• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kricket Nimmons Transition Surgery (Paid For By Medicaid)

Hicup said:
These same people that advocate mutilation are the very same one's that bang the table in opposition to reparative therapy, which, is objectively much less intrusive. ;)

Tim-
Click to expand...

Ah, the difference between a treatment that has been proven to help people (sex reassignment surgery) and one that has been proven to harm people (reparative therapy). That's about the biggest false equivalency that I have ever seen.
 
Hicup said:
Calling something or assigning authority to mainstream psychology doesn't really bolster your argument in my eyes.. When you have a discipline that in a court of law can have two competing psychologists, forensic or otherwise, look at exactly the same data and yet come to completely opposite opinions, it strikes me as barely approaching a credible career choice! So, I hope that you'll excuse me if I'm a teeny bit cynical of the practice of it.. I will add one small caveat that neuropsychology is a more science-like field of research, and has (unlike traditional psychology and psychiatry) produced positive results, especially recently, so I'm not throwing them all out with the bathwater..

Look, Doc, I'm not sure why you are the way you are, if I knew, I'd be rich beyond belief, especially if I could offer you a way out of your dysphoria.. Based on what I do know, I'd say that you are a product more of your environment, than anything biologically causal.


Tim-
Click to expand...

No, that's not what the research shows.
 
Henrin said:
They have the body they are supposed to have outside of a brain that didn't develop correctly and other things the hormonal imbalanced caused like differences in the fingers. The treatment appeases the condition by showing it what it wants to see and that's it. There is a considerable difference between treating a condition and appeasing it.
Click to expand...

Wrong on all counts. It's a developed inconsistency. The treatment treats the condition. Your opinion on that matter is really irrelevant since you do not have the qualifications to make that assessment.



The treatment itself causes considerable harm to the patient and does not in any sort of way treat the underlining condition. All it does is leaves them dysfunctional, disfigured and by all accounts a freak. I'm sorry for using the word freak to whoever it offends, but it's really the perfect word to describe what they end up being. I would however be open to other words to describe it as I feel the word is actually a bit harsh sounding and that isn't my intention.
Click to expand...

The treatment causes as much harm as any other surgical treatment does and it treats the condition which is the GDD successfully. It leaves them more functional than they were before, and less disfigured, from a consistency standpoint, than they were before.

And here's a word to use to replace the word "freak": minority.


That's just foolishness. I showed no hatred in my posts.
Click to expand...

I would agree. Just over emotional ignorance on the topic.
 
Hicup said:
So, you mean to tell me that a group who is peer reviewed by the same group, who has not provided a single bit of evidence to suggest otherwise is credible? Is this the same appeal to authority that before 1972 all agreed that homosexuality was a mental disorder, or more accurately, those that sought help for their homophobia were suffering from a mental disorder? ;) Dude, you're making a huge mistake if you think I have no idea of what I'm talking about.. Just warnin ya
Click to expand...

Ummm... Tim... you and I established a LONG time ago that you don't know what you are talking about. I have posted MANY time how and why the APA declassified homosexuality as a disorder, and it has nothing to do with your mischaracterization of the event.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And I'm tired of people on the right pretending that they know about a subject when, in actuality they are completely uneducated on the topic. Like this one.
Click to expand...

And I am tired of people on the "undisclosed" making veiled appeals to authority without actually making a point. I've provided studies that show there is severe health risks for transgendered people, and I'll also provide this article about a study that suggests there is little benefit to the transgendered person getting a sex change.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
See, this is what I mean by a lack of education of people on the right. You don't even know how to comprehend research. Let me demonstrate for you. Here is the key quote in the link that you posted:

In order for your statement to make sense, you would have to prove that people who get surgery are at higher risk for suicide and cardiovascular disease AFTER they get surgery than before. None of the studies that "the right" use focus on the difference between pre and post op transsexuals. They ALL compare post op transsexuals to NON transsexuals. That's like comparing apples to airplanes. Now, I'm not sure if it is ignorance on the issue or blatant dishonesty.
Click to expand...

So what does "after sexual reassignment" mean to you?
 
jmotivator said:
And I am tired of people on the "undisclosed" making veiled appeals to authority without actually making a point. I've provided studies that show there is severe health risks for transgendered people, and I'll also provide this article about a study that suggests there is little benefit to the transgendered person getting a sex change.
Click to expand...


Not to mention that the data is clear. You can add a penis, or make on into a vagina but stop those hormones and the mutilation was all for not.. No penis or vagina will help them if the hormones stop.. Look, CC thinks he's an expert, but he relies on the ignorance of the useful idiots, just like climate changers.. He's also wrong about how homosexuality was declassified, and no amount of saying he has told me before is going to change that.. But I do give him credit for his continued efforts.. :)


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Not to mention that the data is clear. You can add a penis, or make on into a vagina but stop those hormones and the mutilation was all for not.. No penis or vagina will help them if the hormones stop.. Look, CC thinks he's an expert, but he relies on the ignorance of the useful idiots, just like climate changers.. He's also wrong about how homosexuality was declassified, and no amount of saying he has told me before is going to change that.. But I do give him credit for his continued efforts.. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

You still pretending to be an expert in clinical psychology, Tim? Do you still get confused between gender and orientation? Do you still refuse to enlighten us as to the source of your expertise. I don't claim to be any expert, but CC most certainly is, and his entire professional life is dedicated to clinical psychology and therapy. Your argument can't even aspire to being an argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy, since that assumes that a person's (i.e. your) expertise is acknowledged, which it most certainly isn't.
 
