# Gender traits.



## roadless

Just how are the genders defined?
What is a male gender?
What is a female gender?

All this talk about Transgender has me wondering.
What do you think?


----------



## Irish Pixie

I know I'm a woman. I've known since I was aware of such things. Apparently that is how a transgender woman feels but she was born into a man's body and it's the same for transgender man. 

I don't doubt transgenders, actually anyone that identifies LGBT, because I can't experience their feelings. Who am I doubt what anyone else feels? That's the epitome of arrogance to me.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> I know I'm a woman. I've known since I was aware of such things. Apparently that is how a transgender woman feels but she was born into a man's body and it's the same for transgender man.
> 
> I don't doubt transgenders, actually anyone that identifies LGBT, because I can't experience their feelings. Who am I doubt what anyone else feels? That's the epitome of arrogance to me.


So when someone feels that all Jews must die, you would be powerless to stop them else you be arrogant?

When someone feels that abortion doctors must die, again powerless?

When a molestor feels an uncontrollable urge to molest a child, powerless. 

We cannot be arrogant and tell anyone right from wrong.


----------



## roadless

I hear ya, but just what are the traits that define us as women?

I don't doubt what anyone feels, I am just trying to understand what the specific definitions of male and female traits are.

It seems to me we just all experience human traits.


----------



## Irish Pixie

roadless said:


> I hear ya, but just what are the traits that define us as women?
> 
> I don't doubt what anyone feels, I am just trying to understand what the specific definitions of male and female traits are.
> 
> It seems to me we just all experience human traits.


I agree, there aren't any true gender traits. We're all just human beings. I'm better at fixing things than my husband, he's a much better nurse than I am. We both nurtured our children, we're both intelligent and kind, we both are compassionate.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> So when someone feels that all Jews must die, you would be powerless to stop them else you be arrogant?
> 
> When someone feels that abortion doctors must die, again powerless?
> 
> When a molestor feels an uncontrollable urge to molest a child, powerless.
> 
> We cannot be arrogant and tell anyone right from wrong.


Rubbish. Complete rubbish.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> So when someone feels that all Jews must die, you would be powerless to stop them else you be arrogant?
> 
> When someone feels that abortion doctors must die, again powerless?
> 
> When a molestor feels an uncontrollable urge to molest a child, powerless.
> 
> We cannot be arrogant and tell anyone right from wrong.


What does that have to do with "gender"?


----------



## no really

roadless said:


> I hear ya, but just what are the traits that define us as women?
> 
> I don't doubt what anyone feels, I am just trying to understand what the specific definitions of male and female traits are.
> 
> It seems to me we just all experience human traits.


I have wondered the same thing. Most of my working life is definitely not feminine and I liked what I did. But I still had that soft side, especially when it comes to kids. Yeah, I don't think there are certain traits that are defining as male or female. 

My best friends are gay married and have two kids. There isn't any traits that define them other than good friends, great parents and someone that can be counted on in an emergency.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> What does that have to do with "gender"?


I am not sure. I did make ones arrogance or lack therof a part of the conversation. You would have to ask post 2 what arrogance has to do with gender. I asked 3 questions trying to figure out about arrogance and how it might fit. I got back only "rubbish". Try your luck.


----------



## thericeguy

On topic, I do not know what makes one feel like a man or a woman. For myself, I stick to the more definable things. Sexual organs. Sexual attractions. Those are the clues I use to think of myself as a man. 

I do our households cooking and cleaning. My wife earns all the household income, or darn close. This does not make me less male.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

roadless said:


> I hear ya, but just what are the traits that define us as women?
> 
> I don't doubt what anyone feels, I am just trying to understand what the specific definitions of male and female traits are.
> 
> It seems to me we just all experience human traits.


Gender traits and behaviors are defined partly by their particular cultures.
Clothes, hair styles, and activities are all a part of it

Sexual attraction can be part of it, but it doesn't have to include sexual preference

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> I am not sure. I did make ones arrogance or lack therof a part of the conversation. You would have to ask post 2 what arrogance has to do with gender. I asked 3 questions trying to figure out about arrogance and how it might fit.* I got back only "rubbish"*. Try your luck.


I thought you got back pretty much what you gave considering she explained precisely what she meant about "arrogance" *after* addressing the actual topic.

If you truly just wanted to know what she meant, wouldn't it make more sense to say "What did you mean by that?" rather than go off on some hysterical rant about killing Jews, abortions and molesting children?

I'd have to say I'm not impressed by your arguments, not that it matters


----------



## roadless

Ok, so how would you define them for our culture? 

I am really having a difficult time because I think they run the full spectrum for both males and females.
I can't think of one trait that is specifically one or the other.


----------



## MO_cows

Easy peasy. If it passes copious quantities of gas no matter what you feed it, it's male. If anything from under the hood of a car is a thingamajig, it's female.


----------



## thericeguy

roadless said:


> Ok, so how would you define them for our culture?
> 
> I am really having a difficult time because I think they run the full spectrum for both males and females.
> I can't think of one trait that is specifically one or the other.


I feel no need to define how male or female anyone feels. Feelings are personal, effect noone else unless you act on certain feelings, and any involvement by government into our personal feeling is an unconstitutional and unwanted intrusion. 

Instead, where public policy is needed for order, segregate where needed by definable measurable standards that are not ambiguous; sexes. Male and female. Not gender, which is a feeling.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

roadless said:


> Ok, so how would you define them for our culture?
> 
> I am really having a difficult time because I think they run the full spectrum for both males and females.
> I can't think of one trait that is specifically one or the other.


There will always be individuals that don't fit the "norm" but the traits themselves tend to be pretty gender specific if you go by majorities.

Females typically do the child-rearing, cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping chores. 

When I was in school, you almost never saw a male in a typing class because "men didn't need to type, that's what secretaries do"

You seldom saw a male nurse, or a female Dr.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> I feel no need to define how male or female anyone feels. Feelings are personal, effect noone else unless you act on certain feelings, and any involvement by government into our personal feeling is an unconstitutional and unwanted intrusion.
> 
> Instead, where public policy is needed for order, segregate where needed by definable measurable standards that are not ambiguous; sexes. Male and female. Not gender, which is a feeling.


What's that line about "narrow arguments"?

Gender is more than a "feeling", and Govt, the Constitution or public policy really have nothing to do with it in this context


----------



## roadless

Maybe when we were growing up BFF but I don't see that as accurate today.


----------



## oneraddad

More women squat to pee than men


----------



## roadless

True Raddad but I recently saw a device on the market that we can use standing!
Good grief!,


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> What's that line about "narrow arguments"?
> 
> Gender is more than a "feeling", and Govt, the Constitution or public policy really have nothing to do with it in this context


My argument is historical. The sum history of mankind has, by and large, used that standard. 

Why did you use a historical cultural norm of cooking and typing if history served no relavency here?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

roadless said:


> Maybe when we were growing up BFF but I don't see that as accurate today.


Things change a lot over time which is part of what makes giving a good answer difficult.

I have some old family pictures from the late 1800's and early 1900's where the young boys and girls are all wearing what appear to be "dresses" but that was "normal" then.

More and more the traits and "social duties" have overlapped, but many remain the same. Other than celebrities, you rarely see men with makeup. 

Most men have shorter hair and almost never wear a skirt or dress


----------



## Irish Pixie

Irish Pixie said:


> I know I'm a woman. I've known since I was aware of such things. Apparently that is how a transgender woman feels but she was born into a man's body and it's the same for transgender man.
> 
> I don't doubt transgenders, actually anyone that identifies LGBT, because I can't experience their feelings. Who am I doubt what anyone else feels? That's the epitome of arrogance to me.


I'm sorry, roadless I totally misunderstood your post when I wrote this. It wasn't meant to immediately take your thread off topic. I was thinking about it had to come back and explain.


----------



## roadless

True BBF but the lines do seem to be more and more blurred , which speaks to my question on just what traits are male or female.... again I don't think they can be specifically defined.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> My argument is historical. The sum history of mankind has, by and large, used that standard.
> 
> Why did you use a historical cultural norm of cooking and typing if history served no relavency here?


Your arguments just seem to have little to do with gender and more to do with ranting about Govt policy and biological sex.

The things I referred to are historical *gender roles*, not political complaints about what "should" be done


----------



## roadless

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sorry, roadless I totally misunderstood your post when I wrote this. It wasn't meant to immediately take your thread off topic. I was thinking about it had to come back and explain.


It's all good Irish Pixie, the thread can go wherever ya'll want it to : )


----------



## Bearfootfarm

roadless said:


> It's all good Irish Pixie, the thread can go *wherever ya'll want it to* : )


They almost never go where I want them to 
I may need to start a forum and make myself the moderator


----------



## roadless

Well this thread doesn't seem to be going anywhere!


----------



## MO_cows

You look at old photos and it seems they weren't as obsessed with "pink or blue" as we are. A photo of my grandpa and his brother, both had longer hair and the younger was in a "gown". I would guess they were 2 and 1 at the time. My dad, they didn't cut his hair until his 2nd birthday and he has a toddler photo where he could pass for a girl. My sitter put DS in a dress one April fools day for DH to pick him up and the man about had a heart attack. Lol


----------



## Elevenpoint

roadless said:


> Well this thread doesn't seem to be going anywhere!


In the normal world men are masculine...women are feminine.
I don't know or have I met a woman that is interested in a feminine man.
Nor do I know or have met a man that is attracted to a woman that...has any man part to her.


----------



## roadless

I work at a vocational school and every year we get more and more students in all the various vocations, boys in nursing and cosmetology, girls in HVAC and automotive .
It is not an issue that it may have been in years past.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> *In the normal world* men are masculine...women are feminine.
> I don't know or have I met a woman that is interested in a feminine man.
> Nor do I know or have met a man that is attracted to a woman that...has any man part to her.


Everything is "the normal world", since there's just the one.
It doesn't require any individuals approval nor acceptance


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Things change a lot over time which is part of what makes giving a good answer difficult.
> 
> I have some old family pictures from the late 1800's and early 1900's where the young boys and girls are all wearing what appear to be "dresses" but that was "normal" then.
> 
> More and more the traits and "social duties" have overlapped, but many remain the same. Other than celebrities, you rarely see men with makeup.
> 
> Most men have shorter hair and almost never wear a skirt or dress


That is why it is problematic to use anything but a discrete trait like sexual organs to segregate persons if there is a need to segregate. The other traits are too fluid for policies to keep updated. 

There is nothing ambiguous about sex organs, while sexual identity is personal, unprovable, and none of the governments business.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

What about Transvestites then? Someone confused about their gender, but not enough to 
want go full time? I'm just trying to understand here. Or is the term non PC, but the same as Transgender?


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

roadless said:


> I work at a vocational school and every year we get more and more students in all the various vocations, boys in nursing and cosmetology, girls in HVAC and automotive .
> It is not an issue that it may have been in years past.


They don't beat up the guys taking cosmetology anymore? Strange
..lol


----------



## roadless

The boys in Cosmology seem to be accepted from what I can tell. In fact the gay boy seems to have way more female friends than the straight boys do.


----------



## thericeguy

At my last job, some level of integration was taking place. It is a steel foundry. The sales team was a fairly even mix of the sexes. Accounting was all female with a male leader. The machine shop had managed to hire 3 women over 10 years. Administration and management was overly dominated by males, but the heir apparent CEO being groomed was female. The actual foundry where very hot, dangerous, and physical work took place was exclusively male. Maintenance was exclusively male. 

My take is that women were starting to self integrate some by choosing primarily male dominated career choices, but continue to avoid certain areas of the economy. Coupled with sterotyped views in hiring and you get the scewed ratios I saw there.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> What about Transvestites then? Someone confused about their gender, but not enough to
> want go full time? I'm just trying to understand here. Or is the term non PC, but the same as Transgender?


They often just seem to enjoy wearing women's clothes without exhibiting any of the other traits.

One could be a "transvestite" by wearing women's undergarments and show no outward signs at all


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> That is why it is problematic to use anything but a discrete trait like *sexual organs *to segregate persons if there is a need to segregate. The other traits are too fluid for policies to keep updated.
> 
> There is nothing ambiguous about* sex organs*, while sexual identity is personal, unprovable, and none of the governments business.


You're still confusing "biological sex" with "gender" and "gender traits/roles".

This isn't about biology


----------



## Bearfootfarm

roadless said:


> The boys in Cosmology seem to be accepted from what I can tell. In fact the gay boy seems to have way more female friends than the straight boys do.


They see him as "one of the girls" and don't feel they have to compete for his attention. 

I suspect that is how many feel about transgenders/transsexuals with whom they are familiar


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Then a transgender wants to show outside traits and wants to be accepted for that? 
Life is hard enough to get through as it is, and then people want to change the rules. So, if someone at a young age starts showing transvestite traits, does that mean they could end up being transgender?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Then a transgender wants to show outside traits and wants to be accepted for that?
> Life is hard enough to get through as it is, and then people want to change the rules. So, if someone at a young age starts showing transvestite traits, does that mean they could end up being transgender?


Most transgender actually think of themselves as the gender they want to adopt rather than the one that matches biologically.

Dressing up at a young age could just be a passing fad. I think it would depend on the degree to which it was done, and the actual age. 

If they only did it while playing at home that's one degree, as opposed to wanting to dress that way in public.

Some never progress beyond dressing in private


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Then the transvestite has a psychological issue as opposed with a regressive altered gene the transgender has.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Then the transvestite has *a psychological issue* as opposed with a regressive altered gene the transgender has.


Maybe they just like the way it feels.

Not every eccentricity is a psychological "issue"
It's just a "difference" that doesn't harm anyone at all in most cases

There is some scientific evidence showing both physical and biological differences between transgenders and heterosexuals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're still confusing "biological sex" with "gender" and "gender traits/roles".
> 
> This isn't about biology


To you it is not about biology. Who put you in charge?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> To you it is not about biology. Who put you in charge?


Gender is not strictly about biology.
It has nothing to do with anyone being "in charge"

It has more to do with using the proper terms, and this thread is supposed to be about "gender traits".

You keep harping on physical traits, and insinuating they should be used as a means of control.



> genÂ·der
> [&#712;jend&#601;r]
> NOUN
> the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to *social and cultural differences rather than biological* ones):


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

They don't have transgenders identified in the animal kingdom right? I don't recall a male lion ever chewing off his nads to be a lioness.


----------



## Jokarva

There are transgenders in the animal kingdom, or so I've seen on the Nature channel. Primarily fish and amphibians, who can switch sexes depending on environmental conditions and population needs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> They don't have transgenders identified in the animal kingdom right? I don't recall a male lion ever chewing off his nads to be a lioness.


There can be female deer with antlers, female lions with full manes, and hens that crow


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

I have seen the deer you speak of and even a hen Turkey with a beard.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

I wanted to add the ones I saw with the physical admoralities didn't change their biological roll. 
I have raised chickens many years but have never had a hen crow.


----------



## Bubba1358

roadless said:


> Just how are the genders defined?
> What is a male gender?
> What is a female gender?
> 
> All this talk about Transgender has me wondering.
> What do you think?


Gender traits are things inherent within the framework of male and female biology. It has far more to do with sexual reproductive anatomy, although that is obviously a large part of it.

For starters, male and female chromosome data is different.

Females are defined by the ability to menstruate, become pregnant, give birth, and lactate. Males are defined by the ability to impregnate, and also with increased physical characteristics such as muscular strength, increased frame size, facial hair, etc.

Beyond that, the female and male brain work differently. The female brain is "wired" for an increased function in verbal communication. The male brain is "wired" for an increased function in spatial awareness.

Females and males also contain different levels of hormones, different functions from the same hormones, have different growth rates, different skeletal characteristics, different sized organs, and many other variations.

I believe that one cannot choose to no longer be male or female, just like one cannot choose to have paws instead of hands. These characteristics are innate from the very moment of conception. Choosing one or the other does nothing to stop the biological processes from unfolding. Sure, modern technology has allowed us the ability to override nature. I don't believe this is a good thing, though. I believe that no amount of surgery, hormone therapy, and cross dressing can make you what you aren't.

I fully expect to get flamed for this, but I don't care in the least what anyone here thinks about me. Truth is truth, and the truth is that males are male and females are female, and to pretend otherwise is just lying to yourself.


----------



## Bubba1358

Bearfootfarm said:


> Gender is not strictly about biology.


Where did this line of thinking originate?

How long has this been a "thing"?

When did this premise become accepted as undisputed fact?


----------



## thericeguy

Bubba, everything you said, which I will not quote, is likely responsible for the 20 fold increase in suicide rates among surgically completed transgenders. Whacking it off did not fix the problem the way the doctors said it would. Depression. Death.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

There should maybe be a crowd source fund established for addadicktomes.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bubba1358 said:


> Where did this line of thinking originate?
> 
> How long has this been a "thing"?
> 
> When did this premise become accepted as undisputed fact?


I don't have a date it began but it is a direct result of the foolishness of man.


----------



## hoddedloki

I agree with Bubba. Gender is a direct refection of biological sex, and all of the cultural trappings are nothing more than a recognition of that basic biological difference. We can try to ignore the biology that underlies gender and gender roles by saying that you can choose what gender you are, but doing so has the same relationship with factual reality as saying that the sky is purple.

Loki


----------



## dixiegal62

Bubba1358 said:


> Where did this line of thinking originate?
> 
> How long has this been a "thing"?
> 
> When did this premise become accepted as undisputed fact?


https://familyinequality.wordpress....ont-defend-the-sex-versus-gender-distinction/

their famous article, âDoing Gender,â West and Zimmerman report making the sex/gender distinction in their sociology classes starting in the late 1960s. Iâm guessing this really started to catch on among sociologists in the 1970s, based on this ngram of âsocial construction of genderâ and âsocial construction of sexâ as percentages of all uses of âsocial constructionâ in American English:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Bubba1358 said:


> Where did this line of thinking originate?
> 
> How long has this been a "thing"?
> 
> When did this premise become accepted as undisputed fact?


Links have been posted.
Nothing is "undisputed" anymore, but that should be obvious


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Bubba, everything you said, which I will not quote, is likely responsible for the 20 fold increase in suicide rates among surgically completed transgenders. Whacking it off did not fix the problem the way the doctors said it would. Depression. Death.


There are studies that suggest part of the reason for the high suicide rates is the discrimination they get from the "morally superior"


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are studies that suggest part of the reason for the high suicide rates is the discrimination they get from the "morally superior"


There are studies that suggest smoking is good for you, pollution is not harmful, and that cavemen overhunted Trex using rocks to cause the ice age. A study can say anything you want if the inputs are carefully controlled. 

And you should expect to be treated differently by society when you go aroung telling people you are a girl trapped in a mans body. The constitution does not promise evetyone gets a milk shake with a cherry on top. I bet some homeless people would agree to that statement. 

What about slavery suicide rates? How about Jews? How about Christians?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> There are studies that suggest smoking is good for you, pollution is not harmful, and that cavemen overhunted Trex using rocks to cause the ice age. A study can say anything you want if the inputs are carefully controlled.
> 
> And you should expect to be treated differently by society when you go aroung telling people you are a girl trapped in a mans body. The constitution does not promise evetyone gets a milk shake with a cherry on top. I bet some homeless people would agree to that statement.
> 
> What about slavery suicide rates? How about Jews? How about Christians?


So where did you get your information on suicides and transgenders? A study?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> So where did you get your information on suicides and transgenders? A study?


