Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    I wouldn't bother. Apparently Rakas can't bring himself to acknowledge my gender that because on the right, respect for the individual and support for their freedoms doesn't extend to those they don't like, quelle surprise



    ... So I'm now being hit on by a taken, definitely not horny, gay/bi/pan guy? This is new Sounds like someone had a very happy birthday though!
    Very Bad discriminative language from him. He would rather not allow the Syrian refugees in and would rather they died a bit like cameron but he saw the petition and **** himself.l I actually think this article sums him up rather well
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...le-racist.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I see problems one of them being that he was old and thatcher was a publicity stunt specialist
    (Original post by United1892)
    he couldve won if not for the gang of 4 and the falklands.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DarrenBCFC)
    Very Bad discriminative language from him. He would rather not allow the Syrian refugees in and would rather they died a bit like cameron but he saw the petition and **** himself.l I actually think this article sums him up rather well
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...le-racist.html
    And without a link to the "study" it is largely meaningless. Who funded it? What are the conclusions? What is the level of statistical significance? Has it been peer reviewed, if so, did it stand up the scrutiny? Who funded the study? etc.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes...rain_structure

    Yes, I HATE it when people confuse science and politics - particularly when they seem to have absolutely no science whatsoever and just a very large dose of bigotry.

    Please let me know when you find a human being with a brain structure that just happens to very strongly resemble that of a typical wolf, I'd be very interested.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stria_...lis_.28BNST.29

    The statement about the neurobiological basis from birth has later been brought to question, though not refuted, by a follow up study by the same group which found that the sexual dimorphism of the BSTc is not present before adulthood (approximately 22 years of age) even though transsexuals report being aware of their gender identity since childhood.

    Reduction of the size of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis has been observed in pedophilic male perpetrators, in addition to reductions in the right amygdala, hypothalamus and abnormalities in related structures. The authors propose that childhood deficits in the BNST and medial amygdala may cause inhibition of sexual maturity.
    In short, referencing Wikipedia articles that are pointing to often questionable and methodologically flawed studies isn't a way to win a debate. I admit that I'm not familiar with this area of research but I'm rather familiar with the research on major histocompatibility complex and its role in mate choice in humans which has been shown to be a significant factor by roughly a half of the studies while on the contrary insignificant by the other half (which is a conclusion reached by the relevant meta studies, not myself). A couple of studies in favour of a theory is nowhere near a conclusive proof. There is no generally accepted and robust explanation to date.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    By the way, even if that little part of the brain alone were responsible for the condition, wouldn't it be better to just take some pills and have one's mind adjusted to one's sex than undergo many expensive surgeries and then struggle to find a normal partner, have children, etc.? I know I would choose the former option which is why we should not use politics to bully scientists and focus on unbiased research potentially leading to a cure instead.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And without a link to the "study" it is largely meaningless. Who funded it? What are the conclusions? What is the level of statistical significance? Has it been peer reviewed, if so, did it stand up the scrutiny? Who funded the study? etc.
    Did you read the article. How am i supposed to know who funded it the article did not state and it did not show where the survey has been linked to so I can't tell you , I have no doubt that it is right because your easier manipulated and believe anything the media produces. Here you are why don't you try and find the study . Before asking me the questions go and look at the link and research it on the internet it probably is not on the internet. Why ask me I just thought I would post it to defend a member of my own party. I did not ask for a bombardment of questions nobody can answer because they are not on the internet for free. You will have to pay $35 to know the answer I could link you to it if you want? I'm sure as a conservative voter you have money to throw away.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stria_...lis_.28BNST.29



    In short, referencing Wikipedia articles that are pointing to often questionable and methodologically flawed studies isn't a way to win a debate. I admit that I'm not familiar with this area of research but I'm rather familiar with the research on major histocompatibility complex and its role in mate choice in humans which has been shown to be a significant factor by roughly a half of the studies while on the contrary insignificant by the other half (which is a conclusion reached by the relevant meta studies, not myself). A couple of studies in favour of a theory is nowhere near a conclusive proof. There is no generally accepted and robust explanation to date.
    If you are going to take her to task on using wikipedia as a information source then you produce a wikipedia source, isn't this hypocrisy of the highest level
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stria_...lis_.28BNST.29



