Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interesting article...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by HouseAndrew View Post
    Its are paying loads of cash to look like poor caricatures of the other sex. If I paid all that money and looked like most of them do, I'd sue the doctor.

    No heterosexual male is going to find an It attractive. I'll grant you some women and dogs may be willing to lie for that 'empathy' and treats, but that's about it.

    Ohs! I forgot! There's going to be that bottom-of-a-barrel man who'll screw any hole, whatever it actually is, because it's the only thing he can get but that's about it.

    lolol, can you honestly imagine a man with choices, let's say Brad Pitt, choosing an It over Angelina Jolee? Wells, he may be tired of screwing hot, beautiful women and wanting a change of pace, but I'd direct him to shaggy dogs.
    It's such a lovely straw man you've constructed here, it'd be a shame to put it to waste. I don't know for certain whether you are or aren't a coward (so the lion may be out), but if we could just get you humming "If I only had a brain", we could have ourselves a whole production of the Wizard of Oz.

    That's the thing: You don't know what you're talking about. You are -ignorant-. Worse yet, you revel in that ignorance, which is...well, honestly, it's not unexpected, but nonetheless, it's a bit pathetic. I like, of course, how you've chosen to completely ignore the part where I explain that, for many people who transition, you would never be able to tell. But hey, believe whatever you want. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

    Does Andrew know what drives men to sleep with five year old boys? Noes. Does he need some kind of 'evidence', sources, observable proof, etc. to know that it's wrong? No.
    ...and comparing GID to pedophilia. That's like...the triple word score in the "jackass straw man game".

    I can play this game too!

    "How much time do I need to spend talking to someone before I decide that they're a bigoted, narrow-minded, shallow, sad individual?"

    You make the call!

    Yeah, it too bad. There's a lot wrong with this world, but it's not a big issue. Overall, I'm sure I haven't contributed even a whole dollar to it, so I won't pretend to really care. Besides, I find it funny when prisoners get sex changes in order to score more cigarettes per night or move to an easier block.
    Yet again, you are the epitome of class, with a remarkable understanding of the human condition.



    As far as schizophrenics and diabetics, their drugs may work and create valuable members of society. Transsexuals are a waste of funds and caricatures of human beings.
    Ah, here we get to the crux of it. "Caricatures of human beings." Nice. I would argue that the same could be said about (hypothetically speaking) obnoxious, hate-filled online bigots. Of course, I would never go that far. Besides, it's so plainly obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about that it's difficult to even get upset by it. It's kind of like if a monkey throws feces at the wall and it just HAPPENS to spell "You suck".

    I haven't met many transsexuals, true, but that's because they seem rather lame. All of them are overly concerned with trying to fit in with the rest of society with their new look as well as playing the, 'I bet I could get him!' game. Such misguided narcissism is booooooooring.

    Andrew.
    Heh. You haven't met many that you know of. Also, nice generalization. "All of them are..." you say, from your vast experience. You're also wrong, but...really, you've got such a -streak- of that going now, it'd be a shame to stop.

    I don't know how you've managed to make 4chan and its ilk look like well-informed debate, but...hats off to you, sir.

    Comment


    • #92
      Some Facts

      Facts are good, and primary sources better. Rather than saying "scientists say", it's useful to provide the peer-reviewed evidence so you can make up your own mind.

      A Sex Difference in the Human Brain and its Relation to Transsexuality

      Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus

      Summary - Male and Female brains differ, both on the coarse scale (BSTc layer of the hypothalamus) and fine scale (number of neurons - brain cells - in each structure). Autopsies on transsexual women, that is, women with mostly male bodies, have shown they have female pattern brains.

      Note that gay men have male pattern brains though.

      From ArzteZeitung 2005, detailing studies using fMRT - "brain scans" of living people: German Original /English Translation

      "Radiologists can now confirm what transsexuals report - that they feel “trapped in the wrong body” - on the basis of the activation of the brain when presented with erotic stimuli. There is obviously a biological correlation with the subjective feelings."
      Let's see... someone said
      In some cases it may be a case of nature versus nurture, though the scientific jury is out on that. In other cases though, it is most assuredly nurture versus nature.
      That's not what the Australian Family Court said, when they reviewed the scientific data in 2003. What they did say was :
      At paragraph [252]: ‘The traditional analysis that they are "psychologically" transsexual does not explain how this state came about. For example, there seems to be no suggestion in the evidence that their psychological state can be explained by reference to circumstances of their upbringing. In that sense, the brain sex theory does not seem to be competing with other explanations, but rather is providing a possible explanation of what is otherwise inexplicable’.
      That's from The Deakin Law Review 2004.

      As regards attractiveness (or otherwise) of transsexual women, that is subjective. So why not look at some genuine, not-made-for-camera transwomen. There's a Gallery here, giving life stories and web pages. One thing's obvious - the earlier the transition, the better they tend to look.

