I never quite understood the hatred for Tim Tebow.
And while I don’t much care one way or the other about gender reassignment surgery – I’m going to plead the classic libertarian “it’s their business, not mine” – I’m not really sure I understand the enraptured love of Caitlin “Chris” Jenner, either.
And I still don’t.
Although if that’s what it took to get away from the Kardashians, I’m certainly not going to second-guess him.
by
Tags:
Jenner has not had sex reassignment surgery, nor does he plan to have sex reassignment surgery. Jenner is a man in a dress. If you call him a “man in a dress” you will be subject to persecution.
It is not libertarian to force people to call you whatever you happen to identirfy yourself as at the moment.
I’m wondering if the whole darn thing with Jenner isn’t a giant hoax?
So the question is…..if Barney Frank sucks on Ms. (sic) Jenner’s dude, does that mean Barney is straight? MSM says Jenner is a she, so technically then it wouldn’t be a gay thing. (discloser…for those that read Atlhouse, poster “Laslo” posted a rather funny thing about this yesterday)
Scott…..you have to wonder. The Kardashians are great marketers. They have become incredibly rich by doing nothing except create a media frenzy. Back when Paris Hilton was big……read a column where the guy said she is as good a businessperson as the original hotelier. That her whole persona was just an act. Instead of creating a hotel chain, she created an entertainment celebrity and built a business plan around it.
He is not a hero. He is a confused man looking for clues. He gets no admiration from me. Only pity.
[…] Of A Scandal – Planned Parenthood Apologizes For “Tone” Shot In The Dark: Disproportionate STUMP: Deal Or No Deal – Wrangling In Chicago The Gateway Pundit: Guns Pulled On Confederate […]
Right now, Jenner is a man in a dress.
If he gets his Johnson hacked off, he’ll be a man without a Johnson, in a dress. If he gets boobs sewn on, he’ll be a man without a Johnson, with a boob job, in a dress.
Technically he’d be a castrated man with a mutilated Johnson affixed to his make believe vajayjay,, but whatever. Mr. Jenner is a very, very confused man. The Monty Python “Mouse Problem” and “Lumberjack song” skits come to mind.
Tweety, LOVE your take, that’s kind of where my thoughts were going. Next we may see errrrr him/her in the tabloids out on the town romantically dining with errrrr her/him “Chase” Bono!
The mistakes nature makes, man needs to correct.
Nature cruelly locked all that wonderful coal, oil, and natural gas deep underground. Thanks to science, we are able to liberate it, use it to replace the drudgery of labor, and raise our atmospheric CO2 to the point where life, animal and vegetable, may thrive.
Will more girls (and boys) born this year forward be named Kaitlin, or fewer.
There are no “boys” and “girls” in the Brave New World. DMA. There are only unitrons, which may be immature, mature, or post-mature.
1. the two things compared here are a false equivalency. Religion is not sexual orientation; religion really is a choice, the other is biologically innate, a condition of birth, frequently the result of extra chromosomes, such as trisomy or tetrasomy — for example, a man might be born with one y chromosme, but three x chromosomes, creating a genetic problem with physical gender and sexual orientation. There is nearly always an endocrine difference as well. Then there are conditions such as androgen insensitivity syndrome, another common condition where there is some form of gender reassignment due to errors made in correctly assigning gender at birth. That’s why endocrinologists are studying why transgender people exist – and they really DO exist, it is not a ‘whim’. Here is an example of that kind of research which is behind the medical reality of people like Jenner:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/12935/title/Reevaluating-Sex-Reassignment/
“William Reiner, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and urologist at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, reported the studies at the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society meeting in Boston on May 12, 2000. “These children demonstrate that normal male gender identity can develop not only in the absence of the penis, but even after the removal of the testicles and unequivocal rearing as female. The studies suggest that male gender identity is directly related to normal male patterns of hormone exposure in utero,” he says. The investigations began in 1995.”
There are similar indicators with adults – you know what gender you really are, regardless of the existence OR ABSENCE – of penis and testicles.
or this one about research at Boston University School of Medicine:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150213112317.htm
Disorders of gender identity affect as many as 1 in 100 people. Transgender individuals are those who identify with a gender that differs from their natal sex. Different etiologies have been suggested as the cause of transgender identify however none have been proven definitively.
