[Yatagan]

I view the whole tranny operation as a grotesque perversion of science and ultimately a disservice to these mentally ill individuals. It's ludicrous how we're supposed to believe their cosmetic transformation into a more elaborate transvestite makes them a "woman" and even more so that we're supposed they're already women even before the op.

[Emancipator]

(06-17-2014 09:50 PM)agentaika Wrote:  

I was tempted to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal the other day. It's one of the last major newspapers that cares more about the truth than political correctness.

This site claims to have posted the entire article.
http://genderidentitywatch.com/2014/06/1...chugh-usa/

Copy paste just in case the WSJ submits a C+D to that website:



"The government and media alliance advancing the transgender cause has gone into overdrive in recent weeks. On May 30, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services review board ruled that Medicare can pay for the "reassignment" surgery sought by the transgendered—those who say that they don't identify with their biological sex. Earlier last month Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that he was "open" to lifting a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. Time magazine, seeing the trend, ran a cover story for its June 9 issue called "The Transgender Tipping Point: America's next civil rights frontier."

Yet policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention. This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken—it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.

The transgendered suffer a disorder of "assumption" like those in other disorders familiar to psychiatrists. With the transgendered, the disordered assumption is that the individual differs from what seems given in nature—namely one's maleness or femaleness. Other kinds of disordered assumptions are held by those who suffer from anorexia and bulimia nervosa, where the assumption that departs from physical reality is the belief by the dangerously thin that they are overweight.

Enlarge Image

A man who looks into the mirror and sees himself as a woman Getty Images
With body dysmorphic disorder, an often socially crippling condition, the individual is consumed by the assumption "I'm ugly." These disorders occur in subjects who have come to believe that some of their psycho-social conflicts or problems will be resolved if they can change the way that they appear to others. Such ideas work like ruling passions in their subjects' minds and tend to be accompanied by a solipsistic argument.

For the transgendered, this argument holds that one's feeling of "gender" is a conscious, subjective sense that, being in one's mind, cannot be questioned by others. The individual often seeks not just society's tolerance of this "personal truth" but affirmation of it. Here rests the support for "transgender equality," the demands for government payment for medical and surgical treatments, and for access to all sex-based public roles and privileges.

With this argument, advocates for the transgendered have persuaded several states—including California, New Jersey and Massachusetts—to pass laws barring psychiatrists, even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor. That government can intrude into parents' rights to seek help in guiding their children indicates how powerful these advocates have become.

How to respond? Psychiatrists obviously must challenge the solipsistic concept that what is in the mind cannot be questioned. Disorders of consciousness, after all, represent psychiatry's domain; declaring them off-limits would eliminate the field. Many will recall how, in the 1990s, an accusation of parental sex abuse of children was deemed unquestionable by the solipsists of the "recovered memory" craze.

You won't hear it from those championing transgender equality, but controlled and follow-up studies reveal fundamental problems with this movement. When children who reported transgender feelings were tracked without medical or surgical treatment at both Vanderbilt University and London's Portman Clinic, 70%-80% of them spontaneously lost those feelings. Some 25% did have persisting feelings; what differentiates those individuals remains to be discerned.

We at Johns Hopkins University—which in the 1960s was the first American medical center to venture into "sex-reassignment surgery"—launched a study in the 1970s comparing the outcomes of transgendered people who had the surgery with the outcomes of those who did not. Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as "satisfied" by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn't have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a "satisfied" but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.

It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.

There are subgroups of the transgendered, and for none does "reassignment" seem apt. One group includes male prisoners like Pvt. Bradley Manning, the convicted national-security leaker who now wishes to be called Chelsea. Facing long sentences and the rigors of a men's prison, they have an obvious motive for wanting to change their sex and hence their prison. Given that they committed their crimes as males, they should be punished as such; after serving their time, they will be free to reconsider their gender.

Another subgroup consists of young men and women susceptible to suggestion from "everything is normal" sex education, amplified by Internet chat groups. These are the transgender subjects most like anorexia nervosa patients: They become persuaded that seeking a drastic physical change will banish their psycho-social problems. "Diversity" counselors in their schools, rather like cult leaders, may encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery. Treatments here must begin with removing the young person from the suggestive environment and offering a counter-message in family therapy.

