Yeah , other creatures exhibit "homosexual behaviors" but Humans are the only ones to be "purely homosexual - in the cases of all these other creatures it appears to be bisexuality. One thing that's always puzzled me is the use of the term / word "Gay" which has historically meant "happy" or "high spirited" .... always wondered what the correlation was to homosexuality ? I suppose uterus implants are a medical possibility eventually .... we implant a lot of other internal organs but there are significant issues with rejection. I have a friend who underwent a lung implant ... even several years later he's still at risk of infections and has to take anti-rejection meds. He's "Functional" but far from "Normal". But even getting beyond that uterus implant barrier - what about the rest of the internal workings of the female reproductive system ? Ovaries / fallopian tubes .... The potential for infection / rejection , child birth is hard on the human body ... the molecular / chromosome issue ? A biological woman producing viable sperm seems an impossibility as does a biological man conceiving and giving birth .... on a molecular level. We just cant manipulate cells like that. To me , at the risk of sounding rude tho that's not the intent - this is like putting lipstick on a pig - in terms of reproductive viability. It may appear to be , it may function in a purely physical manner sexually but not reproductively. That chromosome hurdle is an impossibility to cross. I suppose cloning and in vitro fertilization would be a possibility in the event of a working uterus transplant ?
No where in this statement does it say anything conclusive at all is the point. Again, this is a political decree, made by a politician, for a political reason. I'm not sure why this is brought up in a discussion about science. no, I did not say they are the same thing. I said that alleviating is the point of the surgery. This is such bad logic if you applied it to ANYTHING else. Apparently, for you, what is wrong and what is right is dependent on if that person cares if others believe it. Plenty of racists don't care what people say about them and so I guess they are in the right. They are in the right because the science supports it and America is about giving freedom to people. Clearly. You don't care at all about studies, facts, science, or anything. You just care about your beliefs and if the science contradicts your beliefs then you still ignore it and say "You can't tell me that..." well, fine, that's your ignorance on display. The fact is studies were done by doctors to prove that point. I support facts and science sir, always. When you bring those to your side then I'll support it. Until that point I am always vehemently against the twisting and ignoring of science so that people can manipulate the world to their antiquated belief system. The point in discussing them in this context is because YOU claim that Trans people are confused and are this way because of Trauma and the existence of DSDs says no, some trans peopler ARE intersex, so you implying their confusion is wrong. Amazing, even when the author herself says you are wrong you ignore that and suggest that she just doesn't know what she's talking about and it is about "If she wanted to continue working in her field." Usual BS conspiracy that Race/IQ people do whenever they are faced with a study that contradicts their beliefs. Your whole argument has nothing to do with science and is based on your own personal belief system. The fact that SRS may not make someone happy isn't even the point. Someone can have successfully removed a brain tumor, it WILL NOT make them happy, happiness is such a vague term especially with how you are applying it. But hey, according to you, maybe we should get rid of cancer treatment too? After all, PTSD from Cancer is certainly a thing. Her study is saying that despite alleviating Gender Dysphoria, it will not make a person 'happy'. More from the author of the study... I'm sorry man, you don't get to post a study and then take what you want from it and discredit the author of the study when you find it doesn't align with your argument, that's just cheap.
I think that's right but also from our P.O.V we put a lot more emphasis on sex that maybe other animals just don't. It means a lot more to us than a cat bending over in heat and accepting sperm from wherever she can get it, and so we may over-analyze things in regards to sexual intimacy. Because a lot of animals do things exclusively. I think it is a bigger question of being that just can't be tackled right now. It could be an intelligence thing but we won't know until we find animals that are on our level of intelligence. I think that question is more one for linguists, I always think its just something that caught on. It certainly wouldn't be easy but we are starting to get at a point with science where we will ask big questions like this and it feels a bit like playing god. From trying to give machines sentience to cloning extinct animals back into existence to genetically modifying humans. No, we can't manipulate molecules at that level but I'm not a big fan of telling science we 'can't' do something. All I know is that people a lot smarter than I think it's possible, so I challenge them to continue to do so and I personally don't care how natural a thing is. But nothing you said is wrong about the difficulties in infection/rejection and the chromosomes and you are right that no matter what it won't be naturally reproduction...I just don't care about what is natural or not.
At the least we had a conversation without calling each other idiots and morons .... Others might want to try it!