The researchers conducted a literature search and reviewed articles that showed positive biologic bases for gender identity. These included disorders of sexual development, such as penile agenesis, neuroanatomical differences, such as grey and white matter studies, and steroid hormone genetics, such as genes associated with sex hormone receptors. They conclude that current data suggests a biological etiology for transgender identity.
“This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the scientific evidence that gender identity is a biological phenomenon,” explains corresponding author Joshua D. Safer, MD, FACP. “As such it provides one of the most convincing arguments to date for all medical providers to gain the transgender medicine skills necessary to provide good care for these individuals,” he added.
Conservatives consistently appear to have simplistic and exaggerated notions about what defines gender, and frequently just plain factually inaccurate understanding about sexuality and sexual orientation.
Jenner is NOT ‘a man in a dress’; you operate on a false definition of gender regarding transgender people. That is conservative ignorance and science illiteracy.
(Must be that rotten factually inaccurate abstinence only sex ed you like so much.)
With or without surgery, so long as Jenner has been receiving hormonal therapy for a considerable period of time, and has undergone extensive changes such as developing female-like breasts, she is properly identified as female, even before or without having further gender reassignment surgery than the surgery she has undergone so far. That castration and penectomy surgery (the technical terms) does NOT in fact significantly alter one’s gender identity is just one of the things you lot get wrong.
Just like you, Prussian Blue, get the whole notion of life thriving through fossil fuel use wrong. The science says otherwise. Even the fossil fuel industry has known otherwise for a very long time. More conservative ignorance and science illiteracy. It is sad really that you lot fall for rubbish like the misreported crap there will be a mini-ice age in 2030. The Welsh scientific announcement on which that crap was based stated that there will be a similar solar pattern in 2030 to one that coincided with an event in the middle ages when there was a very localized cold period – not really an ice age, called the Maunder Minimum. However no scientist stated that would result in another mini-ice age, and the cooling period from 1645 – 1715 is correctly attributed to volcanic activity, not the sunspot phenomenon. Rather we are rapidly heading toward much more serious warming complications.
Do you lot EVER read or listen to anything of substance or are you just sucking down the crap propaganda misinformation as fast as you can choke it down?
2. Prussian blue et al – a more nuanced and biologically accurate understanding and definition of gender and sexual orientation is not the alternative to boys and girls. It is rather a more accurate definition of boys and girls.
And that redefinition is a GOOD thing. It means now everyone, male and female, can pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It means women who are still emphatically female can now be fighter pilots and command combat wings in our air force, based on merit and ability, not a false limitation. And she can also be a happily married MOM at the same time.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/31/first-female-fighter-pilot-becomes-first-female-wing-commander/
“Leavitt has logged more than 2,500 hours in the F-15 Strike Eagle, including 300 hours flying in combat primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan.
…The seasoned pilot is married to another Air Force colonel and they have two children. She entered the Air Force in 1992 through ROTC after earning a degree in aerospace engineering at the University of Texas. Since then, Leavitt added four master’s degrees to her educational credentials and a number of military medals, such as a Bronze Star.”
Your traditional views gentlemen are faulty, bad, and just plain wrong. Try joining the rest of us in the 21st century, and leave the dark ages behind. You remember the dark ages? Back when men wore “dresses” as well as shiny armor? Or do you need links to paintings from the era?
More hate from Dog Gone, as well as the “you’re on the wrong side of history” meme that socialists have used to justify murder for more than a century.
Um, what on earth do women in combat have to do with gender dysphoria, or liberal hysteria regarding Tim Tebow? Would it be too hard to say something perhaps….tangentially appropriate, DogGone?
Here’s an article about the subject. Paul McHugh, a psychiatrist from Johns Hopkins, notes that the data indicate that surgery isn’t the answer.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120
Again, regarding Mr. Jenner, it’s a disorder, not a reality which ought to be accomodated.
Looks like DG has had her meds tonight…delusional, but calm.
Either that, or she’s been tearing the heads off dolls…hard to be sure.
Does this mean Marcus Bachmann will have to develop a new business model? Praying gay away is proving to be the old model.
What convinced the APA to change the DMS to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder? Was it science?
No.
It was physical intimidation and threats of blackmail, carried by gay activists. This isn’t hidden or secret knowledge, it’s easily discovered by looking at the literature written at the time, by the gay activists themselves.