Then there is the subgroup of very young, often prepubescent children who notice distinct sex roles in the culture and, exploring how they fit in, begin imitating the opposite sex. Misguided doctors at medical centers including Boston's Children's Hospital have begun trying to treat this behavior by administering puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous—even though the drugs stunt the children's growth and risk causing sterility. Given that close to 80% of such children would abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated, these medical interventions come close to child abuse. A better way to help these children: with devoted parenting.

At the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered. "Sex change" is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.

Dr. McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, is the author of "Try to Remember: Psychiatry's Clash Over Meaning, Memory, and Mind" (Dana Press, 2008)."

[Libertas]

You know, I saw this discussion the other day and the comments section was absolutely hilarious. It consisted of two cancers on society: trannies and feminists, fighting tooth and nail with one another.

Of course this isn't surprising. The existence of transgender people is an extreme stake to the heart of the foundations of modern feminism: namely that "gender" is entirely a social construct. If some people can be born with brain structures that are more emblematic of the opposite sex (the possibility of which I don't dispute, however it doesn't change that most trannies are just mentally ill as the findings suggest), it would show that there are at least some biological differences between the sexes, a possibility that feminists absolutely hate.

So the "LGBT" movement and feminism is actually an uneasy alliance, and with the rise of the former the latter is in some way threatened.

This is only a good thing, gentlemen. Let us encourage the great Cultural Marxist civil war that is potentially brewing and move in to take every advantage we can.

[soup]

I'm trying to understand the tranny thing.

Imagine how much it would suck if you woke up tomorrow in a woman's body. At first it would be funny, but if you found out you were stuck like that.. sounds like hell.

Apparently that's what it's like for them. I was talking to a friend of mine who is a psychiatrist and he told me that trannies have secondary sexual characteristics that develop in contradiction to their first ones. He went on to say that a lot of them become suicidal over this and it's apparently a real problem for them.

If someone is willing to go to such great lengths and are even willing to go get their dick cut-off, maybe it is a real problem.

I wonder if anyone has tried to develop a pill that could help them deal with this instead of surgery.

[AnonymousBosch]

(06-18-2014 04:08 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  

Gay men need to distance themselves from trannies and lesbians. The whole LGBT alliance doesn't make any sense.

Of course it makes sense: it's women, as always, controlling men to extract resources and achieve power.

Gay men would be an enormous threat if they were free to live their own lives unconcerned with what women wanted, therefore, they must be tamed and controlled by them to be of any use.

All the gay guys I've worked with have loathed women, but perform like good little clowns to gain narcissistic supply from them - especially as it's far easier to extract from easily-amused women than straight men, who have little time and patience for entertaining faggotry.

[agentaika]

(06-19-2014 12:46 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

The existence of transgender people is an extreme stake to the heart of the foundations of modern feminism: namely that "gender" is entirely a social construct. If some people can be born with brain structures that are more emblematic of the opposite sex (the possibility of which I don't dispute, however it doesn't change that most trannies are just mentally ill as the findings suggest), it would show that there are at least some biological differences between the sexes, a possibility that feminists absolutely hate.

It would be nice if it were playing out that way, but it's not. Trannies are actually on the side of the social constructionists and want to eliminate concrete gender and sex classifications. Like a lot of feminists, they hate science.

(06-19-2014 04:09 PM)soup Wrote:  

If someone is willing to go to such great lengths and are even willing to go get their dick cut-off, maybe it is a real problem.

It's absolutely a real problem, but anyone who tries to label it as a psychological disorder gets attacked by a pack of angry liberals. This condition can't get the medical research it needs, trannies can't get the medical attention they need, and everything is being fucked (ex. science, schools, etc) because of political correctness. It's utter insanity.

[soup]

I think there needs to be a distinction made between people who are actually suffering from this issue and the army of attention whores who think it's cool or fashionable to say they are trans or whatever while not passing the requirents of being diagnosed withe condition.

[ddjembe mutombo]

(06-19-2014 05:06 PM)soup Wrote:  

I think there needs to be a distinction made between people who are actually suffering from this issue and the army of attention whores who think it's cool or fashionable to say they are trans or whatever while not passing the requirents of being diagnosed withe condition.