      As for there only being a few thousand worldwide, there's this : How Frequently Does Transsexualism Occur?. Abstract:
      In this investigative report we calculate an approximate value of the lower bound of the prevalence of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism in the United States, based on estimates of the numbers of sex reassignment surgeries performed on U.S. residents during the past four decades. We find that the prevalence of SRS is at least on the order of 1:2500, and may be twice that value.
      Since there are records of tens of thousands of surgeries in the USA alone, the value of what, 3300? worldwide seems a little low.

      I think that's enough for now. I'm not technically transsexual by the way, I'm intersexed. I have a rare medical condition, similar in some ways to the far more common 5ARD and 17BHDD syndromes.
      From the Australian Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome Support Group:
      5-alpha-reductase is an enzyme that converts the weaker testosterone into the more potent dihydrotestosterone (DHT). When this enzyme is deficient (a condition known as 5-alpha-reductase deficiency) the baby develops as a girl. However, at puberty testosterone production usually increases and is enough to cause virilization, so in such cases (where the child identifies strongly with a female role) it is advisable to perform a gonadectomy before puberty. On the other hand, there are cases where the child naturally migrates to a male role. Therefore, a conservative approach that incorporates listening to the child is imperative.
      Female to Male apparent natural sex change is relatively common.
      From eMedicine
      As in less developed countries, if gonadectomy is not performed, some of these children virilize at puberty and adopt a male gender identity and role. Even after gonadectomy, some children assigned a female gender may wish to assume a male gender role, although in the absence of gonadal steroids spontaneous physical virilization does not occur. No process is able to determine which children will identify as male; it does not correlate with degree of prenatal virilization or genetic mutation. Families with multiple children with 5-ARD have been reported; while all were raised as females in childhood, some transitioned to male in adolescence, and others retained female gender identity and role.
      Basically, some were Transsexual before, some became Transsexual afterwards, and some were surgically created Transsexual by gonadectomy when young.

      To get back on topic.... I went the other way. For 47 years I was thought to be transsexual. A Woman trapped in a Man's body. It sucked, badly. But then it got better, it turned out I was a Woman trapped inside a Masculinised Woman's body, and the masculinisation went away.(How Masculinised? I'm a biological Father, though that took technical help of course, so pretty darn severely)

      Psychologically, I'm absolutely indistinguishable from standard transsexual women my age, who require hormones rather than a natural change. They're neurologically female too, but not strongly so. The ones strongly so kill themselves unless treated earlier. Did I say that the condition really, really, really sucks?

      Comment


      • #93
        It's perfectly consistent. I've read the arguments by both sides. The arguments on one side are conspicuously poorly-supported and few in number.
        Ever think this could be because of some outside influence? Could it be because those people who have opposing views and theories aren't well funded for political or social reasons? Could it be that a particular industry invests a good deal of money into the 'research' in return for a particular arguement to be supported by medical professionals? Let's not pretend this doesn't happen.

        My question is: What makes those concerns, arguments, and points valid? From where does their validity arise? What is the core of their merit? Is -any- claim or concern valid by default?
        I guarantee you if I sat down with any medical professional, specialist in this field, or person who's undergone or considering this procedure I would be asking questions that they couldn't answer. The fact that an individual that's supposedly 'uneducated' in the field can ask basic questions that can't be answered calls into question the validity of their claims.

        However, I find it funny that you think it's "hyper-sensitive" and reeks of "unfocused anger" (which somehow derives from "specific anger issues", which I guess are simultaneously specific AND unfocused).
        I guess this is where reading comprehension is supposed to kick in. What I said is you're just blanketly attacking everyone that doesn't agree with you in this thread. The source of that anger is likely something specific - common reactions and stereotypical response to the topic that you've experienced.

        Everyone has bias. Would you say that you shouldn't take an astronomer's word on astronomy, because they're biased by their education?
        I'm saying you shouldn't believe anyone based solely on a piece of paper they have. There are a whole lot of "impossibles" in astrophysics that were agreed upon for a relatively long time that we've been disproving in just the recent past. Just because someone that studies a field says it doesn't make it right. Just because there's theories why something can't happen doesn't mean it doesn't. There's only one correct answer out there and 99.9% of the time we don't have it.

        As for me, I -do- get angry when people spout uninformed, prejudiced, hateful, -harmful- opinions about something they have little experience with but somehow consider themselves experts on.
        I'm not saying the tone or prejudices are a good thing, but to say everyone that doesn't agree with you is being hateful or voicing harmful opinions is just a little ridiculous. Likewise, just because someone voices their opinion in an inappropriate way does not necessarily discount their opinion, though it may make it less likely that they voice a serious arguement.

        But no, you're right. People calling them "freaks" or "its", saying they're a bunch of deluded, pathetic monsters...It's all in good fun, right?
        I've been called far worse. The suicide rate in my profession isn't exactly low, and we volunteer for what we do. You'll have to excuse me if I find it difficult to sympathize.

