Hedwig

I have.

Roland98

Truly shocking.



Shouldn't fixate on feelings? How could you even to that?



Because it isn't considered "abnormal" if little Suzy feels like a girl as she grows up...but it is if little Timmy does. I don't think much about the fact that I'm heterosexual either; or that I'm pretty healthy. We really only think about things like this when they deviate from some "norm."

What does it have to do about acceptance by others? The one I know could care less what others think. It's about being comfortable in your own skin; as I mentioned before, reconciling the external with the internal. I'm sure most know they'll suffer rejection because of their choice; but they also know that this is really the only option for them.

Oh boy. And how is that? Who exactly do they "intimidate," and how?

yguy, you seem to have a lot of opinions about what scientists and psychologists should do--which usually seem to contradict the mainstream. I'm curious what you do for a living--are you actively trying to change this, or just complaining and thinking you know more than people who do this for a living?

I guess those cell cultures must also have a type I personality--because of course, it's possible to replicate cancerous growths in vitro. I've said this before, but it strikes me how much you appear to live in the past. Just because you advocate a debunked theory that science has long since moved past does not make it worthy of discussion--as the "cancer personality" is.

yguy

If you are your feelings, you can't. If you can be objective to your feelings, you can. Obviously this is necessary in some aspects of life, as feelings tend to cloud judgment. I submit that it is more necessary than is commonly believed.

Easy to say if one is part of a subculture which can be expected not to react negatively - sort of like daring God to damn you to Hell when you are utterly convinced that neither exists.

Militant gays did this all the time in the 70's. They would insinuate that those opposed to homosexuality were secretly perverts themselves, knowing intuitively that this would anger people, and that the anger would render those people impotent. I believe the Fred Phelps's of the world are trying to play the same twisted game, to fight fire with fire.

I'm not a scientist, or anything like it. That could mean that I don't know what I'm talking about, but it could also mean that my job isn't dependent on grant money which may dry up if my research comes to unpopular conclusions.

So you think the ability to grow cancer cells in vitro destroys the cancer personality hypothesis? Really?

While a certain theory with the name "cancer personality" may have been debunked, what I have said here has not been. You are certainly old enough by now to know that there are people who are psychic leeches, and that some people harbor repressed hostility. Is it really such a stretch to think either of these phenomena could lead to physical problems?

Roland98

In some parts of life, sure. But this is something that affects every part of their life. How could you even expect them to repress their emotions 24 hours a day, 7 days a weeks? I find it quite cruel to even suggest such a thing.




I'm not quite sure what you're trying to suggest here--can you rephrase?



Perhaps if people didn't get so angry at the thought of being called "gay" they would have no power to begin with--have you considered that? And I strongly disbelieve there is any kind of "transgender conspiracy."

You could've stopped there.



Yep--now you're just making yourself look silly. If those "unpopular conclusions" are validated by others, the scientist has nothing to worry about. Sure, they might face some ridicule at first--but that's happened to many scientists who broke new ground and took research in new directions. And if they can't be, then perhaps he/she wasn't such a great scientist after all.




I think the lack of any evidence whatsoever that the "cancer personality" hypothesis is valid destroys it much more.


Sure, some people harbor repressed hostility--and sure, some people desperately seek approval from others. But yes, I do think it is a stretch to think that these lead to physical problems. If it weren't, it would have been shown in studies by now. At the very most, all that has been shown is a a link between stress and repression of the immune system--and IMO, the research done hasn't shown a strong cause-effect correlation. Rather the opposite has happened--diseases that were thought to be due to emotional problems (e.g., ulcers) have been shown to have much simpler causes--in that case, bacteria. Bacteria and viruses have also recently been associated with several types of cancers--and emotional problems. I see only a very tenuous link between the emotional and physical state.

yguy

So would I, which is why I didn't. With apologies to Lewis Carrol, the question is who is to be master, that's all.