Hmmm, the people who invented sex change operations, so the people who have the longest history of working with patients involving sex change. Same group who no longer do sex change operations because they concluded based on patient tracking that reassignment surgery did nothing to change the lives of patients in s positive way. 

Waited enough posts to think everyone forgot what you wrote? Lets get it.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Hmmm, the people who invented sex change operations, so the people who have the longest history of working with patients involving sex change. Same group who no longer do sex change operations because they concluded based on patient tracking that reassignment surgery did nothing to change the lives of patients in s positive way.
> 
> Waited enough posts to think everyone forgot what you wrote? Lets get it.


So a study. "A study can say anything you want if the inputs are carefully controlled. " Your own words.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> So a study. "A study can say anything you want if the inputs are carefully controlled. " Your own words.


Yup. I said that. I put forth my opinion. Trans people jump off bridges, shhot themselves, snd drink poison at 20x a societal rate because that moment when their entire life goal of becoming the opposite sex, after all those surgeries, pills, and treatments, turns out they are still the same person they were. 

That crushing realization there is no easy fix snd you get BANG!

That is my opinion. Yup, my opinion. You might understand those words.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> So a study. "A study can say anything you want if the inputs are carefully controlled. " Your own words.


A statistic is not a study. It is a mathematical value. Or do we get to make up our own math answers these days too?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Yup. I said that. I put forth my opinion. Trans people jump off bridges, shhot themselves, snd drink poison at 20x a societal rate because that moment when their entire life goal of becoming the opposite sex, after all those surgeries, pills, and treatments, turns out they are still the same person they were.
> 
> That crushing realization there is no easy fix snd you get BANG!
> 
> That is my opinion. Yup, my opinion. You might understand those words.


Just making sure because you have told other people that their posts are basically nothing because of the exact same thing.


----------



## thericeguy

Well, it might be incovenient to discuss the rate at which transgender people destroy themselves after reaching the peak of the therapy offered them by todays society (reassignment surgery), but I think this statistic should throw into question the treatment being offered. 

Remember when I said sacrifice anyone to achieve a goal? That includes transgender people too. 

When they get to pee anywhere they want and still eat a grocery store supply of tylenol, will you then question the treatment, or just pick a new reason that must be changed to help these poor discriminated people?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Well, it might be incovenient to discuss the rate at which transgender people destroy themselves after reaching the peak of the therapy offered them by todays society (reassignment surgery), but I think this statistic should throw into question the treatment being offered.
> 
> Remember when I said sacrifice anyone to achieve a goal? That includes transgender people too.
> 
> When they get to pee anywhere they want and still eat a grocery store supply of tylenol, will you then question the treatment, or just pick a new reason that must be changed to help these poor discriminated people?


Again you are back to talking about sex instead of gender traits.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Again you are back to talking about sex instead of gender traits.


And you are back to ignoring questions. Good that you finally started listening to me. Cant have you saying whites should be killed or that native Americans dont deserve to be their own nation. That would look bad.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> And you are back to ignoring questions. Good that you finally started listening to me. Cant have you saying whites should be killed or that native Americans dont deserve to be their own nation. That would look bad.


I ignore questions that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. You seem to specialize in asking questions like that. Then you get upset when people choose not to answer them. I choose not to acquiesce to your need to your control.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I ignore questions that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. You seem to specialize in asking questions like that. Then you get upset when people choose not to answer them. I choose not to acquiesce to your need to your control.


Your side of this issue made gender traits and transgender linked. Scroll back. Hint: its post 2. 

And people blowing their brains out is not about sex or gender. So, keep avoiding, but why is the finest treatment, the end all be all of medicine, tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, why is it unable to save them?


----------



## thericeguy

How many more must die before people stop using them to further their ultimate goals?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Your side of this issue made gender traits and transgender linked. Scroll back. Hint: its post 2.
> 
> And people blowing their brains out is not about sex or gender. So, keep avoiding, but why is the finest treatment, the end all be all of medicine, tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, why is it unable to save them?


I am a person. I have my own argument. Lumping me into a side really does not work because I have my own opinions ideas.

You are the one linking suicide and sex organs and bringing it into this thread.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> There are studies that suggest smoking is good for you, pollution is not harmful, and that cavemen overhunted Trex using rocks to cause the ice age. A study can say anything you want if the inputs are carefully controlled.
> 
> And you should expect to be treated differently by society when you go aroung telling people you are a girl trapped in a mans body.
> 
> *The constitution does not promise evetyone gets a milk shake with a cherry on top.*
> 
> I bet some homeless people would agree to that statement.
> 
> What about slavery suicide rates? How about Jews? How about Christians?


You're the one complaining now. 
Doesn't that rule still apply?

If you want to run down those other rabbit trails, you can go alone.
This thread is about "gender traits"


----------



## thericeguy

Gender traits; facial hair, enlarged breasts, ovaries, testicles, and numerous other traits are a reflections of the genes being expressed, no different than hair or eye color. These are DNA driven. 

There is a spectrum within each gender. A woman can have large or small breasts. A man can have a very full beard or a weak one. But when you profess to be a man trapped in a womans body, you have crossed out of a spectrum and into error. In this case we would define that error as mental illness. 

Left untreated, mental illness can consume the person, causing irreparable harm. Our society does not treat this as a mental illness because we dont want anyone to feel bad. So we mutilate them and send them off all fixed so they can drink Clorox. 

Horrible policy being exploited for political gain. Cutting it up into tiny unrelated pieces to discuss seperately only serves to craft the narrow argument which can be "won" on technical grounds instead of on reason.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Drink Clorox. Lmao


----------



## Jokarva

Article from an author I know nothing about, but I am somewhat familiar with the chromosomal anomalies he mentions. I found it interesting, ymmv.

http://www.joshuakennon.com/the-six-common-biological-sexes-in-humans/


----------



## Irish Pixie

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Then the transvestite has a psychological issue as opposed with a regressive altered gene the transgender has.


Could be a fetish rather than a full fledged psych issue, it just depends on the individual and the circumstance.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Gender traits; facial hair, enlarged breasts, ovaries, testicles, and numerous other traits are a reflections of the genes being expressed, no different than hair or eye color. These are DNA driven.
> 
> There is a spectrum within each gender. A woman can have large or small breasts. A man can have a very full beard or a weak one. But when you profess to be a man trapped in a womans body, you have crossed out of a spectrum and into error. In this case we would define that error as mental illness.
> 
> Left untreated, mental illness can consume the person, causing irreparable harm. Our society does not treat this as a mental illness because we dont want anyone to feel bad. So we mutilate them and send them off all fixed so they can drink Clorox.
> 
> Horrible policy being exploited for political gain. Cutting it up into tiny unrelated pieces to discuss seperately only serves to craft the narrow argument which can be "won" on technical grounds instead of on reason.


There are lots of different types of mental illness, aren't there?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Or there could be straight up plainly worded answers to direct question. They might even come LONG before your prediction. Is this thing on?
> 
> But, since you pointed out spin and back peddling, lets look at some of my unanswered questions.
> 
> How do the suicide rates of slaves, who were onviously discriminated against, compare to those of trans who are getting dead at 20x societal rates? It was suggested discrimination was the cause.
> 
> How about compared to free blacks. They have an incarceration rate that melts the brain. Are they jumping off bridges in mass?
> 
> How about Jews. One group of people tried to erase them from existence. Have you heard about it? It is called the holocaust. Check it out. Are they eating bullets?
> 
> Just curious about those things since they are distinct groups of people who have been persecuted to the Nth degree more than trans. What is your and anyone elses opinion of the suicide rates of those groups, and the roles slavery, discrimination, and genocide might play.
> 
> We will never know. Why? Double speak. Avoidance. All to ignore reality because you want what you want and are willing to sacrifice anyone to get it, even trans people.
> 
> The Democratic party needs your votes, so they pretend to care about you to seize power. They also dont care how many people jump off a bridge.
> 
> Its a great big game of usery. Keep up the fine work.


Read your post. All over the place and nothing to do with the OP. That is why I don't bother answering.


----------



## Heritagefarm

I never even knew about trans genders until a few months ago. I was a pretty typical boy kid. I played in the mud, drove my Tonka trucks around, built with Legos. I had some dolls, but they never really interested me. They were there, but I usually preferred cars and whathaveyou.
At the same time, I've always liked flowers. They're pretty. I have a decidedly non-masculine car that I love. I enjoy clothes with floral patterns and artwork involving scenery and flowers. I not opposed to pink, either (used to be a girl's color, but no one ever told me. Amazing what you fail to realize when no one installs prejudice in your mind, right?).
It's all so complicated. Forcing anyone into a single mold is unfair and prejudiced. Just let people be who the want to be (provided it doesn't make everyone go berserk). It really doesn't matter - we're all just humans and we need to be making the world a better place, not proving our moral superiority.


----------



## thericeguy

Democratic party abuses trans crowd. Story at 9. 

Jews go into hiding study says. Story at 9. 

Slaves risk lives in search of freedom. Story at 9. 

Black face overwhelming odds to succeed. Story at 9. 

Christian students banned from reading Bible at school lunch. News at 9. 

Apparently some members of the LGBT supporters say blacks and women have it made. Withdraw support. News at 9. 

Suicide rates among fully repaired trans 20x that of others. Editor withdrew story.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Sorry. Do I need to break up ideas into 16 word 9pm news headlines?


Think about it. Most people like to discuss one question at a time not have to answer 10 at a time. Then when they don't answer every single one you accuse them of not answering or dodging.

Many of us are multitasking while we read or respond. Like having a conversation while you do the dishes. Would you ask all those questions like that of soneone you were conversing with?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Think about it. Most people like to discuss one question at a time not have to answer 10 at a time. Then when they don't answer every single one you accuse them of not answering or dodging.
> 
> Many of us are multitasking while we read or respond. Like having a conversation while you do the dishes. Would you ask all those questions like that of soneone you were conversing with?


Its pretty neat. The words dont go away, but since you asked. I am cooking dinner, babysitting 3 kids, and took a shower 10 minutes ago. I try to keep up with poultry, pigs, cooking, gardening, snd 3-4 threads in gen chat. And I try my best to answer any and all questions directed at me, even if they font contain any question marks. And I do that on about a 3 inch screen typing with 1 finger. Hmmm. 

And sll my questions, when read and interpreted sum up to one question for, what I hope, most people. 

Why do other persecuted groups not have massive suicide rates like trans if discrimination is the source of the suicide?

I feel like most prople trying would have gotten that.


----------



## Nsoitgoes

roadless said:


> The boys in Cosmology seem to be accepted from what I can tell. In fact the gay boy seems to have way more female friends than the straight boys do.


That's because gay men are both fun and safe. Sorry. I have quite a lot of male friends and a fair proportion of them are gay. I find them easy to talk to, non-judgemental, they accept who I am and what I do and if I go out with one of them for the evening I know I won't have to fight them off if I invite them in for coffee.


----------



## bjba

The whole subject is impossible to discuss rationally because the discussion is rooted in "feelings". The Merriam Webster dictionary in a discussion of "Synonym Discussion of feeling" makes the point "Feeling, emotion, affection, sentiment, passion mean a subjective response to a person, thing, or situation. How does one quantify a feeling, how does an impartial observer study a feeling, how does an impartial observer validate a feeling. Until the discussion of transgender is removed from the realm of feeling and emotion it is all moonshine.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nsoitgoes said:


> That's because gay men are both fun and safe. Sorry. I have quite a lot of male friends and a fair proportion of them are gay. I find them easy to talk to, non-judgemental, they accept who I am and what I do and if I go out with one of them for the evening I know I won't have to fight them off if I invite them in for coffee.


Exactly. I have quite a few gay guys as friends and it's great. I never have to worry about them hitting on me and making it awkward.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Heritagefarm said:


> I never even knew about trans genders until a few months ago. I was a pretty typical boy kid. I played in the mud, drove my Tonka trucks around, built with Legos. I had some dolls, but they never really interested me. They were there, but I usually preferred cars and whathaveyou.
> At the same time, I've always liked flowers. They're pretty. I have a decidedly non-masculine car that I love. I enjoy clothes with floral patterns and artwork involving scenery and flowers. I not opposed to pink, either (used to be a girl's color, but no one ever told me. Amazing what you fail to realize when no one installs prejudice in your mind, right?).
> It's all so complicated. Forcing anyone into a single mold is unfair and prejudiced. Just let people be who the want to be (provided it doesn't make everyone go berserk). It really doesn't matter - we're all just humans and we need to be making the world a better place, not proving our moral superiority.


My pink Ralph Lauren button down shirt attracts women like butterfly's to Indian paintbrush.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> My pink Ralph Lauren button down shirt *attracts women* like butterfly's to Indian paintbrush.


I saw you trying to make some smooth moves on one on another site, but it didn't turn out too well.

First they couldn't understand your cryptic message, and then they told you they were male.

Maybe if you had a avatar of you in the shirt...


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nsoitgoes said:


> That's because gay men are both fun and safe. Sorry. I have quite a lot of male friends and a fair proportion of them are gay. I find them easy to talk to, non-judgemental, they accept who I am and what I do and if I go out with one of them for the evening I know I won't have to fight them off if I invite them in for coffee.


Well yea.....that's no fun....


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> I saw you trying to make some smooth moves on one on another site, but it didn't turn out too well.
> 
> First they couldn't understand your cryptic message, and then they told you they were male.
> 
> Maybe if you had a avatar of you in the shirt...


Works in public.


----------



## FarmerKat

Well ... I have just skimmed through the discussion but the OP got me googling. Found this list: http://nonbinary.org/wiki/List_of_nonbinary_identities

It's still very confusing to me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> *Works *in public.


Sure it does, which explains why you tried to entice a guy in a forum 
by telling him how cool and dependable you are 

Complete sentences will get you more action


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FarmerKat said:


> Well ... I have just skimmed through the discussion but the OP got me googling. Found this list: http://nonbinary.org/wiki/List_of_nonbinary_identities
> 
> It's still very confusing to me.


That was educational
Thanks


----------



## arabian knight

elevenpoint said:


> In the normal world men are masculine...women are feminine.
> I don't know or have I met a woman that is interested in a feminine man.
> Nor do I know or have met a man that is attracted to a woman that...has any man part to her.


 Females have XX chromosome and males have XY....no amount of makeup, hormones or surgery will change that. And no amount of legislation will change THAT. Nor should ANY group TRY to redefine what is Female and what is male.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> I saw you trying to make some smooth moves on one on another site, but it didn't turn out too well.
> 
> First they couldn't understand your cryptic message, and then they told you they were male.
> 
> Maybe if you had a avatar of you in the shirt...


No..I figured out he was a man after rereading his post.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sure it does, which explains why you tried to entice a guy in a forum
> by telling him how cool and dependable you are
> 
> Complete sentences will get you more action


Last week when the neighbors daughter said she was going to the amusement park the next day...I gave her $20 for fun money... she said I was the coolest so that's been confirmed.


----------



## Heritagefarm

elevenpoint said:


> No..I figured out he was a man after rereading his post.


It's OK... some of us are more accepting than others.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Last week when the neighbors daughter said she was going to the amusement park the next day...I gave her $20 for fun money... she said I was the coolest so that's been confirmed.


Hearsay is meaningless

What you're really saying is you had to pay a woman for her to say that.

You should stop digging before the hole gets any deeper


----------



## DisasterCupcake

Gender has been defined by many different cultures in many different ways. 

Currently, our culture has become hypersensitive to the fact that those not conforming to either-or exist. This also is not something new. History is full of sexually ambiguous people, and even those switching gender roles. It is a physiological fact. Hermaphroditism exists. I learned in physiology that it is about as common as red-headedness. Every time you see a red head, my professor said, is about as often as you've run across a natural born hermaphrodite. At this point everyone in the lecture hall looked around to see how many redheads were in the room.

This is just to say, defining gender based on biological attributes alone falls short. If XX is female and XY is male, what are the others born with XYX? Or those born with XY and physically are female? 

Gender roles for different cultures can vary. In my personal experience, being raised in a small highly conservative community, gender has been made to represent a male being large, protective, tough, sacrificial, strong, etc. The female generally smaller, coy, soft, nurturing, receptive. Those who don't fit in one of these two are treated with the same general courtesy, but with less interest and a sort of gaurded trust. I could see the pressure to 'pick one' being very stressful. 

To what extent does culture influence those who are born ambiguous? and vice versa


----------



## Shine

As far as femininity and masculinity goes, they have established that the female body makes use of different hormones than the male body does. They have confirmed finding hormones and other drugs in this nation's drinking water.

""Ever since the late 1990s, the science community has recognized that pharmaceuticals, especially oral contraceptives, are found in sewage water and are potentially contaminating drinking water," Janssen tells WebMD."

http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/drugs-in-our-drinking-water

So, there is a possibility that many of the gender traits that are showing up today and smudging the picture of what were the traditional gender traits might have been brought about due to contaminated drinking water, our own fault for being too smart on one thing[pharmaceuticals] and quite stupid in another venue[contaminated drinking water]. 

It would interest me greatly if the whole history of pharmaceuticals with regards to our drinking water were to be known, not just surmised...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> As far as femininity and masculinity goes, they have established that the female body makes use of different hormones than the male body does. They have confirmed finding hormones and other drugs in this nation's drinking water.
> 
> ""Ever since the late 1990s, the science community has recognized that pharmaceuticals, especially oral contraceptives, are found in sewage water and are potentially contaminating drinking water," Janssen tells WebMD."
> 
> http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/drugs-in-our-drinking-water
> 
> So, there is a possibility that many of the gender traits that are showing up today and smudging the picture of what were the traditional gender traits might have been brought about due to contaminated drinking water, our own fault for being too smart on one thing[pharmaceuticals] and quite stupid in another venue[contaminated drinking water].
> 
> It would interest me greatly if the whole history of pharmaceuticals with regards to our drinking water were to be known, not just surmised...


No, it's got nothing to do with drugs in the water because it's nothing new at all.

The first documented transsexual female to male was in the 1940's, and transgenders have been common throughout human history

It's so easy even a cave-man can do it:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oldest-gay-man/story?id=13320808



> Archaeologists in the Czech Republic have unearthed the grave of what may be the remains of the oldest known homosexual or transgender man.
> 
> The prehistoric body dates to the Copper age -- or *2900 to 2500 years ago* -- and was buried in a manner that was typically reserved for women.
> 
> The male skeleton was found on its side, facing east, and was surrounded by domestic jugs, objects previously seen only in female graves. An oval, egg-shaped container, usually associated with female burials, was also found at the feet of the skeleton.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, it's got nothing to do with drugs in the water because it's nothing new at all.
> 
> The first documented transsexual female to male was in the 1940's, and transgenders have been common throughout human history


Can you provide any empirical evidence to support your supposition that the pharmaceuticals in our drinking water has had no impact upon this particular issue?

I mean, those at the WebMD website are concerned as are a number of other entities including the EPA, so I do not see how you can sweep their concerns off the table without some sort of credible references, yes?

It does seem to be reasonable to consider that the number of hormonal and synthetic hormonal pharmaceutical contaminants most certainly having an effect, those just have yet to be determined. Estrogen is one of the most concerning contaminates in the whole batch of contaminates. 

Estrogen being a strong female hormone and the ranges within the more major cities being higher than other, more rural environments would seem to be quite possibly a factor where more males are displaying female gender traits.

Do you have access to any demographics that might track the reported instances of Transgenderism and 1. the percentage per population and 2. their localities of occurrence?

ETA: I see your edit includes proof that there "may be" something which supports your contention that uses the standard of proof at the level of "was typically" and "previously seen only" and "usually associated" so I guess that is absolute proof of what you are saying. 