        See, you say there's a lack of critical study of the issue. Do you KNOW that, or are you simply assuming?
        Well, I guess you could be lying. I don't think you are in this particular case though. Show me the studies done on the studies that show people are asking tough questions and doctors and researchers are satisfactorily answering them and I'll change my mind. You said there weren't many (any).

        As for your choice to contribute to it or not: Well, from my understanding, that's how national healthcare works. You don't get to decide, "Eh, I don't want to help this person with a cleft palette. They can learn to cope."
        That's exactly the point? Why should I be forced to pay for someone elses medical expenses? I pay enough for social healthcare benefits that I'll likely never use as it is. Now you want me to pay for someone to get a sex change? That's not going to happen.

        As for the lack of an alternative: Sorry, can't help you there. Like I've already said, there ARE alternatives to surgery.
        From what you described it doesn't sound like there are alternatives. Just degrees of which you can care for the illness along a given path. Lack of care isn't an acceptable alternative.
        Quinimmo, consuere difficilior faciendum est.
        It makes a lot of sense to take a PvP career path for your character and than complain when the second 'P' comes into effect. - The wisdom of Andrew
        <Meraj thinks aloud: Oh? Now all of a sudden I can't suck ****?>
        Originally posted by Miriam
        Dayltor have had altogether too much influence on the direction of TEC

        Comment


        • #94
          Yay. Someone fun!
          Originally posted by ZoeB View Post
          Facts are good, and primary sources better. Rather than saying "scientists say", it's useful to provide the peer-reviewed evidence so you can make up your own mind.
          Absolutely. I completely agree.

          Originally posted by ZoeB
          A Sex Difference in the Human Brain and its Relation to Transsexuality

          Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus

          Summary - Male and Female brains differ, both on the coarse scale (BSTc layer of the hypothalamus) and fine scale (number of neurons - brain cells - in each structure). Autopsies on transsexual women, that is, women with mostly male bodies, have shown they have female pattern brains.
          Two studies that certainly deserve being red.

          Originally posted by ZoeB
          Note that gay men have male pattern brains though.
          This is, typically, true. Though female-like brain patterns are sometimes exhibited in certain male homosexuals, namely those who fit the 'puerto rican' stereotype. Homosexuals who are very much on the effeminate side. Likewise, certain 'bull dykes' exhibit male-like brain patterns.

          This doesn't contradict the statement, or the findings, exactly, but it does give a second layer of consideration to the argument.

          Originally posted by ZoeB
          Let's see... someone said

          ...
          That was me. And I stand by that statement.

          Originally posted by ZoeB
          That's not what the Australian Family Court said, when they reviewed the scientific data in 2003. What they did say was :
          The statement of a judge has no bearing on anything. While the rest of your statements are all solidly supported, you cannot use the statements of a court to embody the rightness of a cause, or for that matter the science behind that cause. Judges have no substantive education on the subject. What they do know only has to do with what they have been taught by the 'experts' who stand trial.

          I am ignoring your comments on attractiveness. They have no bearing on anything I have said, and it was clearly baiting from Andrew regardless. Though I will state that 'the earlier they transition the better they look' is a little false. It is typically 'the softer the original person's features, the better they turn out'. more than anything else. And many men who go through their entire puberty stage still end up with soft features. (asians, I'm looking at you.)

          Originally posted by ZoeB
          As for there only being a few thousand worldwide, there's this : How Frequently Does Transsexualism Occur?. Abstract: Since there are records of tens of thousands of surgeries in the USA alone, the value of what, 3300? worldwide seems a little low.
          According to the study I posted, roughly 0.005% of the world population is transexual. According to the most commonly referenced study in the community it is actually closer to 0.003~% That would tend to indicate that many people getting the surgery aren't actually transexual. This has been cited specifically amongst the prison population, where people get the surgery for reasons of better living. It has also been cited in the workplace, where certain men have testified that they got the transition syndrome to help their careers(a very small, but relevent, subgroup).

          Originally posted by ZoeB
          I think that's enough for now. I'm not technically transsexual by the way, I'm intersexed. I have a rare medical condition, similar in some ways to the far more common 5ARD and 17BHDD syndromes.
          From the Australian Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome Support Group:
          I feel for you. The ridicule, and more importantly the total lack of understanding you must have experienced for your entire life would be mindboggling.

          Thank you for actually bringing credible points, and citing some sources. Something I have been asking for from the beginning, and have not received.

          Originally posted by VinianQuartz
          HAIL CULEXUS

          Comment


          • #95
            The subject matter that began this thread is clearly a victory for transexual acceptence. It is clearly a victory for the GID community.

            My argument is that it is not necessarily a victory for 'the people'. It is taking their money and using it on something that may or may not be for the best of either their greater community, or the wellbeing of the child in question.