It is possible that they didn't have the political capital to make that decision, but they again didn't have to say that there is not enough evidence to support GRS. They did extensive research to arrive at that conclusion. It says so in the quote, but I believe that you are not reading everything I post and instead are emoting to disagreement. You didn't think I should say eliminate because you said there's no difference between eliminate and alleviate. What is right or wrong is right or wrong regardless of what anyone believes. Hate is always wrong, for example. One thing I am against is the lack of critical thinking. Doctors say puberty blockers are reversible and you believe that 100%. I critique those doctors by saying a person cannot make up years of development when people only develop during certain early years. A statement that sounds logical enough and instead of criticizing my statement you prefer to emote about beliefs and ignorance. Just to give a crude example to my critique of the belief that puberty blockers are reversible, I ask you to think about how much you grew in a certain area during puberty and what would have happened if that growth would have been reduced by several years/inches. Think about it, puberty blockers would have helped you decide to have a sex change simply because you would not have developed an appropriate male body. Sans puberty blockers you may have decided to stay male because you may have grown out of the desire to change sexes. No you don't. Most transgender people are sexually binary. Just because not all are doesn't mean that being born with a chromosomal abnormality is a serious cause of gender dysphoria. What's amazing is how you didn't read anything I said. "This study found substantially higher rates of overall mortality, death from cardiovascular disease and suicide, suicide attempts, and psychiatric hospitalisations in sex-reassigned transsexual individuals compared to a healthy control population. This highlights that post surgical transsexuals are a risk group that need long-term psychiatric and somatic follow-up. Even though surgery and hormonal therapy alleviates gender dysphoria, it is apparently not sufficient to remedy the high rates of morbidity and mortality found among transsexual persons. Improved care for the transsexual group after the sex reassignment should therefore be considered." https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885 Show me where she refutes any of her own findings. Fact of the matter is she doesn't. She simply doesn't like how her findings are used. Tough. Then what is the point of SRS? Exactly what I said. The author does not disagree with her findings, she disagrees with how some people are using them. This is well within her rights, but it doesn't mean that people who use it against SRS or for further treatments beyond SRS are wrong. The rest of the quotes you posted of the author basically restate what she has already stated and I have already summarized. People who transition are more vulnerable, ie worse off... They need further care even after SRS... Treatment reduces gender dysphoria... That they still have problems even after treatment... And then she finishes blaming other things for those problems... All of that I summarized in my post, but you ain't reading it to comprehend just to argue. From your comments on the possibility of transwomen having babies, I can see that you are ALL IN on this mess. There's nothing anyone can tell you.
No correlation. It's an oxymoronic word used to trick everyone into thinking that gay people are happy or at peace with who they are.
There are seven+ billion people on this planet. I can't help but smh when people try to use evolution as a prop in this kind of topic.
lol at anyone saying puberty blockers” or GNRH antagonist are reversible. Puberty is a complex process that exists outside of estrogen and testosterone. I don’t think any doctors are saying that, peer reviewed journal articles from high impact journals or medical text is required to make that assertion
It's a political statement dude, not science. The US Government once believed that they had reasons to discriminate people based on race, it is coming from a political standpoint, I have no reason to believe political statements over scientific ones. I do this same thing in the climate debate, quote the scientists, not the politicians. I said that you saying eliminate was silly because the point of the surgery is to make things better, that is the point of the surgery. Whatever, this is a philosophical point of view and I'm not interested in debating philosophy with you. You can't critique doctors without any kind of DATA to back you up. You're not getting that. Men of science once had to convince others about the cosmos and others would say "Well, man, you must be crazy! Can't you see the sun rise on that side and fall on the other? Clearly, it rotates around our Earth." This is your argument, that your 'logic' beats out experimentation and data. Secondly, you are missing the meaning of the word reversible. Thirdly... "Sans puberty blockers you may have decided to stay male because you may have grown out of the desire to change sexes." No. This is not how Gender Dysphoria works! No one decides to become a female because they are shorter or based on their height at all. You just cooked up a theory with nothing to back you up but your own ideals. Tricky, she doesn't REFUTE her own findings, she says that her research doesn't even study what you claim they study (the effects of GRS) that wasn't even the point of the study. It was literally twisted by some religious nut as is usually the case here. Huh? For any medical procedure the point is to make things better, that's what it does. You're missing the point about how removing a brain tumor also won't make someone happy. Happiness is a vague term and isn't connected to being trans or not being trans. Someone can have cancer and be the happiest person alive and someone can be without it and be the most depressed. Lol, you are right, she doesn't. She's saying that you have read her findings wrong in the first place. The point of her study was about how Trans people are treated before and after the surgery. That's it. That's the literal point of her study. She finishes 'blaming' other things and CITING other studies as to why she came to that conclusion, that's how people that research and study make their arguments. You mean the comments I also took from people in the field that are trying to achieve this very thing, right? Your issue should be with THEM not me, I was just having a rather nice conversation with another poster and showing him where I got that from. There is nothing anyone can tell you, by your comments about Gay people as well it is clear you are set in your ways and how you feel about these people. That's you. From how you literally misread a study, the Author tells you you misread, then you tried to discredit the author and now you are still confused about the study entirely it is pretty clear that it's nothing anyone can tell you.
Sure, but take it up with these guys, I just share the science of it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6020665/ I think you guys are going by a different definition of reversible, I think you guys are going by some stricter term of the word. I do always find it curious though you're the second person to go "We need sources from you..." Yet @JumpMan is over here saying that people are Trans because of trauma with no sources, no data, anything, and continues on his "You only need to give kids love to 'fix' them." mantra but I guess we don't need to ask for sources when it comes to that.
The 2nd time you've said this about gay people. It sounds like you think they are in the 'wrong' too.
If this is legal I on'td see why Castratos aren't. At least they would give something back to society.
I haven’t backread any , but I think unless there are some pretty extreme circumstances sex change operations should On he in the table once the kid has reach like 16/18 ... maybe a note from a psychologist should be required too . This is a decision I wouldn’t want any kid of mine making without careful consideration over multiple years . I’d say leave it up to the states , but you just know California would fuxk something up . Off topic , when are they gonna come up with foolproof penis enlargement and plastic surgery , maybe even implant for women ? Would you let your 16 year old son have surgery to get a 10 inch dong because he feels his tiny , genetically inherited, pecker is too small ?
You seem to have an unusual interest in penis size. If you have a problem with the size of your own penis, perhaps you should consider therapy.