Oh, and the usual slight about the abilities of cavemen that is included in your posts, at no charge I might add. What is the purpose of these slights I might ask?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> Hearsay is meaningless
> 
> What you're really saying is you had to pay a woman for her to say that.
> 
> You should stop digging before the hole gets any deeper


No..what I'm really saying is that I was able to have a positive impact on her life that day.
In return she thinks I'm cool...which is really cool considering it was about her day being better.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> *Can you provide any empirical evidence to support your supposition that the pharmaceuticals in our drinking water has had no impact upon this particular issue?*
> 
> I mean, those at the WebMD website are concerned as are a number of other entities including the EPA, so I do not see how you can sweep their concerns off the table without some sort of credible references, yes?
> 
> It does seem to be reasonable to consider that the number of hormonal and synthetic hormonal pharmaceutical contaminants most certainly having an effect, those just have yet to be determined. Estrogen is one of the most concerning contaminates in the whole batch of contaminates.
> 
> Estrogen being a strong female hormone and the ranges within the more major cities being higher than other, more rural environments would seem to be quite possibly a factor where more males are displaying female gender traits.
> 
> Do you have access to any demographics that might track the reported instances of Transgenderism and 1. the percentage per population and 2. their localities of occurrence?


You've provided none that it has.
This is a definite "maybe":



> ""Ever since the late 1990s, the science community has recognized that pharmaceuticals, especially oral contraceptives, are found in sewage water and are *potentially* contaminating drinking water," Janssen tells WebMD."


It's proven the phenomenon predates pharmaceuticals.


----------



## thericeguy

Just to press your feel good everything is OK button, go youtube Green Acre Farms. It will show you what is happening to the massive quantities of human manure being produced in the US every day. 

When congress banned dumping human feces into the ocean, it quite suddenly became legal and ethical to grow our human food supply in human manure. 

We do not test for pharmaceutical residue in the product. Our acceptable levels of contaminants are hundreds and thousands of times higher than Europe. Makes for some nice reading. 

A broke government is feeding you human manure residue. Mad Cow comes to mind. Enjoy your carrots and potatoes folks. I am growing my own.


----------



## DisasterCupcake

I doubt that we can completely rule out the possibility of environmental factors contributing to gender ambiguity. Atrizine has been shown to cause feminization of frogs, and it is found throughout the environment. 
However, the occurrence of gender ambiguity goes back as far as one cares to look. I doubt there was pharmaceutical or chemical factors influencing those people.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> No..what I'm really saying is that I was able to have a positive impact on her life that day.
> In return she thinks I'm cool...which is really cool considering it was about her day being better.


She thinks you're cool because you gave her money.
We had this conversation already.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> She thinks you're cool because you gave her money.
> We had this conversation already.


Isnt that how welfare works?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DisasterCupcake said:


> I doubt that we can completely rule out the possibility of environmental factors contributing to gender ambiguity. Atrizine has been *shown to cause feminization of frogs*, and it is found throughout the environment.
> However, the occurrence of gender ambiguity goes back as far as one cares to look. I doubt there was pharmaceutical or chemical factors influencing those people.


That's with a direct application to the eggs in the water.
There's no evidence of any such effects in humans or any other animals that I'm aware of.

"Possibilities" can't be ruled out, but by the same token they can't be "ruled *in*" without supporting evidence. That's just pure speculation.

Atrazine use is concentrated in certain areas, so if there were any effects, those regions *should be* producing a higher rate of transgenders.

Are there more in or from the upper Mid-West?

If not, there is your answer


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> No *we did not have a conversation*.


It's all still on the screen.


----------



## DisasterCupcake

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076011000665
Atrazine exposure shows specific changes across vertebrate classes.


----------



## bjba

I never cease to be amazed by the expertise of those who comment on internet forums. In this thread there appear to be those with extensive expertise in both biology and human behavior. The one fact that has a broad multi discipline consensus is how little is actually known about everything. My favorite journalist observed " For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken In all the rhetoric I have seen concerning transgender there is much more opinion than fact.


----------



## thericeguy

I find it odd we can use DNA to sentence a man to 23 consecutive life sentences, but not which prison to put him in. Very odd.


----------



## Elevenpoint

arabian knight said:


> Females have XX chromosome and males have XY....no amount of makeup, hormones or surgery will change that. And no amount of legislation will change THAT. Nor should ANY group TRY to redefine what is Female and what is male.


Being in support of transgender is no different than supporting any other mental illness.


----------



## DisasterCupcake

elevenpoint said:


> Being in support of transgender is no different than supporting any other mental illness.


I wonder if hermaphrotism can be defined as a mental illness...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Just to press your feel good everything is OK button, go youtube Green Acre Farms. It will show you what is happening to the massive quantities of human manure being produced in the US every day.
> 
> When congress banned dumping human feces into the ocean, it quite suddenly became legal and ethical to grow our human food supply in human manure.
> 
> *We do not test for pharmaceutical residue in the product.* Our acceptable levels of contaminants are hundreds and thousands of times higher than Europe. Makes for some nice reading.
> 
> A broke government is feeding you human manure residue. Mad Cow comes to mind. Enjoy your carrots and potatoes folks. I am growing my own.


If it's not tested then you can't just assume it's there.

Mad Cow is transmitted by eating brain or spinal tissue from infected animals, not from human feces

If you are going reference sources though, links would be nice instead of some vague farm name

Green Acre Farms Youtube gets you: 



> Green Acres: Lisa the Psychologist Season &#8470;6 Episode &#8470;168 (9 March 1971) Description: Green Acres is an American sitcom starring Eddie Albert and Eva Gabor â¦


----------



## thericeguy

DisasterCupcake said:


> Gender has been defined by many different cultures in many different ways.
> 
> Currently, our culture has become hypersensitive to the fact that those not conforming to either-or exist. This also is not something new. History is full of sexually ambiguous people, and even those switching gender roles. It is a physiological fact. Hermaphroditism exists. I learned in physiology that it is about as common as red-headedness. Every time you see a red head, my professor said, is about as often as you've run across a natural born hermaphrodite. At this point everyone in the lecture hall looked around to see how many redheads were in the room.
> 
> This is just to say, defining gender based on biological attributes alone falls short. If XX is female and XY is male, what are the others born with XYX? Or those born with XY and physically are female?
> 
> Gender roles for different cultures can vary. In my personal experience, being raised in a small highly conservative community, gender has been made to represent a male being large, protective, tough, sacrificial, strong, etc. The female generally smaller, coy, soft, nurturing, receptive. Those who don't fit in one of these two are treated with the same general courtesy, but with less interest and a sort of gaurded trust. I could see the pressure to 'pick one' being very stressful.
> 
> To what extent does culture influence those who are born ambiguous? and vice versa


Understood. Well worded post. My response is that "picking" may be a necessary evil within society. Else everyone becomes ambiguous and you end up where the other side would place us, with 14 year old boys and girls showering together. 

If one individual in a society is born different, to what extent does that society owe the guarantee of, in our society, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

This issue is one among many within our society. Children are born with Downs Syndrome, yet we do mot devote 100% of society resources to fixing this problem. A certain dollar amount of research, treatment, and care goes into this issue, even if that means a different or even substandard life for that individual. 

Same goes for wherlchair bound children. Spina Bifida. Cancer. Any issue you wish to use to fill in the blank. Limited resources. Limited redponsibility by society. We all took the same chance at birth to be born with any of these conditions. So the question is, to what accomodation should we, the society, be required to provide for this one subset of society. 

My answer is, there is a bathroom. Go pee and shut up. The toilets are the same in both.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DisasterCupcake said:


> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076011000665
> Atrazine exposure shows specific changes across vertebrate classes.


That says "exposure during development", and "all species *tested*"

Show a study that shows *humans* are being exposed in the womb and you may be on to something. For all we know they did all the "exposure" in test tubes



> Biological gradients are observed in several of the cited studies, although *threshold doses and patterns vary among species*.


It also wouldn't explain female to male transgenders


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DisasterCupcake said:


> I wonder if hermaphrotism can be defined as a mental illness...


That's physical and can be directly observed


----------



## DisasterCupcake

Bearfootfarm said:


> That says "exposure during development", and "all species *tested*"
> 
> Show a study that shows *humans* are being exposed in the womb and you may be on to something. For all we know they did all the "exposure" in test tubes
> 
> 
> 
> It also wouldn't explain female to male transgenders


I'm not on to anything.

You expressed that you were not aware of any effects of Atrazine outside of the frog-egg study. This study only shows that there is more than frogs that can be affected. 

While I clearly stated that I don't think all cases of gender ambiguity can be linked to some environmental cause- since in fact gender ambiguity is a thing that existed far before pharmaceutical and petrol chemical pestide invention- I doubt that it can be ruled out entirely. I used Atrazine as just an example of an environmental factor.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

bjba said:


> I never cease to be amazed by the expertise of those who comment on internet forums. In this thread there appear to be those with extensive expertise in both biology and human behavior. The one fact that has a broad multi discipline consensus is how little is actually known about everything. My favorite journalist observed " For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken
> 
> In all the rhetoric I have seen concerning transgender there is much more opinion than fact.


Yes, those posting facts are far fewer than those posting opinions.
That's nothing new.

As long as people can tell the difference it doesn't change the outcomes of discussions. 

One doesn't need to be an "expert" in a particular subject to be able to discuss and research the subject.

I've not seen anyone claiming "expertise" and I suspect most of those reading have learned some things they didn't know before


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DisasterCupcake said:


> I'm not on to anything.
> 
> You expressed that you were not aware of any effects of Atrazine outside of the frog-egg study. This study only shows that there is more than frogs that can be affected.
> 
> While I clearly stated that I don't think all cases of gender ambiguity can be linked to some environmental cause- since *in fact gender ambiguity is a thing that existed far before pharmaceutical and petrol chemical pestide invention*- I doubt that it can be ruled out entirely. I used Atrazine as just an example of an environmental factor.


On that we do agree.

I think many of the claims made about "pollution" or "drugs" causing real problems tend to get blown out of proportion though

Much of it turns out to be allegations with no real basis in fact



> In 2006 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had stated that under the Food Quality Protection Act "the risks associated with the pesticide residues pose a reasonable certainty of no harm",[9] and in 2007, the EPA said that atrazine does not adversely affect amphibian sexual development and that no additional testing was warranted.[10]
> 
> EPAÂ´s 2009 review [11] concluded that "the agencyâs scientific bases for its regulation of atrazine are robust and ensure prevention of exposure levels that could lead to reproductive effects in humans."[12]





> A 2011 review of the mammalian reproductive toxicology of atrazine jointly conducted by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concluded that atrazine was not teratogenic.
> 
> *Reproductive effects in rats and rabbits were only seen at doses that were toxic to the mother.*
> 
> Observed adverse effects in rats included fetal resorption in rates (at doses > 50 mg/kg per day), delays in sexual development in female rats (at doses >30 mg/kg per day), and decreased birth weight (at doses >3.6 mg/kg per day).[44]


----------



## DisasterCupcake

thericeguy said:


> Understood. Well worded post. My response is that "picking" may be a necessary evil within society. Else everyone becomes ambiguous and you end up where the other side would place us, with 14 year old boys and girls showering together.
> 
> If one individual in a society is born different, to what extent does that society owe the guarantee of, in our society, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
> 
> This issue is one among many within our society. Children are born with Downs Syndrome, yet we do mot devote 100% of society resources to fixing this problem. A certain dollar amount of research, treatment, and care goes into this issue, even if that means a different or even substandard life for that individual.
> 
> Same goes for wherlchair bound children. Spina Bifida. Cancer. Any issue you wish to use to fill in the blank. Limited resources. Limited redponsibility by society. We all took the same chance at birth to be born with any of these conditions. So the question is, to what accomodation should we, the society, be required to provide for this one subset of society.
> 
> My answer is, there is a bathroom. Go pee and shut up. The toilets are the same in both.


I don't think society has to shill out any special privilages or rights for gender ambiguous people, or even 'accomodate' them besides asking which- if any- gender they prefer. 

Historically, hermaphrodites were often esteemed as highly spiritual beings, and sought for their inner wisdom. They were often the Shaman, the Medicine Man (or person) of traditional cultures or just a person of special reknown. We only have to look at the number and prevalence of hermaphroditic gods to see how they were valued. Indeed, many highly devout religous people, nuns, monks, priests of various religions, adopt a sort of self-imposed gender ambiguity. They deny themselves a gender role in many cases. Since these people are often asexual- or at least end up that way due to social stigma- they put their energies into learning a craft or becoming a valuable individual in their respective ways. 

Ironically today, it's the very same organised religions that used to esteem these people that seem to be so upset about their existence. I might be wrong about that. That's just my personal limited experience. 

While I do not think we need to make any special arrangements outside the normal consideration we make for any human being, we also don't need to be hypercritical of the gender ambiguous.


----------



## thericeguy

Links. It took me all of a few seconds to find. 

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/2015/03/22/green-acres-is-the-place-to-be-for-tons-of-la-sludge.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Green_Acres_Farm_(Kern_County,_CA)

http://www.laweekly.com/news/las-sewage-crap-export-flap-2172491

Notice the EPA report on pharmaceuticals inbthe above. 

Notice also the judge cited the societal cost of an alternative. Relavent in this transgender issue. 

[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9HPCW5020SU[/ame]

That seems like a reasonably balanced report of both sides. 

Oddly enough, the video that used to pop up at Youtube when you searched Green Acres Farm, produced and filmed by the LA waste dept, detailing how the biosolids were produced, used at green acres, with the rest being sold to vegetable farmers, it is gone. I guess they found out people didnt want to eat poop strawberries, so now hide the fact that is happening. I wonder why?

This has some nifty grafts about limits US vs world. 


http://dbwt.us/cbnswwtp/D12-Regulations-for-Biosolids-Land-Application-in-US-and-European-Union.pdf

Reading related to chemicals in biosolids. 

http://toxics.usgs.gov/regional/emc/municipal_biosolids.html

Its real. Even my super tiny county has a biosolid unit and they sell it for $8 cu/yd compared to $45 for other sorces. Your food supply, directly or indirectly, is growing in your next door neighbors poop. Enjoy. And the government cant find any pharmaceuticals because they refuse to look. Where do you think people put old medicine? 

Enjoy your dinner.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Links. It took me all of a few seconds to find.
> 
> http://www.bakersfield.com/news/2015/03/22/green-acres-is-the-place-to-be-for-tons-of-la-sludge.html
> 
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Green_Acres_Farm_(Kern_County,_CA)
> 
> http://www.laweekly.com/news/las-sewage-crap-export-flap-2172491
> 
> Notice the EPA report on pharmaceuticals inbthe above.
> 
> Notice also the judge cited the societal cost of an alternative. Relavent in this transgender issue.
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9HPCW5020SU
> 
> That seems like a reasonably balanced report of both sides.
> 
> Oddly enough, the video that used to pop up at Youtube when you searched Green Acres Farm, produced and filmed by the LA waste dept, detailing how the biosolids were produced, used at green acres, with the rest being sold to vegetable farmers, it is gone. I guess they found out people didnt want to eat poop strawberries, so now hide the fact that is happening. I wonder why?
> 
> This has some nifty grafts about limits US vs world.
> 
> 
> http://dbwt.us/cbnswwtp/D12-Regulations-for-Biosolids-Land-Application-in-US-and-European-Union.pdf
> 
> Reading related to chemicals in biosolids.
> 
> http://toxics.usgs.gov/regional/emc/municipal_biosolids.html
> 
> Its real. Even my super tiny county has a biosolid unit and they sell it for $8 cu/yd compared to $45 for other sorces. Your food supply, directly or indirectly, is growing in your next door neighbors poop. Enjoy. And the government cant find any pharmaceuticals because they refuse to look. Where do you think people put old medicine?
> 
> Enjoy your dinner.


Your neighbors poop or the chickens, hogs or cattle poop from down the road. Why does one concern you and the other does not?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Your neighbors poop or the chickens, hogs or cattle poop from down the road. Why does one concern you and the other does not?


Well, its just based on solid scientific facts supported by historical record, so barely any reason at all. 

Most pathogens are species specific. An STD to you is probably nothing to a pig, chicken, or corn plant. The bubonic plague was triggered by living amongst our own waste. So, for hardly any reason at all, I find it distressing to eat foods grown in same species waste. But by all means, feel free to defecate on your own lettuce.


----------



## bjba

The whole transgender situation seems to be based on feelings I have seen no hard science referenced in any discussion so far. Which of you would choose to cross a bridge designed by feelings or choose a bridge designed by science? Show me some science.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Well, its just based on solid scientific facts supported by historical record, so barely any reason at all.
> 
> Most pathogens are species specific. An STD to you is probably nothing to a pig, chicken, or corn plant. The bubonic plague was triggered by living amongst our own waste. So, for hardly any reason at all, I find it distressing to eat foods grown in same species waste. But by all means, feel free to defecate on your own lettuce.


You should do a bit more research. Animals pass on stds. gonorrhea and syphilis came from cattle to humans. HIV came from animals.


----------



## Irish Pixie

bjba said:


> The whole transgender situation seems to be based on feelings I have seen no hard science referenced in any discussion so far. Which of you would choose to cross a bridge designed by feelings or choose a bridge designed by science? Show me some science.


I provided links to this information on this thread: http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...ppeals-court-rules-transgender-bathrooms.html

Transgenderism is thought to be genetic.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

I thought the Bubonic Plague came from Fleas on Rats.


----------



## painterswife

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> I thought the Bubonic Plague came from Fleas on Rats.


Think of all the diseases ticks and mosquitoes pass on. Swine flu, bird flu etc passed from other animals.


----------



## sisterpine

Well, in my country it looks like this...an animal is born and some adult looks for sexual organs...if there is a scrotum and a penis then the adult calls the newborn a male...meaning it can grow up and mate with another of its species. If the adult looks and finds no penis or scrotum then it is called a female...meaning it can grow up and be mated by a male of the species. That is all there is to male and female, penis equals male (though it can certainly be removed and an infertile female created) and no penis equals female (though a penis can be built from vaginal tissues and an infertile male created). Now it may be different in your country...what you identify as is only your business and no one elses. Some days I identify as being an old gal and some days I identify as being a middle aged homesteader...see no one else need comment on that cause it is not of their business. Perhaps we should just have bathrooms with stalls and let folks stand up or sit down in privacy.


----------



## Elevenpoint

bjba said:


> The whole transgender situation seems to be based on feelings I have seen no hard science referenced in any discussion so far. Which of you would choose to cross a bridge designed by feelings or choose a bridge designed by science? Show me some science.


Dr Paul McHugh. Considered the top expert in his field with 40 years of experience working with TG. Will not find anyone close to his credentials. Diagnosis: Mental Illness.
Of course scorned by the LGBT community.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> Dr Paul McHugh. Considered the top expert in his field with 40 years of experience working with TG. Will not find anyone close to his credentials. Diagnosis: Mental Illness.
> Of course scorned by the LGBT community.


Link please.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's all still on the screen.


No..its in your mind. However you think you know what another person thinks.. that you have never met is ludicrous at best.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Link please.


This specific Dr. has been linked to a number of times, but you are aware of that. None the less and much more than your squad will ever do, here, have a link:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120

"With this argument, advocates for the transgendered have persuaded several statesâincluding California, New Jersey and Massachusettsâto pass laws barring psychiatrists, even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor."