            Like Dayltor, I have no qualms with people seeking what they believe is the best thing for themselves. Everyone is entitled to the pursuit of happiness, and that includes being happy in your own shell, and in what partners (or lack thereof) you seek.

            But it also includes not having to pay money that you need for things you have fundamental disagreements with.

            Originally posted by VinianQuartz
            HAIL CULEXUS

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Dayltor View Post
              Ever think this could be because of some outside influence? Could it be because those people who have opposing views and theories aren't well funded for political or social reasons? Could it be that a particular industry invests a good deal of money into the 'research' in return for a particular arguement to be supported by medical professionals? Let's not pretend this doesn't happen.
              ...yes, because people are making an absolute -fortune- off of GID. It's a booming industry, all right. So, no, that's not incredibly likely.

              As for "political" or "social" reasons: Do you mean political as in "within the profession", or political as in governmental politics? I ask because, frankly, there's still enough prejudice and -legal- discrimination against transgendered people that the latter is incredibly unlikely. For the former to be true, there would have to be a -reason-. What would that reason be?

              Finally, if you don't think there are at least a HUNDRED "religious" groups that would just love to fund a study saying the whole thing is a mistake and transgendered people are just deluded sinners, you're sadly mistaken.


              I guarantee you if I sat down with any medical professional, specialist in this field, or person who's undergone or considering this procedure I would be asking questions that they couldn't answer. The fact that an individual that's supposedly 'uneducated' in the field can ask basic questions that can't be answered calls into question the validity of their claims.
              So do it. You guarantee it? Pony up. Your entire argument here is based on an assumption, and unverified claim. It's also apparently based on the assumption that you, somehow, are a lone voice of sanity in the wilderness, superior to all in the medical profession and the only one who apparently possesses critical thinking skills. You'll excuse me if I find all of this a tad arrogant.

              I guess this is where reading comprehension is supposed to kick in. What I said is you're just blanketly attacking everyone that doesn't agree with you in this thread. The source of that anger is likely something specific - common reactions and stereotypical response to the topic that you've experienced.
              While it's true that common reactions and the stereotypical response I've encountered irritate me, this thread has plenty of examples all by itself.

              I'm saying you shouldn't believe anyone based solely on a piece of paper they have. There are a whole lot of "impossibles" in astrophysics that were agreed upon for a relatively long time that we've been disproving in just the recent past. Just because someone that studies a field says it doesn't make it right. Just because there's theories why something can't happen doesn't mean it doesn't. There's only one correct answer out there and 99.9% of the time we don't have it.
              Sure, authority is not a guarantee of someone's correctness. It does usually mean that the individual in question is MORE qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject than a layman. The whole "sometimes scientists are wrong" argument, while true, is essentially pointless; we operate based on the best understanding we have. Ask questions, certainly, and challenge the dominant paradigm, but saying "I refuse to believe this because science is sometimes wrong, so I don't care what the experts say," is not intellectual rigor; it is childish petulance.

              I'm not saying the tone or prejudices are a good thing, but to say everyone that doesn't agree with you is being hateful or voicing harmful opinions is just a little ridiculous. Likewise, just because someone voices their opinion in an inappropriate way does not necessarily discount their opinion, though it may make it less likely that they voice a serious arguement.
              I do not think that EVERYONE who voices an opinion in opposition to my own on this subject is being harmful. I -welcome- people who, for instance, approach the subject out of a genuine concern for the patient's well-being and want to make -sure- that the course of action being recommended by the medical field is not ill-advised and harmful.

              The problem is that so many of the opinions voiced actually dehumanize or devalue the individuals in question. They essentially justify these people being treated as second-class citizens. In addition, if there are people suffering from the condition who -are- reading this stuff, you'd be surprised just how much harm words like "freaks" and other garbage can do. The high suicide rate doesn't exist in a vacuum; a lot of it is because of social pressures and, well, hateful, bigoted trash.

              I've been called far worse. The suicide rate in my profession isn't exactly low, and we volunteer for what we do. You'll have to excuse me if I find it difficult to sympathize.
              Are we going to play misery poker, now? "X is bad so Y can't be?" I find that kind of confusing, honestly, as despite my OWN unpleasantness in the past, I'm still fully capable of sympathizing with people in other unrelated unpleasant situations.

              That said, you also noted that you volunteer, and it's a profession. In the case of transgendered people, neither is true. It is true they choose whether or not to pursue transition, but they do not choose whether or not to have the condition in the first place. For this, they are subject to increased violence when walking down the street, widespread discrimination, socially-sanctioned ridicule, etc. So frankly, whether or not YOU sympathize is, to me, a fairly minor point.


              Well, I guess you could be lying. I don't think you are in this particular case though. Show me the studies done on the studies that show people are asking tough questions and doctors and researchers are satisfactorily answering them and I'll change my mind. You said there weren't many (any).
              No, that's another false assumption. What I said was that there are few studies whose outcome opposes the currently accepted understanding. That does not mean that other studies did not ask "tough questions". It simply means that the answers they found were roughly in agreement with the rest of the field's consensus. Again, you seem to be acting like the only way for something to be valid is if people are constantly arguing about it.

