Just realized I cross-posted with Post 534 - same article.
Yes, and op-ed piece from the former chair of Psychiatry of John Hopkins who has major input in the DSM-V of the American Psychiatric Association. Hint - he backed by many.
And Johns Hopkins stopped the sex-reassignemnt surgery for the very reasons cited in the op-ed piece - so it is much more than editorializing a position!
Here is another link to an article that covers McHugh, which has the same quotes etc.
(Emphasis mine)
Solely an ideological position. No science at all contained in this post.
Well consider the science of evolution @awcntdb. Have human beings stopped evolving or do we continue to evolve? Could the trans phenomenon not be part of human evolution? Perhaps 8 million years from now we will be one sex capable of reproduction or perhaps a third sex is evolving. Isn’t “change the one constant?”
There are many examples in nature of non-binary species.
But humans aren’t one of them. Were are EXPLICITLY binary-- needing a half complement of DNA from one male & one female to propagate. Even gay couples need to enlist an opposite sex participant if they want to procreate.
I don’t see us propagating like yeast cells, any time soon.
I don’t believe it’s as black and white as some would insist. There are people who are born with xx chromosomes, xy chromosomes, xxy, xyy, etc. Some people are born with BOTH sets of sex organs. For example, they could have external male genitalia and also internally have a uterus. I’ve read of females who were found to have undescended testes. There are all kinds of variations, both chromosomally and with regard to sex organs. I think there is much we still don’t know about all this…
Let’s not get sidetracked by anorexia or anything else irrelevant.
These are genetic defects, like Down Syndrome.
I remember reading this several years ago, it was striking. Especially the woman’s desire to have been left physically alone, “ambiguous genitalia” and all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/magazine/24intersexkids.html?fta=y&_r=0
Well biologists disagree. They conclude that the idea of “two sexes is simplistic… there is s wider spectrum than that.”
http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943#/spectrum
And even if one did hold the view that humans are “explicitly binary” do you have a crystal ball that tells you how the human race is evolving? Is the sex or gender of human beings the one thing in the universe that is immutable?
From page 4 of the article I posted:
Emphasis mine with the all caps. Sorry, I haven’t figured out bold or italics.
Aw c’mon @HarvestMoon1…
Are you seriously going to debate that sexual reproduction hasn’t been around for 1.2 billion years and that humans haven’t been propagating that way since they ultimately evolved from Mesozoic protomammals?
And some of us in this thread are being critcized for offering unlikely hypothetical situations. I don’t see us evolving to non-binary sexual reproduction within the time frame of the next millennium.
And are you seriously going to argue that you know how the human race is evolving??? For how many thousands of years did people believe the world was flat?
Of course I can’t predict to what end the human race is evolving. But I do know that legislation is geared towards adressing the human species TODAY, and not geared towards addressing possible human evolutionary ‘what-ifs’ a 1 million years from now or after a chemical/nuclear mutation-inducing accident.
@greenwitch, it’s similar to how you do quotes. For bold, surround desired text with bracket and capital B, and the same but slash before second B. Same for italics only you use I in the brackets.
I actually tend to agree with this statement, but here is the problem with trying to do that in terms of what some posters are posting.
Anorexia and similar conditions cannot be irrelevant if some posters are adamant that transgender is a normal condition that should be codified by law and taught to kids as normal because there is an accepted, known scientific basis for this behavior, and yet, in the same instance, have said behavior present and mimic the same psychological pathology as other known disorders that we do not make laws to normalize, but instead treat via various methods.
You cannot have it both ways and think that people will take you seriously. It is logically impossible to have a discussion under these terms when two identical scientific pathways, whose courses run along predictable behavioral paths, are treated as if they are wholly different. That is scientifically incongruent.
The conditions may present different symptomatically, but caused by the same fundamental pathological mechanism. Symptomatic difference DOES NOT mean underlying scientific difference. It would be like telling people all cancers are really different. No, all cancers stem from the same fundamental problem - the inability to control and to limit growth of cells; however, there are different types of cancer because there are different types of cells and within each cell type population different stages of maturity between cells.
I am wiling to drop this science talk if posters stop posting they know that hard science exists to support transgender behavior as a normal condition and the scientific community backs this approach to declare normalcy. But, we already know that is not the case, 20X higher suicide rate even in the most affirming transgender communities tells the macro story that something is not normal because even being highly and positively affirmed does not drop the suicide rate.
OK, back to the NC law stuff - I think Momof3 nailed it - it will come down to expectation of privacy and what society sees as the “right” of others (particularly female minors and adults, but applies to boys and men as well) who sees them nude and, in turn, who gets to be nude with them, all without needing permission.
As of today though, I, as a man, need permission to just go into a female locker room and disrobe and start showering with the females in their communal shower. Transgenders want to change this. That is the issue.
But here’s the thing @GMTplus7, when you open your mind to considering possibilities other than what you “know” or what is “familiar,” you might draw very different conclusions. Unlike what some are positing in this thread, the trans phenomenon could very well be a very natural occurrence unfolding in accordance with something humans do not control.
I think considering such possibilities changes one’s approach. It doesn’t solve the legislative issues confronting us but it softens the edges of all the judgment and makes the possibility of accommodation and acceptance more likely.
Yes, on all counts.
However, purely questions for a philosophy class where it stays relegated to a discussion, not to aspects of society and governance. Why? Because evolution is only something that can be confirmed and known to have occurred in multi-generational hindsight. Evolution is science history, not present day observable, governing facts.
For contrast, current HIV and cancer research are governing facts because we can see the results in real time, meaning in our life times and adjust accordingly.
Therefore, my answer is, “Sure you might be correct in terms of the evolution aspect, but you could also be horribly wrong.” An unknown condition is not any basis to make gross societal changes.
This really is a misnomer leading to a false conclusion.
Aberrations are normal occurrences, but normal occurrences does not equate to optimal and surely does not equate to something that should be replicated. Cancer is a normal aberration - we all have 10 - 20,000 cancerous cells in our bodies right now. Fortunately, our immune system is effective in clearing them. We do not try to normal that aberration though.
If this is so prevalent to normalcy, then just get it over with and disprove the pathology as expressed by DSM-V and others. If it is so scientifically-based, then show the science facts that can be replicated and validated, not just one or two studies that have limited peer review.
Basically, show the hard, validated science before changing laws and telling people something is normal that may in the end not be normal at all.
Playing with societal structure on a conjecture just seems very anti-intellectual and irresponsible, in my view.
OK so it’s acceptable for you to opine that it is “not normal” and it “mimics the same psychological pathology as other known disorders” but not acceptable for me to suggest that perhaps it is a “natural” occurrence unfolding in accordance with nature’s plan.
We don’t need to have scientific proof of anything before making laws. And is your conjecture more worthy of basing laws on than mine? I think what people really have a problem with is change. Societal norms, especially with regard to sex and modesty are changing, and people don’t like it.
Awccntdb…an interesting position I had not thought of before.