn't like that.  And iHuman isn't like that.  So, because they're not like that, please look the other way as five year olds are taught there's no such thing as gender and eight year olds are given puberty-delaying drugs."

 

We're not going to do that, Nathan.  We're going to protect our children. 

 

Transgender individuals can be transgender all they want, but they can't claim equality with non-transgender individuals.  A 71% (or higher) suicide rate automatically disqualifies their claim of equality. 

Actually, I listed the criteria. And answering questions without giving any argument as to why those answers are correct is very unconvincing. It isn't an argument to just say "yes, most transgender people are X, Y, Z" without any evidence.

 

"Can't claim equality." What does that even mean? And 71% is not the suicide rate. As I posted above the estimated attempted suicide rate for transgender and gender non-conforming people is 41% (over a lifetime). Per year is 11% in Canada according to this:

 

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/06/08/suicide-rate-much-higher-for-transgender-canadians-study

 

What do Alice Amell, Nathan Diehl, iHuman, AncapFTW, Rainbow Jamz, and other pro-transgender individuals have to say now?  "Oh, but we had no idea things like this would happen!"  (Really?  You stand behind a lobby that repeatedly calls its critics "hateful", "transphobic", and "unenlightened" - while claiming that you couldn't predict that such extreme moralistic language would produce results like the one's above?) 

 

It's mean of me to predict your responses, so I'll let you respond for yourselves.  But if you respond with silent apathy, you'll know why I'll never support a transgender or pro-transgender individual, no matter how noble he presents himself.  Because once a ten year old gets emotionally abused so that his parents can feel "enlightened", all bets are off.  AND if you're not perceptive enough to realize that no ten year old girl will ever be forced to do masculine activities in order to become "gender enlightened", then you're a pawn in the war against masculinity and side with Stefan's repeated admonition, "Man bad; woman good." 

 It is a strawman to say any of those people support lobbyists or that they condone any bad parenting. That child is not transgender and to say that because a non-transgender child has non-transgender parents that are bad, I am against transgender people. It is very discriminatory and conclusive to say you will never support a transgender person, and if you never will, there is no point for me to address your "arguments" anymore.

[_LiveFree_]

This thread is the epitome of why philosophy without self-knowledge is truly dangerous. 

 

My head is spinning because you guys are dancing in circles with abstract, subjective, intangible, or relative concepts, labels, and names rather than sticking to the actual issue (SELF-MUTILATION). We're all human, and gender/sex/orientation whatever is merely degrees (we all start as Female in the womb and we all have both Testosterone and Estrogen to varying degrees). You guys are arguing over where to "draw the line" with dictionary labels instead of focusing on the self-violence which is most important issue at hand.

Nathan, you conveniently avoided addressing anything I've said and instead decided to make a statement that has no rational foundation whatsoever, and with no evidence to back it up.

~ Welcome to Reality ~

THIS IS ME: Please don't pick up a knife and mutilate your body, You are perfect how you are, and you should love yourself for who you are, exactly how you are. Do not injure your body in hopes you will somehow feel better afterwards.

THIS IS YOU: It's perfectly reasonable to pick up that knife and let the amputation and mutilation begin! You will feel better afterwards and be your TRUE self.

Let's see, which side is "destructive"....

- My stance is to discourage the permanent physical damaging of flesh, organs, and body.

- Your stance is to encourage the permanent physical destruction of flesh, organs, and body.

So when exactly did up become down and the sky turn red? I must have missed this dramatic reversal.

Man it's really sick... Have some responsibility for your twisted values. If she were a cutter, suicidal, or anorexic, you wouldn't even dream of condoning this behavior (I'd hope).

Truly shameful.

I don't assume to know anything about Alice and I have stated that plainly. All I know is what she has told me, which includes the intention to commit an act of violence upon oneself (with the belief that this action will bring happiness or satisfaction).

Violence: "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, AGAINST ONESELF, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation"

Surgery is self-violence by very definition. Healthy people don't commit self-violence (undergo surgery).

 

 

Since you have accused Alice of not pursuing self-knowledge, I'd really like to know to what degree you have worked on self-knowledge.

[GuzzyBone]

This issue has changed for me personally, because I am now emotionally involved and the empathy in me wants to help Alice, regardless of who is right and who is wrong.

Self-violence in itself is a form of suicidal violence, so this also is very obviously a sensitive issue.

Alice, again I extend my offer to talk privately if you ever feel suicidal or just need to talk at all. I am not just going to let someone "walk on by" with these kind of thoughts without extending my hand to say, "I am here to talk". I am not here to judge.

People are more important than critical debate. I want this to be clear before I participate in this discussion any further. Anyone can judge me all they want, I don't take offense easily.

I hope Alice continues to share her side with us, but doesn't feel too much pressure either way. I'm sorry if I let my emotions get carried away.

[PatrickC]

Are you suggesting they should not delay puberty and should have to endure those unwanted and irreversible changes?

 

See how you framed that question?

 

Absolutely I am, children cannot hope to understand the implications of becoming transgender at such an early age. I would be irresponsible as a parent to allow it, when there is so little evidence of the effects these drugs (in the long term) at such a young age.

[AncapFTW]

Here's what's funny.  I get that my posts are sometimes subtle and hard to understand, but I made it easy for you.

 

I admitted that it was "mean of me to predict your responses, so I'll let you respond instead."  And I even warned you that, "If you respond with silent apathy, then you'll know why I'll never support a transgender or pro-transgender individual." 

 

Thus, you were invited to give your opinions OR get offended and withdraw your opinions.

 

So what did you do?  Withdraw your opinions and down-vote. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not "one person".  A ten-year old boy.  A child.  This is FDR, right?  The place where Peaceful Parenting is our most important mission? 

 

*shrugs* 

Sorry, but for some reason, this seems the most appropriate response to you at this point.

[MMX2010]

Actually, I listed the criteria. And answering questions without giving any argument as to why those answers are correct is very unconvincing. It isn't an argument to just say "yes, most transgender people are X, Y, Z" without any evidence.

 

 

Read carefully, please, Alice.  I never claimed that your answers were incorrect.  I don't care whether your answers are correct or incorrect.  I care that, when you apply those questions over the majority of transgender individuals, you get "Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes." 

From there, your response is, "But I'm not like that." - (which implies that every individual who asks these questions should only focus on your responses - so that they can gauge their opinion of all transgender individuals by focusing on your responses). 

 

As for "without any evidence", if you're not able to look at transgender individuals (not just yourself, but the words they use when given maximum freedom to express themselves) and NOT conclude, "Yes, Yes, Yes, to all...", then I don't think you're looking at the situation seriously.  You're focused solely on yourself. 

 

 

 

 

It is a strawman to say any of those people support lobbyists or that they condone any bad parenting. That child is not transgender and to say that because a non-transgender child has non-transgender parents that are bad, I am against transgender people. It is very discriminatory and conclusive to say you will never support a transgender person, and if you never will, there is no point for me to address your "arguments" anymore.

 

The following is not a strawman; it is a question: How many hours of your life have you (individually), AncapFTW (individually), Nathan Diehl (individually), Rainbow Jamz (individually), and any other pro-transgender individual spent pondering-and then-defending / promoting transgender? 

 

My proposal is simple.  Estimate the number of hours as honestly as you can.  Multiply that number by five.  Then spend that number of hours telling the transgender community, "Your rhetoric - specifically the use of words like 'transphobic' and 'unenlightened' - has lead to the abuse of male children by parents who've swallowed your message.  Therefore, it is your responsibility to create moral rules of conduct restricting your rhetoric so that these horrible situations of child abuse are much less likely to happen." 

 

Are you going to do that or are you going to yell "strawman"?  (Or are you going to claim that it wasn't-at-all predictable that the use of moralistic language would produce blind moral conformity?)  (Or are you going to downvote?) 

 

----------------------

 

The tl;dr version is "Pro-transgender individuals = self-focused and not-at-all focused on the community.  Anti-transgender individuals begin with a focus on the community." 

[MMX2010]

I do not appreciate your assumptions about me; I am in fact going to therapy right now, as well as reading about self-acceptance. Going to therapy HELPED me to accept who I am - as a woman. I have felt this way as long as I can remember. When I was 13 I discovered transgender people existed and there was treatment for it. Yet despite that, for 6 years I did not follow them. I tried to be normal, I was afraid of rejection, afraid to tell my parents. Only last year did I finally come to terms with who I am and finally start hormones and finally tell my parents. I HAVE explored my thoughts and feelings about it. I HAVE and DO consider the risks. I would struggle, not knowing why I felt this way. Where did it come from? I can't say I know the cause but I have accepted the feelings won't go away.

 

 

It is interesting that (1) the most important sentence in this entire paragraph is highlighted in blue, (2) the blue sentence doesn't jive with the rest of the paragraph, and (3) I don't believe you when you say, "I tried to be normal." 

 

I'm not saying you didn't do anything, or are trying to fool everyone.  But I am saying that what you did, (what you call Tried To Be Normal), isn't best named Tried To Be Normal.  It's far better named something else entirely.

 

So, the ultimate question is, "WHAT did you do when trying to be normal?  HOW did you go about trying?" 

 

I'll wait for your answers before giving my answers. 

[_LiveFree_]

This issue has changed for me personally, because I am now emotionally involved and the empathy in me wants to help Alice, regardless of who is right and who is wrong.

Self-violence in itself is a form of suicidal violence, so this also is very obviously a sensitive issue.

Alice, again I extend my offer to talk privately if you ever feel suicidal or just need to talk at all. I am not just going to let someone "walk on by" with these kind of thoughts without extending my hand to say, "I am here to talk". I am not here to judge.

People are more important than critical debate. I want this to be clear before I participate in this discussion any further. Anyone can judge me all they want, I don't take offense easily.

I hope Alice continues to share her side with us, but doesn't feel too much pressure either way. I'm sorry if I let my emotions get carried away.

What makes you qualified to be of any help?