Not one in a thousand Leftists will acknowledge this, although it is plainly the truth.
Do you think that Jenner’s psychologist will have to find a new business model, Emery? Never forget that the word “modern” just means “the way we do things now.”
Maybe DG was trying to be a man, but the cut-rate, Mexican surgeon took “remove her boob” literally and cut her brain out.
You’re exactly right, Blue.
In the 70’s homo psychologists infiltrated the APA, and began a converted program of harassment upon other board members.
http://www.psychiatricnews.org/pnews/98-07-17/dsm.html
What the Glerbal Werming scam did for climatology, homos did for psychology.
concerted program
Praying the gay away didn’t keep daddy out of your room, did it Emery?
So sorry, old sod.
DG-I believe if Mr./Ms. Jenner committed a crime and left DNA evidence, it would show up as a male. “Sad you fall for that rubbish that there will be a mini-ice age in 2030.” Really? Then why would you fall for that “rubbish”
that said Arctic ice would be gone by now, that there’d be 50 million climate refugees, that England wouldn’t see snow, that the S.W. is in a permanent drought ( until it’s not), that the heat that isn’t happening is hiding in the oceans, that there’d be hurricanes greater in number and intensity (until the opposite happened- less in number and intensity), that there’d be more tornadoes (till there wasn’t) and that whatever happens is caused by GW, except that it’s not warming? And I always love when climate astrologers proclaim “it’s rapidly warming.” Rapidly compared to what? The temperature records of the kind to say the “hottest” or “coldest” only go back to 1850 or so one is only looking at about 165 years of records. Climate change of course goes back 4 billion years- years that we have no comparable records for, so how could it be “rapid warming”, when the only comparison you have is to itself? By the way, even if it is warming, it proves nothing as to the cause of such warming, which is the whole dilemma.
This is a fascinating bit of snark:
“Praying gay away is proving to be the old model.”
Yet “gay” is a behavior, as much as being a rock star is a behavior or being a sports fan is a behavior. I know a person — a Catholic priest — who swears that he prayed away his addiction to booze. I imagine there are thousands or hundreds of thousands like him. AA’s twelve step program is very successful, and it requires that people practicing put their burdens on a higher power.
Many people are terrible at heterosexual relationships. They cheat on their spouse, or they engage in serial sexual encounters with strangers, or they physically abuse their partners, or they otherwise exploit them. Would it be wrong if they tried to pray the behavior that they themselves objected to away?
I am awaiting your considered reply.
Tom, you seem to have a recurring theme with fathers. Is this a result from your lack of a strong, positive male role model in your youth? Did your father have one too many ‘pops’ before he came home to the family? Was dear ole dad a mean drunk Tom? We’re all friends here Tom, you can share, perhaps it may be a cathartic release.
Prussian Blue, I believe you would be wrong about DNA evidence. You are not privy to that information in any case, and the accumulated academic research of the medical world says otherwise. Gender reassignment is not typically approved by the psychological and medical community without a better foundation for it than you assert.
Just as unprecedented extinction of plant and animal species in our world of using fossil fuels gives the lie to your premise of thriving. I would bet that when you made your statement about that, you had no idea if it was factual or not, and had never bothered to look it up one way or the other.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Rate-of-Extinction-3-Species-per-Hour-55411.shtml
For bikebubba, since you fail to grasp concepts here — Tebow promotes in an offensive way an ugly form of intolerant fundamentalism . It is an actual belief and a choice, where gender is not. FALSE EQUIVALENCY. Tebow is free to endorse whatever religious beliefs he likes; and other people are free to disagree with it.
This differs from belief, or anyone else being entitled to approve of someone’s gender, which is innate, how they were born, and NOT a behavioral choice.
Gender and sexual orientation are NOT choices, they are innate, and frequently the result of in utero endocrine influences and/or genetic components.
That is the essence of the two science research links I provided. There are many more if you bother to look. (You might want to start with reading up on androgen insensitivity, one of the conditions for which gender reassignment is the medical solution.)
Gender reassignment, whether chemical or surgical, is not performed just because of someone’s whim. Rather the research is showing that consistently when someone seeks such reassignment, it is in fact consistent with a physical reality.
In point of fact there are a lot of quite rigorous physical and ethical criteria that have to be met before any professional or hospital will undertake such treatment.
