AMA Says Transgender Patients Don't Need Surgery To Change Birth Certificate

....they include crap. Its all crap. Period.

 

As expected ignoring anything that goes against your myopic ingrained views, even items that are referenced (unlike anything you post) . .I'll put your comment down to an unsubstantiated opinion and as such worthless.

 

And rainbows are either black or white, right?

Alas, biology is notoriously messy, and can't be crammed into nice neat conceptual cubbyholes. For example, the IOC had to decide what to do with XXY weight lifters, who had female genitalia but male muscular development and strength. Eventually, they ended up disqualifying all such people from competition. Today's theoretical concepts and supporting instrumentation and measurements are showing us that a pure male and pure female are probably simply shortcuts, and dont precisely exist. Instead they are protocols of convenience, useful enough in the large majority of cases to be applied generally.

But at the margin, there are plenty of people who don't quite fall so conveniently into these categories. Perhaps we should have a rule that all such people should be euthanized, so that the survivors can be crammed into our protocols without so many loose ends hanging out. THEN those with the most informed and profound understanding of human biological variations can escape the label of being "screwballs" for knowing too much.

 

Yes in theory but not necessarily taking place.

Where is the evidence of mental gender in your reply? That's what
this discussion is about. So far nobody has been able to produce any
solid evidence supporting it. In order for something to exist there must
be evidence to support it whether in biology, math or any other
science one cares to include.

 

Something is being observed. Nobody is making all this up.

What would you count as "solid evidence"? So far, there seem to be enough cases, similar enough to one another, to warrant a tentative conclusion that such a condition exists. And even if the condition turns out not to be exactly as hypothesized right now, nonetheless there is enough evidence to justify further inquiry, rather than rigid dismissal.

Yes, of course you are right. But as Isaac Asimov wrote, the most important phrase in science is not "Eureka, I've found it" but rather "hmmm, that's funny." All scientific discoveries begin with the observation of unexpected anomalies. Sometimes further research discovers genuine merit to something new, and sometimes (perhaps even more often) it turns out to be a mistake made somewhere. I'm willing to make a tacit deal here - that people WAY outside my field don't understand it as well as I do or have my depth of experience in it, and that I similarly lack such expertise in someone else's field. Especially in areas where my experience is basically zero. I think it's ignorant to dismiss any possibility of something I myself have never seen, when experts HAVE seen it.

(And I might point out that math is not a science, and is not empirical. In the empirical world, there are no proofs, there is only a growing body of consistent supporting observations, combined with proposed explanations for them.)

 

I didn't say nobody was. Are you aware that the evidence provided showed
no evidece of mental gender? Neither did your reply.

Evidence that says, "look it's really happening." Not it may be happening,
or it's thought to be happening, or it could possibly happen, etc...

 

The evidence DOES indicate the possibility of mental gender.

But science ALWAYS starts with unexpected and anamolous observations, as I carefully explained. That is, science starts with something that MIGHT be happening.

Maybe a simple example would help. A couple centuries back, a doctor noticed that if he washed his hands after examining or treating every patient, the incidence of disease went down among his patients. When he had everyone in his hospital do it, the spread of disease went WAY down.

But why? There was no reason that anyone could see, and at the time the germ theory of disease was still in the future. There was no "solid evidence" of anything but coincidence. But when others adopted this practice, it worked for them too. So SOMETHING was happening. Eventually, this came to be understood.

So, back to the topic, I am NOT saying that "mental gender" is something that's "real" in any hard sense. Instead, I'm saying that "mental gender" is a phrase coined in an attempt to describe some underlying process in the brain that we are a long way from understanding. And for all I know, as the underlying condition becomes increasingly well understood (and perhaps mapped in the brain), "mental gender" may become as quaint and obsolete as "ill humours".

If you are trying to argue that the AMA is being premature in categorizing something insufficiently understood to be categorized, I'd agree with the provision that SOMETHING is going on, and it probably needs to be described clearly enough for usefully focused research. While it may be premature to specify some detailed public policy about it, it seems foolish to cut off research on the grounds that the research that's been cut off hasn't produced enough evidence to continue doing the research that's not being done anyway.

Mental processes are damnably hard to grapple with. After well over a century, there is STILL debate over what "intelligence" actually is.

 

Yes, I did say that.