[labmath2]

Alice if i may ask, what does it feel like to be a man or woman? I have been a man for all my life, yet if you asked me what it feels like to be a man, i could not answer that question. I have only felt what it is like to be me. My concern is that feeking like you are not yourself is a big part of being transgender, more so than feeling like you are the opposite gender.

[MMX2010]

 

Sorry, but for some reason, this seems the most appropriate response to you at this point.

 

You're responding to the tone of my message, without addressing the substance of it.

 

The substance is: (1) The pro-transgender message has led certain parents to emotionally abuse their male children by forcing them to live as female children as an "experiment", for them to "achieve enlightment".  (2) The pro-transgender individuals in this thread responded with complete indifference - (if not outright hostility and personal attacks) - when this emotional abuse was pointed out.  (3) The pro-transgender individuals don't want their observed not-speaking-out against this emotional abuse to be used as an indictment against either their character or their non-empathy-for-children BUT they're not mounting a valid argument against facts #1 and #2 above. 

 

So, no.  Not trolling.  More like exposing the weaknesses of your arguments by helping the audience focus upon the logical outcomes of believing in your arguments. 

 

In other words, "By their fruit shall ye know them." 

[MMX2010]

My concern is that feeking like you are not yourself is a big part of being transgender, more so than feeling like you are the opposite gender.

 

It's more than just "feeling like you are not yourself".  It's also "the expectation that everyone who doesn't instantly acknowledge these feelings with empathy and moral support has something wrong with them", and "the expectation that, if only everyone in the world were to acknowledge these feelings with empathy and moral support, then the world would automatically and efficiently become a much more enlightened, happier place". 

 

If Alice Amell "tried to be normal" in certain predictable ways, then Alice will be like every other transgender individual who "tried to be normal", and will therefore be both experiencing the same false expectations and advancing the same flawed arguments. 

 

That's why I'm waiting for Alice to answer the pertinent question, "HOW did you try to be normal?  WHAT actions did you take while trying to be normal?" 

[MMX2010]

It is a strawman to say any of those people support lobbyists or that they condone any bad parenting. That child is not transgender and to say that because a non-transgender child has non-transgender parents that are bad, I am against transgender people. It is very discriminatory and conclusive to say you will never support a transgender person, and if you never will, there is no point for me to address your "arguments" anymore.

 

Here's my actual quote, Alice: "It's mean of me to predict your responses, so I'll let you respond for yourselves.  But if you respond with silent apathy, you'll know why I'll never support a transgender or pro-transgender individual, no matter how noble he presents himself.  Because once a ten year old gets emotionally abused so that his parents can feel "enlightened", all bets are off.  AND if you're not perceptive enough to realize that no ten year old girl will ever be forced to do masculine activities in order to become "gender enlightened", then you're a pawn in the war against masculinity and side with Stefan's repeated admonition, "Man bad; woman good." 

 

My statement doesn't say, "I will never support a transgender person, period." 

 

It says, "If four people in this thread respond with silent apathy to the emotional abuse of a child, then I will never support a transgender person." 

 

One of the easiest things to do in logic is separate a Definitive Declaration (your strawman of my sentence) from a Conditional Declaration (my actual sentence).  Now you have two choices: (1) Profusely apologize for misreading my declaration, thereby presenting yourself as a humble, honest seeker-of-truth.  (2) Refuse to apologize or acknowledge your mistake, thereby presenting yourself as the opposite. 

 

Not only the opposite, but also, "Unstable interpersonal relationships in which others are either idealized or devalued."  Your strawman was immediately followed by, "I'm not going to address your arguments any more!" - which is a clear attempt to de-value me. 

 

So I'll wait for an apology and acknowledgement.  From there, you can explain WHAT you did when you were trying to be normal. 

[Alice Amell]

I don't know why my previous post had that in blue.. I did not intend for it to be blue I don't know what happened.

Alice, before I respond to you, I need you to seriously consider and answer a question for me.

 

 

What if, in whatever discussion we have, I just happen to prove transgenderism completely wrong? 

 

 

 

I ask this because I am concerned that, if I do have this discussion with you, and it does in fact turn out that transgenderism is a mental disorder, you may regret the actions you have taken so far, and start feeling suicidal. It is not my intent to drive anyone to such measures, and if you think you could not handle the idea that transgenderism is wrong, I don't want to discuss it directly.

Thank you for your concern. I do not think I would kill myself if you did prove it was a mental disorder. I highly value the truth and would welcome anyone that can prove I am incorrect, even if it will be emotionally taxing for me.

 

See how you framed that question?

 

Absolutely I am, children cannot hope to understand the implications of becoming transgender at such an early age. I would be irresponsible as a parent to allow it, when there is so little evidence of the effects these drugs (in the long term) at such a young age.

I apologize for bad framing. My frustration was misdirected.

 

Could you elaborate on the effects and implications you've alluded to but have not stated?

 

Just saying they can't understand doesn't convince me. I think they can understand (this is at age 16, mind you, when they finally start HRT). However, even if they could not understand, that doesn't mean that they are not consenting to it and that it isn't an appropriate treatment. A child who needs a liver transplant or some other medical procedure may not understand the long-term effects of it, but that doesn't mean they should not receive or do not consent to a treatment.

 

It is normal to experiment as a very young child with gender roles, but that is entirely different to wanting to 

 

Children develop a sense of gender identity at a very young age. A preliminary search yielded me these:

 

"When the child is able to fully grasp gender consistent understanding about themselves, usually between the ages of five and seven, the motivation to master his or her orientation and to socialize themselves allows them to seek out same-sexed models to learn more about gender-stereotypic behaviors."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_typing

 

"Gender identity appears to form very early in life and is most likely irreversible by age 4. Although the exact cause of gender identity remains unknown, biological, psychological, and social variables clearly influence the process. Genetics, prenatal and postnatal hormones, differences in the brain and the reproductive organs, and socialization all interact to mold a toddler's gender identity. The differences brought about by physiological processes ultimately interact with social‐learning influences to establish clear gender identity."

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/sciences/psychology/development-psychology/psychosocial-development-age-02/gender-development

 

"Gender identity is usually formed by age three and is extremely difficult to change after that.^[2][3] The formation also commonly concludes between the ages of four and six."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity

 

If children develop their gender identity so early, then I do not think it is "irresponsible" to wait until 10 years after that to give them treatment. And if they do not receive puberty-delaying drugs, bodily dysphoria would worsen. I am curious, despite not stating said "effects" and "implications," you still would not provide your child treatment? I would empathize greatly with them. I know what it is like to watch my body develop in ways that I do not want and I can never change. I do feel very strongly about that. I don't see a clearly defined reason why I would deny my child treatment. I do think they have the capacity to have a sense of what they want at that age, as I did.

 

Alice if i may ask, what does it feel like to be a man or woman? I have been a man for all my life, yet if you asked me what it feels like to be a man, i could not answer that question. I have only felt what it is like to be me. My concern is that feeking like you are not yourself is a big part of being transgender, more so than feeling like you are the opposite gender.

Thank you for asking. I mentioned earlier my sexual identification as a woman. And I did not get the sense in general that I was not myself, but I knew that I specifically identified as a woman. I wanted the body of a woman. I did not like my body. So in that regard I identified more with the female sex, I believe. Taking hormones has made me feel better about my body in the ways it has affected me. I also identified with the female gender to a larger extent than the male one. Not everyone is of course all one or the other, but I prefer feminine clothing for example, as well as prefer to be referred to as female.

[Alice Amell]

 

Here's my actual quote, Alice: "It's mean of me to predict your responses, so I'll let you respond for yourselves.  But if you respond with silent apathy, you'll know why I'll never support a transgender or pro-transgender individual, no matter how noble he presents himself.  Because once a ten year old gets emotionally abused so that his parents can feel "enlightened", all bets are off.  AND if you're not perceptive enough to realize that no ten year old girl will ever be forced to do masculine activities in order to become "gender enlightened", then you're a pawn in the war against masculinity and side with Stefan's repeated admonition, "Man bad; woman good." 

 

My statement doesn't say, "I will never support a transgender person, period." 

 

It says, "If four people in this thread respond with silent apathy to the emotional abuse of a child, then I will never support a transgender person." 

That is not your quote, and you highlighted it in blue in your own post, so you know it is not your own quote. You said ". . .you'll know why I'll never support a transgender. . ."

Whether I know why has no bearing on whether you will - and you state you will not. If I hadn't responded with silent apathy, then I won't know why you'll never support me, but you still won't. I am only responding to this and nothing else because if you have already made up your conclusion beforehand there is no point in discussing it with you.

[MMX2010]

That is not your quote, and you highlighted it in blue in your own post, so you know it is not your own quote. You said ". . .you'll know why I'll never support a transgender. . ."

Whether I know why has no bearing on whether you will - and you state you will not. If I hadn't responded with silent apathy, then I won't know why you'll never support me, but you still won't. I am only responding to this and nothing else because if you have already made up your conclusion beforehand there is no point in discussing it with you.

 

Quote-mining is when you deliberately obscure the beginnings or endings of full-sentences in order to misrepresent someone's words.  It is also among the most dishonest things you can do in any intellectual discussion.

 

In this case, the full sentence begins, "But if you respond with silent apathy, you'll know why I'll never support a transgender...  Removing the dependent clause leaves, "you'll know why I'll never support a transgender" - which is twisting my words.

 

The first sentence, as I said earlier, is a Conditional Declaration.  The second sentence, your strawman, is a Definitive Declaration.  And those are not the same things.

 

 

 

Whether I know why has no bearing on whether you will - and you state you will not. If I hadn't responded with silent apathy, then I won't know why you'll never support me, but you still won't. I am only responding to this and nothing else because if you have already made up your conclusion beforehand there is no point in discussing it with you.

 

 

Right. 

 

So misquoting me the first time is really bad. 

 

And misquoting me the second time, after your mistake was pointed out is really, really, really bad. 