              Also, I'd again ask exactly what these hypothetical "tough questions" are.

              That's exactly the point? Why should I be forced to pay for someone elses medical expenses? I pay enough for social healthcare benefits that I'll likely never use as it is. Now you want me to pay for someone to get a sex change? That's not going to happen.
              Why should you be forced to pay for someone with diabetes? Why should you be forced to pay for someone's meds when they have bipolar disorder? Why should you be forced to have someone's club foot or cleft palette corrected?

              From what you described it doesn't sound like there are alternatives. Just degrees of which you can care for the illness along a given path. Lack of care isn't an acceptable alternative.
              And what "alternative" do you propose? We've already seen that "curing" someone leads to some pretty bad places (though it's worth noting that I have a fairly low opinion of the places that claim to "cure" people of being gay, too.) If you have such objections, what alternative is there? Abstract arguments are all well and good, but when the subject concretely impacts people's lives, they're not good enough.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Armataan View Post

                But it also includes not having to pay money that you need for things you have fundamental disagreements with.
                I would ask two things:

                1: Where does this fundamental disagreement come from, and on what is it based?

                2: What if I disagree with treating bipolar disorder?

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Armataan View Post
                  According to the study I posted, roughly 0.005% of the world population is transexual. According to the most commonly referenced study in the community it is actually closer to 0.003~% That would tend to indicate that many people getting the surgery aren't actually transexual. This has been cited specifically amongst the prison population, where people get the surgery for reasons of better living. It has also been cited in the workplace, where certain men have testified that they got the transition syndrome to help their careers(a very small, but relevent, subgroup).
                  Actually, could you provide a link to that study? This isn't a "gotcha"; I'm genuinely curious, particularly about the methodology used. I can't help but -suspect- that the results there do not mean what you're interpreting them to mean here, but I'd need to see the actual study to decide for myself.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Sanura View Post
                    ...yes, because people are making an absolute -fortune- off of GID. It's a booming industry, all right. So, no, that's not incredibly likely.

                    As for "political" or "social" reasons: Do you mean political as in "within the profession", or political as in governmental politics?
                    Yet another incredibly narrow minded comment that lacks any indepth thought. Further proof of my point. You're really living in a fantasy world.

                    Finally, if you don't think there are at least a HUNDRED "religious" groups that would just love to fund a study saying the whole thing is a mistake and transgendered people are just deluded sinners, you're sadly mistaken.
                    Yeah probably... those are the ones you dismiss as uncredible.

                    So do it. You guarantee it? Pony up. Your entire argument here is based on an assumption, and unverified claim.
                    Ok, you got get me a team of these 'professionals', I'll start studying up on the published material and writing my interview.

                    You'll excuse me if I find all of this a tad arrogant.
                    You're entitled to your opinion. As am I. You're the one that wants to say you're the only one that's right in the whole thread. So please forgive me if I find you to be extremely ignorant.

                    While it's true that common reactions and the stereotypical response I've encountered irritate me, this thread has plenty of examples all by itself.
                    And you're lashing out at people who AREN'T throwing out these types of responses. Your lack of control and inability to remain rational doesn't lend you credibility.

                    The whole "sometimes scientists are wrong" argument, while true, is essentially pointless; we operate based on the best understanding we have.
                    It's not a "sometimes scientists are wrong" arguement. It's a "don't believe everything people tell you" arguement. It's your arguements that I find childish. Actually no, children at least ask questions. You just accept everything you're told.

                    Ask questions, certainly, and challenge the dominant paradigm, but saying "I refuse to believe this because science is sometimes wrong, so I don't care what the experts say," is not intellectual rigor; it is childish petulance.
                    I know I didn't say I refused to believe anything. Let's try to actually read to what we're responding, ok?

                    I -welcome- people who, for instance, approach the subject out of a genuine concern for the patient's well-being and want to make -sure- that the course of action being recommended by the medical field is not ill-advised and harmful.
                    And that doesn't include alternative methods drastically different from the ones you've put your support into?

                    The problem is that so many of the opinions voiced actually dehumanize or devalue the individuals in question.
                    Maybe you should try more accurately identifying those opinions then and responding to them specifically.

                    They essentially justify these people being treated as second-class citizens.
                    Umm, you're asking for respect out of a sense of entitlement. Sorry, you're fighting the wrong battle. Your choices and the way you live your life determines if you maintain the level of human dignity with which you were born. Some people feel these types of surgery are self mutilation and your decision to disrespect your body makes you less worthy of their respect. If you can't cope with it either don't do it or don't associate with those people. Have you even considered their perspective? Do you even know what their perspective is? Why they feel the way they do? You can't change their minds, you're only in control of yourself. Maybe you should try to understand them, and their reasoning, and that might help you to brush it off easier.