----------



## Bearfootfarm

bjba said:


> The whole transgender situation seems to be based on feelings I have seen no hard science referenced in any discussion so far. Which of you would choose to cross a bridge designed by feelings or choose a bridge designed by science? *Show me some science.*


There have been multiple links from both sides


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> This specific Dr. has been linked to a number of times, but you are aware of that. None the less and much more than your squad will ever do, here, have a link:
> 
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120
> 
> "With this argument, advocates for the transgendered have persuaded several states&#8212;including California, New Jersey and Massachusetts&#8212;to pass laws barring psychiatrists, even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor."


I can't read your link without paying or registering and I'm not doing either.

Read your quote again, it states psychiatrists can't try reparation/conversion therapy on minors even with parental permission. That's because it doesn't work and just messes with a kid's head.

Again, Dr. McHugh has aligned himself with LGBT hate groups. That doesn't indicate fair and unbiased opinion to me.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Link please.


You can also research John Hopkins Hospital who he has been affiliated and employed by his entire career I believe. They are consistently ranked as one of the top in the nation, in about anycatagory you choose. They do not employ quacks, in fact he is a known expert in his field and well respected by his peers. Considering the source, let there be no doubt.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> You can also research John Hopkins Hospital who he has been affiliated and employed by his entire career I believe. They are consistently ranked as one of the top in the nation, in about anycatagory you choose. They do not employ quacks, in fact he is a known expert in his field and well respected by his peers. Considering the source, let there be no doubt.


I'm not searching for something _you_ put up as fact. That's not the way it works.

Anyway, I'm not saying that he is a quack, just a bigot. 

ETA: It's JohnS Hopkins.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I can't read your link without paying or registering and I'm not doing either.
> 
> Read your quote again, it states psychiatrists can't try reparation/conversion therapy on minors even with parental permission. That's because it doesn't work and just messes with a kid's head.
> 
> Again, Dr. McHugh has aligned himself with LGBT hate groups. That doesn't indicate fair and unbiased opinion to me.


Wow, you sure read something into that quote that sure as heck was not there...

How can you read what you wrote from "Psychiatrists are BANNED from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor" ?


----------



## arabian knight

It is Up To YOU to Prove the poster Wrong~!


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not searching for something _you_ put up as fact. That's not the way it works.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not saying that he is a quack, just a bigot.
> 
> ETA: It's JohnS Hopkins.


There is endless reading on the internet for any person that wants to read it.
That he is a bigot is nothing but complete nonsense.
Top in his field. 
Chairman of the psychology department? At that kind of hospital? And a bigot? But is it not true that every person is a bigot, hater, etc. that does not share your opinion?
You do know you would have absolutely no medical training that you could compare to his knowledge and expertise? Zero?
He goes into great detail of the reasons it is a mental illness.
Has he not been published 125 times?
No ifs ands or buts about it...hands down the best in his field.


----------



## dixiegal62

Why are people so afraid of the lable mentally ill? So what if transgender is a mental illness. It doesn't mean the people suffering from it are less than human or deserving of respect and love. Of course it also doesn't mean they also really entitled to special treatment either. Society does not have to share their illusions. I get the feeling that many get offended by the thought of transgenders being mentally ill because they feel it makes them somehow less than. Not true at all.


----------



## DisasterCupcake

I agree. People are people, but

Is transgenderism a mental illness? Do we need to allow them to use a restroom? Do they realistically pose a threat? To themselves or potentially anyone in a restroom?

(I really don't know the answers to these questions in case anyone thinks I'm drawing conclusions)


----------



## Heritagefarm

Here we go again...


----------



## dixiegal62

DisasterCupcake said:


> I agree. People are people, but
> 
> Is transgenderism a mental illness? Do we need to allow them to use a restroom? Do they realistically pose a threat? To themselves or potentially anyone in a restroom?
> 
> (I really don't know the answers to these questions in case anyone thinks I'm drawing conclusions)


My son is mentally ill. He's a schizophrenic, he believes he's a prophet. He has never posed a threat to anyone. In fact he goes out of his way to help homeless and people having a rough time. Should people go along with his illusions and pray with him bow down to him, or treat him as a prophet because of who he believes he is?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Wow, you sure read something into that quote that sure as heck was not there...
> 
> How can you read what you wrote from "Psychiatrists are BANNED from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor" ?


The clue is when it says "*advocates* for the transgendered" that means it's _for_ transgender rights. 

Read it again.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not searching for something _you_ put up as fact. That's not the way it works.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not saying that he is a quack, just a bigot.
> 
> ETA: It's JohnS Hopkins.


It would be interesting to hear your reasoning with regards to how you have decided that he is a bigot. 

Is it because he feels that those that are transgendered are being sentenced to a life of misery by believing that their feelings should drive their whole persona? 

What if our feelings, your's and mine were able to drive our "persona" - can I sue the F1 Auto Racing industry for access to a car because I "feel" that I am a F1 Race Car Driver? I know that I could be a world champion...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Here we go again...


I'm not riding the merry go round again. This issue isn't going to be decided on a homesteading message board. It will be decided on civil rights. 

The ignorance and bigotry gives me a headache.


----------



## DisasterCupcake

dixiegal62 said:


> My son is mentally ill. He's a schizophrenic, he believes he's a prophet. He has never posed a threat to anyone. In fact he goes out of his way to help homeless and people having a rough time. Should people go along with his illusions and pray with him bow down to him, or treat him as a prophet because of who he believes he is?


Of course no one should go out of their way to accommodate a mentally ill person. Does letting someone use a restroom constitute a significant accommodation? 
(Again, this is a legitimate question)


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> It would be interesting to hear your reasoning with regards to how you have decided that he is a bigot.
> 
> Is it because he feels that those that are transgendered are being sentenced to a life of misery by believing that their feelings should drive their whole persona?
> 
> What if our feelings, your's and mine were able to drive our "persona" - can I sue the F1 Auto Racing industry for access to a car because I "feel" that I am a F1 Race Car Driver? I know that I could be a world champion...


The key word in this post is "I'm" as in "my opinion." I base my opinion on the fact that Dr. McHugh belongs to an anti LGBT hate group. You may not like it, but it's my opinion and I do. 

Nope. Nope. Nope. Not playing the merry go round game.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I can't read your link without paying or registering and I'm not doing either.
> 
> Read your quote again, it states psychiatrists can't try reparation/conversion therapy on minors even with parental permission. That's because it doesn't work and just messes with a kid's head.
> 
> Again, Dr. McHugh has aligned himself with LGBT hate groups. That doesn't indicate fair and unbiased opinion to me.


For those that wish to read his paper, google paul mchugh, scroll down to the WSJ link and click it - straight to it, read the whole thing if you want... 

See if you can find any LGBT Hate in his paper, or do you find what appears to be a caring individual who is concerned for the well being of others? 

I wonder, did he align with those groups out of maliciousness or did the LGBT groups label him as such? It would seem likely that he sought no alignment with them but it is highly possible that the LGBT "hate" groups would find in him credible information to add to their ammo...


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> The key word in this post is "I'm" as in "my opinion." I base my opinion on the fact that Dr. McHugh belongs to an anti LGBT hate group. You may not like it, but it's my opinion and I do.
> 
> Nope. Nope. Nope. Not playing the merry go round game.


Took the easy way out, I see. 


So, what value should we assign to your opinion that Dr. McHugh is a "member" of a LGBT Hate group? Do you know which one? Card carrying member?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not riding the merry go round again. This issue isn't going to be decided on a homesteading message board. It will be decided on civil rights.
> 
> The ignorance and bigotry gives me a headache.


Yerp. It's gotten absurd. I have to go build some cabinets now.


----------



## Jokarva

Dr McHugh did close the sex reassignment clinic at Hopkins while he was there. He also failed to report molestation of children because he felt it would inhibit pedophiles from seeking treatment. He had odd judgement IMHO.


----------



## thericeguy

dixiegal62 said:


> Why are people so afraid of the lable mentally ill? So what if transgender is a mental illness. It doesn't mean the people suffering from it are less than human or deserving of respect and love. Of course it also doesn't mean they also really entitled to special treatment either. Society does not have to share their illusions. I get the feeling that many get offended by the thought of transgenders being mentally ill because they feel it makes them somehow less than. Not true at all.


You cannot let trans be labeled mentally ill. That shifts the argument to something that shoild be fixed, like cancer. 

IMO, the vast majority of people on the trans bandwagon are using these people. They are either looking gor votes to gain political power (Obama did nothing for 7 years, now its mission critical), or they have another deep rooted agenda they are grinding (anti religion). The only person I have gained any respect for is Irish. They are fighting for a family member. I respect that. The rest, not at all. Just working an angle IMO.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> The clue is when it says "*advocates* for the transgendered" that means it's _for_ transgender rights.
> 
> Read it again.


How about this? Here is the whole snippit:

"With this argument, *advocates for the transgendered have persuaded several states*&#8212;including California, New Jersey and Massachusetts&#8212;*to pass laws barring psychiatrists*, even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor.

So, it is advocates FOR the transgendered people that are STOPPING Psychiatrists from RESTORING Natural Gender Feelings to a minor that has hit the "Transgendered Trip-wire"

OK? Nothing about controversial "reparation/conversion therapy" practices, Restoring Natural Gender Feelings, helping them to be OK with who they are. 

This sounds like the most reasonable course of action to me... Helping them accept who they are, not trying tell them something that is obviously harmful to them.


----------



## Shine

Jokarva said:


> Dr McHugh did close the sex reassignment clinic at Hopkins while he was there. He also failed to report molestation of children because he felt it would inhibit pedophiles from seeking treatment. He had odd judgement IMHO.


Got a link or just tossing that out there to see how high it will bounce?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Shine said:


> Got a link or just tossing that out there to see how high it will bounce?


Now I have a mental bouncy ball in my head. Thanks a lot. :grumble: 
lol


----------



## Jokarva

I can't link from my tablet and the laptop's downstairs....but if it can't wait then Google is always your friend.


edited to add link.....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/aug/21/20020821-041050-7378r/


----------



## Shine

Heritagefarm said:


> Now I have a mental bouncy ball in my head. Thanks a lot. :grumble:
> lol


Ever since someone invented the Super Ball, when I hear the word "bounce" I see the picture on that package with the little house and the ball still streaking skyward...


Lost way too many of those darned things...


----------



## Shine

Jokarva said:


> I can't link from my tablet and the laptop's downstairs....but if it can't wait then Google is always your friend.



...understood. Wanted to see how you felt it was credible though, not finding anything with a legitimate calling.


----------



## Shine

From the same paper:

"You won't hear it from those championing transgender equality, but controlled and follow-up studies reveal fundamental problems with this movement. When children who reported transgender feelings were tracked without medical or surgical treatment at both Vanderbilt University and London's Portman Clinic, 70%-80% of them spontaneously lost those feelings. Some 25% did have persisting feelings; what differentiates those individuals remains to be discerned.

Then there is the subgroup of very young, often prepubescent children who notice distinct sex roles in the culture and, exploring how they fit in, begin imitating the opposite sex. Misguided doctors at medical centers including Boston's Children's Hospital have begun trying to treat this behavior by administering puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous&#8212;even though the drugs stunt the children's growth and risk causing sterility. Given that close to 80% of such children would abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated, these medical interventions come close to child abuse. A better way to help these children: with devoted parenting."


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Took the easy way out, I see.
> 
> 
> So, what value should we assign to your opinion that Dr. McHugh is a "member" of a LGBT Hate group? Do you know which one? Card carrying member?


I personally don't care what you think of my opinion, it's mine and I like it. Assign it any value you wish. 

Did you figure out your quote doesn't say what you thought it did yet?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Wow, you sure read something into that quote that sure as heck was not there...
> 
> How can you read what you wrote from "Psychiatrists are BANNED from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor" ?


How can you *not *get that meaning?
It's plain English


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> *Why are people so afraid of the lable mentally ill?
> 
> So what if transgender is a mental illness. *
> 
> It doesn't mean the people suffering from it are less than human or deserving of respect and love. Of course it also doesn't mean they also really entitled to special treatment either. Society does not have to share their illusions. I get the feeling that many get offended by the thought of transgenders being mentally ill because they feel it makes them somehow less than. Not true at all.


Good question:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_schizophrenia



> The relationship between religion and schizophrenia is of particular interest to psychologists because of the similarities between religious experiences and psychotic episodes; religious experiences often involve auditory and/or visual hallucinations, and those with schizophrenia commonly report similar hallucinations, along with a variety beliefs that are commonly recognized by Western medical practitioners as delusional.[1] In general, religion has been found to have "both a protective and a risk increasing effect" for schizophrenia.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> It is Up To YOU to Prove the poster Wrong~!


No, that's not how it works.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> It would be interesting to hear your reasoning with regards to how you have decided that he is a bigot.
> 
> Is it because he feels that those that are transgendered are being sentenced to a life of misery by believing that their feelings should drive their whole persona?
> 
> *What if our feelings, your's and mine were able to drive our "persona"* - can I sue the F1 Auto Racing industry for access to a car because I "feel" that I am a F1 Race Car Driver? I know that I could be a world champion...


It's easy to tell the "bigots" by simple observation.

Your race care analogy is just silly since you have to meet the qualifications to race cars. 



> a life of misery *by believing that their feelings should drive their whole persona?*


Like the devoutly religious?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Got a link or just tossing that out there to see how high it will bounce?


I'm not trying to step on Jokara's toes, but this is what I found: "Here's some stuff you should know about Dr. McHugh, though. When McHugh ran the clinic at Johns Hopkins that specialized in sex disorders, some number of pedophiles undergoing treatment at the clinic abused children while in treatment. Eight of them were convicted of it. McHugh and the clinic knew they were assaulting children and didn't report them to the police. As detailed in this San Francisco Chronicle story, "When Maryland law was changed to require that doctors report child molestation, the clinic fought it and advised patients on how to get around the law. The memo to patients suggested that molesters report their pedophilic activities to their lawyers, who could in turn tell staff; attorney-client privilege would then protect the molesters from being reported."

http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/...nt-to-google-folks-before-you-agree-with-them

Still think he's a hero? Bet he's not to the sexually abused kids...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Took the easy way out, I see.
> 
> 
> So, what value should we assign to your opinion that Dr. McHugh is a "member" of a LGBT Hate group? *Do you know which one? * Card carrying member?


The Catholic Church


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's easy to tell the "bigots" by simple observation.
> 
> Your race care analogy is just silly since you have to meet the qualifications to race cars.
> 
> 
> Like the devoutly religious?


It boggles my mind that people can't see the hypocrisy in saying that transgenders are delusional and in need of treatment while religious delusions are just fine and dandy. It's gotta be a mental illness, right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> How about this? Here is the whole snippit:
> 
> "With this argument, *advocates for the transgendered have persuaded several states*âincluding California, New Jersey and Massachusettsâ*to pass laws barring psychiatrists*, even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor.
> 
> So, it is advocates FOR the transgendered people that are STOPPING Psychiatrists from RESTORING Natural Gender Feelings to a minor that has hit the "Transgendered Trip-wire"
> 
> OK? Nothing about controversial "reparation/conversion therapy" practices, Restoring Natural Gender Feelings, helping them to be OK with who they are.
> 
> *This sounds like the most reasonable course of action to me.*.. Helping them accept who they are, not trying tell them something that is *obviously harmful to them*.


If course it sounds "reasonable" to you , because you think it's "reasonable" to allow them to brainwash and belittle those people against their will.

I think that is "obviously harmful" to them to be persecuted in the name of religion


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Catholic Church


TouchÃ©.

The American College of Pediatricians, which makes itself sound like a medical society but isn't, is another.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Has anyone read about Freud? Which is where most of Pshycology is derived from. 
Fruit Loops extraordinaire.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> From the same paper:
> 
> "You won't hear it from those championing transgender equality, but controlled and follow-up studies reveal fundamental problems with this movement. When children who reported transgender feelings were tracked without medical or surgical treatment at both Vanderbilt University and London's Portman Clinic, 70%-80% of them spontaneously lost those feelings. Some 25% did have persisting feelings; what differentiates those individuals remains to be discerned.
> 
> Then there is the subgroup of very young, often prepubescent children who notice distinct sex roles in the culture and, exploring how they fit in, begin imitating the opposite sex. *Misguided doctors at medical centers including Boston's Children's Hospital have begun trying to treat this behavior by administering puberty-delaying hormones* to render later sex-change surgeries less onerousâeven though the drugs stunt the children's growth and risk causing sterility. Given that close to 80% of such children would abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated, these medical interventions come close to child abuse. A better way to help these children: with devoted parenting."


Got a link or are you just bouncing your balls?


----------



## thericeguy

When actions taken in the name of religion start to fall outside the spectrum of societal norms, most citizens, other religions included, start to express concern. The farther the group strays from norms, the deeper the concerns. 

Turn off all the electricity and ride horses and you might hear words like odd, weird, or eccentric. 

Start handling snakes and you might be called dangerous enough to lose your constitutional right to practice religion as you see fit. Hint: that happened

Take your members and lock them in a compound to await the second coming and you will likely hear cult. 

Drink poison to get to heaven and you will be called mentally ill. 

Since you continue to draw comparisons between religion and LGBT, lets run with that. 

A male wearing makeup, dress, and high heels might be considered weird, strange, or odd. 

Going against biology and engaging in sexual relations with the same sex thus preventing reproduction might be called confused. 

Injecting your body with hormones and mutilating your sexual organs while claiming to be in the wrong body and your going to hear mental illness. 

So you are right. Mental illness seems to not discriminate. It can effect both sexes, all ages, all races, and all religions, even the self worship religion called atheism.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> Good question:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_schizophrenia


Interesting.

6] In a study of patients with schizophrenia that had been previously admitted to a hospital, 24% had what the medical field refers to as religious delusions. This has led some researchers to question whether schizophrenia leads an individual to become more religious, or if intense religiosity leads to schizophrenia.[7]

I can't speak for all but I know in my son's case he wasn't very religious before his symptoms started. We did find out later he had recently started taking meth. Over the last 5 years we have heard many theories ranging from the meth caused it to it was always there but the meth speeded the sickness up. We've also been told that it's typical to see symptoms around 30 years in men. He got sick a few weeks before his 30th birthday.


----------



## arabian knight

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, that's not how it works.


According to who? you? You want to prove someone wrong it IS up to YOU to go and do it not the poster who posted it in the first place and HAS the information at hand. You then have to go and find out just IF the info was wrong. Google is your friend.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> According to who? you? *You want to prove someone wrong it IS up to YOU* to go and do it not the poster who posted it in the first place and HAS the information at hand. You then have to go and find out just IF the info was wrong. Google is your friend.


If that's the case, Google what I stated and prove it's wrong.

While you're looking for said proof, you might want to consider this first:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof



> When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, *the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.*[1]
> 
> An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.
> 
> [2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.[4]


----------



## thericeguy

I am unable to find the beginning of this "prove it". But convention says that a claim must first be substantiated before it can be refuted. If you go claim the Earth is triangular, noone will pay you any mind. Post some evidence with that claim and you will likely get buried in counter evidence.


----------



## Elevenpoint

I see the mockers were up early crowing.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Got a link or are you just bouncing your balls?


You seem to be obtuse this morning, look at the top of that post - can you see where it says "From the same paper". You sure are pushing the envelope with your characterizations but we expect that.


----------



## hippygirl

As far as psychological traits, I guess it depends largely into which "culture" one is born/nurtured.