Would all those groupies who get googly-eyed over rock stars be better off looking at their infatuation objectively rather than spreading for them? I think so.

It was easy for white crackers in Alabama to say they didn't care what blacks thought in the days when they had de facto power to lynch them. Lynching these days takes place mainly in the media. Whether your friend secretly views "transphobes" with the same contempt that white racists had for blacks I obviously can't say, but some on your side of the issue obviously do.

Angry at being called "gay"? AFAIK, the word was commandeered by "gay" activists. I remember the placards during demonstrations in the 70's which read "gay is good". And did some homophobe force Queer Nation to adopt its name? No, it was just another way to intimidate.

In order to be invalidated by others, others must take the chance that they will end up validating them. What obligation do they have to take that risk and end up the object of a slander campaign from "gay" rights activists?

What you implicitly acknowledge here is the "if I don't see it, it's not there" mentality; i.e., if there aren't any scientists out there with guts enough to expose a lie, then it isn't a lie.

I'm sure you know better than to believe that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You gotta be kidding. Where has a study been done which addresses the questions I've raised here? The one I cited sure as hell doesn't.

Your faith in the research industry is certainly impressive, however.

You think harmful bacteria and viruses grow more virulently or less in a person with a strong immune system?

Bree

For some odd reason you always try and change the topic of the conversation. I asked you a question about a child born with genitals of both sexes, and you turn around and start talking about transsexuals? Hermaphrodites and transsexuals are different.

Now that that is out of the way, please answer my question.

yguy

My first three words that you quoted didn't do it, huh?

trillian

Yguy,

You must already know that your God does not create every person as "normal" male and female. Sometimes things are mixed up. You'll just have to accept the medical facts about that.
That being said what would you recommend here:

Your child is born genetically XY but looks outwardly female. So you have a genetic male, with a female appearance. There could be gonads, ovaries, breasts, testosterone, and any mixture of things present in your child.

In this case, what sexual orientation should this person be forced to have? Or should they be able to choose themselves?

Should they be able to change physically through hormones or surgery to be more in line with their actual genetic maleness? Why? or why not?

This is not a purely transgender issue but I think it's a good starting point for your views. Please give this some serious thought on what you would actually do/recommend/accept in your own child.

trillian

yguy

I haven't the foggiest idea.

Roland98

I think this discussion has veered astray from the OP--but I'll answer a few more questions and invite yguy to start threads elsewhere on the remaining ones.

Off topic.


I don't know anyone who views "transphobes" with contempt, simply for the reason that they fear transgenedered inviduals. But I do feel sorry for them that they're unable to accept such people, and to accept their choices.



Sure, the word was "commandeered," after it was used as an insult for quite some time. Kind of like how black people use the "N" word amongst themselves. It has nothing to do with intimidation--simply taking a word with a negative connotation and making it empowering.



They have no obligation--but as I said, if the data are sound, then they would have little to risk--and it would be easy enough to duplicate, even if unpopular. Lynn Margulis is one scientist that comes to mind that recently took a very unpopular position within mainstream science, and has been vindicated. It happens--if you can back up your data.



Hardly. What I acknowledge is that it's not there; I'm sure there were at one time enough scientists that believed the hypothesis and tried to show it was valid; the fact that no one has, as I mentioned, speaks volumes.



Sure. But as I mentioned, it wasn't for lack of trying. It wouldn't take much research to support the "cancer personality" hypothesis; the fact that no large studies show such a link, and the fact that one with negative data even got published, attests to the fact that it's a relic of ages past.



You must realize how difficult it is to publish negative data; the fact that this one even got through is a testament to its value in debunking the hypothesis (though I'd agree, not perfectly; perhaps you can design one that would better address your concerns?)



Since I am in that industry, I guess so.

If you'd like to discuss this further, I'm game, but don't think GRD is the place to do so. Feel free to start a thread in S&S and PM me if you feel so inclined.