Gender confusion a symptom of borderline personality disorder

I'm always amused at those whose opinions are so infallible (in their opinion) that they simply hand-wave the experts who spend their lives studying things right away, saying they're all out to lunch. The "so-called experts" think we actually landed on the moon? And we're supposed to believe the videos aren't faked? Uh huh, right. Even a dunce can see that NASA has a multi-billion dollar incentive to fake it all.

Meanwhile, if you watch TV (and see "my 600 pound life"), well by golly, you see a genuine medical doctor telling one person after another that they are morbidly fat, and will soon die if they don't lose 400 pounds or more ASAP. But hey, who needs facts, right?

I personally am not familiar with this condition. My lack of familiarity leads me to wish to learn more, though I see it leads you into convenient denial. I'm aware that biology is inherently messy, and there are LOTS of boundary conditions, of which this seems to be one. But I understand that life would be so much simpler if biology would obey the black-and-white rules we WANT it to obey. So hey, let's just PRETEND that it does. That way we can punish people on principle, since reality need not apply.

 

If these lunatic parents had a lick of sense, they would BEAT THE LIVING CRAP out of any kids who "pretend to be queer". THAT sane and sensible response will free us all from the dangerous illusion that everyone isn't just like me, as God intended.

 

You think bariatric surgeons don't have a vested interest in telling morbidly obese people that they will die if they don't lose weight (via their personally provided very expensive bariatric surgeries and post-op skin surgeries)? Surely you jest!

Meantime, I'm referring to general practitioners. Very few will tell the ordinarily overweight or obese person that they are too fat. Most won't refer to it at all, some only tangentially.

I don't require biology to be black and white. The problem is the vested interests who profit from having us believe it isn't black and white.

The regressive left buys this, hook line and sinker. There's not much they love more than the idea that they can self-indulge their heads off, and feel all warm and fuzzy while doing so.

 

Kids can't do anything but dabble in ideas - because they're kids. So if they dabble overlong in an idea or behaviour which will clearly cause them problems later in life ... why oh why would any sensible parent indulge it?

You attempted to demonise what I said by leaping to hysterical terms like 'beat the living crap'. I'm not sure why, when I mentioned only distraction. I guess you have your own issues on this.

 

If issues were Gold, most of you would be wealthy enough to buy the Internet, lock, stock & barrel and still be Billionaires.....

 

Uh, you just finished telling me that physicians never tell fat people to lose weight because of vested interests. NOW you tell me that they ALWAYS tell people to lose weight because of vested interests. Neat trick. Got any more?

Unless, of course, they DO tell people to lose weight, in which case they must have some vested interest to do so. Medicine schmedicine, right?

OK, I think I see where you're coming from. Alas and dammit, the fact is that even telling the honest truth benefits SOME people financially. So nobody can be trusted, and truth can't be trusted either.

As the Grateful Dead sang, "some folks look for answers, others look for fights.;" You seem to have selected a Designated Enemy, and if that enemy should blunder onto the truth, we can disregard that truth because the enemy's motivations were evil.

Meanwhile, back in reality, the problem remains of what to do with athletes with XYY chromosomes. Are they male? No. Are they female? No. What do you suggest we PRETEND they are, or should we argue that this chromosome arrangement is a fabrication of the regressive left?

- - - Updated - - -

Uh, you just finished telling me that physicians never tell fat people to lose weight because of vested interests. NOW you tell me that they ALWAYS tell people to lose weight because of vested interests. Neat trick. Got any more?

Unless, of course, they DO tell people to lose weight, in which case they must have some vested interest to do so. Medicine schmedicine, right?

OK, I think I see where you're coming from. Alas and dammit, the fact is that even telling the honest truth benefits SOME people financially. So nobody can be trusted, and truth can't be trusted either.

As the Grateful Dead sang, "some folks look for answers, others look for fights.;" You seem to have selected a Designated Enemy, and if that enemy should blunder onto the truth, we can disregard that truth because the enemy's motivations were evil.

Meanwhile, back in reality, the problem remains of what to do with athletes with XYY chromosomes. Are they male? No. Are they female? No. What do you suggest we PRETEND they are, or should we argue that this chromosome arrangement is a fabrication of the regressive left?

 

Just out of curiosity, which of the following do you consider to be figments
of the overactive imagination, or the result of incompetent parenting:

--sexual orientation
--musical talent
--athletic ability
--religious faith
--left-handedness
--albinism
--high intelligence
--creativity

 

BARIATRIC surgeons. They make huge sums from obesity. The general practitioner, on the other hand, is only going to lose patients if she starts telling fat people they're fat. The non-bariatric patient attending a GP for 'other issues' only wants to hear about new medications for diabetes. She doesn't want to hear "but all these health problems will resolve if you lose a ton of weight". Doctors (GPs) know this.