There are societal/cultural expectations within every society as to what is masculine and feminine behavior, and, yes, those expectations HAVE changed over the years with regards to gender...more women in traditional male roles and men in traditional female roles. However, overall, the expectation itself remains and is clearly demonstrated when LGBT men/women adopt those behaviors/traits of the gender with which they identify.

Rambling over...as you were.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> You seem to be *obtuse* this morning, look at the top of that post - can you see where it says "From the same paper". You sure are pushing the envelope with your characterizations but we expect that .


I also saw where you told people if they wanted to read it they could Google it, which is why I asked if you had a link, which it appears you do not

Post 155:



> For those that wish to read his paper, *google paul mchugh*, scroll down to the WSJ link and click it - straight to it, read the whole thing if you want...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> I see the mockers were up early crowing.


Mockers don't crow.
Those are roosters
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/poultry/


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I also saw where you told people if they wanted to read it they could Google it, which is why I asked if you had a link, which it appears you do not
> 
> Post 155:


Well, OK, I'll explain this for you too. Pixie said that after clicking on the link that I provided, you had to register or join to read the paper, I found that if you followed the instructions that you quoted that you could read the paper in its entirety.

Enjoy, good information there.

ETA: it would appear that WSJ has it so that if you link to an article that they stick the registration clause in it... the instructions that you quoted seems to bypass that.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's easy to tell the "bigots" by simple observation.
> 
> Your race care analogy is just silly since you have to meet the qualifications to race cars.
> 
> 
> Like the devoutly religious?


Most Christians that I know do not take medicine to change into the "Christianity mode" nor have I ever seen a Christian that had surgery so that they could fulfill the Christian aspect of their life.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> If course it sounds "reasonable" to you , because you think it's "reasonable" to allow them to brainwash and belittle those people against their will.
> 
> I think that is "obviously harmful" to them to be persecuted in the name of religion


No, I just look at what results are available and then assess them for the best possible outcome. That's how I get to "reasonable".

Who is it that is reinforcing a male's contention that they are female? Any report on how many therapies are successful in realigning those persons with reality? Male Genitals - Male person. Female genitals - Female person?

We know what the recorded outcomes of reinforcing the alternative to that is, don't we... Destroyed people that choose suicide at a rate in the neighborhood of 20% the norm... Acceptable collateral?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> No, I just look at what results are available and then assess them for the best possible outcome. That's how I get to "reasonable".
> 
> *Who is it that is reinforcing a male's contention that they are female? Any report on how many therapies are successful in realigning those persons with reality? Male Genitals - Male person. Female genitals - Female person?
> *
> We know what the recorded outcomes of reinforcing the alternative to that is, don't we... Destroyed people that choose suicide at a rate in the neighborhood of 20% the norm... Acceptable collateral?


Reparation/conversion therapies are banned in at least three states (from your link) so I don't think they are successful. I'm sure you do tho.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Reparation/conversion therapies are banned in at least three states (from your link) so I don't think they are successful. I'm sure you do tho.


Once again, you replace "restore natural gender feelings" with "Reparation/conversion therapies".

I am not sure that they are exact matches, I do not think that one completely encompasses the other and visa-versa...

I sincerely believe that there are a plethora of other paths that may be attached to the "restore natural gender feelings" mindset.

I see it as meaning "Even if the parent wants the psychiatrist to work on instilling a natural understanding that they are male when they think that they are female[and actually a male] the psychiatrist is banned from doing so"

At least this is what I am getting out of that statement. Reading what your "Reparation/conversion therapies" consist of sounds like torture to me. 

The words reparation or conversion do not appear in this paper.

No, your last statement is an outright lie, but thank you for demonstrating how you operate.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Once again, you replace "restore natural gender feelings" with "Reparation/conversion therapies".
> 
> I am not sure that they are exact matches, I do not think that one completely encompasses the other and visa-versa...
> 
> I sincerely believe that there are a plethora of other paths that may be attached to the "restore natural gender feelings" mindset.
> 
> I see it as meaning "Even if the parent wants the psychiatrist to work on instilling a natural understanding that they are male when they think that they are female[and actually a male] the psychiatrist is banned from doing so"
> 
> At least this is what I am getting out of that statement. Reading what your "Reparation/conversion therapies" consist of sounds like torture to me.
> 
> The words reparation or conversion do not appear in this paper.
> 
> No, your last statement is an outright lie, but thank you for demonstrating how you operate.


OK. Nice spin. :thumb:


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> OK. Nice spin. :thumb:


2nd time this thread - easy way out.

Are those identical phrases or did you add something that was not there?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> 2nd time this thread - easy way out.
> 
> Are those identical phrases or did you add something that was not there?


I last time I said "Nice dodge" but reason was the same.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I last time I said "Nice dodge" but reason was the same.


No dodge, just asking. 

Why did you remove a phrase from the article and replace it with the name of a controversial therapy that wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article?

Can you shed any light on why you think that changing what the article said gives your supposition any weight?

I have to ask myself, who's doing the "dodging"?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> No dodge, just asking.
> 
> Why did you remove a phrase from the article and replace it with the name of a controversial therapy that wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article?
> 
> Can you shed any light on why you think that changing what the article said gives your supposition any weight?
> 
> I have to ask myself, who's doing the "dodging"?


Sigh. I can't help you understand.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. I can't help you understand.


You're right! ...and count this as being caught changing other people's posts.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Well, OK,* I'll explain this for you too*. Pixie said that after clicking on the link that I provided, you had to register or join to read the paper, I found that if you followed the instructions that you quoted that you could read the paper in its entirety.
> 
> Enjoy, good information there.
> 
> ETA: it would appear that WSJ has it so that if you link to an article that they stick the registration clause in it... the instructions that you quoted seems to bypass that.


I don't need any long-winded explanation
A simple "no" is the correct answer to the question I asked


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> No, I just look at what results are available and then assess them for *the best possible outcome*. That's how I get to "reasonable".
> 
> Who is it that is reinforcing a male's contention that they are female? Any report on how many therapies are successful in realigning those persons with reality? Male Genitals - Male person. Female genitals - Female person?
> 
> We know what the recorded outcomes of reinforcing the alternative to that is, don't we... Destroyed people that choose suicide at a rate in the neighborhood of 20% the norm... Acceptable collateral?


The best possible outcome would be for you to mind your business and let the rest of the world do the same. 

Stop spending so much time concentrating on other people's genitals, and stop pretending biological sex and gender mean the same thing


----------



## thericeguy

Sonce there are zero constitutional protections for gender, I do not care what the word gender means, so long as it does not mean sex. Sex in genetic. A male cannot think himself into giving birth. No matter how hard he tried. Or how badly surgeons mutilate him. Still a man, with no legal protections under the law aside from those given every other man.


----------



## wr

thericeguy said:


> Sonce there are zero constitutional protections for gender, I do not care what the word gender means, so long as it does not mean sex. Sex in genetic. A male cannot think himself into giving birth. No matter how hard he tried. Or how badly surgeons mutilate him. Still a man, with no legal protections under the law aside from those given every other man.


Ultimately, there are quite a few women that can't think themselves into giving birth even with the help of skilled surgeons.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> So when someone feels that all Jews must die, you would be powerless to stop them else you be arrogant?
> 
> When someone feels that abortion doctors must die, again powerless?
> 
> When a molestor feels an uncontrollable urge to molest a child, powerless.
> 
> We cannot be arrogant and tell anyone right from wrong.


 Good grief man, enough with the far-out and completely unrelated comparisons. You're not even in the ballpark, with ANY of it. 
No one is asking you to cut your business off and wear a dress. But for those who do, its really none of your concern.


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> Good grief man, enough with the far-out and completely unrelated comparisons. You're not even in the ballpark, with ANY of it.
> No one is asking you to cut your business off and wear a dress. But for those who do, its really none of your concern.


It becomes my business when that person wants to shower next to my daughter. You might have individual rights and public rights mixed up.


----------



## DisasterCupcake

Ultimately, it's not by sex that we differentiate people. Because biological sex, and most definitely genetic sex, is unknowable to a stranger.

We know someone is female because of socially normalized gender cues. If I cut off all my hair, wore baggy clothes, and didn't speak, I could pass for a young man. I'm sure everyone has had the embarrassment of addressing someone by the wrong title at least once. If you've been spared that particular experience, it's no less surprising when you privately labeled someone the wrong gender. I doubt that _all_ of these people are _trying_ to be gender ambiguous.

So, if sex is socially determined by gender, how would you propose enforcing any rule that a person must use the bathroom corresponding to their sex?


----------



## thericeguy

DisasterCupcake said:


> Ultimately, it's not by sex that we differentiate people. Because biological sex, and most definitely genetic sex, is unknowable to a stranger.
> 
> We know someone is female because of socially normalized gender cues. If I cut off all my hair, wore baggy clothes, and didn't speak, I could pass for a young man. I'm sure everyone has had the embarrassment of addressing someone by the wrong title at least once. If you've been spared that particular experience, it's no less surprising when you privately labeled someone the wrong gender. I doubt that _all_ of these people are _trying_ to be gender ambiguous.
> 
> So, if sex is socially determined by gender, how would you propose enforcing any rule that a person must use the bathroom corresponding to their sex?


Yup. Factual statements indeed. A member of one sex can pass as another quite easily, which makes it entirely possible to pee in any restroom you want without causing a scene, ever. 

So tell me, with that reality, why is any of this happening if there is not some other unspoken agenda beneath the surface. Perhaps the one your current federal govt puts forward. Boys who claim to be girls get to shower with girls, and the school cannot force them to even draw a curtain. Hmmmmm.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> It becomes my business when that person wants to shower next to my daughter. You might have individual rights and public rights mixed up.


 I am not really sure where it is you think that school kids are being forced to use co-ed showers, but I've never heard of it. Perhaps it was addressed at some point, but these threads are so rife with wild scenarios and people crying wolf its hard to separate the fact from the hyperbole. I went to highschool 20+ years ago and even for PE there was no showering involved, so not sure where this stuff is going on that you think is going on. The far more likely scenario is a lesbian being in the shower with your kid, and horror of horrors, that person is actually attracted to females, unlike the feminized gay man you're so worried about.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> The best possible outcome would be for you to mind your business and let the rest of the world do the same.
> 
> Stop spending so much time concentrating on other people's genitals, and stop pretending biological sex and gender mean the same thing


This does concern me, the laws must be adhered to. Do laws ever change? How does that happen? Why do you think that I am concerned with anyone's genitals? Do you think it is because they made it a subject for me to have to sit up and take notice about how they want to change the world?

You would have us let the anorexic waste away, right? That's what they feel in their mind so they must not have any mental difficulties, right? You seemingly want to let people with mental disorders play make believe instead of trying to insure that they get the help they need, right? 

I'll allow you to go on in your make-believe world, don't tell me it is none of my business. It most certainly is...


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> Boys who claim to be girls get to shower with girls, and the school cannot force them to even draw a curtain. Hmmmmm.


 Wow, theres a lot easier ways to see a girl naked, without having to pretend to be a girl. Got any idea what that would do to someone socially? You think someone is going to pretend to be a girl just for that perk??? Come on now, lets keep it real here.


----------



## Shine

greg273 said:


> I am not really sure where it is you think that school kids are being forced to use co-ed showers, but I've never heard of it. Perhaps it was addressed at some point, but these threads are so rife with wild scenarios and people crying wolf its hard to separate the fact from the hyperbole. I went to highschool 20+ years ago and even for PE there was no showering involved, so not sure where this stuff is going on that you think is going on. The far more likely scenario is a lesbian being in the shower with your kid, and horror of horrors, that person is actually attracted to females, unlike the feminized gay man you're so worried about.


You might want to catch up on the situation - check out the Illinois case...


----------



## Irish Pixie

greg273 said:


> Wow, theres a lot easier ways to see a girl naked, without having to pretend to be a girl. Got any idea what that would do to someone socially? You think someone is going to pretend to be a girl just for that perk??? Come on now, lets keep it real here.


Exactly. Would a cis-boy live as a girl to maybe, someday be able to see a naked girl? Something that is easily available on the internet? It's ridiculous.


----------



## thericeguy

wr said:


> Ultimately, there are quite a few women that can't think themselves into giving birth even with the help of skilled surgeons.


You are right. It is a sad reality for some. My cousin was in this situation. After tens of thousands of dollars, they adopted three children to have a family. 

You may find these words cruel and uncaring, but they are true. The genetic combination which created that problem is being erased from the species. This helps to limit the number of people who will live this reality on a purely biological basis.


----------



## Irish Pixie

DisasterCupcake said:


> Ultimately, it's not by sex that we differentiate people. Because biological sex, and most definitely genetic sex, is unknowable to a stranger.
> 
> We know someone is female because of socially normalized gender cues. If I cut off all my hair, wore baggy clothes, and didn't speak, I could pass for a young man. I'm sure everyone has had the embarrassment of addressing someone by the wrong title at least once. If you've been spared that particular experience, it's no less surprising when you privately labeled someone the wrong gender. I doubt that _all_ of these people are _trying_ to be gender ambiguous.
> 
> So, if sex is socially determined by gender, how would you propose enforcing any rule that a person must use the bathroom corresponding to their sex?


This question has been asked over and over with no answer.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> You're right! ...and count this as being caught changing other people's posts.


I suggest you explain because I have never changed anyone else's post.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I suggest you explain because I have never changed anyone else's post.


It is still there in black and white for you to re-read. 

You are now unable to make that statement truthfully.

Post # 138 had a snippet from the article in quotation marks that had the phrase "restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor" and the fact that this process had recently been banned by the three states that you mentioned and in Post #140 you told me to reread my post because I misunderstood it but you changed the important part to read something else. Here is what you wrote:

"Read your quote again, it states psychiatrists can't try reparation/conversion therapy on minors even with parental permission. That's because it doesn't work and just messes with a kid's head."

So did you change it or not? Is the phrase containing "restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor" exactly the same thing as "reparation/conversion therapy" or have you used some artistic license to try to not only change the phrase but to also change the meaning of said phrase to something distasteful?

Where in the snippet of the article that I provided do the words *reparation* or *conversion* appear? That's not just different, that is substantially different.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> It becomes my business when that person wants to shower next to my daughter. You might have individual rights and public rights mixed up.


No one is forcing your daughter to shower with anyone she doesn't want to, male or female.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> This does concern me, the laws must be adhered to. Do laws ever change? How does that happen? *Why do you think that I am concerned with anyone's genitals? * Do you think it is because they made it a subject for me to have to sit up and take notice about how they want to change the world?
> 
> You would have us let the anorexic waste away, right? That's what they feel in their mind so they must not have any mental difficulties, right? You seemingly want to let people with mental disorders play make believe instead of trying to insure that they get the help they need, right?
> 
> I'll allow you to go on in your make-believe world, don't tell me it is none of my business. It most certainly is...


Because it seems to be all you talk about.
This has nothing to do with anorexics, and you can't claim to be concerned with everyone's "mental disorders".



> You seemingly want to let people with mental disorders play make believe instead of trying to insure that they get* the help they need*, right?


How many times must this be repeated?

Their "disorders" are no different from yours, and it's none of your business how they handle their lives. 

It is not your job to "help" anyone who doesn't *ask* you for it


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> It is still there in black and white for you to re-read.
> 
> You are now unable to make that statement truthfully.
> 
> Post # 138 had a snippet from the article in quotation marks that had the phrase "restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor" and the fact that this process had recently been banned by the three states that you mentioned and in Post #140 you told me to reread my post because I misunderstood it but you changed the important part to read something else. Here is what you wrote:
> 
> "Read your quote again, it states psychiatrists can't try reparation/conversion therapy on minors even with parental permission. That's because it doesn't work and just messes with a kid's head."
> 
> So did you change it or not? Is the phrase containing "restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor" exactly the same thing as "reparation/conversion therapy" or have you used some artistic license to try to not only change the phrase but to also change the meaning of said phrase to something distasteful?
> 
> Where in the snippet of the article that I provided do the words *reparation* or *conversion* appear?
> 
> *That's not just different, that is substantially different*.


It's not "substantially different" at all:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/restoration


> Simple Definition of restoration
> : the act or process of returning something to its original condition
> : the act of *bringing back something that existed before*





> Simple Definition of reparation
> reparations : money that a country or group that loses a war pays because of the damage, injury, deaths, etc., it has caused
> : something that is done or given as a way of *correcting a mistake that you have made or a bad situation that you have caused*





> Simple Definition of conversion
> : the act or process of *changing from one form, state, etc., to another*
> : the act or process of *changing from one religion, belief, political party, etc., to another*


They all mean the same thing when taken in the proper context


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not "substantially different" at all:
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/restoration
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all mean the same thing when taken in the proper context


Restoration and reparation aren't even close.
You can throw conversion out the window.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Restoration and reparation aren't even close.
> You can throw conversion out the window.


You're entitled to your denial, and I've come to expect it. 



> resÂ·toÂ·raÂ·tion
> [&#716;rest&#601;&#712;r&#257;SH(&#601n]
> NOUN
> the action of returning something to a former owner, place, or condition:
> "the restoration of Andrew's sight"
> *synonyms*: repair Â· repairing Â· fixing Â· mending Â· refurbishment Â·
> reconditioning Â· *rehabilitation*





> repÂ·aÂ·raÂ·tion
> [&#716;rep&#601;&#712;r&#257;SH(&#601n]
> NOUN
> the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged:
> "the courts required a convicted offender to make financial reparation to his victim"
> *synonyms*: amends Â· restitution Â· *redress* Â· compensation Â·
> recompense Â· repayment Â· *atonement*





> conÂ·verÂ·sion
> [k&#601;n&#712;v&#601;rZH&#601;n]
> NOUN
> the act or an instance of converting or the process of being converted:
> "the conversion of food into body tissues"
> *synonyms:* change Â· *changing* Â· transformation Â· metamorphosis


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> You may find these words cruel and uncaring, but they are true. The genetic combination which created that problem is being erased from the species. This helps to limit the number of people who will live this reality on a purely biological basis.


 The factors that cause infertility are many, some genetic, some environmental, so to claim infertility is being 'bred out of the species' is totally ignoring the full reality of the situation.


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> I am not really sure where it is you think that school kids are being forced to use co-ed showers, but I've never heard of it. Perhaps it was addressed at some point, but these threads are so rife with wild scenarios and people crying wolf its hard to separate the fact from the hyperbole. I went to highschool 20+ years ago and even for PE there was no showering involved, so not sure where this stuff is going on that you think is going on. The far more likely scenario is a lesbian being in the shower with your kid, and horror of horrors, that person is actually attracted to females, unlike the feminized gay man you're so worried about.


I am sorry, but this is not 20 years ago. The Obama administration, thru DOJ, has made it perfectly clear. Transgender students cannot be required to conceal their naked bodies by curtains even though they are physically of the other sex.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...banning-trans-student-from-girls-locker-room/

If a school attempts to force a naked transgender student to hide their body from other students, the federal govt will take away school funding. It is not HT forum hype. Coming to a school near you.


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> The factors that cause infertility are many, some genetic, some environmental, so to claim infertility is being 'bred out of the species' is totally ignoring the full reality of the situation.


Excuse me. How is someone infertile going to pass on their genetics? Do you know what infertile means? The reason for the infertility is not relavent. They will NOT reproduce.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're entitled to your denial, and I've come to expect it.


I'll play.
Now make rehabilitation, redress....rehabilitation, atonement all mean the same thing.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not "substantially different" at all:
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/restoration
> 
> They all mean the same thing when taken in the proper context


Then why have the advocates been able to ban those benign actions? This is the subject to which you are addressing is it not?