    In short, referencing Wikipedia articles that are pointing to often questionable and methodologically flawed studies isn't a way to win a debate. I admit that I'm not familiar with this area of research but I'm rather familiar with the research on major histocompatibility complex and its role in mate choice in humans which has been shown to be a significant factor by roughly a half of the studies while on the contrary insignificant by the other half (which is a conclusion reached by the relevant meta studies, not myself). A couple of studies in favour of a theory is nowhere near a conclusive proof. There is no generally accepted and robust explanation to date.
    Right, that's good, we're agreed that the science on the causes isn't conclusive yet and we probably need more, better and detailed studies, marvelous. So in the meantime let's not call it an "obvious mental disorder" and make unfounded comparisons to people who want surgery to become wolves (hint: there aren't any) and start listening to the trans* people who actually have to live through this.

    They are telling you that being socialised since childhood as the gender they were assigned at birth has not made them cisgender, it has only caused them pain. Do you reckon using the wrong pronoun on the internet is going to change that? I don't.

    They tell you that what you're doing is causing them pain, bringing up extremely negative feelings and making them feel less able to be a part of the community. Is that really less important than your unproven belief that it isn't normal?

    Regardless of what else there is out there, it's clear that the ONLY effective treatment that we have at the moment is gender transition, and that unlike anything else that's been tried it is highly likely to improve radically their quality of life and resolve the symptoms of dysphoria. Isn't that reason enough to support it?

    To be honest, I'm not tremendously interested in the science or classification of whether it's a mental illness or not. It doesn't effect me either way. But if someone with another mental illness told you that what your actions were hurting them, driving them to depression, making them feel less safe, I'd very much hope you'd stop, especially when it's so simple. You wouldn't tell a rape victim with PTSD repeatedly that is was her fault, even if you held the odious belief that it was. You wouldn't tell someone with depression that they didn't deserve to be happy, even if you happened not to like them. So please. Stop putting your personal politics first for once, grow some humanity and empathy if there's any of that left on the right, and don't repeatedly tell a transwomen that she's a man just because you happen to believe that. Whether she is "ill" or not, it's very clearly not going to make her a man, and it's not going to improve the "condition", quite the opposite. If you do, you're not being all noble trying to stop the spread of a mental illness. You're just being a ****.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    By the way, even if that little part of the brain alone were responsible for the condition, wouldn't it be better to just take some pills and have one's mind adjusted to one's sex than undergo many expensive surgeries and then struggle to find a normal partner, have children, etc.? I know I would choose the former option which is why we should not use politics to bully scientists and focus on unbiased research potentially leading to a cure instead.
    If such a thing did exist, I'm sure some people would be interested. Many wouldn't though, myself included. I think the best way I could describe it to a cisman would be if you woke up tomorrow morning and somehow found you had a typically female body - complete with vulva, breasts etc - what would you want to do? Take a "Blue Pill" to change the entire way you've thought, acted with the world, made friends, socialised, acted and lived your entire life, quite fundamentally change who you are to fit in with that. Or take a "Red Pill" to reverse those changes immediately. I'm wagering the vast majority of people would rather take the red one. Quite simply, if I was a man, I wouldn't be me any more.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Spoiler:
    Show

    (Original post by Life_peer)
    By the way, even if that little part of the brain alone were responsible for the condition, wouldn't it be better to just take some pills and have one's mind adjusted to one's sex than undergo many expensive surgeries and then struggle to find a normal partner, have children, etc.? I know I would choose the former option which is why we should not use politics to bully scientists and focus on unbiased research potentially leading to a cure instead.
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    If such a thing did exist, I'm sure some people would be interested. Many wouldn't though, myself included. I think the best way I could describe it to a cisman would be if you woke up tomorrow morning and somehow found you had a typically female body - complete with vulva, breasts etc - what would you want to do? Take a "Blue Pill" to change the entire way you've thought, acted with the world, made friends, socialised, acted and lived your entire life, quite fundamentally change who you are to fit in with that. Or take a "Red Pill" to reverse those changes immediately. I'm wagering the vast majority of people would rather take the red one. Quite simply, if I was a man, I wouldn't be me any more.