 

all but albinism and possibly left-handedness are environmental. ie, parenting.

have no idea what you mean by 'figments of the overactive imagination'.

 

Well from various posts, I suspect "Figments of the overactive imagination" is somewhat of an understatement.

Perhaps Fig Newtons are Figments of the overactive imagination.

 

I don't follow

 

OK. I guess this answers my question quite well. I personally would regard all but religious faith as largely biological. This is not to say that good parenting can't inflence all of these things, often significantly. But denying that there is anything biological about most of these things is the kind of uninformed prejudice borne of agendas. There is currently NO evidence that sexual orientation is voluntary or alterable by any sort of environmental influence, and ALL evidence that it is inherent and entirely biological. Of course, for this to make sense, evidence has to be taken seriously. And my experience is that evidence against preconvictions simply doesn't count.

 

I've had experience with both competent doctors and "feelgood" doctors. I know that for some doctors (but I suspect it's a minority), the root problems are ignored in favor of ameliorating the symptoms. I know this is particularly true of self-medication like overeating or smoking. Doctors, to make a living and pay the staff to fight the insurance companies, wear tennis shoes to race from one examination room to the next, averaging SIX MINUTES per patient. And some doctors simply aren't able to recognize, for example, the wide range of symptoms resulting from allergies and allergic reactions. Still, I think it's a minority of doctors who just don't feel like dealing with the actual problems. Also, I think it's a minority of doctors who lack for patients.

 

It's equally 'uninformed prejudice borne of agendas' which seeks to place things like IQ and musical ability outside the responsibility of parents. They get to claim ownership via genetics (when it's perceived as a positive, ie 'talent'), and deny responsibility when it's perceived as a negative. That's about the thumpingest agenda there is.

You'll find those who are happy to own responsibility for how their kids turn out, take the 'evidence' very seriously. We see that those who understand their own role (in forming character) get better results than those who leave it to the wind.

 

I agree with this. When it comes to things like IQ and musical ability, parents can be powerfully influential -- they can enable to child to make the very most of special abilities, or then can prevent the child from every getting close to his potential. But the potential itself is biological. Parents cannot "train in" musical talent or athletic ability. They CAN help the child make the most of what's already there.

Again, I agree it's human nature to take credit for anything good, and deny blame for anything bad. Which doesn't alter the biology.

And I agree once again. "Forming character" is a parental responsibility, entirely environmental. Sexual orientation isn't a matter of character, it's a matter of an inborn, invariable trait. Parents who recognize that such children are born that way (much as with a birth defect) are not "indulging a childish fantasy" in many cases - they are dealing responsibly with what I regard as an inherent condition.

 

How a Child turns out can vary greatly from a parents teachings and guidance, I saw many examples of my friends that would steal neighbors cars to joy ride, lots of people left the keys on the sun visor in those days, I knew better than to climb in with them, I knew it was wrong to do so.

 

I cannot agree. IQ and creative 'talents' are entirely environmental. There is some forming late in gestation, but again, this comes from PARENTS. Children are sponges from late in pregnancy onwards. All have equal capacity (given good physical and neurological health) to excel or fail. Any musical ability will have been fostered either deliberately or inadvertently. You can't be born with 'talent', you can only develop talent. We're all born equal - in the true sense of the word.

Ditto IQ. The formation of strong synaptic pathways (the foundation of intellect) is a known science. This development is triggered by protracted and constant primary carer (usually mother) engagement - from birth. Eye contact, full focus, etc. A useless parent can effectively ignore one child - making it dumb as a post, and a good parent can engage with all 4 or 5 of her kids and create multiple geniuses. And by ignore I don't mean neglect, I mean she could take perfect physical care of the child, have a beautiful home, etc etc, yet STILL not spend anywhere near enough time engaging the child in focused eye contact and engagement, nor anywhere near enough time talking to the child. The impoverished mother of 5 might spend all her waking hours engaging with her children. Explaining how everything works, why things are the way they are, and telling stories. All with focused eye contact and plenty of words.

It's quite simple stuff, but many would prefer it isn't true - for obvious reasons.

 

Parents have no business making determinations about something like that while their children are still young. It's not a medical condition, it's a personal (private) preference which only comes into play considerably later in life. The parents can't possibly know or guess whether it will still be a thing at that age. Since the vast majority of kids will be ultimately be straight, it's absurd to start reading unlikelihoods into your child's every passing peculiarity of behaviour. Doing so reeks of the imposition of your own 'issues' onto your kids. If there were 50% likelihood - or even a 30%, it would then more genuinely be about the child rather than ourselves. But when the likelihood is 2% it's clearly not.

 

It's not quite so simple, even if many would prefer that it were. But just as tall parents tend to have taller than average children, and black parents tend to have black children, so parents with certain neurological peculiarities tend to have children with similar characteristics. I admit I don't understand how people can readily admit that body characteristics can (and do) frequently resemble those of their parents, but somehow BRAIN characteristics do not, and therefore any child is a potential Mozart, Einstein, etc. It just ain't so.