I think we need to focus in on the people that are fighting for the transgendered people. The vast majority of them are just like the people fighting against the Redskins franchise and the use of the word "retarded". These are just people without enough problems in their life. When was the last time you saw someone on unemployment checks picketing or rallying? It's just a bunch of people with M.A. degrees that think they know it all. None of them ever stop to think that the majority of life's variables are dependent, and that adjusting just one thing causes a ripple effect. They never even stop to think if the people they are fighting for are mentally ill. They are just like the people that vote in elections only based on the party, and not based on what the candidate is preaching.

[soup]

(06-19-2014 05:52 PM)ddjembe mutombo Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 05:06 PM)soup Wrote:  

I think there needs to be a distinction made between people who are actually suffering from this issue and the army of attention whores who think it's cool or fashionable to say they are trans or whatever while not passing the requirents of being diagnosed withe condition.

I think we need to focus in on the people that are fighting for the transgendered people. The vast majority of them are just like the people fighting against the Redskins franchise and the use of the word "retarded". These are just people without enough problems in their life. When was the last time you saw someone on unemployment checks picketing or rallying? It's just a bunch of people with M.A. degrees that think they know it all. None of them ever stop to think that the majority of life's variables are dependent, and that adjusting just one thing causes a ripple effect. They never even stop to think if the people they are fighting for are mentally ill. They are just like the people that vote in elections only based on the party, and not based on what the candidate is preaching.

I can't make any guesses about why people become social justice warriors. I'd bet a lot of what you say is true. My hunch is that at least of some of them do feel very strong sympathies for their causes even though they aren't directly affected by the action.

The more I find out about these issues, the more complicated I realize they are, and the more I realize I'm that I'm not an expert and that I can't make bold super bold claims about what is or isn't the right thing to do.

I do believe that there is zeit geist right now of people trying to silence anything they believe is opposite of what there belief system is.. and that to me is dangerous.

[Akula]

^^^ in my experience a lot of these social justice people do it for money or fame or just to act superior. Not exactly altruistic motivations.

Have particularly seen the money aspect of it in the international development sphere. Also exists in the non-profit space bigtime.

Generally I'd say the 'white knighting' of all kinds is at stratospheric levels now in the US and it usually pays to do it (and it just makes people look and feel good too - at least in the eyes of the 'community', corporate world and mainstream media).

That said there are still plenty of people doing this out of true selflessness, but probably a lot less than before given how values have generally gone down the toilet.

[soup]

(06-19-2014 06:45 PM)Akula Wrote:  

^^^ in my experience a lot of these social justice people do it for money or fame or just to act superior. Not exactly altruistic motivations.

Have particularly seen the money aspect of it in the international development sphere. Also exists in the non-profit space bigtime.

Generally I'd say the 'white knighting' of all kinds is at stratospheric levels now in the US and it usually pays to do it (and it just makes people look and feel good too - at least in the eyes of the 'community', corporate world and mainstream media).

That said there are still plenty of people doing this out of true selflessness, but probably a lot less than before given how values have generally gone down the toilet.

I think a lot of people are feeling a lack of connection to anything that feels real, so they go out and try to connect with something that they think is going to give their lives some meaning. This is true for all sides of the issues.

I think this is at the root of a lot of the world's problems.

[The Reactionary Tree]

People become SJWs because they are unable to gain status in any other arena in life. They can't hack it. They're losers seeking validation. Since we celebrate victimhood, they will be congratulated & praised as a hero for being a weirdo.

[Feisbook Control]

(06-19-2014 07:01 PM)objectivist tree Wrote:  

People become SJWs because they are unable to gain status in any other arena in life. They can't hack it. They're losers seeking validation. Since we celebrate victimhood, they will be congratulated & praised as a hero for being a weirdo.

I don't think it's quite that they're losers. Most of them are (because by definition, only a few can be winners), but that's not the whole picture. Status games in any society are often quite arbitrary. That's not the point. Once you realise that it's a game, then it makes more sense. You might look at the rules of Monopoly and think a particular rule is stupid (and so have "house rules"), or you might introduce wild cards into a card game, etc. It doesn't actually matter what the rules (or variations) are, so long as everyone agrees to them and wants to play the game. Lots of people want to play the game. Only a few can win at the game, but many more think they can win at the game, and that's what allows the game to be played.