Conservatives have consistently operated ignorance of fact. For example promoting and funding factually inaccurate abstinence only sex ed, in spite of the strong evidence that it promotes sexually transmitted disease in the absence of factually accurate knowledge, and that it does not in fact result in sexual abstinence, but instead appears to result in unplanned pregnancies and STDs.
Similarly the conservative reliance on traditional gender roles and the ignorance of actual advances in understanding of what gender is and is not – or sexual orientation is and is not – result in failed policy positions — I provided the example of a married mother who is a combat pilot as an example. Conservatives opposed women serving as combat pilots in the military – and have continued to do so, predicting all kinds of terrible outcomes if it occurs. None of those terrible outcomes have happened. Women and the military are doing just fine, and our understanding of what is and is not appropriate for women to do has changed. EXCEPT the understanding of conservatives who don’t get gender, and are stuck in outdated and faulty notions. Case in point:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/26/kristol-conservatives-should-resist-order-allowing-women-in-combat-roles-video/
Given the comments about Jenner being a man in a dress, and the right wing’s faulty and failed understanding of gender and sexual orientation, I could not help but think of all the paintings of manly military men in clothing that sure looks a lot like dresses across history — in contrast to very feminine women in combat gear including pants, like the combat pilot and air wing colonel.
Conservatives have many wonderful qualities – many of them I admire in Mitch for example. But being well informed and being tolerant, and especially being well informed about anything related to sex and sexuality is not among them.
Being on the right side of the arc of history is not among them either.
So, Prussian Blue, and the rest of you, pretty much your position is that you don’t need to know anything about Jenner’s actual medical record, and you don’t need to know anything about the physical science of people who are transgender, and you don’t need to know anything about the most current data on understanding gender and sexual orientation, and you don’t need to know anything about the PROCESS of being approved for the transgender process, which involves multiple testing and evaluations by experts in this area of psychology and medicine.
All you need to do is to see someone on a television screen for a short time, and then you know more than all of those professionals who have dealt with these issues in person over their professional careers. You believe, apparently, that you know better than Jenner who she is and has been for her whole life..
As with so many other topics, you are confident that knowing nothing, you know more and better than the people directly involved. It’s true about Jenner, it is true about other areas like climate change. You rejoice in your imaginary superiority, where you try to celebrate your ignorance as ‘common sense’ or some other euphemism for uninformed.
You know nothing and you apparently resent needing to know anything on topics, wanting a simpler and simplistic world where traditional anything is always right, no matter what the evidence that it is wrong.
And then you are not only willing but enthusiastic to comment in derogatory terms, sometimes in really heinous terms, about how right you are and how wrong everyone who knows something is.
Not because it is true — it is not true that you know better or that you know anything at all on these topics. It is because it makes you feel superior to claim you are somehow wiser. It makes you feel more comfortable to believe that the world is not complex or complicated. It is easier for you not to change or update your ideas.
And rather than deal with the effort that change and updating your knowledge requires you would rather deny others who HAVE done the necessary research and effort to be accurate and current their legitimacy.
If you can fit in a false claim of being a victim — as is the case with Tebow with whom conservatives identify in his anti-gay and other positions that many of you share, then you are happier than a pig in mud, an apt metaphor for your thinking.
My first exposure to an actual case of transgender surgery was working in the insurance industry with a case of medical malpractice filed against the U of MN, back when they had begun to do the gender reassignment surgery, and then stopped doing them because they had concerns about the years long evaluation process and the information they had at the time about things like the endocrinology of the transgender. The science back in the latter 20th century is nowhere near what it is in the 21st. Working with that file gave me an insight into how actual transgender is done. Since then I’ve read quite a lot, from biographies of transgender people – both male to female and female to male, as well as some of the science relating to gender, orientation and development of both humans and animals. So I can actually point to studies done on animal pediatric neutering and what the results are on the adult cat or dog absent any of those hormones during their development (doesn’t affect gender behavior or appearance, but it does tend to result in taller animals with slightly longer legs because of slower growth plate closure without the process of puberty for example) in comparison to adult spay and neuter animals.
I’ve also tracked the conservative slams promoting faulty gender limitations over the decades, from predicting all sorts of things that are false about women in combat, to the slurs against the female court Justices like the claims by arch conservatives like Liddy, Limbaugh and Gingrich, on incapacity to do their jobs due to false and faulty notions about hormones and gender. (I find the claims about the feminizing of boys in our education system to be equally bogus.)