    Is someone transgender here? I'm finding this confusing.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarrenBCFC)
    If you are going to take her to task on using wikipedia as a information source then you produce a wikipedia source, isn't this hypocrisy of the highest level
    Can you be more oblivious to making a point by showing the same procedure leading to an opposite outcome?! :confused:

    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    You're just being a ****.
    I've actually adjusted my use of pronouns since the last time we spoke about this issue and I don't think I've referred to you as ‘him’ since then. If I did, I apologise for that; I really wanted to use gender-neutral pronouns specifically to not be a **** or provoke you.

    I consider the current data to be conclusive enough at least to justify my opinion about the current status of transsexualism in this society. Perhaps my rhetorics in debates like this should be more neutral, though.

    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    If such a thing did exist, I'm sure some people would be interested. Many wouldn't though, myself included. I think the best way I could describe it to a cisman would be if you woke up tomorrow morning and somehow found you had a typically female body - complete with vulva, breasts etc - what would you want to do? Take a "Blue Pill" to change the entire way you've thought, acted with the world, made friends, socialised, acted and lived your entire life, quite fundamentally change who you are to fit in with that. Or take a "Red Pill" to reverse those changes immediately. I'm wagering the vast majority of people would rather take the red one. Quite simply, if I was a man, I wouldn't be me any more.
    Play with the breasts.

    Seriously though, I understand that you would choose otherwise because your body and life are already adjusted to your gender identity but I was speaking mainly about children in early adolescence who haven't had the time to develop one yet. Naturally, I would choose to reverse the changes.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    Spoiler:
    Show






    Is someone transgender here? I'm finding this confusing.
    Yes, moi. A couple of your colleagues have been here long enough to remember me when I presented as male and aren't particularly accepting about it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    Spoiler:
    Show





    Is someone transgender here? I'm finding this confusing.
    No. Rakas Called Saoirsea man.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Can you be more oblivious to making a point by showing the same procedure leading to an opposite outcome?! :confused:



    I've actually adjusted my use of pronouns since the last time we spoke about this issue and I don't think I've referred to you as ‘him’ since then. If I did, I apologise for that; I really wanted to use gender-neutral pronouns specifically to not be a **** or provoke you.

    I consider the current data to be conclusive enough at least to justify my opinion about the current status of transsexualism in this society. Perhaps my rhetorics in debates like this should be more neutral, though.



    Play with the breasts.

    Seriously though, I understand that you would choose otherwise because your body and life are already adjusted to your gender identity but I was speaking mainly about children in early adolescence who haven't had the time to develop one yet. Naturally, I would choose to reverse the changes.
    Look Mate I defend my members from my own party a bit like you are defending the bloke who called our member a man- I would not use wikipedia what so ever to be fair it proves nothing and to add to that the authors bias is still their because anyone can edit it to say what they want
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarrenBCFC)
    Look Mate I defend my members from my own party a bit like you are defending the bloke who called our member a man- I would not use wikipedia what so ever to be fair it proves nothing and to add to that the authors bias is still their because anyone can edit it to say what they want
    1. I'm not defending my colleagues' use of pronouns, only agreeing to some of their points. As I said, I'm personally trying to avoid it and use neutral pronouns or nouns instead.

    2. Well, it does if it cites solid sources… I'm not sure what you're trying to say but it's rather pointless because I clearly explained my motivation behind using the reference to Wikipedia.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Can you be more oblivious to making a point by showing the same procedure leading to an opposite outcome?! :confused:



    I've actually adjusted my use of pronouns since the last time we spoke about this issue and I don't think I've referred to you as ‘him’ since then. If I did, I apologise for that; I really wanted to use gender-neutral pronouns specifically to not be a **** and or provoke you.