As mistaken as most of them are, SJWs obviously think they stand to gain something from the game or they wouldn't play, and that drives the game. The only thing worse than being a loser in the game is not playing the game at all (of course, we don't think that, but they do) because then you're a confirmed loser who has given up.

[AnonymousBosch]

Social concern is what women from upper-class privileged backgrounds have always done in society.

There seems to be a multi-generational cycle between Puritanism and Hedonism that seems driven by upper class women, particularly those who are socially-dysfunctional, but there's got to be some third factor I haven't identified yet.

In the 1950's, it was the Country Women's Association. The Temperance Movement in the early part of last century. The Women's Suffrage Movement in the late Victorian Period. All the concerns of the Upper Class.

I don't see what is currently-happening with women's sexuality as Hedonism, but a new form of Puritanism, where women are trying to inflict punishment on themselves for their sexual desire by seeking out men incapable of offering commitment who can offer degradation. Hence, guilty feelings resulting in 'dirtiness'; regret mutating into 'rape'; and fallen women normalising casual sex and disease so everyone is similarly-'punished' the way they are.

Hence, irresponsible articles like 'Herpes Is So Whatevez' by Jezebel, or 'The 20's are your time for fucking strangers' by every feminist. "Join us. Be punished for your sins!"

Here's some bios of Victorian Era Social Activists, all of whom had power to change things at times when it supposedly didn't exist. I've highlighted all privilege, parallel concerns and sexual dysfunction. Sound familiar?

Quote:

Margaret Georgina Todd (1859-1918) was born into a stridently religious and wealthy Glaswegian family. She became a medical doctor in 1894 and practised at the Edinburgh Hospital and Dispensary for Women and Children, and she lived with Sophia Jex-Blake as her companion and virtual disciple for 25 years. She committed suicide in 1918, six years after Jex-Blake’s death and a few months after seeing her biography of Jex-Blake in print..

Quote:

Mary Eleanor Benson (1863–90) was the daughter of E W Benson, Archbishop of Canterbury, and a social work activist whose writing and direct action during her short life contributed indirectly to the professionalization of social work in London. She read Modern Languages at Oxford and published essays on literature and history in addition to her work among the poor. She belonged to a fascinating and what would become an extensively documented household that seems to have been an unusual instance of a large Victorian family in which the matriarch as well as virtually all the siblings were devoted to passionate same-sex relationships.

Quote:

HOPKINS, JANE ELLICE (1836-1904), social reformer, born at Cambridge on 30 Oct. 1836, was younger daughter of William Hopkins [q. v.], mathematician and geologist, by his second wife, Caroline Boys.

She was a social purity campaigner who campaigned against the sexual double standard and fought to end the trade of prostitution that for her rivaled the sanction of African slavery as a national disgrace.

In 1888 failure of health compelled her active work to cease. During illness she wrote 'The Power of Womanhood; or Mothers and Sons' (1899)...

Quote:

Caroline Norton 1808-1877 was born in London, England to Thomas Sheridan and Caroline Henrietta Callander. Her father was an actor, soldier, and colonial administrator, and the son of the prominent Irish playwright and Whig statesman Richard Brinsley Sheridan. Her mother was Scottish, the daughter of a landed gentleman, Col. Sir James Callander of Craigforth and Lady Elizabeth MacDonnell, the sister of an Irish peer, the 1st Marquess of Antrim.

[Her] actions led to the passage of laws aimed at equalizing the rights of men and women in marriage. After Norton left an unhappy marriage, her husband denied her parental access and attempted to render his wife penniless. Norton launched a pamphlet and lobbying campaign to change the law. The result was the passage of the Infant Custody Act (1839), which secured mothers custody of their young children. In the 1840s and 50s, her husband’s attempt under the law to reduce his payments to her and to take over her inheritance erupted in another scandalous court case that led her to tackle the law’s denial of women’s property rights. Her pamphlet campaign was influential in the securing passage of the Matrimonial Causes Act (1857).

It's just one big cycle. Same old, same old.