 

But this is hilarious.  Here's your quote, Alice: "I am only responding to this and nothing else because if you have already made up your conclusion beforehand there is no point in discussing it with you."  If you understood that the phrase, "IF you have already made up your conclusion beforehand" is a conditional hypothesis, then you would need to test that hypothesis by responding to everything else I posted.

 

However, by refusing to respond to the rest of my posts, and by refusing to apologize for TWICE mis-quoting me (an extremely dishonest maneuver), the question arises, "With what intellectual integrity does Alice Amell routinely discuss transgender issues?" 

[GuzzyBone]

Alice, the "twisted values" and "moral responsibility" comment was not about you, that was directed at Nathan (re-read that post).

"Sick" and "Desperate" are not shameful conditions, I don't know where you would get this perception. You admit that you are "sick" (a rare and distressful personal problem), and you admit that you are "desperate" (resorting to risking death, injury, disfigurement and disatisfaction) to "treat" or "cure" your problem. Why should anyone be ashamed of this? Please don't shut down and mistake empathy for intimidation. Cures and self-awareness can be intimidating, but empathy is not. I have nothing to gain by helping you other than seeing another human being prosper in life. I have no need or desire to prove I am right other than wanting to HELP you. You've got me emotionally invested in this conversation and I no longer care about the original topic of discussion. I only care to help prevent you from resorting to an irreversible act of desperation.

I do not have the burden of proof that lack of self-acceptance, low self-esteem, and body dysphoria is an addictive and escalating self-destructive spiral. The statement is an A Priori (self-evident) if you've ever known a Drug Addict, Plastic Surgery Addict, Anorexic, Bulimic, or Cutter. If you haven't, then I highly suggest doing research into the subject, but I suspect many people (if not most) have already seen this destructive escalation firsthand.

All decisions are made by weighing the pros vs. the cons. Does the good outweigh the bad? Will I benefit more in the long run than I will lose now? The weighing of good vs. bad in the decision making process is not always rational, though it certainly seems so at the time. It can be made unconsciously, on impulse, through emotion, and/or bad information.

As it stands, you currently believe that letting someone slice off your penis and further mutilating your body will be advantageous over what you are dealing with now, and that the pros outweigh the cons.

Is this a rational judgement, or is it being made from emotion, impulse, denial, emotion, and/or bad information?

Firstly, I do discourage Rhinoplasty or any other elective mutilation of a healthy body, but dissatisfied mind. I do not think it is that different from what you are experiencing. Of course, cultural perceptions have been ridiculously skewed by copious amounts of plastic surgery advertising, marketing and propaganda... an entire industry dedicated to the exploitation of low self-esteem. Preying on people who experience extreme dissatisfaction with their body, and are willing to mutilate it in the belief that the outcome will change their self-acceptance.

Does a woman who gets a boob job actually feel "better" than before? Or does a boob job create scars, health complications, and swollen/stiff damaged looking breasts? Is it possible that the woman who has the boob job generates new dramatic insecurities over these scars and effects of mutilation? Is it possible that the woman then goes into a compulsive and insecure state of needing constant confirmation from others and self to reaffirm that she actually looks better and made the right decision? If you've ever met someone with a boob job, you would already know some of the answers to these questions.

You are assuming that transgender people who have undergone surgery are actually healthier and happier than before the surgery. Violence always creates new problems (even in the case of self-defense, which is an act of true life-or-death desperation only). It may create the illusion or appearance of solving the original problem (only in the short run), but soon the new problems emerge, because the original problem has not actually been addressed.

Imagine that you go through with this procedure. You are assuming that you won't biologically, psychologically, and physiologically feel handicapped, mutilated, deformed, and disfigured.

You are assuming that you will LIKE your simulated "Vagina". You are assuming people won't look at it in disgust. You are assuming that it will feel or look anything like a real Vagina at all.

You are assuming that this won't dramatically increase your insecurity and lack of self-acceptance. You are assuming you won't develop even worse compulsions and insecurities that cause you to resort to forcing everyone to accept you, or confirm you, or respect you, or support you, or appreciate you. This can destroy your social life and ruin inter-personal relationships.

You are assuming that you won't eventually get cured in the mind or have a dramatic mental change. You are assuming that this wouldn't cause extreme feelings of regret and loathing after the surgery.

You are assuming that there isn't a cure or solution that doesn't involve violence. You are assuming that violence is the only and best answer, or even a solution at all!

You are assuming that a surgical operation (violence/physical damage) is not just a quick-fix emotional impulse decision in attempt to cover up a larger problem that could potentially get far worse. Much like the drug addict who takes a larger dose of Heroin to improve their current condition, but ends up with much larger problems and exacerbating the original problem exponentially.

You are assuming that by taking drugs (hormones) that you are not doing permanent or escalating damage to both your biology and mind.

With that said...

I would seriously recommend changing your Therapist, because if these are the type of conclusions that he has supported, then he is in serious violation of the Hippocratic Oath and is practicing Therapeutic nihilism.
 

 

Therapeutic nihilism is a contention that curing people, or societies, of their ills by treatment is impossible.

In medicine, it was connected to the idea that many "cures" do more harm than good, and that one should instead encourage the body to heal itself.

Your mind is part of your body. The two are not separate. The mind does not come BEFORE the body. They are physiologically and biologically linked. If the mind is in disharmony with an otherwise completely healthy physical body, then the problem always lays within the mind. Your body is not some vehicle that you can modify, discard, or replace. It is a permanent physical extension of you, and without it, your mind would cease to function.

The mind is extraordinarily adaptive and transformative beyond our current comprehension, where as the physical body cannot be altered without harm, violence, and consequence.

You are trying to physically force a solution to the problem, rather than seeking to truly heal yourself. You already know something is wrong. You already admit that there is a problem, but you are giving up on healing and resorting to violence instead. Violent force is not a treatment. Violent force is not a cure, it is the last resort measure of a threatened life. Violent force causes a whole quagmire of new problems, but I shouldn't have to tell you this if you are already on this forum.

Therapists are imperfect human beings who are put in a situation that requires great responsibility with a vulnerable individual. Therapists can be predatory, manipulative, legally threatened and liable, manipulated by cultural irrationalities, emotional bias, and motivated by bad incentives. This is why it is so important that you make sure that you have chosen the RIGHT therapist. Someone who truly cares about your well-being and is familiar with similar conditions (low self-esteem, body dysphoria, 'me plus' syndrome, lack of self-acceptance and self-awareness). Someone who is really willing to dig into your past (the perceptions and experiences that constructed our personality) and find the under-lying impulses and motivations that cause us to impulsively act or think in certain ways. From what you are telling me, I gather that your current experiences with therapy have been ineffectual, unproductive, or have destructively exacerbated the situation to where you are considering violent force.
 

 

I can't say I know the cause but I have accepted the feelings won't go away.

This is the very meaning of Therapeutic Nihilism.

Feelings go away after (maybe even years) of hard work and progress. You should never simply give up and resort to violence. This is the anti-thesis of successful therapy.

One of the only human survival instincts is ADAPTION. If you treat a child like a dog and raise them with only dogs, they will start to think and act like a dog. I would look into "Feral Children" if I were you, it is fascinating and informative stuff. Our minds will adapt to any environment to stay alive, healthy, and fertile.

I think you really need to delve into the environment and experiences that have lead you to feel and think the way you do. You do not need to change anything about your body. You think it will help, but I am certain through experience, reason, and evidence that this will only lead to even more and larger problems.

I have done plenty of introspection and work with others to understand myself, my impulses, my motivations. I have a largely healthy, satisfied, happy, and successful life, so why would the amount of self-knowledge I have achieved bear any relevance to this conversation? I have been in similar situations of sickness and desperation, and that is part of what helps me to relate to where Alice is coming from. Do I have some requirement to humble myself before the community and share all of my personal dirty little secrets of the past? Nope, I don't. So Nathan, please get off of your hostile high horse.

What makes me feel like I am qualified or can help Alice in any way? I am human being who empathizes and sympathizes with what she is going through, and who has experience with dealing with, curing, and coping with many very similar issues on a personal level. I am willing and volunteering, and for free, if it means potentially saving another person from making a decision that they could regret for the rest of their life. I don't think that can be done through text or forum posts though. It certainly can't be done by throwing blind emotional support for such an extremely consequential decision. I also understand it's an extremely sensitive situation, but I've been there... at the end of my rope.

[AncapFTW]

 

You're responding to the tone of my message, without addressing the substance of it.

 

The substance is: (1) The pro-transgender message has led certain parents to emotionally abuse their male children by forcing them to live as female children as an "experiment", for them to "achieve enlightment".  (2) The pro-transgender individuals in this thread responded with complete indifference - (if not outright hostility and personal attacks) - when this emotional abuse was pointed out.  (3) The pro-transgender individuals don't want their observed not-speaking-out against this emotional abuse to be used as an indictment against either their character or their non-empathy-for-children BUT they're not mounting a valid argument against facts #1 and #2 above. 

 

So, no.  Not trolling.  More like exposing the weaknesses of your arguments by helping the audience focus upon the logical outcomes of believing in your arguments. 

 

In other words, "By their fruit shall ye know them." 

Now that you've actually explained yourself rather that just made statements and said "if you don't agree with me then you're (insert bad person here), I can actually address your concern.

Your entire argument is "your group is evil because one person did something evil because of it."  That doesn't make any sense though.  You are blaming the entire group for the actions of one person.  If you want to do it that was then I might as well do the same thing.  Some anti-trans people beat them to death, therefore you want to kill all trans people.

 

Of course it's bad, but it had nothing to do with the topic.

[utopian]

Is there an agenda to make women more masculine? Transmen exist as well even if they aren't a well represented in media. That would go against the whole turning men into women to make money idea. Would it not be a huge investment to poison our food and water and market trans-positive stuff (of which I honestly haven't seen too much - most transwomen I see in media are mocked) just to get more make-up sales? While also driving away customers (transmen)? Transwomen are an extreme minority and that would, to me, seem like a small return on investment.