You fancy yourself a wordsmith, then tell me, is there an actual process that goes with the Reparation/Conversation THERAPY? Is not that what she said? Are you trying to pull her butt out of the crack she is in?

Here, a site that you might identify with:

http://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy

Now I ask YOU. Show me in the snippet the words reparation or conversion. If you cannot then you have no answer to what she has done.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> Do you know what infertile means? .


 Infertility is not just caused by genetics. Do you even read peoples posts before firing off a reply?


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> Infertility is not just caused by genetics. Do you even read peoples posts before firing off a reply?


Great. Lets run with that idea. Some persons infertility is caused by a meteor shower. Sweet. They are still infertile. They will NOT reproduce. Their genetic combination will die when they die. They are, in essence, erased from the genetic pool, regardless of why. 

Do you even turn your brain on before you press letters? Infertile = no offspring. 
No offspring = no genetic survival. Biology 101 my man. Wake up.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> You are right. It is a sad reality for some. My cousin was in this situation. After tens of thousands of dollars, they adopted three children to have a family.
> 
> You may find these words cruel and uncaring, but they are true. The genetic combination which created that problem is being erased from the species. This helps to limit the number of people who will live this reality on a purely biological basis.


Carry that on over to our debate. The species changes over certain periods, and harmful genetics are constantly erased from the genome. Same thing with all flora and fauna - they change, and these changes add over over millions of years.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> I am sorry, but this is not 20 years ago. The Obama administration, thru DOJ, has made it perfectly clear. Transgender students cannot be required to conceal their naked bodies by curtains even though they are physically of the other sex.


 In other words, because they have male genitalia, even though they are taking female hormones, dress as a female, and indentify as a female. If the guy was a post-op transgender, would you still have a problem with it? You're getting awfully hung up on the male genitalia. 
Do you see any potential problems sending someone like that into the boys locker room? The one who looks, acts, and dresses as a female?


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Carry that on over to our debate. The species changes over certain periods, and harmful genetics are constantly erased from the genome. Same thing with all flora and fauna - they change, and these changes add over over millions of years.


I have no problem with this at ALL. Evolution is us observing the persistence of creation. It must change or die. Why is life not spontaneously forming today?


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> Great. Lets run with that idea. Some persons infertility is caused by a meteor shower. Sweet. They are still infertile. They will NOT reproduce. Their genetic combination will die when they die. They are, in essence, erased from the genetic pool, regardless of why.
> 
> Do you even turn your brain on before you press letters? Infertile = no offspring.
> No offspring = no genetic survival. Biology 101 my man. Wake up.


 Environmentally caused infertility is not being 'erased from the genome'. Hopefully you can understand that. If not, perhaps a conversation with your imaginary friend will help.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> . Why is life not spontaneously forming today?


 How do you know that?


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> In other words, because they have male genitalia, even though they are taking female hormones, dress as a female, and indentify as a female. If the guy was a post-op transgender, would you still have a problem with it? You're getting awfully hung up on the male genitalia.
> Do you see any potential problems sending someone like that into the boys locker room? The one who looks, acts, and dresses as a female?


Excuse me? Unrelated. You stated a belief thst persons of opposite sex were not being forced into the same showers. I showed you that you were wrong. Ehat is this babble about?


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> How do you know that?


Well, we can start with never ever ever hearing about such an event of the news. Where would your illogical mind like to go after that?


----------



## thericeguy

Are you just mad because I showed everyone you do not understand biology and genetics, or how genes get passed on to future generations? No need to be upset. Everyone knows US schools suck. Blame the teachers union.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> Are you just mad because I showed everyone you do not understand biology and genetics, or how genes get passed on to future generations? No need to be upset. Everyone knows US schools suck. Blame the teachers union.


 What you really showed was your inability to read peoples posts. It remains a fact that environmentally caused infertility to not being 'erased from the genome'.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> Well, we can start with never ever ever hearing about such an event of the news. Where would your illogical mind like to go after that?


 You think you're going to 'read about it in the news' if some microscopic life form emerges and is immediately eaten? Maybe you should contact FOX news and tell them to put a reporter on that beat .


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> Ehat is this babble about?


 Good question riceguy. I am wondering the same thing.


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> Environmentally caused infertility is not being 'erased from the genome'. Hopefully you can understand that. If not, perhaps a conversation with your imaginary friend will help.


Tell me, how do these environmentally infertile people pass on their genetics?


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> Tell me, how do these environmentally infertile people pass on their genetics?


 Who said they did?


----------



## Heritagefarm

greg273 said:


> What you really showed was your inability to read peoples posts. It remains a fact that environmentally caused infertility to not being 'erased from the genome'.


Um, if they become inferior before they reproduce, they'll never contribute to the gene pool. Unless someone can make sperm from their DNA, which I seem to recall someone just did a while back.



greg273 said:


> You think you're going to 'read about it in the news' if some microscopic life form emerges and is immediately eaten? Maybe you should contact FOX news and tell them to put a reporter on that beat .


:hysterical:


----------



## greg273

Heritagefarm said:


> Um, if they become inferior before they reproduce, they'll never contribute to the gene pool.


 I was not talking about 'the gene pool' in fact I specifically said 'environmentally caused'... which means something EXTERNAL is causing it, and therefore has nothing to do with genetics. 
If, for example, 'Chemical X' is causing low fertility, that is not something that is going to be 'bred out of the gene pool'.


----------



## Heritagefarm

greg273 said:


> I was not talking about 'the gene pool' in fact I specifically said 'environmentally caused'... which means something EXTERNAL is causing it, and therefore has nothing to do with genetics.
> If, for example, 'Chemical X' is causing low fertility, that is not something that is going to be 'bred out of the gene pool'.


Ah. Duh. Can't believe I asked that now.


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> I was not talking about 'the gene pool' in fact I specifically said 'environmentally caused'... which means something EXTERNAL is causing it, and therefore has nothing to do with genetics.
> If, for example, 'Chemical X' is causing low fertility, that is not something that is going to be 'bred out of the gene pool'.


You are really struggling with some very basic, like first week basic, principles of biology. You are also extremely wrong, and its not making you look good at all. 

But ok, since you didnt like the other 5 ways I tried to explain every biology book on the planet to you, lets use your example. 

Some individual, which is made up of a unique set of DNA that only that individual has on the whole planet, lives next to a plant that makes Chemical X. They have a blue Ford pickup truck and a white dog. They also love Johnny Cash music. (Why not add in some more meaningless junk when being forced to talk about other meaningless junk by pepple who apparently dont know how reproduction works or how DNA gets passed on). 

Ok, while sitting on the porch with their dog, the factory explodes, exposing this person who has never had children to chemical X. It also breaks the radio. The doctors tell this person that chemical X has caused them to become sterile and that the effect is permanent. They will never ever have children, but this should not stop them from enjoying Johnny Cash. 

This person returns home very upset. The reason they are upset is because being unable to have children means that their unique set of DNA that exists in noone else on this planet will NOT get passed on to offspring through reproduction. Since they know from 6th grade biology class, this is the biological equivalent of the extinction of their particular DNA sequence, this makes them very sad indeed. So they drive their blue Ford to the store and buy some whiskey to drink on their front porch while petting their white dog. 

For further help on these basic science principles, please contact any child above age 12 in your area that attends a school. Any school. They will most likely be able to help. 

What happened to education and basic logic in this world. Geez.


----------



## thericeguy

Perhaps you can tell me how one can have a discussion about DNA, reproduction, and offspring and NOT be talking about the gene pool? I knew a guy named Gene, and he had a pool. Did you think we were discussing him?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> It is still there in black and white for you to re-read.
> 
> You are now unable to make that statement truthfully.
> 
> Post # 138 had a snippet from the article in quotation marks that had the phrase "restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor" and the fact that this process had recently been banned by the three states that you mentioned and in Post #140 you told me to reread my post because I misunderstood it but you changed the important part to read something else. Here is what you wrote:
> 
> "Read your quote again, it states psychiatrists can't try reparation/conversion therapy on minors even with parental permission. That's because it doesn't work and just messes with a kid's head."
> 
> So did you change it or not? Is the phrase containing "restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor" exactly the same thing as "reparation/conversion therapy" or have you used some artistic license to try to not only change the phrase but to also change the meaning of said phrase to something distasteful?
> 
> Where in the snippet of the article that I provided do the words *reparation* or *conversion* appear? That's not just different, that is substantially different.


I did not change your post, I've never changed the wording in anyone's post. That was *my* wording based on the quote you used (that you very obviously didn't understand). Sigh. One more try. "Restore natural feeling" means to change the gender back to the biological sex of a transgender person, right? The process of "treatment/therapy" to do this is called reparation or conversion therapy, and your article states it's been banned in three states. Based on the fact that it is banned in three states, and more are considering banning it, it doesn't work and causes more problems. 

I can't help you understand this, and I'm sorry you can't understand it, but don't accuse me of doing something that I would never do. I would never change the wording of someone's post. I'm done, banging my head on a wall is painful and accomplishes nothing.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> I did not change your post, I've never changed the wording in anyone's post. That was *my* wording based on the quote you used (that you very obviously didn't understand). Sigh. One more try. "Restore natural feeling" means to change the gender back to the biological sex of a transgender person, right? The process of "treatment/therapy" to do this is called reparation or conversion therapy, and your article states it's been banned in three states. Based on the fact that it is banned in three states, and more are considering banning it, it doesn't work and causes more problems.
> 
> I can't help you understand this, and I'm sorry you can't understand it, but don't accuse me of doing something that I would never do. I would never change the wording of someone's post. I'm done, banging my head on a wall is painful and accomplishes nothing.


Heres my 2 cents. Ban all therapy in minor children. Let whatever is happening happen. Encouragement in any direction should be banned. Support and acceptance of any direction is the only thing that should happen. 

By the time this individual has reached the age of maturity, they should have a well developed sense of self and should be free to pursue that in any manner they see fit. 

I find it unacceptable we limit access to cigarettes, alcohol, even sex to minors, but would allow them the legal status to make decisions that will effect the rest of their natural life by using very powerful hormones to override natural body function. Can we not accept a lets take it slow and be sure approach? Seems reasonable to me. Oh well.


----------



## greg273

Heritagefarm said:


> Ah. Duh. Can't believe I asked that now.


 Perhaps you can explain it to ricedude before he blows a gasket and wastes more of his time writing unneccesarily long and insult filled posts while completely missing the point.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> I'll play.
> Now make rehabilitation, redress....rehabilitation, atonement all mean the same thing.


There's no need for me to "make them" mean the same things since they already do


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> Perhaps you can explain it to ricedude before he blows a gasket and wastes more of his time writing unneccesarily long and insult filled posts while completely missing the point.


I feel sorry for the people who paid taxes in your school district.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Then why have the advocates been able to ban those *benign actions*? This is the subject to which you are addressing is it not?
> 
> You fancy yourself a wordsmith, then tell me, is there an actual process that goes with the Reparation/Conversation THERAPY? Is not that what she said? Are you trying to pull her butt out of the crack she is in?
> 
> Here, a site that you might identify with:
> 
> http://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy
> 
> Now I ask YOU. *Show me in the snippet the words reparation or conversion.* .


Brainwashing and browbeating are hardly "benign"

You've got your panties in a wad over words that are interchangeable, and yet you want to insert "benign" which has no place at all.

You also seem to be confused over which side you are supporting
You appear to *want* people to be able to "cure" transgenders through therapy which tells them what they feel is wrong, and your link tells why that process is harmful



> If you cannot then you have no answer to what she has done


There doesn't need to be an "answer" since there's no logical question in the first place. 

You can't refute the premise, so you're just complaining about semantics when the terms mean the same things


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no need for me to "make them" mean the same things since they already do


Not even close.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Great. Lets run with that idea. Some persons infertility is caused by a meteor shower. Sweet. They are still infertile. They will NOT reproduce. Their genetic combination will die when they die. They are, in essence, erased from the genetic pool, regardless of why.
> 
> Do you even turn your brain on before you press letters? Infertile = no offspring.
> No offspring = no genetic survival. Biology 101 my man. Wake up.


Half the time you argue being transgender is a "mental problem" and now you're saying it's a biological problem.

I think you just want to argue and will say anything to further that end


----------



## Bearfootfarm

greg273 said:


> Perhaps you can explain it to ricedude before he blows a gasket and wastes more of his time writing unneccesarily long and insult filled posts while completely missing the point.


Folks do the best they can


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> You are really struggling with some very basic, like first week basic, principles of biology. You are also extremely wrong, and its not making you look good at all.
> 
> But ok, since you didnt like the other 5 ways I tried to explain every biology book on the planet to you, lets use your example.
> 
> Some individual, which is made up of a unique set of DNA that only that individual has on the whole planet, lives next to a plant that makes Chemical X. They have a blue Ford pickup truck and a white dog. They also love Johnny Cash music. (Why not add in some more meaningless junk when being forced to talk about other meaningless junk by pepple who apparently dont know how reproduction works or how DNA gets passed on).
> 
> Ok, while sitting on the porch with their dog, the factory explodes, exposing this person who has never had children to chemical X. It also breaks the radio. The doctors tell this person that chemical X has caused them to become sterile and that the effect is permanent. They will never ever have children, but this should not stop them from enjoying Johnny Cash.
> 
> This person returns home very upset. The reason they are upset is because being unable to have children means that their unique set of DNA that exists in noone else on this planet will NOT get passed on to offspring through reproduction. Since they know from 6th grade biology class, this is the biological equivalent of the extinction of their particular DNA sequence, this makes them very sad indeed. So they drive their blue Ford to the store and buy some whiskey to drink on their front porch while petting their white dog.
> 
> For further help on these basic science principles, please contact any child above age 12 in your area that attends a school. Any school. They will most likely be able to help.
> 
> What happened to education and basic logic in this world. Geez.


You're missing the point. The environmentally caused infertility could happen to anyone. The problem itself will not be erased from the gene pool, only the person effected. Greg's assertion was that environmentally caused infertility WILL NOT be erased from the gene pool because it can effect anyone, and will persist as long as the chemical or other forcing exists.
SUffice it to say, you are not entirely wrong, just missing the point.
Source: Amateur biologist.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by thericeguy View Post
> Well, we can start with never ever ever hearing about such an event of the news. Where would your illogical mind like to go after that?


For one claiming to be an authority on so many things, how is it you are overlooking the fact that conditions on the planet when life was first formed are far different than today.

Wouldn't it be totally illogical to expect the same results with different conditions?

I'm sure you've heard it said that life emerged from a "*Primordial* soup".

Look up primordial if you need to.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Not even close.


I knew you would deny it again, and you didn't disappoint.
I'm not going to explain further since you seem to have a hard time forming complete sentences, and it's really boring when you don't really add anything to the conversation beyond your one liners


----------



## DisasterCupcake

thericeguy said:


> Yup. Factual statements indeed. A member of one sex can pass as another quite easily, which makes it entirely possible to pee in any restroom you want without causing a scene, ever.
> 
> So tell me, with that reality, why is any of this happening if there is not some other unspoken agenda beneath the surface. Perhaps the one your current federal govt puts forward. Boys who claim to be girls get to shower with girls, and the school cannot force them to even draw a curtain. Hmmmmm.


I'm not sure why any of this is happening. I'm acutally not arguing for or against gender issues, etc. I'm here wondering what the actual argument is- safety? Lack of protective rights for women or children? Fear of blending the genders?

It is possible to use a bathroom without causing a scene. Is that how the actual world works? Idk. I don't shop at Target, or any other department stores. So I really don't know. 

Personally, I would be extrememly uncomfortable if I was alone in a restroom and a man entered. However, I have never experienced this happening. Mostly because I don't shop at deparment stores, or use public facilities. I don't know what the incidence rate of this happening really is.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> You're missing the point. The environmentally caused infertility could happen to anyone. The problem itself will not be erased from the gene pool, only the person effected. Greg's assertion was that environmentally caused infertility WILL NOT be erased from the gene pool because it can effect anyone, and will persist as long as the chemical or other forcing exists.
> SUffice it to say, you are not entirely wrong, just missing the point.
> Source: Amateur biologist.


Basic biology has an answer for that. The person or group of people who do not move away from Chemical X. Why do they choose to be there? Again, it does mot matter. The end result is that people who do not move away from chemical X will not reproduce. The gene pool will favor those who do not live near chemical X. Their genes will dominate the gene pool, thus ensuring the species will persist. 

It never ever matters why an individual fails to reproduce. The gene pool is a constant tug of war. Survival of the fittest. It is not survival of the ones not effected by external forces. Biology is cruel and does not care. One wrong move and your genes are gone. If you lack offspring at the time of your death, you are erased genetically and biology wont even blink. 

Spread chemical X ,hypothetically, across the entire human species. Two possible outcomes. The extinction of our species, or the rise of a genetic set naturally resistent to chemical X, in which case a VERY strong selection event will have just occured genetically. The entire human genome, given sufficient time for all nonresistant people to die, will represent the resistant DNA. I would call that very much effecting the gene pool thru selection. External or internal stimulus is a moot point.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Basic biology has an answer for that. The person or group of people who do not move away from Chemical X. Why do they choose to be there? Again, it does mot matter. The end result is that people who do not move away from chemical X will not reproduce. The gene pool will favor those who do not live near chemical X. Their genes will dominate the gene pool, thus ensuring the species will persist.
> 
> It never ever matters why an individual fails to reproduce. The gene pool is a constant tug of war. Survival of the fittest. It is not survival of the ones not effected by external forces. Biology is cruel and does not care. One wrong move and your genes are gone. If you lack offspring at the time of your death, you are erased genetically and biology wont even blink.
> 
> Spread chemical X ,hypothetically, across the entire human species. Two possible outcomes. The extinction of our species, or the rise of a genetic set naturally resistent to chemical X, in which case a VERY strong selection event will have just occured genetically. The entire human genome, given sufficient time for all nonresistant people to die, will represent the resistant DNA. I would call that very much effecting the gene pool thru selection. External or internal stimulus is a moot point.


Yes, but extinction events are then possible. Adaptation won't continue if chemical X is so powerful it kills the entire human race. IF chemical X is so powerful it kills half the population and not the other half, what has happened is half the population has a gene set that rendered them immune to chemical X. That, indeed, is adaptation/natural selection at work.
However, I suspect most biologists, myself included, will disagree that it's a moot point whether the effects are intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic effects tend to delete themselves - Genetic diseases, for instance. People will genetic disease tend to pass them onto their progeny, reducing the virulence of their set of genes.
Extrinsic factors are far more unpredictable. It really doens't matter how strong your genes are if you get struck by a meteorite. The fact that your genome gets erased had nothing to do with how fit they were for survival.

Unless you have Levis - then you're fine.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I did not change your post, I've never changed the wording in anyone's post. That was *my* wording based on the quote you used (that you very obviously didn't understand). Sigh. One more try. "Restore natural feeling" means to change the gender back to the biological sex of a transgender person, right? The process of "treatment/therapy" to do this is called reparation or conversion therapy, and your article states it's been banned in three states. Based on the fact that it is banned in three states, and more are considering banning it, it doesn't work and causes more problems.
> 
> I can't help you understand this, and I'm sorry you can't understand it, but don't accuse me of doing something that I would never do. I would never change the wording of someone's post. I'm done, banging my head on a wall is painful and accomplishes nothing.


Ok, so you will not own what you have done. I understand and this further paints the picture of you that I am trying to see. You changed it in such a fashion so as to imply that there is only one "therapy" that can "restore natural feeling". The therapy that you suggested is a vile way of doing so. Are you aware of any other therapies to help one understand reality that does not use processes such as the therapy that you implied? Maybe therapies used to help people with other mental maladies? 