I come from a musical family on my father's side. Many of my ancestors on his side were professional musicians, and I and my siblings have always been musicians. My mother tried desperately to join in, but had no musical ability at all. She tried for 60 years to play "chopsticks" on the piano, and was always heartbroken that one by one, each of her children told her to please stop singing as soon as we were old enough to talk - she couldn't carry a tune, had no sense of pitch. This is NOT a birth defect, it's part of normal human brain variation.

You ARE born with talent. You can develop it or not, but you can't develop what you never had. I watched it in person.

 

Just out of curiosity, do you feel parents have no business getting glasses for myopic children?

A large and growing body of evidence tells us that it IS indeed a biological condition, and that it is inborn.

Sometimes, as with the XYY chromosomes I mentioned, the evidence is unambiguous even very young. Sexual orientation starts becoming evident around the age of two.

I think we're missing communications at this point. In simple (so to speak) cases of being gay or lesbian, you are generally correct - the children themselves are taken totally by surprise at puberty. But I can only repeat, biology is messy. Probably SOME of what parents see is childhood experimentation, simple curiosity. But not all of it. If you are upset with parents taking simple curiosity for something it's not, then I agree. I think few parents actually do this, though. What most parents react to is a consistent, repeated, long-lasting pattern. And even then, they'd be wise to get outside advice.

And if that pattern continues through puberty, well, as you're surely aware, "reparative therapy" is a complete failure. If a kid is going to be gay, there is simply nothing the parents can do to "prevent" it no matter how early they start, because it's already too late.

Again out of curiosity, at what age do you think parents should recognize that their child is LGBT? Assume that this is actually the case.

 

What is a parents determination as to their children being Gay ? I mean, if a child does not confess to being Gay, how would a parent make any determination ???

My parents warned me that being Gay was a great sin, and that Masturbation was a great sin......
Was that a determination ?

And what pray tell is considerably later in life, do not people develop at different rates, and ages ? I learned to read before I entered Kindergarten, and I was so freaking bored, they skipped me into the second Grade.....

 

You watched environment forming people from birth, in person. And I didn't say it was simple. It's actually far more 'pat' to claim it's genetic, because it's absolute, and absolves us of any personal responsibility (other than unconscious genetics). It's damned hard work fostering intellect and/or talent, and it's rarely simple.

I also come from a musical family, yet I understand that tendency comes from learned behaviours. If kids hear mom & dad singing and playing guitar from birth, a musical ear will develop. If mom & dad then foster practice via encouragement, or even fail to steer away from playing/singing, then naturally the combination of ear and skill will produce a muso. My parents didn't foster my brother's music, but yet they also didn't steer him back towards more balance when he became overly obsessed with guitar. The end result was a career in music, with no skill for anything else. His own two kids have been actively fostered (as well as exposed to non-stop music from in utero), and are so unlikely to consider anything else by the time they reach full adulthood. My mother-in-law sounds like a cat being strangled when she sings, and she was not exposed to or fostered in music as a child. She came from a 'strictly practicalities' type family.

Artistic ability is also learned via exposure and fostered interest. I have one kid who's a fabulous illustrator, and two who are lousy. The one with the 'talent' is the one my own mother happens to have favoured (naughty!) and spent many hours drawing with.

The only innate ability I will concede, and only partially here, is singing. Since good pipes depend on a particular throat structure, it is partly a physiological trait. Training will go a long way, too, though.

 

Why does a parent need to get involved in the possible sexual preferences of their not yet sexual minors?

With respect, parents shouldn't be discussing sex (homosexuality and masturbation) with children - even to demonise those things. It's plain creepy. I don't mean in a paedophilic sense, I mean in an 'adults imposing their own issues/agendas' sense. Bad enough when it's things like religion, but the very adult issues around sex adds a level of creepy beyond my personal tolerance.

 

Myopia is a clinical physiological condition that requires medical intervention to correct/treat. It's entirely different.

I'm afraid I know too many effeminate straight men to ever be convinced that the 'signs' a parent decides to interpret according to their own agenda, is reliable. Is an effeminate but otherwise straight 10 year old going to benefit from parents who privately decide he's gay - and tell him so - or is he going to be seriously confused?

 

However, currently Myopic patients are prescribed corrective lenses, or elective RK, depending on funds and insurance coverage.

In the case of a 10 year old, myself at that age, what would or should a Parent do if they think their son is Gay ? I know that after seeing my Parents attitude and opinions on Gay people, I was not stupid enough to blurt out any such thing, and those lectures scared me....

Even today, People are all freaked out at the idea of two young people of the same age comforting each other and compassion because they are young, however getting beaten to a bleeding pulp by bullies and being called names is somehow more acceptable to some.