                    Me personally, I don't give a damn how you change your body. To me that's not automatic grounds to disrespect a person. If you're out there selling yourself on a street corner though, don't expect to get respect. If you're looking for a handout you can expect even less.

                    That said, you also noted that you volunteer, and it's a profession. In the case of transgendered people, neither is true.
                    Are you suggesting that people who have medical conditions are more deserving of respect than people who put their lives on the line for your right to pursue the choices you ultimately have available to you?

                    Come on. We all get emotionally scarred in life. How do you think it feels to know that all these creative derogatory terms were thrown at Vietnam veterans when they returned home by the people of the time, but me, I'm only good enough for liberals to throw out those same 30 year old lines. You know how insulting that is? How emotionally traumatic it is? Every time someone calls me a baby killer I die a little inside. I feel like I'm not worth the time or effort for them to come up with a new, original, more appropriate insult. But I don't go crying on the forums that people don't understand me. I don't commit suicide over it. I brush if off because I'm happy with what I am and proud of what I do.

                    As you said, my sympathy isn't the answer to your problems. The only problem I cause you is not handing you the money that I work hard for to get your surgery. Your problem is yourself. Your sense of entitlement. Your casting of the blame on everyone else, but not stepping up and addressing the problem yourself. You say other people are responsible for many of these people committing suicide. They don't need sympathy, they need a sense of self-worth.

                    Why should you be forced to pay for someone with diabetes? Why should you be forced to pay for someone's meds when they have bipolar disorder? Why should you be forced to have someone's club foot or cleft palette corrected?
                    Umm, I shouldn't? Why are you asking to increase the scope of a program that I shouldn't be paying for in the first place? I have my own health care, and access to more than enough doctors to keep me functioning well for a very long time. Maybe if we're lucky some day we'll get some genius politician that figures out to cut out these government programs.

                    That's how it works now though. More to the point, you're asking us to expand on an already overbearing medical system. Why can't you pay your own way like anyone who wants high quality care? Or hey, go move to another country that has socialized medical care and leech off of them. How about some personal responsibility? The medical costs are too high? Insurance won't cover it? Shit, don't blame me. Don't look to my bank account to pay for your crap. Blame the massive government for over-regulating and destroying confidence in what could be a sound system.

                    And what "alternative" do you propose? We've already seen that "curing" someone leads to some pretty bad places (though it's worth noting that I have a fairly low opinion of the places that claim to "cure" people of being gay, too.)
                    Not having a vested interest in the alternatives, and being fairly sure you aren't assembling a team of specialists to interview, I don't have some profound answer to your question. As I said before, I don't have a huge interest in the topic. I do know that if I had a condition similar or as serious as this, I'd want a choice available to me other than drugs and surgery. I can't think of many times I've been treated by a doctor other than my own that I have been satisfied with the care I recieved. I would want a healthy way of being able to have my mind match the body I was put in, in this case. I don't think that's a lot to ask for, and I certainly don't think it's really that hard to understand given everything that you've cited in your posts. Difficult perhaps, but as I said before, not impossible.

                    Abstract arguments are all well and good, but when the subject concretely impacts people's lives, they're not good enough.
                    Your arguement saying that the rest of the country should pay for medical practicies they don't believe in clearly effects far more people than those who would benefit from the funding. So you're right. Your arguement isn't good enough.
                    Quinimmo, consuere difficilior faciendum est.
                    It makes a lot of sense to take a PvP career path for your character and than complain when the second 'P' comes into effect. - The wisdom of Andrew
                    <Meraj thinks aloud: Oh? Now all of a sudden I can't suck ****?>
                    Originally posted by Miriam
                    Dayltor have had altogether too much influence on the direction of TEC

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Dayltor View Post
                      Yet another incredibly narrow minded comment that lacks any indepth thought. Further proof of my point. You're really living in a fantasy world.
                      Very mature. Of course, you'll note that it fails to address any of the points in that part. Who do you think is making money off of this? Who do you think has a vested interest?

                      Just saying, "Nuh uh, you're immature and narrow-minded!" isn't good enough.


                      Yeah probably... those are the ones you dismiss as uncredible.
                      A couple of them, yes, but not solely because of the bias involved; it's also because their methodology is flawed and the samples deliberately skewed. I don't think you're stupid, so I'm sure you know how the scientific method, statistical analysis, etc. work.

                      Ok, you got get me a team of these 'professionals', I'll start studying up on the published material and writing my interview.
                      Wait. Now you're saying that you guarantee you can ask tough questions that these people have never thought of or can't answer, yet you'd have to "study up" on the subject first? Exactly what's the basis of your guarantee, here?