That's a good answer. I'm not saying mental gender is real in any hard
sense either.

 

What I'm objecting to is the kneejerk blanket dismissal that anything is different in these brains, as being nonsense or screwball because it doesn't fit neat little boxes some people have constructed in their mental models. Again, biology is messy. Our evidence that sexuality is pretty blurry around the edges is quite good. I expect it will be a while before our concepts and techniques are good enough to focus in on the blurry areas, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

I'm certainly glad I'm not one of those. But we know that "blurry details" aren't
something to be used as fact. That makes for "blurry conclusions" by those who
don't know the difference and project them as fact.

 

I wonder if what you see as "projected fact", the AMA might be viewing as a working hypothesis, in circumstances where the "best fit" explanation is simply the best of an uncertain lot. Or perhaps they regard the goal of addressing the needs of a small minority to be more important than stroking the Absolute Certainties of an ignorant majority.

 

Projected fact? I never said any such thing. A hypothesis is nothing
more than conjecture until something of certainty arises from it. A "best
fit" explanation is the same as saying we don't know or we're guessing.

 

Why, yes you did, in so many words. Which you yourself then quoted. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding here. I assumed you were referring to the AMA's recent statements, which I considered to apply to what I called the blurry margins of biology.

I prefer to use words with a bit more precision and less innuendo. A hypothesis is a (hopefully) testable proposed explanation for some observation. Hypotheses are how science makes progress, whether they eventually turn out to be right or wrong. Their value isn't in their correctness, but in their ability to suggest and direct useful tests. You SEEM to be under the impression that hypotheses are useless hunches, of no value until "certainty" is determined. Which has two problems: without hypothesis, certainty cannot be approached at all; and Absolutely Certainty can never be reached - all understandings are hostage to tomorrow's discoveries.

Again, we stumble over semantics here, this time over the nature of knowledge. At the margin, knowledge is a pipe dream, but in practice we can come close enough to regard some things as known for all practical purposes. Best-fit explanations are absolutely NOT guesses, they reflect careful and nuanced consideration of all recognized observations, consiliant understandings, and the like.

If you look both ways before crossing the street and you see what LOOKS like a car coming, the best-fit explanation is that it IS a car. The possibility that it's a mirage, or a hallucination, or part of a dream, are competing explanations that don't fit quite as well under the circumstances. But the car really doesn't qualfy as a "guess" -- it's what I called a working hypothesis, in the sense that the probability that it's a car is high enough to justify waiting until it goes by before crossing the street.

 

Not once. A desire for solid evidence or something concrete, yes.

Yes. You're misunderstanding.

You've yet to show it. You've been quite nebulous and far from precise in
your posts.

Not true. A hypothesis is an educated guess at best. It's a proposed
explanation and nothing more.

No, you're under the impression that you know what a hypothesis is. You
clearly don't.

I was hoping this wouldn't be necessary but you've made it clear that
it is.

hypothesis

1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the
occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely
as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or
accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.

3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.

4. a mere assumption or guess.

Before you accuse people of not understanding make certain that you
understand what you're talking about. That's the polite thing to do.

Not true. It will do no such thing. A hypothesis gets the ball rolling. That's
the purpose of a hypothesis.

 

Examine post 161, where I quoted you as saying that the AMA was projeting what you called "blurry conclusions" as fact. I second your desire for something concrete, and I do not believe we HAVE anything concrete yet. I'm trying go guard against the claim that we DO have something concrete, so no further research is necessary.

OK, then I'm referring to the AMA's position.

By concretely insisting that we have nothing concrete to work with at present? That's just the way it is.

Hopefully, you will notice that your dictionary recitation of "hypothesis" covers a broad enough territory so that some of the definitions are mutually exclusive! At one point, you describe a hypothesis as "accepted as highly probable in light of established facts" and at another point, you desribe it is "a mere assumption or guess." Do you not see a problem there? The problem I see is that you are equivocating - FIRST you describe a hypothesis as a guess, THEN you describe it as as an educated guess, THEN as a proposed explanation for some phenomena. THEN you say that MY understanding is faulty!

Why don't you pick ONE of these definitions. I don't care which, so long as we both agree which one we're using. That's the polite thing to do.