 

The agenda to make women more masculine is known as feminism. A self supporting and independent woman will find herself not needing a man for income, thereby exerting a measure of control over men by making them have to perform more in order to convince women to sleep with them. Also, independent women are more capable of divorce, which stimulates the divorce industry, and takes advantage of the state to guarantee annuity payments through alimony and such. This follows the agenda of manipulating people for profit. You can see this agenda clearly displayed in all kinds of media aimed at female consumption.

 

 

 

The penis is not removed in surgery; it is inverted and used to create a vagina via vaginoplasty. However, the testicles are removed.

 

But there is no vagina that is created. There are no organs that hold and generate eggs, no self regulating environment functions, no lubrication mechanisms. It is imitation, not creation or installation.

 

 

 

High suicide rates are a huge problem in the transgender community. It is not to me a sign of pharmaceutical conspiracy- I'm not sure how you made that leap. Assuming there is a maliciously induced chemical causing people to identify as another gender, I think the burden of proof is on you to give evidence for that. It is certainly not the case that it would make more money from the "average person." Transgender people are not average people; they are a minority.

 

Stephan Molyneux, the owner of this very forum, is part of the international freedom force, a group that monitors government and corporate corruption. Some of their more concerned topics involve the Federal Reserve and the military industrial complex. However, they have a plethora of information on chem trails in our air, fracking chemicals in our ground water, and many other chemicals used in a wide range of agendas against the common man. Freedom force international updates their website with news articles covering this and many other corrupt agendas here;

 

http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

 

When you have followed these things as much and as long as I have, a pharmaceutical conspiracy is well within the realm of possibility. It is true that I do not have direct evidence of any of these chemicals, and also true that transgenders are a minority. This is the point I am getting at, however, that is there is not much investigation into this idea, although there is ample evidence of chem trails, fracking chemicals and so forth and so on. If it is a relatively new chemical it would make sense that transgenders are a minority, as the chemical is just beginning to find its way into people. 

 

 

 I suspect the high suicide rates are because many (dare I say most?) people are unaccepting of transpeople. Many are disowned by their parents, and become homeless. Or become victims of violence. It is so socially unacceptable, many turn to suicide. Not only for that reason, but so much comes with it as well: having to hide it from people for so long, being rejected by some people (perhaps your family) when you come out, experiencing body dysphoria, knowing that you can't, as you said, change your sex. I will never give birth. I won't have two X chromosomes. And that sucks, but I have to live with it.

 

 

Undoubtedly transgenderism is very unaccepted, but perhaps that is because, with instincts the human race has yet to put into words, we know transgenderism is an unacceptable aberration of humanity. There are women who wish to not be women. There are black people who wish they were not black. Many people wish they were not themselves. Despite all this, as seen in the homosexual community, we all strive to accept and be ourselves. Transgenderism might be acceptable if you could actually mutate into the other gender like some amphibians seem to do, but what current transgenderism is, is a practice in imitation, not actual transformation. It is this avoidance of the truth, this anti-philosophical practice, that is what I suspect is truly at the heart of transgender's suicide rate. It is ironic, that doctors have pursued transgenderism without a philosophical consideration, and as in the case of Johns Hopkins are now rethinking the practice. 

 

 

 

 

I have no idea where you go making these assertions with nothing but a reference about one doctor who exploited his patients. Taken from your own source:

 

He pleaded guilty to 16 counts, and that is the most egregious case, according to this attorney? I don't see how this is evidence that big pharma AND big media are therefore conspiring to trick people into accepting a very socially unacceptable and life-changing diagnosis. Yes, they profit from pills. What is that evidence of? The fact that they sell them, nothing more. And I don't follow your logic - the media intends to use Caitlyn Jenner to show to the world that others hate transgender people? Is that what you said? And that is supposed to make people more likely to buy pills?

 

My link was posted to provide evidence that yes, doctors and the medical community manipulate patients for profit. You are taking the wrong message from this. Corporations do indeed pursue agendas of manipulation for profit, and I could spend months typing about it. What you need to get from that, is that in light of the fact of what corporations and the medical community does, it is within the realm of possibility for ANOTHER chemical agenda for profit against commoners, this time in the undeveloped field of transgenderism. If you don't know how and why this may be possible, you need to do research on the link provided earlier as well as become aware of the plethora of information on it out there.

 

 

 

There is no contradiction between gay and transgender acceptance - both are an affirmation of unchanging characteristics of a person. It is consistent to say you cannot change your sexuality, nor your gender/sex identification, and that identity must be affirmed. In the case of transgender people, they may change their body, which CAN change, unlike their identification. Changing my body is a means to reduce bodily dysphoria - a feeling that my body is wrong, an incongruence between how I feel I should be and how I know I am. I can not speak for anyone else, but for me, I do not like my sex. I acknowledge I am biologically male. I do not deny that. But I also don't like it. I wish I had been born as the female sex. I struggle a lot to deal with my body, and taking hormones helps to change my body in alignment with how I feel, how I've always felt.

 

 

I maintain there is as you have avoided the point here. An affirmation of unchanging characteristics would be a recognition that you cannot actually change from one gender to another, only imitate the other gender. On what level do you claim to "know" your body is wrong? It is verifiable if you are a man or woman in your chromosomes, if not readily obvious by your bodily makeup and organs. Perhaps you do not like your sex because, like the many people out there so heavily influenced by media and society, you have been taught to hate yourself so thoroughly, you reject your own gender. Such is the demonstrated power of media brainwashing. 

 

Honestly, there have been times I wish I was a female. I think it would be nice to get by on looks and have all these people just trying to sleep with me all the time and getting free stuff. It has also been somewhat of a hardship, growing up with the media rhetoric that men are nothing but bad. But instead of rejecting myself, I have chosen to reject the media, as I am quite aware of how much influence it can have on people. 

 

 

 

Actually no, not everyone's body knows definitively if they are male or female because there is not just a binary. Intersex people exist as well, with chromosomes such as XXY or XXX. Gender identity is separate, as well. People may identify more with one gender than another, even if that gender is not associated with their sex.

 

What you are talking about here are hermaphrodites, who are conceived naturally with both male and female genitalia. It does happen naturally, though it is certainly uncommon. Regardless, this is quite different from the phenomena of transgenderism, where you are definitively born as one or the other gender, and attempt to convince yourself of actual transformation, through imitation.

 

 

 

Could I just say, "having a feeling of being straight isn't enough to have sex with a woman (if you're a man) and have a baby." I'm not sure how else to respond to such an argument. What IS a legitimate reason to take drugs? What do you mean by legitimate? Are my feelings illegitimate? Or is it wrong to get surgery or take drugs due to feelings?

 

It is an unfounded claim to suggest that chemicals implanted in food and drink produce feelings of transgenderism. You say we may never see real research, but I'm not sure you cited much to support your belief that transgender people are all being duped by some corporation that wants money. Do you have it elsewhere? May I see it? If true this is important to me and I'm willing to entertain such a notion even if I am off-put by it.

 

Legitimacy is a large issue, to be sure. I think for the purpose of this discussion, it is best to shorten the argument from what is legitimate, to what is NOT legitimate. What is not legitimate, I argue, is anything that deviates, irrevocably, from a natural, average, and healthy lifestyle. 

 

Now I agree, and have said already, I only have circumstantial evidence that there is a gender dysphoria inducing chemical. However, I DO know that there are chemicals that can make you believe you are not what you are. You know how I know this? Because I have taken them. Mushrooms. Of one of the few instances where I took them, I did in fact believe I WAS a mushroom. I remember it fairly clearly; I was a mushroom in a rain forest near a tree, and it was raining. I could not walk, because I was a mushroom. I was concerned because I didnt know how I was going to get back home.

 

This was one of a few instances where I believed I was something that I was not due to drugs, and similar experiences due to drugs can be found in plenty of people who have done drugs. In light of this, you cannot claim, or say it is impossible, that there are not drugs that can make you feel like you are actually a woman.

 

 

 

 

I am not sure how my idea (or feelings, or identity) is mistaken - I feel this way BECAUSE it does not correspond with physical reality. It leads to grim outcomes because it often is grim and transpeople face a lot of discrimination. It is not similar to anorexia as he says - I do not deny reality, I am upset because I dislike reality, precise because I do recognize reality, unlike an anorexic person who deludes themself on their own weight.

 

 Drugs; its some crazy shit theyre capable of.

[MMX2010]

 

Your entire argument is "your group is evil because one person did something evil because of it." 

 

No, my entire argument is, "Let's witness how the transwomen and pro-transgender individuals respond to news that a ten year old male was forced to wear tutus and be called 'Danielle' by his parents."

 

AncapFTW's response was no empathy, an accusation that I was trolling, and a complete misrepresentation of my argument.

 

Alice Amell's response was no empathy, an accusation that I would never support a transgender individual, and (twice!) mis-quoting my perspective.

 

Nathan Diehl's response was no empathy, no acknowledgement, and possibly a downvote.

 

Rainbow Jamz's response was no empathy, no acknowledgement, and possibly a downvote. 

 

-----------------

 

The Roosh Forum is also having an extended discussion over Caitlyn Jenner, and one of the most well-liked posts is this:

 

Paul McHugh is quite possibly the only M.D. in the West to publicly oppose sex-change procedures, and he believes that adult males who wish to surgically alter themselves to appear anatomically female fall into two main groups:

 

(1) "conflicted and guilt-ridden homosexual men"

 

(2) "heterosexual (and some bisexual) males who found intense sexual arousal in cross-dressing as females"

 

McHugh, had several other impressions: First, "they were little changed in their psychological condition. They had much the same problems with relationships, work, and emotions as before. The hope that they would emerge now from their emotional difficulties to flourish psychologically had not been fulfilled". Second, they expressed little interest in and seemed indifferent to babies or children (typically female interests).Third, they came off as caricatures of the opposite sex.