                      You're entitled to your opinion. As am I. You're the one that wants to say you're the only one that's right in the whole thread. So please forgive me if I find you to be extremely ignorant.
                      Well, no. First of all, define "ignorant". It seems to me that I'm the one with the most -knowledge- of the subject (excluding Zoe and a couple of others), so, uh, I'm not sure you're using that word correctly. If you mean "closed-minded" instead, not at all. I'm open to -rational- arguments to the contrary. The problem is, people aren't generally providing rational arguments. They're providing logical fallacy and "gut reactions" masked as intellectual rigor. If someone wants to make an actual -argument- to counter what I've said, they're more than welcome to do so.

                      And you're lashing out at people who AREN'T throwing out these types of responses. Your lack of control and inability to remain rational doesn't lend you credibility.
                      Actually, I think I've remained pretty rational (with the exception of some exchanges with Andrew, who frankly doesn't deserve rational discourse). I've become -heated-, perhaps, but I haven't been irrational by any stretch of the imagination, unless you'd like to specifically point out examples to the contrary.

                      Now, that said, I probably have been overly aggressive with people who didn't entirely deserve it, and for that, I apologize (again). However, the impression I've gotten is that, honestly, a lot of people aren't going to listen regardless of what I say or what evidence is provided to them.

                      Additionally, when someone appears to be defending bigotry, it's not all that much better than expressing bigotry themselves.

                      It's not a "sometimes scientists are wrong" arguement. It's a "don't believe everything people tell you" arguement. It's your arguements that I find childish. Actually no, children at least ask questions. You just accept everything you're told.
                      See, this is what's sort of sad. You seem so eager to do this "gotcha!" game that you invent things out of whole cloth. How do you know I believe everything people tell me? How do you know that I haven't asked questions? How do you know that I simply accept everything? Please, I'd love to hear this.

                      Or is it just a "gut feeling"?

                      I know I didn't say I refused to believe anything. Let's try to actually read to what we're responding, ok?
                      Likewise, I didn't say I was referring specifically to you. Pot, kettle, etc.

                      And that doesn't include alternative methods drastically different from the ones you've put your support into?
                      Again, you mention these alternatives as if there's this magical panacea that's being suppressed by The Evil Establishment. What alternatives? You're fighting a straw man, here.

                      Maybe you should try more accurately identifying those opinions then and responding to them specifically.
                      Maybe so. Maybe, however, I also get fairly sick of people defending them, even obliquely.

                      Comment


                      • Umm, you're asking for respect out of a sense of entitlement. Sorry, you're fighting the wrong battle. Your choices and the way you live your life determines if you maintain the level of human dignity with which you were born. Some people feel these types of surgery are self mutilation and your decision to disrespect your body makes you less worthy of their respect. If you can't cope with it either don't do it or don't associate with those people. Have you even considered their perspective? Do you even know what their perspective is? Why they feel the way they do? You can't change their minds, you're only in control of yourself. Maybe you should try to understand them, and their reasoning, and that might help you to brush it off easier.
                        Er, no. First of all, as I said, not all opinions are created equal. For instance, racism is, in essence, an opinion. It is one held by a great many people. It is also one that is not considered acceptable by most of society. Asking people to "suck it up, because that's just how some people think" isn't especially productive.

                        And yeah, in a lot of cases, I -do- know what their perspective is and why they feel the way they do. In others, obviously, I don't. To a point, though, does it matter? They hold an opinion that is directly harmful to me and devalues me as a human being. There's no reason I should accord that opinion any respect (though I know you did not suggest that I should, necessarily). As for brushing it off...that's all well and good, except insofar as these things affect social policy. If it's some person on the internet mouthing off, that's one thing. When it enters into the realm of actual discrimination, "brushing it off" isn't as much of an option.


                        Me personally, I don't give a damn how you change your body. To me that's not automatic grounds to disrespect a person. If you're out there selling yourself on a street corner though, don't expect to get respect. If you're looking for a handout you can expect even less.
                        All well and good. A bit judgmental, perhaps, but...eh, no skin off my neck.

                        Are you suggesting that people who have medical conditions are more deserving of respect than people who put their lives on the line for your right to pursue the choices you ultimately have available to you?
                        No, and in fact, you'll note that passage doesn't even refer to respect. It refers to sympathy, or perhaps more accurately, "not going out of your way to make someone else's life miserable". You said you have a hard time "sympathizing" with these people. I said that they are in a pretty lousy situation through no fault of their own, whereas a profession is a choice. That does not mean that people in difficult professions are not DESERVING of respect or sympathy; it simply means that the comparison you were drawing wasn't especially relevant, and I don't see how sympathy for one group precludes sympathy for another. But hey, whatever.

                        Come on. We all get emotionally scarred in life. How do you think it feels to know that all these creative derogatory terms were thrown at Vietnam veterans when they returned home by the people of the time, but me, I'm only good enough for liberals to throw out those same 30 year old lines. You know how insulting that is? How emotionally traumatic it is? Every time someone calls me a baby killer I die a little inside. I feel like I'm not worth the time or effort for them to come up with a new, original, more appropriate insult. But I don't go crying on the forums that people don't understand me. I don't commit suicide over it. I brush if off because I'm happy with what I am and proud of what I do.
                        Hm. Okay, a few points:
                        1: The actions of other people- Obviously, that sort of thing is extremely inappropriate and, frankly, inexcusable. My question to you is: If someone were making the argument that those people should, I dunno, maybe stop being idiots, would you be so eager to defend them?