I do understand completely, you, as others on this board do, took something that someone else said, changed the meaning to suit your cause and tried to alter the meaning of what was already stated. 

I further understand why you can stand on your "principles" as you do not really "own" what you do so there is no pain when you do something that is dishonest. You even posted once that "I own what I say", this too is now water under the bridge.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, but extinction events are then possible. Adaptation won't continue if chemical X is so powerful it kills the entire human race. IF chemical X is so powerful it kills half the population and not the other half, what has happened is half the population has a gene set that rendered them immune to chemical X. That, indeed, is adaptation/natural selection at work.
> However, I suspect most biologists, myself included, will disagree that it's a moot point whether the effects are intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic effects tend to delete themselves - Genetic diseases, for instance. People will genetic disease tend to pass them onto their progeny, reducing the virulence of their set of genes.
> Extrinsic factors are far more unpredictable. It really doens't matter how strong your genes are if you get struck by a meteorite. The fact that your genome gets erased had nothing to do with how fit they were for survival.
> 
> Unless you have Levis - then you're fine.


The flaw in your argument is you are assigning human emotion to biology. Is it your "fault" or not. To the gene pool, it does not matter. You should have been somewhere the meteorite was not. You chose a poor location. Bye bye. 

You died in a car crash at 17. Should have reproduced at 15 then. Bye bye. 

It is cruel in a way that few people can be comfortable with. We are used to emotion. It is part of who we are. But to nature/biology, it does not give one ioda why you did not reproduce. It grants no right to life. It is outcome driven, and may the best man win. Sheer dumb lucks counts as highly as IQ in this game. Maybe more.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Ok, so you will not own what you have done. I understand and this further paints the picture of you that I am trying to see.
> 
> *You changed it in such a fashion so as to imply that there is only one "therapy" that can "restore natural feeling".*
> 
> *The therapy that you suggested is a vile way of doing so.*
> 
> Are you aware of any other therapies to help one understand reality that does not use processes such as the therapy that you implied? Maybe therapies used to help people with other mental maladies?
> 
> I do understand completely, you, as others on this board do, took something that someone else said, changed the meaning to suit your cause and tried to alter the meaning of what was already stated.
> 
> I further understand why you can stand on your "principles" as you do not really "own" what you do so there is no pain when you do something that is dishonest. You even posted once that "I own what I say", this too is now water under the bridge.


I often get the impression you have little idea what has been stated, or what you are trying to say

I just see you complaining about something while doing it yourself, as so often is the case


----------



## thericeguy

And as far as extinction level events and their near misses, ask the cheetah how those go. They know the answer.


----------



## DisasterCupcake

"Basic biology" is a bit of a misnomer, imo, since biology is always complex and dynamic. Basic biology often teaches in absolutes, when in reality absolutes are exceedingly rare. 

Infertility can be caused by a number of different factors, many of which are reversible. It can also come in many different forms. Females unable to carry to term are infertile, but there may eventually be an offspring capable of surviving a premature birth. There is also, as someone else mentioned, the extrinsic factor chemical X which may cause epigenetic changes. If fertility is reduced, but those offspring that do survive inherit an epigenetic change from their parent(s) exposure that increases their chances of survival/fitness, then those few offspring would have an advantage over those born to parents not influenced by chemical X.


----------



## thericeguy

DisasterCupcake said:


> "Basic biology" is a bit of a misnomer, imo, since biology is always complex and dynamic. Basic biology often teaches in absolutes, when in reality absolutes are exceedingly rare.
> 
> Infertility can be caused by a number of different factors, many of which are reversible. It can also come in many different forms. Females unable to carry to term are infertile, but there may eventually be an offspring capable of surviving a premature birth. There is also, as someone else mentioned, the extrinsic factor chemical X which may cause epigenetic changes. If fertility is reduced, but those offspring that do survive inherit an epigenetic change from their parent(s) exposure that increases their chances of survival/fitness, then those few offspring would have an advantage over those born to parents not influenced by chemical X.


Balid points, just not related to my original assertion. Individual gene combinations (people) that do not reproduce and are therefor erased from the gene pool. It is a cleansing mechanism that lends the greatest possibility for species survival. 

I do not see how an example of surviving offspring relates at all as a refute to an argument where there are NO offspring. They are two completely unrelated events. One has offdpring. One does not. 

I am shocked actually that people would argue a childless death in a car accident has s different effect on the gene pool that a birth defect that is fatal at 1 hour. Both yield the same effect. The combination of genes created by the fertilization of an egg by sperm is now gone and cannot be recovered. That individual, and their unique genes are gone. 

Now we can start talking about cars and planets, but those discussions will not alter the reality, and it is a basic reality, that if you fail to reproduce, your gene combination is lost. Meteor. Car. Disease. Space aliens. All the same result.


----------



## thericeguy

The following is the beginning to this rather idiotic conversation that has been warped into something it is not by people wanting to argue for the sake of arguing, and even then their conclusions are wrong. It is a statement about one person in this universe having a genetic problem which renders them sterile. And my comment how that problem will not be passed along to her offspring because they cannot have any. The problem will not reproduce. End of statement.



thericeguy said:


> You are right. It is a sad reality for some. My cousin was in this situation. After tens of thousands of dollars, they adopted three children to have a family.
> 
> You may find these words cruel and uncaring, but they are true. The genetic combination which created that problem is being erased from the species. This helps to limit the number of people who will live this reality on a purely biological basis.


Along comes greg, who wants to insert some conditions onto my statement. He adds environmental factors to causes of infertility. He asserts that I spoke about breeding infertility out of the species, though careful review of what I said will show I never said such a thing. Never even spoke about our species. I spoke about my cousin.



greg273 said:


> The factors that cause infertility are many, some genetic, some environmental, so to claim infertility is being 'bred out of the species' is totally ignoring the full reality of the situation.


Great. You are right in the fact that you are talking about something completely different than I am, but for some reason directing this at me. What did I say? Go read it again. If you are infertile, your genes are going to be erased. And they will. Facts will bare this truth out. If you do not reproduce, your unique combination of genes will die with you, decompose, and become food for the plants. Period.

But lets take a disease. One that causes infertility. Who cares what it is. We only need to see if environmental factors can or will be bred out of a population, as you claim. This disease moves into a population. Certain individuals will become effected. Certain others will not. Now a disease is most certainly an environmental factor. All those effected will no longer have children. All those immune will. In about 80 years, who do you think will still be around? The children of those who cant have kids, or those who can? This environmental force has come in and modified the genome of these people. It is natural selection at work, and it absolutely DOES effect the gene pool, and just like a birth defect, will determine your suitability as a representative of your species on a biological basis.

You might not like the idea that the universe has selected you for extinction. You may have done nothing wrong. You may not deserve it. You might be a great mom or dad. The universe doesn't care. If it picks you, your days are done. Period. Forever.



greg273 said:


> Infertility is not just caused by genetics. Do you even read peoples posts before firing off a reply?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're entitled to your denial, and I've come to expect it.





Bearfootfarm said:


> I knew you would deny it again, and you didn't disappoint.
> I'm not going to explain further since you seem to have a hard time forming complete sentences, and it's really boring when you don't really add anything to the conversation beyond your one liners


I'll skip your insults so you can answer the question in plain English.
This time explain the meaning of the words in complete sentences.
I am interested in seeing how two words with complete different meanings are the same, synonyms, etc.
No wiggle room, only answer the exact question.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I often get the impression you have little idea what has been stated, or what you are trying to say
> 
> I just see you complaining about something while doing it yourself, as so often is the case


meh...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> I'll skip your insults so you can answer the question in plain English.
> This time explain the meaning of the words in complete sentences.
> I am interested in seeing how two words with complete different meanings are the same, synonyms, etc.
> No wiggle room, only answer the exact question.


I already gave you your answers.



> Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
> I knew you would deny it again, and you didn't disappoint.
> *I'm not going to explain further* since you seem to have a hard time forming complete sentences, and it's really boring when you don't really add anything to the conversation beyond your one liners


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> I already gave you your answers.


I'll skip the insult again, provide two sentences with each word showing how they mean the same.
Prove your claim as you told another recently.
Or you could say I cannot show that they are the same.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> The following is the beginning to this rather idiotic conversation that has been warped into something it is not by people wanting to argue for the sake of arguing, and even then their conclusions are wrong. It is a statement about one person in this universe having a genetic problem which renders them sterile. And my comment how that problem will not be passed along to her offspring because they cannot have any. The problem will not reproduce. End of statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Along comes greg, who wants to insert some conditions onto my statement. He adds environmental factors to causes of infertility. He asserts that I spoke about breeding infertility out of the species, though careful review of what I said will show I never said such a thing. Never even spoke about our species. I spoke about my cousin.
> 
> 
> 
> Great. You are right in the fact that you are talking about something completely different than I am, but for some reason directing this at me. What did I say? Go read it again. If you are infertile, your genes are going to be erased. And they will. Facts will bare this truth out. If you do not reproduce, your unique combination of genes will die with you, decompose, and become food for the plants. Period.
> 
> But lets take a disease. One that causes infertility. Who cares what it is. We only need to see if environmental factors can or will be bred out of a population, as you claim. This disease moves into a population. Certain individuals will become effected. Certain others will not. Now a disease is most certainly an environmental factor. All those effected will no longer have children. All those immune will. In about 80 years, who do you think will still be around? The children of those who cant have kids, or those who can? This environmental force has come in and modified the genome of these people. It is natural selection at work, and it absolutely DOES effect the gene pool, and just like a birth defect, will determine your suitability as a representative of your species on a biological basis.
> 
> You might not like the idea that the universe has selected you for extinction. You may have done nothing wrong. You may not deserve it. You might be a great mom or dad. The universe doesn't care. If it picks you, your days are done. Period. Forever.


I'm glad you can have a conversation with yourself.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> I'll skip the insult again, provide two sentences with each word showing how they mean the same.
> Prove your claim as you told another recently.
> Or you could say I cannot show that they are the same.


Do you know the definition of "insanity"?

It's doing the same thing over and over while thinking the results will be different


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm glad you can have a conversation with yourself.


At least it's someone who cares


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> I feel sorry for the people who paid taxes in your school district.





thericeguy said:


> But to nature/biology, it does not give one *ioda *why you did not reproduce..


 :hysterical:


----------



## greg273

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm glad you can have a conversation with yourself.


 I suspect that happens a lot with him.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm glad you can have a conversation with yourself.


That's pretty disappointing.


----------



## ShannonR

roadless said:


> Just how are the genders defined?
> What is a male gender?
> What is a female gender?
> 
> All this talk about Transgender has me wondering.
> What do you think?


I'm gonna say, that generally speaking...the ability to bear children would be the definition of female gender. This of course does not hold true for ALL women, but it does hold true for all men. And I haven't yet seen a transgender woman have a baby.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you know the definition of "insanity"?
> 
> It's doing the same thing over and over while thinking the results will be different


No..go ahead. I want you to educate me on this subject at hand. I like to learn and it seems you are the person that can expand my knowledge base.
Please enlighten me with the answers.
However, if you cannot, say so.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> No..go ahead. I want you to educate me on this subject at hand. I like to learn and it seems you are the person that can expand my knowledge base.
> *Please enlighten me with the answers.*
> However, if you cannot, say so.


You're not listening, so I'll just stop replying, even though you will probably continue
Go back to page eleven if you're confused. It's all still there


----------



## FarmerKat

We had the radio on earlier today (not sure what show, we only listened for a few minutes) and the guy on the show said he would feel entirely okay with his 10 year old daughter showering next to a boy in school. He said it was a teachable moment. That got me thinking about what - as a woman - I would be comfortable with. Let's take the assumption that safety is not a concern, simply what is one comfortable with.

I would be OK using a multi stall restroom open to both men and women (assuming everyone uses stalls, no urinals in the open area). 

I would feel somewhat uncomfortable showering in a mixed gender locker room if each shower had its own changing space with a curtain. But I think I could get over it.

I would feel absolutely uncomfortable using a shower that does not have a private changing space - i.e. you shower but dress in the open if there were men present. If it was a women's only shower room, I would still be fairly uncomfortable but cover up best I could and get out as fast as I could. 

If it was an open shower room (no dividers, no curtains, just multiple shower heads on the wall) - totally uncomfortable regardless of who is there. 

I am curious how that compares to other adults' comfort level. Especially those of you who support the idea of anyone choosing a bathroom or shower room based on where they are most comfortable. Sometimes I wonder if I am an extreme prude. 



When we were in Europe, we used to go to a pool that had open shower room (just multiple shower heads on the wall). There were men's and women's locker rooms. The posted rules were that you must remove your bathing suit in the shower room before entering the locker room (i.e. you must be butt naked and dry when you leave the shower room). There were also signs posted that during certain hours, members of the opposite sex may be present due to school swim lessons (i.e. a male teacher accompanying girls into the lockers or female teacher accompanying boys). 

I never saw any men in the women's room but I hated it anyway. I did not shower, just covered up with a towel, sneaked into the locker room and got out as quickly as I could.

My husband told me that each time they were showering, there was a female worker cleaning the shower rooms (while the showers were being used). He also saw female teachers walk through the shower room full of naked men several times. It made him uncomfortable. 

And beyond personal comfort ... I don't think that I like the idea of women watching my husband shower. And married women should not be showering in front of anyone other that their husbands either. 

How do others here feel about their spouse showering with someone of the opposite sex? Again, assuming safety is not a concern - that is a whole another can of worms.


----------



## roadless

I am only comfortable being naked with the man I am intimate with, ( theoretically since I'm alone :hohum: right now ) and a few close girlfriends period. 

When I owned the cabin in NY. My friends and I went skinny dipping in the river but we were certainly isolated. 

I'm not ashamed of my body or even shy, I just don't want to share my nakedness with strangers in any setting.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're entitled to your denial, and I've come to expect it.





Bearfootfarm said:


> You're not listening, so I'll just stop replying, even though you will probably continue
> Go back to page eleven if you're confused. It's all still there


Not on page eleven anymore, when you were questioned you provided all the synonyms highlighted that are the subject matter now. That was a direct result of the first failure that you were wrong.
Restoration and atonement are the focus now.
I know your in a bit of a quandary at this moment but since you made the claim there is no reason to not follow through.
I have no interest in dodge, twist, sarcasm, insults, etc.
Just a simple desire to learn from someone that has more knowledge and education than I do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Most people are self conscious about undressing in front of strangers of either sex.
The odds of any "assaults" or "molestations" are being overblown 

The last assault I read about in a high school bathroom was all girls, with three killing one in a fight over a boy


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> That's pretty disappointing.


It was more fun that way.

Anyways, I wasn't actually able to fully follow your statement. 

1. If someone gets hit by a meteorite, it was nothing in their genome that caused them to get deleted, it was a *random event.*

2. Someone born with infertility is a genetic disorder. This person recieved incorrectly recombined DNA. This mistake will be deleted from the gene pool.

3. Someone becoming infertile due to chemical may, as you pointed out, contribute to the gene pool BEFORE they become infertile. Otherwise, this is also a random event.

They only important one is #2, which dictates that nature corrects itself by killing off organisms that cannot reproduce or survive.

What is your point?



greg273 said:


> :hysterical:


To be fair, he's typing on an iPhone. I'm guessing he doesn't mind cramped, tiny screens and even tinier text. I find typing on my iPhone aggravating, and only do it when necessary.


----------



## thericeguy

There are so few random events which the individual has no control over that it becomes such a miniscule portion of a fraction that it is not worthy of debate in a discussion of genetic selection outside philodophical reasons or demands of absolute completeness. 

Every action we take, every choice we make, will effect our chances to be a representative of the species. Think of common events. Car crashes. Plane crashes. Boats sinking. Snow skiing. Skydiving. Living in a crime ridden area. Engaging in risky sexual activity. Taking drugs. Any action or behaviour possible. Each one carries a risk. Skydiving more than attending a baseball game. It is statistically more likely to die while skydiving than watching baseball, so genetically speaking, non skydivers should have a higher representation in a given gene pool than do skydivers. 

One could argue it is not the fault of genetics which caused this event, but I would disagree. Risk taking could very well be genetically driven, predisposed to the thrill of extreme risk. 

This same principle applies to every action. Where we live. Where we work. Where we go. All those choices and the risks taken will determine, to some extent, just how successful one individual might be genetically speaking (passing on DNA). How many children one has is a choice, usually, and is a large contributor to the outcome. Why? Odds os survival increase with numbers. 

While the act of being hit by a baseball and getting killed may seem like a random act, being there for it to happen is not. A different culture, one without baseball, or a different individual, one who dislikes baseball, is being favored in selection. 

To toss in outliers such as meteor strikes attempts to deny the reality of a common occurance by showing an extremely rare and insignificant occurance. 

Genetically speaking, it does not matter why an individual failed to reproduce. You are still being selected against.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> There are so few random events which the individual has no control over that it becomes such a miniscule portion of a fraction that it is not worthy of debate in a discussion of genetic selection outside philodophical reasons or demands of absolute completeness.
> 
> Every action we take, every choice we make, will effect our chances to be a representative of the species. Think of common events. Car crashes. Plane crashes. Boats sinking. Snow skiing. Skydiving. Living in a crime ridden area. Engaging in risky sexual activity. Taking drugs. Any action or behaviour possible. Each one carries a risk. Skydiving more than attending a baseball game. It is statistically more likely to die while skydiving than watching baseball, so genetically speaking, non skydivers should have a higher representation in a given gene pool than do skydivers.
> 
> One could argue it is not the fault of genetics which caused this event, but I would disagree. Risk taking could very well be genetically driven, predisposed to the thrill of extreme risk.
> 
> This same principle applies to every action. Where we live. Where we work. Where we go. All those choices and the risks taken will determine, to some extent, just how successful one individual might be genetically speaking (passing on DNA). How many children one has is a choice, usually, and is a large contributor to the outcome. Why? Odds os survival increase with numbers.
> 
> While the act of being hit by a baseball and getting killed may seem like a random act, being there for it to happen is not. A different culture, one without baseball, or a different individual, one who dislikes baseball, is being favored in selection.
> 
> To toss in outliers such as meteor strikes attempts to deny the reality of a common occurance by showing an extremely rare and insignificant occurance.
> 
> Genetically speaking, it does not matter why an individual failed to reproduce. You are still being selected against.


I'm sorry, but if your assertion is that tiny random events can drive a specie's evolution forward, it would be erroneous at best. 

Take honey bees as an example. Everyone knows if they sting you, they die. This is because their stinger possesses a barb at the end, which when inserted into another insect, causes great harm to the insect. When inserted into a mammal, the barb stays behind, killing the bee. But the animal is hopefully discouraged, and the majority of the hive lives on due to the sacrifice of 10 bees. 

Natural selection could select for bees without barbed stingers, but they die so rarely it hasn't been a problem.

SOmeone getting killed by a baseball is as random and useless an example as getting struck by a meteorite. (Meteors are in-space rocks, by the way) Other behaviors will certainly contribute to how a species functions. It certainly selects hard against people who text and drive, or drink and drive, and yet those negative behaviors are going to take a very long time to have ANY effect since, again, the population is too large to be effected by this.

What does change a species is selection over long periods and especially large events. Sometimes it results in extinction - clearly, dinosaurs didn't cope well with enormous amounts of soot and dust from the giant meteorite.