It is worth noting that conservatives appear ONLY to have these concerns about female hormones when it comes to liberal justices, but not to Sandra Day O’Connor, but consistency is not a conservative quality any more than being informed.
“Back in 1995, Newt Gingrich famously concluded menstruation rendered women unfit for combat roles in the military. Now just two days after Gingrich branded Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor “racist,” convicted Watergate felon and right-wing radio host G. Gordon Liddy agreed that both of Newt’s arguments disqualify Sotomayor. Period.”
Successful women in combat and on the bench – like the link I provided, like Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth, like the spectrum of women on the bench of the SCOTUS show us these notions are wrong.
Science research on stress and testosterone now show us that there are some fairly extreme fluctuations in male hormones that affect decision making behavior adversely, particularly risk assessment. I would be surprised if ANY of the commenters here were aware of that research either.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080414_study_testosterone_may_impact_stock_market
“However, if repeated too much, they say, the rising testosterone levels could eventually compromise their ability to make rational decisions, as the traders take bigger and bigger risks during so-called “bubbles”, where the market rises sharply.
Prof Joe Herbert, one of the study’s authors, said: “Our work suggests that these decisions may be biased by emotional and hormonal factors that have not so far been considered in any detail.”
What that study ALSO found was that once that ‘bubble’ broke, that the effects of testosterone on men was to make them excessively and incorrectly TIMID and fearful, noting wild mood swings from too aggressive to too timid as a result of their hormone levels, not rational decision making. Women tested during the same period showed neither extreme swing in stock market trading, (and yest, their hormone levels were tested as part of their study).
So, when ANY of you have a rational basis for your comments, and a logical and more valid comparison than the one Mitch put up here, then and only then do you have a valid point of view. So far, you are just wallowing in ignorance and congratulating each other on sharing that ignorance.
Sorry guys – You DO need to know more than you do. Just having a dick between your legs doesn’t give you a valid opinion on anything, least of all Jenner.
After echoing Tom Tancredo’s slander that the National Council of La Raza to which Sotomayor belongs is a “Latino KKK,” Liddy Thursday recycled Gingrich’s theory of menstrual disqualification:
“Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.”
If that pathetic formula sounds familiar, it should. As the New York Times recounted 14 years ago, Newt suggested menstruation should keep women out of essential roles in the American military, if not off the bench:
From back in 2009:
So many words, so little said, and none of it intelligible. Sad… But par for the course for our dear little DogPile.
your position is that you don’t need to know anything about Jenner’s actual medical record, and you don’t need to know anything about
As always, DG, you’re wrong.
My position is that I find the blind hatred of Tim Tebow as puzzling as I do the treatment of Jenner as a hero. Both of them are utterly bizarre and incomprehensible to me.
The one thing I find any more bizarre and incomprehensible? That you – with a paper-thin base of knowledge beyond what is fed to you by the left fever-swamp echo chamber, absolutely no command of classical logic, and who folds up in a debate like a Walmart end table and has never not been shredded on facts in years of gabbing about at “fact-checking” on this site, still tries to condescend to people in arguments.
It isn’t working, DG!
predicting all sorts of things that are false about women in combat
Tell us about these “successful women in combat”, DG?
The Army just hand-picked 45 women to try out for Ranger school. It’s a tough course; a huge percentage of men wash out.
With the women – all exceptionally fit, all of them at the peak of their game when they started – 100% washed out.
Study after study shows that women in combat arms units where strength and endurance and pain resistance are vital traits – infantry, armor, combat engineers, artillery, special forces – tend to have vastly higher injury rates, and tend to slow their units down. Female infantry can’t carry 100 pound loads without developing stress fractures and knee problems at rates many times higher than men; female tankers can’t lift broken track links as well. The examples go on.
Since you are so given to prattling about science; all other things being equal, a fit man has a vastly higher percent of muscle mass and lower share of body fat than a woman. Their bones are different. Men utilize oxygen much more efficiently than women do – absolutely for endurance. And outside of childbirth – which is as gender-specific as it gets – men are much more resistant to pain. And that’s not even looking into the psychological wiring that evolution has given the genders.