 

Your (collective) emotional responses are my argument, and your (collective) inability to understand this strengthens my argument. 

 

[AncapFTW]

No, my entire argument is, "Let's witness how the transwomen and pro-transgender individuals respond to news that a ten year old male was forced to wear tutus and be called 'Danielle' by his parents."

 

AncapFTW's response was no empathy, an accusation that I was trolling, and a complete misrepresentation of my argument.

 

Alice Amell's response was no empathy, an accusation that I would never support a transgender individual, and (twice!) mis-quoting my perspective.

 

Nathan Diehl's response was no empathy, no acknowledgement, and possibly a downvote.

 

Rainbow Jamz's response was no empathy, no acknowledgement, and possibly a downvote. 

 

-----------------

 

The Roosh Forum is also having an extended discussion over Caitlyn Jenner, and one of the most well-liked posts is this:

 

Paul McHugh is quite possibly the only M.D. in the West to publicly oppose sex-change procedures, and he believes that adult males who wish to surgically alter themselves to appear anatomically female fall into two main groups:

 

(1) "conflicted and guilt-ridden homosexual men"

 

(2) "heterosexual (and some bisexual) males who found intense sexual arousal in cross-dressing as females"

 

McHugh, had several other impressions: First, "they were little changed in their psychological condition. They had much the same problems with relationships, work, and emotions as before. The hope that they would emerge now from their emotional difficulties to flourish psychologically had not been fulfilled". Second, they expressed little interest in and seemed indifferent to babies or children (typically female interests).Third, they came off as caricatures of the opposite sex.

 

Your (collective) emotional responses are my argument, and your (collective) inability to understand this strengthens my argument. 

 

I call it evil but I have no empathy.  Ok, whatever you say.

[labmath2]

Thank you for asking. I mentioned earlier my sexual identification as a woman. And I did not get the sense in general that I was not myself, but I knew that I specifically identified as a woman. I wanted the body of a woman. I did not like my body. So in that regard I identified more with the female sex, I believe. Taking hormones has made me feel better about my body in the ways it has affected me. I also identified with the female gender to a larger extent than the male one. Not everyone is of course all one or the other, but I prefer feminine clothing for example, as well as prefer to be referred to as female.

Can you please elaborate on this. I get the sense that you preferred "female centric" things and interpreted it as female identity. I really want to get a sense of what it feels like to know you are female. If you know anyone else who was born female, but identify as male, i would also like to know what it feels like for them. To give you context, i am a male and if you asked me what it feels like to be male, i couldn't tell you.

[MMX2010]

I call it evil but I have no empathy.  Ok, whatever you say.

 

It doesn't matter whether you call it evil.  You call the oppression/discrimination of transgender people evil, too, right? 

So, how many hours have you spent advocating for no transgender oppression/discrimination?  And how many hours have you spent advocating for no forcing male children to wear tutus and be called female names? 

 

If those numbers are imbalanced, especially because the second number is zero, then you don't have any empathy for these children.  Simple as that. 

[GuzzyBone]

Alice, please take the time to read my last post. It took forever to show up because of this state-like "moderator-approval" system, but I spent a lot of time on that post, and I did it for you.

It would be tragic if my attempts to talk you out of doing something you may regret for the rest of your life, were to simply be chronologically buried because it took forever to get "approved" and show up in this thread at all.

[MMX2010]

Alice, please take the time to read my last post. It took forever to show up because of this state-like "moderator-approval" system, but I spent a lot of time on that post, and I did it for you.

 

It would be tragic if my attempts to talk you out of doing something you may regret for the rest of your life, were to simply be chronologically buried because it took forever to get "approved" and show up in this thread at all.

 

Agreed.  It would also be tragic if Alice Amell's obvious annoyance at my posts caused her to leave the thread and not respond to you. 

[Alice Amell]

The agenda to make women more masculine is known as feminism. A self supporting and independent woman will find herself not needing a man for income, thereby exerting a measure of control over men by making them have to perform more in order to convince women to sleep with them. Also, independent women are more capable of divorce, which stimulates the divorce industry, and takes advantage of the state to guarantee annuity payments through alimony and such. This follows the agenda of manipulating people for profit. You can see this agenda clearly displayed in all kinds of media aimed at female consumption.

 

But there is no vagina that is created. There are no organs that hold and generate eggs, no self regulating environment functions, no lubrication mechanisms. It is imitation, not creation or installation.

 

Stephan Molyneux, the owner of this very forum, is part of the international freedom force, a group that monitors government and corporate corruption. Some of their more concerned topics involve the Federal Reserve and the military industrial complex. However, they have a plethora of information on chem trails in our air, fracking chemicals in our ground water, and many other chemicals used in a wide range of agendas against the common man. Freedom force international updates their website with news articles covering this and many other corrupt agendas here;

 

http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

 

When you have followed these things as much and as long as I have, a pharmaceutical conspiracy is well within the realm of possibility. It is true that I do not have direct evidence of any of these chemicals, and also true that transgenders are a minority. This is the point I am getting at, however, that is there is not much investigation into this idea, although there is ample evidence of chem trails, fracking chemicals and so forth and so on. If it is a relatively new chemical it would make sense that transgenders are a minority, as the chemical is just beginning to find its way into people. 

 

Undoubtedly transgenderism is very unaccepted, but perhaps that is because, with instincts the human race has yet to put into words, we know transgenderism is an unacceptable aberration of humanity. There are women who wish to not be women. There are black people who wish they were not black. Many people wish they were not themselves. Despite all this, as seen in the homosexual community, we all strive to accept and be ourselves. Transgenderism might be acceptable if you could actually mutate into the other gender like some amphibians seem to do, but what current transgenderism is, is a practice in imitation, not actual transformation. It is this avoidance of the truth, this anti-philosophical practice, that is what I suspect is truly at the heart of transgender's suicide rate. It is ironic, that doctors have pursued transgenderism without a philosophical consideration, and as in the case of Johns Hopkins are now rethinking the practice. 

 

My link was posted to provide evidence that yes, doctors and the medical community manipulate patients for profit. You are taking the wrong message from this. Corporations do indeed pursue agendas of manipulation for profit, and I could spend months typing about it. What you need to get from that, is that in light of the fact of what corporations and the medical community does, it is within the realm of possibility for ANOTHER chemical agenda for profit against commoners, this time in the undeveloped field of transgenderism. If you don't know how and why this may be possible, you need to do research on the link provided earlier as well as become aware of the plethora of information on it out there.

 

I maintain there is as you have avoided the point here. An affirmation of unchanging characteristics would be a recognition that you cannot actually change from one gender to another, only imitate the other gender. On what level do you claim to "know" your body is wrong? It is verifiable if you are a man or woman in your chromosomes, if not readily obvious by your bodily makeup and organs. Perhaps you do not like your sex because, like the many people out there so heavily influenced by media and society, you have been taught to hate yourself so thoroughly, you reject your own gender. Such is the demonstrated power of media brainwashing. 

 

Honestly, there have been times I wish I was a female. I think it would be nice to get by on looks and have all these people just trying to sleep with me all the time and getting free stuff. It has also been somewhat of a hardship, growing up with the media rhetoric that men are nothing but bad. But instead of rejecting myself, I have chosen to reject the media, as I am quite aware of how much influence it can have on people. 

 

What you are talking about here are hermaphrodites, who are conceived naturally with both male and female genitalia. It does happen naturally, though it is certainly uncommon. Regardless, this is quite different from the phenomena of transgenderism, where you are definitively born as one or the other gender, and attempt to convince yourself of actual transformation, through imitation.

 

Legitimacy is a large issue, to be sure. I think for the purpose of this discussion, it is best to shorten the argument from what is legitimate, to what is NOT legitimate. What is not legitimate, I argue, is anything that deviates, irrevocably, from a natural, average, and healthy lifestyle. 

 

Now I agree, and have said already, I only have circumstantial evidence that there is a gender dysphoria inducing chemical. However, I DO know that there are chemicals that can make you believe you are not what you are. You know how I know this? Because I have taken them. Mushrooms. Of one of the few instances where I took them, I did in fact believe I WAS a mushroom. I remember it fairly clearly; I was a mushroom in a rain forest near a tree, and it was raining. I could not walk, because I was a mushroom. I was concerned because I didnt know how I was going to get back home.

 

This was one of a few instances where I believed I was something that I was not due to drugs, and similar experiences due to drugs can be found in plenty of people who have done drugs. In light of this, you cannot claim, or say it is impossible, that there are not drugs that can make you feel like you are actually a woman.

 

 Drugs; its some crazy shit theyre capable of.

So again, you admit you've no evidence to support this claim but reassert your position that drugs cause me to feel this way. So you are saying, 1. there are drugs with unknown effects everywhere 2. transgender people are a minority 3. therefore it is possible that their feelings result from this drug. 

 

Sure? It is possible. But lots of things are possible. But you have not linked anything to transgender people specifically. You could say the same about any minority - homosexuals, or even anarchists. I see no reason why you think it is transgender people that are the product of some conspiracy for money. 

 

Nathan Diehl gave sources that detail the existence of transgender people throughout history - that is long before these pharmaceutical companies started spewing drugs in the air, so how does that fit into your theory?

 

Why are non-natural, unhealthy,and non-average lifestyles illegitimate? I'm not sure what you mean by that - am I not allowed to live such a lifestyle, is that immoral? Is it just to stop me? Natural, healthy, and average are all subjective terms, no? Who is the arbiter of an average lifestyle? I don't understand.

 

No, my entire argument is, "Let's witness how the transwomen and pro-transgender individuals respond to news that a ten year old male was forced to wear tutus and be called 'Danielle' by his parents."

 

AncapFTW's response was no empathy, an accusation that I was trolling, and a complete misrepresentation of my argument.

 

Alice Amell's response was no empathy, an accusation that I would never support a transgender individual, and (twice!) mis-quoting my perspective.