I find it interesting that your arguments, despite flaws, are mostly supporting evolution.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm sorry, but if your assertion is that tiny random events can drive a specie's evolution forward, it would be erroneous at best.
> 
> Take honey bees as an example. Everyone knows if they sting you, they die. This is because their stinger possesses a barb at the end, which when inserted into another insect, causes great harm to the insect. When inserted into a mammal, the barb stays behind, killing the bee. But the animal is hopefully discouraged, and the majority of the hive lives on due to the sacrifice of 10 bees.
> 
> Natural selection could select for bees without barbed stingers, but they die so rarely it hasn't been a problem.
> 
> SOmeone getting killed by a baseball is as random and useless an example as getting struck by a meteorite. (Meteors are in-space rocks, by the way) Other behaviors will certainly contribute to how a species functions. It certainly selects hard against people who text and drive, or drink and drive, and yet those negative behaviors are going to take a very long time to have ANY effect since, again, the population is too large to be effected by this.
> 
> What does change a species is selection over long periods and especially large events. Sometimes it results in extinction - clearly, dinosaurs didn't cope well with enormous amounts of soot and dust from the giant meteorite.
> 
> I find it interesting that your arguments, despite flaws, are mostly supporting evolution.


Perhaps you discount my logic because you are not condidering other more terminal behaviours because they have all been eliminated from the species. Examples we see today are the random mutation chances that will always be possible. If you dont like the baseball analogy, then try these genes. 

The I wonder if Trex has had breath gene. 
The I think I can fly gene. 
The I think I can survive this fall gene. 

The examples that no longer exist are the ones that show my way of thinking best. To be eliminated from a species, the act must occur prior to reproduction. 

I never denied evolution. Must have been an assumption. 

The statement "environmental forces do not effect the gene pool or work toward being eliminated" is false. One would have to not believe in disease immunity to believe that statement.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> *Perhaps you discount my logic *because you are not condidering other more terminal behaviours because they have all been eliminated from the species. Examples we see today are the random mutation chances that will always be possible. If you dont like the baseball analogy, then try these genes.
> 
> The I wonder if Trex has had breath gene.
> The I think I can fly gene.
> The I think I can survive this fall gene.
> 
> The examples that no longer exist are the ones that show my way of thinking best. To be eliminated from a species, the act must occur prior to reproduction.
> 
> I never denied evolution. Must have been an assumption.
> 
> The statement "environmental forces do not effect the gene pool or work toward being eliminated" is false. One would have to not believe in disease immunity to believe that statement.


There's no real "logic" there to discount.
There's just lots of rambling with little substance


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no real "logic" there to discount.
> There's just lots of rambling with little substance


Disease is an environmental force. 

Elimination of those susceptible to the disease allows a greater percentage of a population to survive. 

Therfor, the disease has altered the gene pool in favor of the immune individuals. 

If you cant see logic and truth in that and consider it rambling, just exactly how did you get your amateur training as a biologist? More fun to say it that way.

Edit: Oh, its you. Misread whom posted that. Did not mean to insult any amateur biologists by lumping you in with them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Disease is an environmental force.
> 
> Elimination of those susceptible to the disease allows a greater percentage of a population to survive.
> 
> Therfor, the disease has altered the gene pool in favor of the immune individuals.
> 
> If you cant see logic and truth in that and consider it rambling, just exactly how did you get your amateur training as a biologist? More fun to say it that way.
> 
> Edit: Oh, its you. Misread whom posted that. Did not mean to insult any amateur biologists by lumping you in with them.


Disease isn't the only thing you've mentioned in your ramblings.

Disease rarely affects an entire species unless it's a tiny population in relatively confined areas. It may have some limited effects on local populations.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Disease isn't the only thing you've mentioned in your ramblings.
> 
> Disease rarely affects an entire species unless it's a tiny population in relatively confined areas. It may have some limited effects on local populations.


What comprises global populations except the cumulation of local populations?

If a local population is eliminated, it will be available as a resource to an ajoining population to reestablish. Regardless, the gene pool is still permanently altered. 

You cant even come to terms with "no men in restrooms is different than men in restrooms". How do you ever hope to make a conclusion about global changed based on the changes of individuals or classes of individuals?

In my opinion, you have no hope of contributing a meaningful statement to such a discussion. It is not driven by emotion.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> What comprises global populations except the cumulation of local populations?
> 
> If a local population is eliminated, it will be available as a resource to an ajoining population to reestablish. Regardless, the gene pool is still permanently altered.
> 
> You cant even come to terms with "no men in restrooms is different than men in restrooms". How do you ever hope to make a conclusion about global changed based on the changes of individuals or classes of individuals?
> 
> In my opinion, you have no hope of contributing a meaningful statement to such a discussion. It is not driven by emotion.


I am sorry but LOL. You are trying to school him about the gene pool by responding that he can come to terms with no men in restrooms. Your posts can't even use the topic you are discussing to support your own conclusions.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I am sorry but LOL. You are trying to school him about the gene pool by responding that he can come to terms with no men in restrooms. Your posts can't even use the topic you are discussing to support your own conclusions.


Well, the group of people inable to grasp cause and effect or extrapolate one idea into another extends beyond one person. There are people only able to have one concept occupy their mind at once. And there are those self described as unable or unwilling to do "what if". And there are those who judge data as right or wrong based on the desired outcomes. 

Do you belong to any of those groups? I have my opinions about that as well.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Well, the group of people inable to grasp cause and effect or extrapolate one idea into another extends beyond one person. There are people only able to have one conwcept occupy their mind at once. And there are those self described as unable or unwilling to do "what if". And there are those who judge data as right or wrong based on the desired outcomes.
> 
> Do you belong to any of those groups? I have my opinions about that as well.


Is that how you win discussions with your friends? LOL. Tell, them they are unable to grasp your brilliant logic.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Perhaps you discount my logic because you are not condidering other more terminal behaviours because they have all been eliminated from the species. Examples we see today are the random mutation chances that will always be possible. If you dont like the baseball analogy, then try these genes.
> 
> The I wonder if Trex has had breath gene.
> The I think I can fly gene.
> The I think I can survive this fall gene.
> 
> *These are not caused by genes, they are behaviors and effects. The culmination of behaviors results from the inter working of hundreds of different genes, AND environmental effects such as education, parenting and culture.*
> 
> The examples that no longer exist are the ones that show my way of thinking best. To be eliminated from a species, the act must occur prior to reproduction.
> 
> I never denied evolution. Must have been an assumption.
> 
> The statement "environmental forces do not effect the gene pool or work toward being eliminated" is false. One would have to not believe in disease immunity to believe that statement.


To be eliminated from a population it has to work on the whole population. Things like climate change are very good at driving evolution - an ice cold planet results in different animals than a warm, tropical one. Enough different little things killing off people may indeed result in natural selection against that trait. However, our medical system is so good now, that in the US it is possible to keep alive most members of the species that would otherwise have killed themselves off a long time ago. That's a bit of a tangent, though, I admit.

Still, I strongly encourage you to take a genetics class. Most of your statements are rather ambiguous.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> To be eliminated from a population it has to work on the whole population. Things like climate change are very good at driving evolution - an ice cold planet results in different animals than a warm, tropical one. Enough different little things killing off people may indeed result in natural selection against that trait. However, our medical system is so good now, that in the US it is possible to keep alive most members of the species that would otherwise have killed themselves off a long time ago. That's a bit of a tangent, though, I admit.
> 
> Still, I strongly encourage you to take a genetics class. Most of your statements are rather ambiguous.


My education includes numerous classes in biology (mol bio major), chemistry, ethics, sociology, philosophy, psychiatry (though it was only a survey course). My education supports my conclusions. Yours may not support mine. Isnt the scientific model wonderful. Different ideas competing for acceptance. I dont think "go read a book" is part of the scientific model, but each to his own. 

The reasoning I use is sound. If you fail to reproduce, you have failed biologically as a member of a population. Examples of that is not rambling, though you may use disparaging remarks to try to have your ideas come across as superior. 

If you are too stupid to notice that everyone living next to the plant end up sterile and move there, perhaps it best your DNA not get passed on as well. Stupid is not a gene that promotes survival. Is that rambling?

Concrete unrefutable evidence of disease immunity, and its role in shaping the genome. More rambling?

The acceptance that the choice an individuals chooses will impact their survival and thus their opportunity to reproduce. More rambling? Maybe we all should walk a tight rope then, skydive, or eat swords. Wonder why so few people see that as a good idea? Ramble ramble. 

Maybe somebody should read a book.


----------



## thericeguy

And I NEVER said any particular event eliminated a trait from the genome. I said the problem, a very specific genetic combination resulting in sterility, will be erased. Not passed on to offspring. If you cant accept that as truth, well....

Everything I have said forward of that is "works to favor", or "selects", or "eliminates an individual". Your desire to prove me as rambling by assigning species wide elimination is just made up rambling. 

For a species to survive, any and all genes or behaviours which stop reproduction must be held in check. This is best accomplished by sterility or death. Death is a very effective form of birth control.


----------



## thericeguy

Oh, and let me point out the ridiculousness of your honey bee comment. Worker bees do the stinging and dieing when it comes to defend the hive. Not queens or drones. Workers do not contribute to the gene pool in any way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> What comprises global populations except the cumulation of local populations?
> 
> If a local population is eliminated, it will be available as a resource to an ajoining population to reestablish. Regardless, the gene pool is still permanently altered.
> 
> You cant even come to terms with "no men in restrooms is different than men in restrooms". How do you ever hope to make a conclusion about global changed based on the changes of individuals or classes of individuals?
> 
> In my opinion, you have* no hope of contributing a meaningful statement to such a discussion*. It is not driven by emotion.


Says the guy talking about a "bad breath gene"
I'll leave you to your rambling and delusions of grandeur


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Says the guy talking about a "bad breath gene"
> I'll leave you to your rambling and delusions of grandeur


Cause and effect. Google it. Neat stuff. Wait. you dont do "what if". Seems to be your limiting factor. Thats also a neat term. Look it up too. Science is full of neat ideas. Very little emotion though. You probably wont like it.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> Oh, and let me point out the ridiculousness of your honey bee comment. Worker bees do the stinging and dieing when it comes to defend the hive. Not queens or drones. Workers do not contribute to the gene pool in any way.



Worker bees can indeed contribute to the gene pool, by laying eggs, if there is no queen pheremone to stop them. They lay unfertilized eggs, and just as when a queen lays unfertilized eggs, the resulting egg turns into a drone. 
Head on over to the beekeeping forum if you'd like to confirm this, or, as you've advised others in this thread, 'Google' it, or 'read a book'.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

greg273 said:


> Worker bees can indeed contribute to the gene pool, by laying eggs, if there is no queen pheremone to stop them. They lay unfertilized eggs, and just as when a queen lays unfertilized eggs, the resulting egg turns into a drone.
> Head on over to the beekeeping forum if you'd like to confirm this, or, as you've advised others in this thread, 'Google' it, or 'read a book'.


I'm surprised out biology instructor doesn't know the only difference in a worker bee and a Queen is some "Royal Jelly" during the larval stage


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> Worker bees can indeed contribute to the gene pool, by laying eggs, if there is no queen pheremone to stop them. They lay unfertilized eggs, and just as when a queen lays unfertilized eggs, the resulting egg turns into a drone.
> Head on over to the beekeeping forum if you'd like to confirm this, or, as you've advised others in this thread, 'Google' it, or 'read a book'.


That is factually true, and was aware of it. Isnt natural selection great? Workers can even lay with a queen present, tho far less likely. 

So a worker lays eggs. If there are enough bees present, they might even mature. The redulting drone then has to fly. And it has to be a time period that virgin queens are flying. Then he has to get his turn. Wow, sure sucks to be a drone. 

On top of ALL that, this laying worker is going to have to possess a unique gene combination that gives her offspring a barbless stinger, and it would have to be a dominant gene when combined with the queens eggs. Makes me dizzy just thinking about the mathematical improbabilities. 

Now if ALL that managed to happen, this new barbless hive will have to compete against all other life forms to survive, including other bees with traditional genetics. I wonder what the number of regular hives per barbless hives would be. 

And on top of all that, it is actually superior to have a barb, so it makes perfect sense they have a barb. You can remove the bee, but the barb remains and continues to pump more venom to inflict maximum harm per bee sacrificed. Efficiency in action. 

They are a fascinationg biological anomoly where females voluntarily give up reproduction in favor of the hive. You would have read about it in biology class, but we all know how that went.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Oh, and let me point out the ridiculousness of your honey bee comment. Worker bees do the stinging and dieing when it comes to defend the hive. Not queens or drones. Workers do not contribute to the gene pool in any way.



Oh? That statement didn't come from me; it came from a freind of mine, who has a PhD in forestry and is a world-renowned beekeeper. What's your PhD in?



thericeguy said:


> And I NEVER said any particular event eliminated a trait from the genome. I said the problem, a very specific genetic combination resulting in sterility, will be erased. Not passed on to offspring. If you cant accept that as truth, well....
> 
> Everything I have said forward of that is "works to favor", or "selects", or "eliminates an individual". Your desire to prove me as rambling by assigning species wide elimination is just made up rambling.
> 
> For a species to survive, any and all genes or behaviours which stop reproduction must be held in check. This is best accomplished by sterility or death. Death is a very effective form of birth control.


I've never said something had to be a species wide elimination. That's your interpretation of my words. I am not in control of your flawed analysis of my words.

Natural selection generally works at an individual level, true. This then moves up the food chain to the whole species. If it doesn't, speciation may occur. This is especially true for isolated groups. If Australians don't interact with the outside world for 50,000, they may well turn into something else.



thericeguy said:


> My education includes numerous classes in biology (mol bio major), chemistry, ethics, sociology, philosophy, psychiatry (though it was only a survey course). My education supports my conclusions. Yours may not support mine. Isnt the scientific model wonderful. Different ideas competing for acceptance. I dont think "go read a book" is part of the scientific model, but each to his own.
> 
> The reasoning I use is sound. If you fail to reproduce, you have failed biologically as a member of a population. Examples of that is not rambling, though you may use disparaging remarks to try to have your ideas come across as superior.
> 
> If you are too stupid to notice that everyone living next to the plant end up sterile and move there, perhaps it best your DNA not get passed on as well. Stupid is not a gene that promotes survival. Is that rambling?
> 
> Concrete unrefutable evidence of disease immunity, and its role in shaping the genome. More rambling?
> 
> The acceptance that the choice an individuals chooses will impact their survival and thus their opportunity to reproduce. More rambling? Maybe we all should walk a tight rope then, skydive, or eat swords. Wonder why so few people see that as a good idea? Ramble ramble.
> 
> Maybe somebody should read a book.


Ramble ramble indeed. I bet that hurts your thumbs.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> That is factually true, and was aware of it.


 Sure, which is why you said this just a few hours ago...



thericeguy said:


> Oh, and let me point out the ridiculousness of your honey bee comment. Worker bees do the stinging and dieing when it comes to defend the hive. Not queens or drones. *Workers do not contribute to the gene pool in any way.*


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> That is factually true, and was aware of it. Isnt natural selection great? Workers can even lay with a queen present, tho far less likely.
> 
> So a worker lays eggs. If there are enough bees present, they might even mature. The redulting drone then has to fly. And it has to be a time period that virgin queens are flying. Then he has to get his turn. Wow, sure sucks to be a drone.
> 
> On top of ALL that, this laying worker is going to have to possess a unique gene combination that gives her offspring a barbless stinger, and it would have to be a *dominant* gene when combined with the queens eggs. Makes me dizzy just thinking about the mathematical improbabilities.
> 
> Now if ALL that managed to happen, this new barbless hive will have to compete against all other life forms to survive, including other bees with traditional genetics. I wonder what the number of regular hives per barbless hives would be.
> 
> And on top of all that, it is actually superior to have a barb, so it makes perfect sense they have a barb. You can remove the bee, but the barb remains and continues to pump more venom to inflict maximum harm per bee sacrificed. Efficiency in action.
> 
> They are a fascinationg biological anomoly where females voluntarily give up reproduction in favor of the hive. You would have read about it in biology class, but we all know how that went.


You appear to be giving yourself lessons at the same time as debating. That's all well and good, people need to learn. But do you think it's a good idea to debate terms and concepts you've only half baked? Well, anyways, it doesn't matter, although it gives me the impression of Mr. Peabody thoughtfully talking to students and then suddenly chewing on one of them, then switching back to thoughtful person.

You are aware of the fact that you're now debating, after being shown wrong by Greg, the exact opposite point you were before? Before, you've said natural selection doesn't care how it eliminates members. Then you said my bee example was rediculous (thanks a lot). 

By the way, I highlighted a technical error in your statements. If the bee mates with another bee and they both have a recessive gene, it's fully possible to wind up expressing a barbless bee (theoretically, I'm not sure which genes control barbs or if there even IS a barbless gene).

ARGH


----------



## Bearfootfarm

greg273 said:


> Sure, which is why you said this just a few hours ago...


When you ramble too much, you forget what you've said


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> When you ramble too much, you forget what you've said


You can keep assigning the word ramble to my posts. Wasnt it you who said you preferred to only talk about 1 thing at a time? Wasnt it you who said you dont do "what if"? Wasnt it you who said men havent been molesting girls in female restrooms, therefor adding men to female restrooms on a regular basis could not possibly change the outcome? Cause and effect. Extrapolation of data. Reasonable consideration of variable effect. All things which you say you reject. Why? Cause I want X to happen. Hmmm.


----------



## mrsgcpete

thericeguy said:


> Great. Lets run with that idea. Some persons infertility is caused by a meteor shower. Sweet. They are still infertile. They will NOT reproduce. Their genetic combination will die when they die. They are, in essence, erased from the genetic pool, regardless of why.
> 
> Do you even turn your brain on before you press letters? Infertile = no offspring.
> No offspring = no genetic survival. Biology 101 my man. Wake up.


okay, i know that i am few pagesbehind. but my understanding of the discussion is that you think that infertility is being bred out of society. umm no. using your own ridiculous examples. even if person A is hit by a meteor shower or some chemical accident is deemed infertile that only eliminates their infertility. it does not eliminate the possibility of a chemical accident or meteor from making someone else infertile in the future. the only thing being eliminated is their specific DNA. and why the heck are you so rude.


----------



## greg273

mrsgcpete said:


> okay, i know that i am few pagesbehind. but my understanding of the discussion is that you think that infertility is being bred out of society. umm no. using your own ridiculous examples. even if person A is hit by a meteor shower or some chemical accident is deemed infertile that only eliminates their infertility. it does not eliminate the possibility of a chemical accident or meteor from making someone else infertile in the future. the only thing being eliminated is their specific DNA. and why the heck are you so rude.


 Technically, he said a specific, unnamed genetic condition was being bred out, which I took to mean 'all infertility. My little comment earned a few pages of insults, but no big deal. Its always entertaining to watch someone insult someone elses intelligence, then go on to make numerous typographical and factual errors in the ensuing conversation. 
As to why so rude, thats a good question.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> *You can keep assigning the word ramble to my posts*. Wasnt it you who said you preferred to only talk about 1 thing at a time? Wasnt it you who said you dont do "what if"? Wasnt it you who said men havent been molesting girls in female restrooms, therefor adding men to female restrooms on a regular basis could not possibly change the outcome? Cause and effect. Extrapolation of data. Reasonable consideration of variable effect. All things which you say you reject. Why? Cause I want X to happen. Hmmm.


That's because you tend to ramble.
I'm not the only one to mention it.
Don't try to divert attention with more rambling


----------