That’s not to say women in combat zones, when faced with the need to defend themselves and their units, don’t do the job; they do. Or that in desperate circumstances – USSR in WW2, Israel from 1948, Kurdistan today – women haven’t performed as well as could be expected. And women in combat roles that don’t involve constant physical stress – pilots, the Navy – women fill lots of roles just fine.
But your “evidence” and “facts” are nonexistent here.
Just having a dick between your legs doesn’t give you a valid opinion on anything…
…she femsplained.
Y’know, DG, whatever your many logical and factual faults, I used to give you points for at least trying to keep it classy.
That went by the boards a couple years ago, didn’t it?
” I believe you would be wrong about DNA evidence. You are not privy to that information in any case, and the accumulated academic research of the medical world says otherwise.”
Well there you have it.
DG’s mental instability has led her to believe she is the Master Of The Universe. All you need to do to change your molecular biology is slip into a Prada evening dress, put on a wig and apply some make up.
We know this is the result of her mental dysfunction, and not just another exhibition of her ignorance because we’ve seen it’s manifestation before. This is Prof. Kreapy claiming that homos can reproduce asexually. This is Rachel Dolezal claiming to be black. This is Fauxcahontas Warren claiming she is Native American. This is ALGORE claiming “Love Story” was written about him and Tipper.
Most leftists are certifiable.
I believe you would be wrong about DNA evidence
DG,
With all due respect, that is the most staggeringly scientifically-ignorant thing you could possibly say.
Gender-reassignment surgery does not change a person’s DNA.
The DNA you’re born with is the DNA you die with.
(And yes – if gender dysphoria were to turn out to be, hypothetically, genetic, then that’d be part of the DNA one was born and died with. But I’m not aware of any credible theories, much less evidence, that it is).
the accumulated academic research of the medical world says otherwise
You’re making this up, DG.
Right now – please show us any evidence, much less an “accumulation” of evidence, that surgery changes DNA.
“With the women – all exceptionally fit, all of them at the peak of their game when they started – 100% washed out.”
Here is DG FACT CHECKING that, Mitch:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/29/article-0-095B1575000005DC-812_468x400.jpg
They look perfectly equal.
Mitch, DG isn’t lying about DNA. This isn’t like her 100K reader claim; she believes this is true.
You’ve noticed her language has gotten incrementally fouler; this isn’t just more evidence of her intellectual inferiority…she’s sick, and getting sicker.
We have noticed her appearances here are becoming more frequent, as well as crazed and vile. That is because she is raving in a vacuum. No one reads her grammatically tortured, laughably misspelled blerg except teh Penigma (or what ever he’s calling himself these days). She is craving an audience…since she can’t attract one, even among her fellow mental defectives, she comes here to assault yours with her insanity.
As a compassionate human being, I’d help her if she reached out, as I’m sure most of the SITD readership would. That’s not likely, so the next best thing to do is to sit back and enjoy the show she is putting on.
Observation: Those who justify their position by the sheer weight and volume of words are those who cannot justify their position.
Unhinged. DG addresses me re: DNA, but I didn’t write anything about DNA. The world was divided into men and women long before anyone had ever heard of DNA. The influence of estrogen and androgen affects men and women all of their lives, in ways that aren’t always obvious. You can’t magically turn a boy into a girl (or the other way around) by hormone treatments. You can’t simply leave the hormones out, either. People who do not get their natural dose of sexual hormones at puberty become freaks; the hormones tell the pituitary to slow the growth of the long bones, without puberty a person grows very tall and their bones become very weak. Pick up a human biology textbook; men have a greater ratio of muscle to fat, and stronger bones than women. The average man, at age 50, has as much physical strength as the average woman at age 20.
There is a wide variation among human beings in the physical expression of their sex, just as their is in their height. We don’t say that people can be anywhere from 24″ tall to 9′ tall, however, because its not useful. A number of people are born truly hermaphroditic or with ambiguous genitalia, but this is an abnormality. Medical intervention is usually required to deal with the physiological issues (not the social issues).
There is no medical test that can determine gender dysphoria. That is why you cannot be certain that Jenner is not pulling an act. There is no objective biological test that can tell the difference between a) a man in a dress and b) a man who sincerely believes he is woman born in a man’s body.
This is mental health issue, not a physical health issue. I resent being “required” by idiots like DG to take part in their insane pantomime.