 

Nathan Diehl's response was no empathy, no acknowledgement, and possibly a downvote.

 

Rainbow Jamz's response was no empathy, no acknowledgement, and possibly a downvote. 

 

-----------------

 

The Roosh Forum is also having an extended discussion over Caitlyn Jenner, and one of the most well-liked posts is this:

 

Paul McHugh is quite possibly the only M.D. in the West to publicly oppose sex-change procedures, and he believes that adult males who wish to surgically alter themselves to appear anatomically female fall into two main groups:

 

(1) "conflicted and guilt-ridden homosexual men"

 

(2) "heterosexual (and some bisexual) males who found intense sexual arousal in cross-dressing as females"

 

McHugh, had several other impressions: First, "they were little changed in their psychological condition. They had much the same problems with relationships, work, and emotions as before. The hope that they would emerge now from their emotional difficulties to flourish psychologically had not been fulfilled". Second, they expressed little interest in and seemed indifferent to babies or children (typically female interests).Third, they came off as caricatures of the opposite sex.

 

Your (collective) emotional responses are my argument, and your (collective) inability to understand this strengthens my argument. 

 

Perhaps you did not type what you meant, but going back to your quote...

In my original response I acknowledged it was a conditional statement, I said however that your refusal to support of transgender people was not alone the conditional clause of the sentence: the knowing of that was. "if x, then y." but y = knowing that you will never support transgender people. If x, I will know . . . if not x, I won't know . . . in either case your support of transgender people is unchanging. As an analogy: "If you read this sentence, you will know my favorite color is red." Whether or not you read the sentence, my favorite color is still red. If I misunderstand grammar or if you did not mean that, then I do apologize for making the error. 

 

However, onto your argument. As AncapFTW said, your example is irrelevant. The parents are not transgender. The child is not transgender. Even if they were, do you hold everyone that shares a common trait to an evil-doer collectively responsible for their actions? They are responsible for their own actions. No one else. Are all atheists responsible for the actions of one atheist murderer?  Furthermore, even if it mattered, you haven't shown that any pro-transgender people caused these parents to believe such things. 

 

Homosexuality and transvestic fetishism are not equal to trangenderism.

 

I don't feel inclined to respond anymore at this moment; you've just ignored my points and reasserted your unsupported claims, saying we all have borderline. I won't suffer your conclusions.

 

Alice, the "twisted values" and "moral responsibility" comment was not about you, that was directed at Nathan (re-read that post).

 

"Sick" and "Desperate" are not shameful conditions, I don't know where you would get this perception. You admit that you are "sick" (a rare and distressful personal problem), and you admit that you are "desperate" (resorting to risking death, injury, disfigurement and disatisfaction) to "treat" or "cure" your problem. Why should anyone be ashamed of this? Please don't shut down and mistake empathy for intimidation. Cures and self-awareness can be intimidating, but empathy is not. I have nothing to gain by helping you other than seeing another human being prosper in life. I have no need or desire to prove I am right other than wanting to HELP you. You've got me emotionally invested in this conversation and I no longer care about the original topic of discussion. I only care to help prevent you from resorting to an irreversible act of desperation.

 

I do not have the burden of proof that lack of self-acceptance, low self-esteem, and body dysphoria is an addictive and escalating self-destructive spiral. The statement is an A Priori (self-evident) if you've ever known a Drug Addict, Plastic Surgery Addict, Anorexic, Bulimic, or Cutter. If you haven't, then I highly suggest doing research into the subject, but I suspect many people (if not most) have already seen this destructive escalation firsthand.

 

All decisions are made by weighing the pros vs. the cons. Does the good outweigh the bad? Will I benefit more in the long run than I will lose now? The weighing of good vs. bad in the decision making process is not always rational, though it certainly seems so at the time. It can be made unconsciously, on impulse, through emotion, and/or bad information.

 

As it stands, you currently believe that letting someone slice off your penis and further mutilating your body will be advantageous over what you are dealing with now, and that the pros outweigh the cons.

 

Is this a rational judgement, or is it being made from emotion, impulse, denial, emotion, and/or bad information?

 

Firstly, I do discourage Rhinoplasty or any other elective mutilation of a healthy body, but dissatisfied mind. I do not think it is that different from what you are experiencing. Of course, cultural perceptions have been ridiculously skewed by copious amounts of plastic surgery advertising, marketing and propaganda... an entire industry dedicated to the exploitation of low self-esteem. Preying on people who experience extreme dissatisfaction with their body, and are willing to mutilate it in the belief that the outcome will change their self-acceptance.

 

Does a woman who gets a boob job actually feel "better" than before? Or does a boob job create scars, health complications, and swollen/stiff damaged looking breasts? Is it possible that the woman who has the boob job generates new dramatic insecurities over these scars and effects of mutilation? Is it possible that the woman then goes into a compulsive and insecure state of needing constant confirmation from others and self to reaffirm that she actually looks better and made the right decision? If you've ever met someone with a boob job, you would already know some of the answers to these questions.

 

You are assuming that transgender people who have undergone surgery are actually healthier and happier than before the surgery. Violence always creates new problems (even in the case of self-defense, which is an act of true life-or-death desperation only). It may create the illusion or appearance of solving the original problem (only in the short run), but soon the new problems emerge, because the original problem has not actually been addressed.

 

Imagine that you go through with this procedure. You are assuming that you won't biologically, psychologically, and physiologically feel handicapped, mutilated, deformed, and disfigured.

 

You are assuming that you will LIKE your simulated "Vagina". You are assuming people won't look at it in disgust. You are assuming that it will feel or look anything like a real Vagina at all.

 

You are assuming that this won't dramatically increase your insecurity and lack of self-acceptance. You are assuming you won't develop even worse compulsions and insecurities that cause you to resort to forcing everyone to accept you, or confirm you, or respect you, or support you, or appreciate you. This can destroy your social life and ruin inter-personal relationships.

 

You are assuming that you won't eventually get cured in the mind or have a dramatic mental change. You are assuming that this wouldn't cause extreme feelings of regret and loathing after the surgery.

 

You are assuming that there isn't a cure or solution that doesn't involve violence. You are assuming that violence is the only and best answer, or even a solution at all!

 

You are assuming that a surgical operation (violence/physical damage) is not just a quick-fix emotional impulse decision in attempt to cover up a larger problem that could potentially get far worse. Much like the drug addict who takes a larger dose of Heroin to improve their current condition, but ends up with much larger problems and exacerbating the original problem exponentially.

 

You are assuming that by taking drugs (hormones) that you are not doing permanent or escalating damage to both your biology and mind.

 

With that said...

 

I would seriously recommend changing your Therapist, because if these are the type of conclusions that he has supported, then he is in serious violation of the Hippocratic Oath and is practicing Therapeutic nihilism.

 

Your mind is part of your body. The two are not separate. The mind does not come BEFORE the body. They are physiologically and biologically linked. If the mind is in disharmony with an otherwise completely healthy physical body, then the problem always lays within the mind. Your body is not some vehicle that you can modify, discard, or replace. It is a permanent physical extension of you, and without it, your mind would cease to function.

 

The mind is extraordinarily adaptive and transformative beyond our current comprehension, where as the physical body cannot be altered without harm, violence, and consequence.

 

You are trying to physically force a solution to the problem, rather than seeking to truly heal yourself. You already know something is wrong. You already admit that there is a problem, but you are giving up on healing and resorting to violence instead. Violent force is not a treatment. Violent force is not a cure, it is the last resort measure of a threatened life. Violent force causes a whole quagmire of new problems, but I shouldn't have to tell you this if you are already on this forum.

 

Therapists are imperfect human beings who are put in a situation that requires great responsibility with a vulnerable individual. Therapists can be predatory, manipulative, legally threatened and liable, manipulated by cultural irrationalities, emotional bias, and motivated by bad incentives. This is why it is so important that you make sure that you have chosen the RIGHT therapist. Someone who truly cares about your well-being and is familiar with similar conditions (low self-esteem, body dysphoria, 'me plus' syndrome, lack of self-acceptance and self-awareness). Someone who is really willing to dig into your past (the perceptions and experiences that constructed our personality) and find the under-lying impulses and motivations that cause us to impulsively act or think in certain ways. From what you are telling me, I gather that your current experiences with therapy have been ineffectual, unproductive, or have destructively exacerbated the situation to where you are considering violent force.

 

This is the very meaning of Therapeutic Nihilism.

 

Feelings go away after (maybe even years) of hard work and progress. You should never simply give up and resort to violence. This is the anti-thesis of successful therapy.

 

One of the only human survival instincts is ADAPTION. If you treat a child like a dog and raise them with only dogs, they will start to think and act like a dog. I would look into "Feral Children" if I were you, it is fascinating and informative stuff. Our minds will adapt to any environment to stay alive, healthy, and fertile.

 

I think you really need to delve into the environment and experiences that have lead you to feel and think the way you do. You do not need to change anything about your body. You think it will help, but I am certain through experience, reason, and evidence that this will only lead to even more and larger problems.

 

I have done plenty of introspection and work with others to understand myself, my impulses, my motivations. I have a largely healthy, satisfied, happy, and successful life, so why would the amount of self-knowledge I have achieved bear any relevance to this conversation? I have been in similar situations of sickness and desperation, and that is part of what helps me to relate to where Alice is coming from. Do I have some requirement to humble myself before the community and share all of my personal dirty little secrets of the past? Nope, I don't. So Nathan, please get off of your hostile high horse.

 

What makes me feel like I am qualified or can help Alice in any way? I am human being who empathizes and sympathizes with what she is going through, and who has experience with dealing with, curing, and coping with many very similar issues on a personal level. I am willing and volunteering, and for free, if it means potentially saving another person from making a decision that they could regret for the rest of their life. I don't think that can be done through text or forum posts though. It certainly can't be done by throwing blind emotional support for such an extremely consequential decision. I also understand it's an extremely sensitive situation, but I've been there... at the end of my rope.