    I consider the current data to be conclusive enough at least to justify my opinion on the current status of transsexualism in this society. Perhaps my rhetorics in debates like this should be more neutral, though.



    Play with the breasts.

    Seriously though, I understand that you would choose otherwise because your body and life are already adjusted to your gender identity but I was speaking mainly about children in early adolescence who haven't had the time to develop one. Naturally, I would choose to reverse the changes.
    Sorry, I should have been clearer there - I meant that if you were to it'd be a "**** move" as it were. I do appreciate that you've changed personally

    Even before my body and life were adjusted to the extent they are now, I'd have been the same. It has always been the way I've seen myself and interacted with people even though that meant I really did not have a good time socially for many years - I could not interact with others as a boy. Heck, before I started school - so until the age of three or four - my assumption was just that I'd grow up to be a woman like my mum did Being female was the most natural thing in the world to me. I can't say before that but I'm very confident that if at the age of eight I'd been asked the question, I'd have chosen to instantly change sex rather than remove the feelings. I'm confident most trans* people would be the same. Gender identity develops wayyyy before puberty, I know that much from experience.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    1. I'm not defending my colleagues' use of pronouns, only agreeing to some of their points. As I said, I'm personally trying to avoid it and use neutral pronouns or nouns instead.

    2. Well, it does if it cites solid sources… I'm not sure what you're trying to say but it's rather pointless because I clearly explained my motivation behind using the reference to Wikipedia.
    You can call it that, i thought that you jumped on the bandwaggon with the personal insults aswell
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DarrenBCFC)
    Did you read the article. How am i supposed to know who funded it the article did not state and it did not show where the survey has been linked to so I can't tell you , I have no doubt that it is right because your easier manipulated and believe anything the media produces. Here you are why don't you try and find the study . Before asking me the questions go and look at the link and research it on the internet it probably is not on the internet. Why ask me I just thought I would post it to defend a member of my own party. I did not ask for a bombardment of questions nobody can answer because they are not on the internet for free. You will have to pay $35 to know the answer I could link you to it if you want? I'm sure as a conservative voter you have money to throw away.
    I'll ignore wrong "your" (it's you're), do you have anything to back this up or is it just another generalisation due to wanting to believe that you are part of a superior group?
    I am not the one making a claim that there is a strong link between right wing attitudes and less "progressive" thoughts, and I did a bit of digging and found some other papers behind paywalls (not the ones used in the article) and some articles on other sites that came to the standard conclusion that is so with a great many things, such as whether weed is good or bad and that is that there are lots of contradictory papers, for example, there are papers that suggest that higher intelligence are associated with less extreme positions, but that also gives a relatively small deviation between the groups, while another paper states the complete opposite, that more intelligent people tend to have more extreme politics. It also touches on the possibility of "liberal bias" which apparently does actually have some basis, although it doesn't go into detail on that point. There is also a piece I have up where the abstract has conservatism going both ways in terms of verbal ability, although high and low verbal ability do not necessarily indicate high or low intelligence respectively.

    And it is a simple enough set of questions, one or more of which being answered wrong means that the conclusion in the article mean very little, taking them in turn: if we have a bunch of lefties funding research by lefties into correlations between political alignment and intelligence what is the most likely conclusion if there is no strong correlation? The conclusions in the paper and conclusions in the article aren't necessarily the same, for instance, if the paper in question is the one mentioned above then all the article is doing is taking the conclusion "conservatism correlates with low verbal ability", dropping the "some dimensions" from the front of it and completely ignoring the some dimensions correlating to higher verbal intelligence. Then you get that if there is a very low level of significance, the conclusions really are questionable. Then with peer review, obviously if it hasn't been reviewed then you definitely have a lot of questions to ask, if it has and didn't stand up to scrutiny you can pretty much throw it on the fire there and then, for instance, there are a lot of pieces that suggest homeopathy work, funnily enough none of these ever get peer reviewed.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Right, that's good, we're agreed that the science on the causes isn't conclusive yet and we probably need more, better and detailed studies, marvelous. So in the meantime let's not call it an "obvious mental disorder" and make unfounded comparisons to people who want surgery to become wolves (hint: there aren't any) and start listening to the trans* people who actually have to live through this.