“Sorry DG – You DO need to know more than you do. Not having a dick between your legs doesn’t give you a valid opinion on anything, least of all Jenner.”
There I fixed it for you. Well not everything, you’ll never be able to adequately compensate for not having a dick.
oh DG, a word to the wise, Meth Does Not Make You Smarter!
No Meth wouldn’t make you smarter. Never tried it. The use of it seems epidemic in redneck conservative areas. Stop projecting your failings onto others.
You know nothing kel about the transgender. It is the hubris of your ignorance that renders your opinion offensively invalid.
In contrast, I do know something more about the transgender. about the science, about the biology, the complexity. I sought out that information before forming an opinion.
But keep up your bigotry — that is, for a working definition, a combination of willful factual ignorance, in this case of the biology of the transgender, and a desire to demean people you do not understand.
That unique bigotry of the hateful and the ignorant is what is going to cost the right the support of younger voters who find it offensive, just as it is going to cost the right most of the votes of women. You have a failed opinion, and it is going to cause your side to LOSE in 2016. As Teabow has discovered, intolerance of the LGBT is unpopular.
Prussian Blue, you posited that if Jenner comitted a crime and left a DNA sample, it would be XY.
One of the many physical causes of someone being incorrectly assigned a gender at birth is trisomy or tetrasomy — extra sex chromosomes that shift the balance of gender from male to female. Ditto androgen insensitivity, where genitalia are not normal. Women are sometimes found actually to be male only when they are more extensively examined medically to discover why they did not start to menstruate, or develop female breasts, only to find testicles inside their abdomen, for example.
As to the number of people who have genital abnormalities – one of the links I posted noted this:
Candidates for sex reassignment aren’t rare. About one in 2,000 births is an “intersex,” a person with ambiguous genitalia, or reproductive structures from both sexes.
As to your other assertion about the genetics, you are STILL wrong:
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-11/discovery-transsexual-gene-raises-more-questions-answers
” researchers based at Australia’s Prince Henry’s Institute this month released the results of the largest ever study of transsexual genetics, which compared the length of the androgen receptor (AR) gene in 112 male-to-female transsexuals and a control group of 250 “normal” men.
The gene—which is known to make circulating testosterone less effective at signaling, circulating, and just generally doing its thing—turned out to be longer in transsexuals. Less-potent testosterone could, in turn, affect the development of the brain in the womb, “under-masculinizing” it and making it more structurally similar to a female brain. So when America’s Next Top Model’s resident transsexual, Isis, says: “I was born physically male, but mentally and everything else, I was born female,” she might be onto something. Someone measure her AR gene, stat!
This new evidence is supported by a few previous studies that have found that male-to-female transsexuals have other biological similarities to women; they tended to have fewer somatostatin (growth regulating) neurons than the average man, for example, and the ratio of their index and ring fingers (also known as 2D:4D, a common proxy for androgen exposure in utero) was higher than it usually is in men, closer to the average female ratio.
To summarize what I stated — there is pretty much routinely some PHYSICAL differences as well as psychological ones present in the transgender that support they have been assigned the wrong gender as children and lived the wrong gender a part of their lives.
And you have demonstrated zero evidence that the transgender fake their gender identities, for any reason. There is no support for that in the transgender population or in the case of Jenner.
You have utterly failed to demonstrate that you can identify, correctly, who is legitimately transgender from a distance and without any specialized medical training or psychological expertise in this area, much less that you do so more accurately than the experts who worked on the transgender case of Jenner with access to psychological and physical testing. You have no VALID basis to assert what is and is not actually in Jenner’s medical files, OR the files of any other transgender person, so your opinion lacks any legitimacy.
And in fact there is an extensive body of evidence that shows the key period involved in situations where gender reassignment is provided, occur not at puberty as you assert, but in utero.
Hey, Prussian Blue – thanks for at least a modicum of substantive discussion. You’re still wrong, but at least you read up on SOMETHING pertinent. A hat tip of respect from me.
Tweety – the Daily Mail is a tabloid that makes up shit, not a valid source. In the UK it is a joke, like the national enquirer has been here overall, or that extinct rag that had the bat boy on the cover and stories about Elvis being alive and working at Burger King.
The reality is that we have plenty of women successful in some combat roles that conservatives tried to keep them out of filling on the basis of a faulty understanding of gender and ability. YOU LOSE. And you conservatives will keep losing women because of it in future elections.