"Man it's really sick... Have some responsibility for your twisted values. If she were a cutter, suicidal, or anorexic, you wouldn't even dream of condoning this behavior (I'd hope).

 

Truly shameful."

 

Seeing as I share those values, those comments apply to me as well.

 

Maybe sick and desperate aren't negative in all contexts, but can you say you did not mean them derogatorily here?

 

Calling a drug addict an addict - sure, that is self-evident. Calling a transgender person an addict is not. Not all have low self-acceptance or low self-esteem; that is your prescription. It is not within the definition of trangenderism. Are you saying no transgender person can accept themselves or have high self-esteem? I have knowledge of addictions, and I do not see taking drugs or wanting surgery as an addiction at all. I do not want surgery over and over, I just want to change my body in a certain way and that is it. It is not aimless nor unending.

 

I think calling it violence is simply framing your position as good - it causes violence, therefore it's bad. Sure, the surgery requires my body to endure some harm but it helps me more so in what it does, in my opinion. So I want to do it.

 

I appreciate your claim of empathy but your adjectives of my position I feel are not empathetic. I'm not sure if I want to take you up on your offer or not right now.

[_LiveFree_]

GuzzyBone,

 

I did not ask you what makes you feel like you're qualified to help Alice. Nice try though?Actually, I don't even think you were aware of how you changed up my question there.

 

When I go to a licensed therapist, I don't ask her, "What makes you feel like you are qualified to help me?" I ask her, "Where did you get your degree? What type of therapy are you trained in?" I know you understand the difference. It takes an enormous amount of expertly guided effort in order to be of psychological help to someone. And it is extremely dangerous to go routing around in someone's brain if you are not trained to do so. Don't believe me? Listen to Stefan's interview with Richard Schwartz, the founder of Internal Family Systems Therapy; especially the part where Dr. Schwartz talks about how he thought he was helping a woman, but he ended up hurting her. What a hard way to learn that your way isn't necessarily what someone else needs. The woman came into their next session with a major cut down her face (self-inflicted).

 

Therapists only stop a client from acting if the client is suicidal or homicidal. Alice is neither. Something good therapists do is ask a lot of questions and get the patient to arrive at conclusions on their own. You are proceeding from a conclusion, with which you intend to approach all of your helpings toward Alice. This is not therapy in the least. This is abuse.

 

Want to convince someone you really want to help them? Be unendingly curious and open to what they have to say. My therapist is always open and curious to what I bring to our sessions. That is why I've stayed with her for two years. We don't always agree, but those are exciting times to explore why we don't agree.

 

You came into this thread with an agenda. Now you're wanting to force that agenda onto someone with the guise of helping them.

 

This is manipulation and moral corruption on an impressive level. You're damn right I'm hostile.

[MMX2010]

GuzzyBone,

 

I did not ask you what makes you feel like you're qualified to help Alice. Nice try though?Actually, I don't even think you were aware of how you changed up my question there.

 

When I go to a licensed therapist, I don't ask her, "What makes you feel like you are qualified to help me?" I ask her, "Where did you get your degree? What type of therapy are you trained in?" I know you understand the difference. It takes an enormous amount of expertly guided effort in order to be of psychological help to someone. And it is extremely dangerous to go routing around in someone's brain if you are not trained to do so. Don't believe me? Listen to Stefan's interview with Richard Schwartz, the founder of Internal Family Systems Therapy; especially the part where Dr. Schwartz talks about how he thought he was helping a woman, but he ended up hurting her. What a hard way to learn that your way isn't necessarily what someone else needs. The woman came into their next session with a major cut down her face (self-inflicted).

 

Therapists only stop a client from acting if the client is suicidal or homicidal. Alice is neither. Something good therapists do is ask a lot of questions and get the patient to arrive at conclusions on their own. You are proceeding from a conclusion, with which you intend to approach all of your helpings toward Alice. This is not therapy in the least. This is abuse.

 

What to convince someone you really want to help them? Be unendingly curious and open to what they have to say. My therapist is always open and curious to what I bring to our sessions. That is why I've stayed with her for two years. We don't always agree, but those are exciting times to explore why we don't agree.

 

You came into this thread with an agenda. Now you're wanting to force that agenda onto someone with the guise of helping them.

 

This is manipulation and moral corruption on an impressive level. You're damn right I'm hostile.

 

 

Two things here: (1) There's an excellent essay by Alice Miller which details the difference between therapists and friends, and the essay's purpose is to warn people that therapists are paid to give you certain perspectives, while friends aren't being paid at all.  So holding your friends to the same standards as your therapist is, in itself, a highly manipulative perspective.  (2) Whether GuzzyBone is entering into this thread with an agenda or not, he has made a simple argument that has many parts, but this one sticks out to me, "Because the surgical result of surgery is not really a vagina, then Alice Amell is being delusional when she says, 'During surgery the penis is shaped into a vagina.'"

 

Objectively speaking, is this argument true or false?  (And, for the record, I don't see how it could be false.) 

[Frosty]

I'm saying the desire to wear dresses, wear make-up, have boobs, and employ other socially constructed, and culture specific behaviors, is not innate.  It's learned from early childhood trauma.

 

There'e a long thread on transgenderism on the feminism/gender forum that you'd benefit from reading if you havn't already.

 

There's good evidence by the way of brain scans that show there is clear and important differences between the male and female brain and that the brains of transgendered individuals more closely match that of the opposite sex than of their real sex, which goes some way to indicating that there is a biological component to this.

 

The social construct of gender isn't arbitrary, men and womens brains behave in different ways and appreciate different things and so you'd expect aggregate social behaviours to differ between men and women in things like what they like to wear, how they behave, what they appreciate, how they like to decorate themselves etc.

 

That is not to say that some transgendered people couldn't do with therapy, some absolutely could do. It's often accompanied by a wide array of mental problems like depression, body identity disorder, suicidal tendancies, etc, but I'd hazard a guess that being in that situation where your body is in some level of biological conflict should probably be considered some level of trauma to begin with.

 

Some people deal with it better than others, there are transgender people who repsent as the opposite sex and then go on their lives pretty much without incident, there's a great interview between Gavin Mcinnes and Justine Tunney here http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ke4nq_free-speech-justine-tunney_fun

 

The fact that many people express different levels of cross gender behaviour, everything from cross-dressing, from tomboy women and women with obviously very "male like" brains even down to self expressed transgendered people, who deal with things in a healthy and productive way and are happy. It leads me to suspect that there could be a certain level of trauma associated with the people who go under the knife and try and transition and only end up committing suicide anyway, that trauma may simply stem from the inherent bioloigical conflict or it may be external because of the treatment of others.

 

I do liken the pressing/constant desire to transition physically such as having sexual reassignment surgery to be something very much like Xenomelia or phantom limb syndrome and I think those people probably do need therapy or some kind of mental help but that is not synonymous with transgenderism it seems and so I went into a lot of detail in that thread trying to divorce these ideas. We now know from long term studies that altering the body doesn't fix the underlying bioloigical issues in the brain and the psychological issues.

 

But I also think that therapy alone for something that is potentially caused by a biological issue is at best treating symptoms and not the cause. I also can't discount the possibility that some of these cases may be brought about through childhood trauma, a brain scan of Bruce would go a long way to indicate if the condition is rooted in biology or not.

[MMX2010]

 

 

But I also think that therapy alone for something that is potentially caused by a biological issue is at best treating symptoms and not the cause. I also can't discount the possibility that some of these cases may be brought about through childhood trauma, a brain scan of Bruce would go a long way to indicate if the condition is rooted in biology or not.

 

This is going to sound (to some) like trolling, but it's not.

 

In the excellent book, Why Everyone (Else) Is A Hypocrite, the author (an accomplished psychologist who has also studied evolutionary biology) expresses surprise whenever people react with disbelief that something has shaped their brains.  Just looking at a toaster, he argues, shapes your brain because if it didn't, you wouldn't be able to see the toaster. 

 

A brain scan of Einstein revealed highly enlarged areas associated with his left hand.  For some "mysterious reason", the amount of brain power devoted to controlling his left hand was both more massive and more finely detailed than that of the average person.  Was this a new class of psychiatric disorder, or is Einstein's awareness of his left hand the new normal, thereby forcing everyone else to be characterized as abnormal?

 

No.  It turns out that he played the violin for years.  When you finger a violin, you use your left hand. 

 

So my question is, "Given that every thought impacts the brain, and given that: (1) brain scans of transgender individuals show certain thought patterns that are identical to those of same-gender identifying individuals, and (2) that transgender individuals themselves admit to spending quite a bit of brain power focusing on these questions, then how is it possible to distinguish "A causes B" from "B causes A"?"  (For example, in another excellent book, Crazy Like Us: The Globalization of the American Psyche, its author makes an excellent case that having more psychotherapists in an area is correlated with a stronger cultural belief in specific disorders like Anxiety, Depression, and PTSD.  But he says it's impossible to distinguish whether the belief in those conditions came before or came after the influx of psychotherapists into that area.  And he also makes a strong case that, were there no psychotherapists in America, you wouldn't believe in the existence of Depression; you'd just feel sad.) 

[_LiveFree_]

Two things here: (1) There's an excellent essay by Alice Miller which details the difference between therapists and friends, and the essay's purpose is to warn people that therapists are paid to give you certain perspectives, while friends aren't being paid at all. So holding your friends to the same standards as your therapist is, in itself, a highly manipulative perspective. (2) Whether GuzzyBone is entering into this thread with an agenda or not, he has made a simple argument that has many parts, but this one sticks out to me, "Because the surgical result of surgery is not really a vagina, then Alice Amell is being delusional when she says, 'During surgery the penis is shaped into a vagina.'"

 

Objectively speaking, is this argument true or false? (And, for the record, I don't see how it could be false.)

 

An new anonymous acquaintance on an internet forum is not a friend and not what Alice Miller was referring to. Your second point is irrelevant.