That's exactly what I tried to say - that without hypothesis, certainty can't be approached. You have to start somewhere, in your words you have to get the ball rolling. And hopefully, we can agree that making and testing hypotheses is forever an iterative process, because the answer of every question generates even more questions.

 

Good try. You were totally wrong as to what a hypothesis is. All of my
descriptions were accurate. Yours weren't.

Because there's no need. They all work perfectly fine and especially
don't allow for wiggle room for someone who wants to be precise.

Being precise instead of nebulous will help you.

 

My usage was closest to your meaning #1. YOUR excuses are incoherent. Not even a good try.

Some of them are mutually exclusive!

And insisting on mutually exclusive meanings isn't nebulous?

Never mind. I'm trying to communicate, and you are trying to win. We both failed utterly.

 

I provided no excuses.

Insist all you want, you were very nebulous as was the "data" you
provided.

Your communication has been quite 'blurry'. Perhaps being
precise will help.

 

The only way humans can have "the wrong genitalia" is if they have a penis and two X chromosomes, or a vagina and a Y chromosome. "Transgenders" are a case of having the wrong mindset. To fix a wrong mindset requires a psychological doctor, not a physician or surgeon (unless it requires brain surgery).

So, one piece of anecdotal evidence proves that NO ONE would choose to be gay? Or does it just prove that that one person would not choose it? Followers of a little thing called "logic" know the answer to that question.

Members of this very forum have said that they would choose to be gay. They did so by vehemently objecting to the idea of developing a means of voluntary reorientation through gene therapy. True, this was just a hypothetical, no such process currently exists (and won't, if they have their way, because, like transsexuals, they would rather cater to and normalize the mental illness than cure it). But the fact that they don't WANT there to be a choice (which would take away their excuse) to become hetero is a de facto choice to be gay.

Another thing you could look at is "gay pride" parades and such. Unless you think that they are totally full of (*)(*)(*)(*) and actually feel no pride, then one must conclude that they DO feel pride in being gay. And if they truly feel pride in it, then it is logical to assume that they would choose it.

 

Wrong mindset? I guess if you say so.

I never said it was only 1 piece. I said that is what changed my mind. I don't change my mind with one piece of anything.
Ever watch men's figure skating. Ever say or think, that dude is gay? Ever go to or see male hair dressers? Ever think he may be gay?

One can have gay relations and not be gay. Sexual orientation is the sex one is attracted to, not what gender one has sex with.
I'm not sure why a 'mental illness' that affects few or any who don't want to be affected needs to be cured. It's not like it can be passed on.
Now the mental illness of trying to make everyone fit into the same box, that needs to be cured.

Maybe they have pride because they no longer have to hide in the closet. Maybe because it is less likely they will now be killed for who they are.

 

I do say so. If their chromosomes match their genitals, but their "gender identity" doesn't, it's a simple matter of "one of these things is not like the others". Male/female is determined by chromosomes, not "feelings", and that is a scientific fact.

So, to be clear, are you still sticking with "nobody would choose to be gay"? Or do you think that may have been an overgeneralization?

Well, most of them do have a tendency to be very effeminate. So yes, I do tend to think that.

If you're having "gay relations" and you're not gay, then it's one of two things: either you're bi (which is still gay as far as I'm concerned), or you're being raped.

Wait, what? It "affects few or any who don't want to be affected"? Are you saying that they CHOOSE to be affected?

And of course I did no such thing, I merely think that they should have the OPTION to be cured if they so choose. But that, of course will take research, so people need to stop standing in the way of such research by pretending nothing is wrong.

OK, so they're "proud". Then my previous statement applies.

 

I'm more inclined to believe that environment and stimuli, both internal
and external, have more to do with what a person believe they are
than anything biological.

 

'one of these things is not like the other'. I agree. And I doubt 100% of the time it is 'feelings'. IMO.

Yes, except that nothing is 100% absolute. So do you mean every single time of a great great majority of the time?

So not by choice then. And most of the effeminate are gay, not by choice.

Or just curious or perhaps confused.

Most NO. But some may be confused, curious, or just playful. I don't see any of those as mental illness. No more of an illness than those who have other sexual fantasies. IE for one, dominatrix or other fetishes.

Didn't say you did, but you seem concerned as those who want nothing but heteros and no funny sex business. Whatever funny means to an individual.

Ok, as they should be.