    They are telling you that being socialised since childhood as the gender they were assigned at birth has not made them cisgender, it has only caused them pain. Do you reckon using the wrong pronoun on the internet is going to change that? I don't.

    They tell you that what you're doing is causing them pain, bringing up extremely negative feelings and making them feel less able to be a part of the community. Is that really less important than your unproven belief that it isn't normal?

    Regardless of what else there is out there, it's clear that the ONLY effective treatment that we have at the moment is gender transition, and that unlike anything else that's been tried it is highly likely to improve radically their quality of life and resolve the symptoms of dysphoria. Isn't that reason enough to support it?

    To be honest, I'm not tremendously interested in the science or classification of whether it's a mental illness or not. It doesn't effect me either way. But if someone with another mental illness told you that what your actions were hurting them, driving them to depression, making them feel less safe, I'd very much hope you'd stop, especially when it's so simple. You wouldn't tell a rape victim with PTSD repeatedly that is was her fault, even if you held the odious belief that it was. You wouldn't tell someone with depression that they didn't deserve to be happy, even if you happened not to like them. So please. Stop putting your personal politics first for once, grow some humanity and empathy if there's any of that left on the right, and don't repeatedly tell a transwomen that she's a man just because you happen to believe that. Whether she is "ill" or not, it's very clearly not going to make her a man, and it's not going to improve the "condition", quite the opposite. If you do, you're not being all noble trying to stop the spread of a mental illness. You're just being a ****.
    Ummmmm
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'll ignore wrong "your" (it's you're), do you have anything to back this up or is it just another generalisation due to wanting to believe that you are part of a superior group?
    I am not the one making a claim that there is a strong link between right wing attitudes and less "progressive" thoughts, and I did a bit of digging and found some other papers behind paywalls (not the ones used in the article) and some articles on other sites that came to the standard conclusion that is so with a great many things, such as whether weed is good or bad and that is that there are lots of contradictory papers, for example, there are papers that suggest that higher intelligence are associated with less extreme positions, but that also gives a relatively small deviation between the groups, while another paper states the complete opposite, that more intelligent people tend to have more extreme politics. It also touches on the possibility of "liberal bias" which apparently does actually have some basis, although it doesn't go into detail on that point. There is also a piece I have up where the abstract has conservatism going both ways in terms of verbal ability, although high and low verbal ability do not necessarily indicate high or low intelligence respectively.

    And it is a simple enough set of questions, one or more of which being answered wrong means that the conclusion in the article mean very little, taking them in turn: if we have a bunch of lefties funding research by lefties into correlations between political alignment and intelligence what is the most likely conclusion if there is no strong correlation? The conclusions in the paper and conclusions in the article aren't necessarily the same, for instance, if the paper in question is the one mentioned above then all the article is doing is taking the conclusion "conservatism correlates with low verbal ability", dropping the "some dimensions" from the front of it and completely ignoring the some dimensions correlating to higher verbal intelligence. Then you get that if there is a very low level of significance, the conclusions really are questionable. Then with peer review, obviously if it hasn't been reviewed then you definitely have a lot of questions to ask, if it has and didn't stand up to scrutiny you can pretty much throw it on the fire there and then, for instance, there are a lot of pieces that suggest homeopathy work, funnily enough none of these ever get peer reviewed.
    A bit defensive ain't you ? Mate it was in the daily fail - you can not get more right wing then the daily mail and the sun. Bombarding me because i posted something you do not like? deal with it. Instead of bombarding me with questions surely you would contact the creators of the survey or did you not think of this. I know it may not represent the full audience or may be slightly wrong but they still used a good sample size which proved the hypothesis correct. So bombard the creators with questions not me.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 18, 2018
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.