 

Therapists are not paid to give you a particular perspective. They are there to assist you in gaining life balance. A therapist who pushes one perspective or another without logically explaining why is a bad therapist.

[MMX2010]

An new anonymous acquaintance on an internet forum is not a friend and not what Alice Miller was referring to. Your second point is irrelevant.

 

Therapists are not paid to give you a particular perspective. They are there to assist you in gaining life balance. A therapist who pushes one perspective or another without logically explaining why is a bad therapist.

 

I'll spell it out more clearly for you, then.

 

It's quite possible to become so attached to your therapist that you wrongfully assert, "The world would be so much happier if everyone acted like my therapist!"  Unfortunately, (1) No it wouldn't, because (2) You're not paying anonymous acquaintances over the internet the same money and respect that you're paying your therapist. 

 

Thus, pointing out that GuzzyBone isn't a licensed therapist is manipulative.  And questioning the degree to which he's "trying tp be helpful" is manipulative.

 

And ignoring my question to you, "When Alice Amell says the remnant of the penis is shaped into a vagina, GuzzyBone and utopian both insist that this is delusional.  Is their argument true or false?" is manipulative.

 

So you are just as manipulative, if not more so, than you accuse GuzzyBone of being. 

 

So please, answer the simple Yes/No question with a simple Yes/No and an explanation.  Or don't.  But if you don't you'll just be seen as manipulative by anyone who agrees with me. 

[GuzzyBone]

A cutter is suicidal. They are using the destruction of flesh, causing physical pain and damage to their body, self-harm and self-violence to escape or change reality. The cutting may stop after one time, or they may bleed to death, or it may escalate into a pattern of ritual self-abuse. Either way, the cutting didn't solve the problem or change anything except temporary "releif". Why would cutting your penis off change anything?

Im not re-classifying what you are thinking of doing as violence. It is violence. It is in the definition of violence.

You think you need some state-corrupted institution's diploma to help someone? Some hippa-approved compliance certificates and documentation of government or institutional approval to intervene and try to help a fellow human being who is in danger of hurting themselves or making a potentially life-destroying decision? I am not offering services of a therapist. I am not offering to twirl a spoon inside someone's head. I am offering to talk and listen. Are addicts told not to listen or talk with people who got out of addiction? What about someone with low self-esteem?

If a therapist is encouraging, approving, or allowing the idea of self-violence as a rational method to reaching self-acceptance. Then they should be boycotted and run out of business before they hurt anyone else.

This is an article I found interesting: The Path to Unconditional Self-Acceptance
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/200809/the-path-unconditional-self-acceptance

What Alice is going through is not Unconditional Self-Acceptance. Alice won't accept herself with a Penis. She will only accept herself if the Penis is gone and a facisimile of a Vagina is put in it's place.

This is dangerous because it assumes that after the operation that she will accept herself. The original problem goes ignored, and new problems arise while the original problem gets worse.

I am thinking about what happens next. Will there be new conditions? Will she want more surgery to fix anything that goes wrong or that she disapproves of? (surgery is not able to make a Vagina) What if Alice feels like a female finally and then thinks she is a disfigured female or ugly? What if Alice ruins her social relationships by needing everyone to confirm that she is now a female? This is my point, that new problems are created instead of addressing the original problem of lacking Unconditional Self-Acceptance.

When we turn to violence instead of accepting who we are, exactly HOW we are (physical and all), the problem is not being addressed.

Alice admits there is a problem (whether it's the penis or her mind). I am simply saying a knife is not the answer to ANY problem unless it's a matter of life or death.

Here is a question my wife asks out of concern: Alice, even if you go through with the surgery, will you ever be able to accept that you can not actually fully become a woman in every way that you want?
 

I do not see taking drugs or wanting surgery as an addiction at all. I do not want surgery over and over, I just want to change my body in a certain way and that is it. It is not aimless nor unending

No one transforms into a drug addict over night. In the beginning they tell themselves that they have it under control and that everything is with a goal. They start telling themselves and others that they are not addicted and can/will stop at any time. It may not be an addiction now, but this behavior escalates, we reason it out in our head, and then denial entraps us.

Drug addiction is nearly always linked to a history of trauma or trying to mask or hide from a major problem in their life. Eventually the drug itself manipulates your thoughts and clouds your judgement from seeing what it is doing to you.

I am not saying you are a drug addict. I am just saying this is something to consider. I think self-knowledge should be your ultimate goal. Figuring out if you are a man or a woman has nothing to do with self-knowledge. You need to learn WHY you feel like you are a woman trapped in a man's body.

[utopian]

So again, you admit you've no evidence to support this claim but reassert your position that drugs cause me to feel this way. So you are saying, 1. there are drugs with unknown effects everywhere 2. transgender people are a minority 3. therefore it is possible that their feelings result from this drug. 

 

I assert it is very possible, and that in conjunction with my research on corporate and government agendas, it is within their interest to create drugs which can do so. However, drugs may not even necessarily be required, with all the technological, social, psychological etc. manipulation corporate/government entities are pursuing.  Transgenders being a minority of population have nothing to do with my argument. 

 

 

I see no reason why you think it is transgender people that are the product of some conspiracy for money. 

 

Again, I must cite my continuing research on corporate/government corruption, provided in the freedom force international link and elsewhere. I am working on a post about the banking system, and their agenda to take over the world. They have actually already succeeded, and have done it so well, barely anyone noticed. It was very much achieved through money manipulation. Turning men into women very much coincides with many of their agendas. It makes people prone to suicide which depopulates countries and races, while making them prone to buying more products like dresses, makeup, female health products and so on and so forth. Also, women are more easily influenced by media brainwashing, as can be seen in things like Oprah convincing people against getting shots cause she said they were bad, but that actually ended up killing them. I argue, transgenderism is also largely a media agenda, that works in cases of people trying to be transgenders. 

 

 

Nathan Diehl gave sources that detail the existence of transgender people throughout history - that is long before these pharmaceutical companies started spewing drugs in the air, so how does that fit into your theory?

 

That is not transGENDER, where you surgically and chemically alter yourself. That is only transVESTITE.

 

 

Why are non-natural, unhealthy,and non-average lifestyles illegitimate? I'm not sure what you mean by that - am I not allowed to live such a lifestyle, is that immoral? Is it just to stop me? Natural, healthy, and average are all subjective terms, no? Who is the arbiter of an average lifestyle? I don't understand.

We got away from the original argument here, which was "what is a legitimate reason to take drugs". I cant think of many more reasons to take drugs except if you are in pain, or you are having problems with some kind of mental dysfunction. Other than that, I can't think of many more reasons to do so. Any other reasons suggest an unhealthy practice of drugs for recreation. Arguably anyone should have the right to do that to themselves. However, if it negatively effects your own health, you should not expect anyone to take care of you when you made a decision you know could be damaging to you. I don't imagine anyone would smile on anyone destroying themselves with drugs, but that is one's own choice. However, if a person's decision to take drugs negatively effects someone else, for example if you took acid and then decided to go driving and crashed, that is certainly unacceptable. 

 

This example can be extrapolated into transgenderism by influence and interaction. It is my choice not to be sexual with any man or transgender man. Tricking me into thinking you are a woman if you are not is immoral, and you would not find it acceptable if others tricked you into things you didnt want to do.

 

Also, impressionable people may learn of transgenderism and think they are transgenders when they are not, leading to them making decisions they later regret, and may kill themselves because of. I suspect that might be one of the reasons for transgenderism's high suicide rate.

[_LiveFree_]

I'll spell it out more clearly for you, then.

 

It's quite possible to become so attached to your therapist that you wrongfully assert, "The world would be so much happier if everyone acted like my therapist!"  Unfortunately, (1) No it wouldn't, because (2) You're not paying anonymous acquaintances over the internet the same money and respect that you're paying your therapist. 

 

Thus, pointing out that GuzzyBone isn't a licensed therapist is manipulative.  And questioning the degree to which he's "trying tp be helpful" is manipulative.

 

And ignoring my question to you, "When Alice Amell says the remnant of the penis is shaped into a vagina, GuzzyBone and utopian both insist that this is delusional.  Is their argument true or false?" is manipulative.

 

So you are just as manipulative, if not more so, than you accuse GuzzyBone of being. 

 

So please, answer the simple Yes/No question with a simple Yes/No and an explanation.  Or don't.  But if you don't you'll just be seen as manipulative by anyone who agrees with me.

 

And this is why I've ignored your post for many months. Back to ignoring you.

[MMX2010]

And this is why I've ignored your post for many months. Back to ignoring you.

 

Just pointing out that you're ignoring me after I (three times) asked you to answer a very simple Yes/No question.

 

Moreover, I pointed out that one symptom of borderline personality disorder is "idealized relationships, wherein everyone is either idealized or devalued" - and refusing to answer a simple Yes/No question - (especially one which objectively points out blatant blind spots in your argument) - looks exactly like an "idealized relationship". 

 

Moreover, I'll point out something that happened in my call-in show with Stefan.  Way towards the end, I mentioned that I had been dumped only a week ago by the best woman I've ever been with.  And he immediately replied, "If she was truly the best woman you've ever been with, I'm very sorry."  We weren't doing video, so he couldn't see the small, appreciative smile that formed across my face - but that smile happened because his reaction was immediate and empathetic. 

 

Meanwhile, I told the story of a ten year old male child who was forced to wear tutus and respond to "Danielle", even though he was not transgender.  AND I told the story after pointing out that a leading medical expert insists that male-to-female transgenders are largely indifferent to children, (which really creeps out normal, heterosexual people).  And, in response to that story, not one of the transgender individuals said, "I'm really saddened that this boy went through that." 

 

So we all listen to Stefan, whom I deem masterful at empathy - which means you'd expect his admiring listeners to know how to at least fake having basic empathy.  But none of the transgender individuals expressed basic empathy.  *shrug*