                        2: You know, this thread wasn't STARTED as someone "crying that people don't understand our problems". Those "problems" were brought up in response to some fairly ignorant, hateful comments on the original topic. Again, you're creating a straw man here, acting like the entire thread was started as something different than it actually was.

                        3: Great. I'm glad you've got the strength to "brush it off". Some people don't. I'm here, I'm alive, and contrary to how things might seem here, I'm actually reasonably content. That does not mean I'm not allowed to get angry when I see people behaving in a foolish or harmful manner, especially when I know that those actions might negatively impact other people.

                        As you said, my sympathy isn't the answer to your problems. The only problem I cause you is not handing you the money that I work hard for to get your surgery. Your problem is yourself. Your sense of entitlement. Your casting of the blame on everyone else, but not stepping up and addressing the problem yourself. You say other people are responsible for many of these people committing suicide. They don't need sympathy, they need a sense of self-worth.
                        Man, you don't know me. Again, would you please stop assuming things about -me- that you have no business assuming? My sense of entitlement? Please. In case it escaped your notice, I live in the U.S. You think I got a single cent from anyone? You think I expected to?

                        How do -you- know how I handled the problems? How do you know how I "cast the blame"? In fact, no, that's another straw man (a straw-army, at this point). I've not cast the "blame" for the condition on anyone. What I have said is that people behaving like assholes does make things WORSE. How that's a controversial or unusual statement completely escapes me.


                        Umm, I shouldn't? *snip*
                        See above. I've never received a single friggin' cent of tax money for any medical issue, so arguing with ME about it is kind of fruitless. If you're against national healthcare altogether, well, at least you're consistent.

                        Not having a vested interest in the alternatives... *snip*
                        Okay, so first of all, you don't really know, you're just assuming. This is all hypothetical. You...honestly don't see any fallacy in, "Well, I don't know a lot about this topic or have much interest in it, but here is my opinion which should be granted equal weight as those who are more knowledgeable"?

                        Secondly, given that this appears to be a structural issue in the brain, I find it hard to think of solutions that wouldn't involve surgery and/or drugs. I mean, you could IGNORE it, but that doesn't make it go away. Brain surgery? No thanks.

                        Your arguement saying that the rest of the country should pay for medical practicies they don't believe in clearly effects far more people than those who would benefit from the funding. So you're right. Your arguement isn't good enough.
                        Cute, but again, not really relevant. First of all, my argument has ALWAYS been more with the people who insist on denigrating the condition itself, and far less about the national healthcare issue. Secondly, my point was that under a national healthcare system, individuals do not get to pick and choose "approved medical conditions" off of some little checklist. Do Christian Scientists get a total exemption from paying at all, since they wouldn't believe in ANY medical procedure?

                        Look. I'm sure you're a perfectly nice guy. As for your stance on national healthcare, well, whatever. I disagree, but I can understand your perspective.

                        My problem comes in when the rest of your arguments are based on abstracts and hypotheticals, along with a bunch of unfounded assumptions. These do nothing to address the -actual- issue, and they ultimately amount to little more than internet sophistry.

                        Comment


                        • "Caricatures of human beings."
                          Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we all view things slightly differently.

                          Living in a country with both a national health care service and the option of private health care, if my view was one that wished for the continuation of mankind then i would assume i would be quite happy that a percentage of my tax contribution went to furthering the sciences. While new discoveries, theories, therapies, and remedies come and go, i think a society that at least makes efforts to deal with issues that effect the human condition, would be one i saw as progressive and flexable.
                          Ich gehore nicht zur
                          Baader-Meinhof Gruppe.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sanura View Post
                            For the record, and in the interests of full disclosure, I had surgery in 2006. Happy now?
                            Eeewww. No. I take back my question.

                            So um my pre-teen thinks he is an alien in a human body where do I sign up to send him back to space on your buck
                            LOL.this post wins this rdiculus thread.
                            Originally posted by Pkticketsarefun
                            LIFES A BITCH THEN YOU GET PK'd!!!!!
                            Originally posted by Max Powers
                            Once again, as the ole TEC adage goes: When you cannot outsmart a person, complain louder.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Arconn9 View Post
                              Eeewww. No. I take back my question.
                              Heh. Whatever. Again, shine on, you crazy diamond.


                              LOL.this post wins this rdiculus thread.
                              Why, exactly, is this thread "ridiculous"? Or would explaining that be too much trouble?

                              Nice drive-by trolling, though. A for effort.

                              Comment


                              • I know stuff! I know stuff! Honest!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X