Sorry, Mitch, but you’re wrong about what determines gender. It is not ONLY which chromosomes you have but how they operate – when they turn on and off and how. I suggest you might want to explore the role of endocrine disrupters as it affects gender and gender identity and the science of epigenetics.
Then you anti-regulation of industry conservatives might just want to rethink your position on industry pollution and other regulation as well.
https://genderlines.wordpress.com/tag/endocrine-disruptors/
“Victoria, Australia’s Southern-most state, has seen an almost 100% increase in the number of boys being born according to an Aussie biotech magazine, with genital “abnormalities”, up from one in 230 only five years ago to one in 135 today.
The article goes on to explain how scientists are still uncertain as to how or why this is happening, but in the light of CHEMTrust’s damning report last year, which highlighted huge increases in numbers of intersex animals, I honestly don’t see how this is even still a question.
One of the consequences described in that CHEMTrust report explains how more and more boys are being born with feminised genitalia or acting in a gender-variant or transsexual way, preferring activities and identifying much more with the female sex.”
————
and from the same general source, a useful list of causes of transsexuality and transgenderism, including this bit that is a key physical difference in many of those medically categorized as genuinely transgender:
https://genderlines.wordpress.com/what-causes-gender-variance/
brain structure
Some of the earliest research looking for the causes of transgenderism focussed on the brain structure, and specifically structures within the hypothalamus. This research is ongoing and has arguably given transgender individuals their loudest argument yet for acceptance and legal/medical recognition.
[kruijver, zhou, et al] mtf transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus (2000, free university hospital, amsterdam)
[rosie mestel] brain study focusses on gender identity (oct 2003, l.a.times)
[zhou, gooren and swaab] a sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality (1997, free university hospital, amsterdam)
[zhou, hofman, gooren and swaab] a sex difference in the human brain (1995, nature)
So I would challenge the claim that there is no physical testing used for identifying who is properly transgender in diagnosing gender dysphoria.
From DG’s link:
“Meanwhile, the DSM-IV still lists transsexualism as a psychiatric disorder; transsexual advocacy groups are lobbying to get it removed before the DSM-V is released in 2012, much in the same way that gay rights activists tried to take homosexuality out of the manual (and succeeded) in the ’70s.”
So not only do they admit dropping the homo from the DSM was driven by harassment (as well as some infiltration by homo psychologists), not science, they are hoping to do the same for men who wear dresses.
They have to do that because the science doesn’t back them up. Homosexuality is like alcoholism; a destructive behavior that can be controlled if the sufferer wishes to do so.
And this gem:
“not all of the transsexuals in the Prince Henry’s study possessed a longer AR gene, and not all men with a longer AR gene have gender identity issues, suggesting that multiple distinct genes as well as certain key psychosocial factors are involved in determining whether a boy becomes a man or a woman.”
Right. So all the preceeding mumbo jumbo is pseudo-science to excite the gullible. Raise a young boy in with a bunch of mentally disturbed individuals, and he’ll be wearing a dress too.
I would guess that disapproval of Jenner rises sharply with age. This is critical as a recent Gallup poll showed that fewer than 50% of Republicans consider themselves to be both politically and socially conservative. As baby boomers take over the eldest spots, this trend will continue.
That being said, there is always a couch in the Ladies’ Restroom. Also, that thing on the wall is not a cigar dispenser. ;^)
“Prussian Blue, you posited that if Jenner comitted a crime and left a DNA sample, it would be XY.”
Not me, DG.
Emery wrote:
“I would guess that disapproval of Jenner rises sharply with age.”
Who “disapproves” of Jenner? It’s possible that some person might disapprove of Jenner’s behavior, but in what way does it make sense to “disapprove” of Jenner himself?
As usual, when DG comments it is a target-rich environment.
“Candidates for sex reassignment aren’t rare. About one in 2,000 births is an “intersex,” a person with ambiguous genitalia, or reproductive structures from both sexes.”
One in 2,000 is rare. It is far more rare than Downs syndrome (1/700).
Dog Gone includes links to a number of commercial, pop-science, and opinion sites I did not bother to follow. Dog Gone has consistently demonstrated that she is unable to evaluate sources, a skill that she should have learned as a college freshman, if not as a high school student.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.