Andalublue said:
You still pretending to be an expert in clinical psychology, Tim?
Click to expand...


Yep, sure am! Unless you mean that the experts at the time who accepted inkblot tests, and a completely non-random, self-selected study by a kook psychologist named Hooker, that, self selected homosexuals who were happy being homosexuals, and had never sought therapy of any kind? Those experts? ;)


Do you still get confused between gender and orientation?
Click to expand...


Well, you must admit that men who want to transform into women so that they can be lesbians, does begin to muddy the waters when you really think about it. Not to mention the women who transform into men so that they can be homosexual men.. A bit confusing, but that's just me.. I have asked a million times for you or anyone else to precisely define sexual orientation without the sex variable, and as of yet, you nor anyone else has been able to effectively do it.. But I'm a patient man.. I think that's what you meant, I have never been confused about gender or sexual orientation, why, am I supposed to be? Or are you confusing me with someone else?

Do you still refuse to enlighten us as to the source of your expertise.
Click to expand...


Years of research and analysis..


I don't claim to be any expert, but CC most certainly is, and his entire professional life is dedicated to clinical psychology and therapy.
Click to expand...


So what? I mean seriously, so what? What specific discipline gives him an advantage over someone like me, who is also quite intelligent, I'd say a ton more objective, and clearly understands how to interpret complex data? care to explain? For instance, he keeps saying that he's schooled me in these areas, but yet, no, actually he hasn't. He continues to claim a victory where none exists, especially on the matter of just exactly how and what data the APA relied to declassify homosexuality from the DSM. Heck they didn't actually remove it totally until 1980, and the WHO didn't declassify it until much later approaching the new millennia. This is what I mean.. His and perhaps your appeals to authority are two-sided fallacies. One, the authority you're appealing to is no authority at all, or at least you would have a hard time convincing objective people on how they are, and two, the information you're relying on as the authority is riddled with check-with-me's at the door, meaning, the data itself is flawed. Ever here the term, the truth of the conclusion depends on the truth of the premise?

Your argument can't even aspire to being an argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy, since that assumes that a person's (i.e. your) expertise is acknowledged, which it most certainly isn't.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious? I am not arguing from a position or claim of expertise. I showing you why the experts and their data are not to be trusted so that YOU and the observer are not so easily fooled. Went over your head I see.. :)


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Well, you must admit that men who want to transform into women so that they can be lesbians, does begin to muddy the waters when you really think about it.
Click to expand...
Only if you conflate the two entirely distinctive concepts. See? I knew you were still struggling in this field.

Years of research and analysis..
Click to expand...
In what field? At what institution? To what level of qualification?





So what? I mean seriously, so what? What specific discipline gives him an advantage over someone like me, who is also quite intelligent, I'd say a ton more objective, and clearly understands how to interpret complex data?
Click to expand...
The 'so what'? is that for years now you have claimed to have some kind of expertise in this field whilst studiously refusing to specify where this expertise comes from. If you are going to make appeals to authority, you really ought to be able to establish that you actually possess some authority. Your inability to grasp the distinction between gender and orientation, despite having had it explained to you oh, at least 15 times by different posters over the years, suggests you possess no such authority. Please don't claim you haven't, since you have been doing so for what? At least 5 years to my recollection.

CC has demonstrated his credentials in the field many times. It would lead anyone to wonder why you're so coy about yours.

You can't be serious? I am not arguing from a position or claim of expertise. I showing you why the experts and their data are not to be trusted so that YOU and the observer are not so easily fooled. Went over your head I see.. :)
Click to expand...
Back-tracking from you pattern of behaviour over several years suggests you are either conceding the point, or that you are arguing, in a highly disingenuous fashion, for the sake of being contrary.
 
Andalublue said:
Only if you conflate the two entirely distinctive concepts. See? I knew you were still struggling in this field.

In what field? At what institution? To what level of qualification?





The 'so what'? is that for years now you have claimed to have some kind of expertise in this field whilst studiously refusing to specify where this expertise comes from. If you are going to make appeals to authority, you really ought to be able to establish that you actually possess some authority. Your inability to grasp the distinction between gender and orientation, despite having had it explained to you oh, at least 15 times by different posters over the years, suggests you possess no such authority. Please don't claim you haven't, since you have been doing so for what? At least 5 years to my recollection.

CC has demonstrated his credentials in the field many times. It would lead anyone to wonder why you're so coy about yours.

Back-tracking from you pattern of behaviour over several years suggests you are either conceding the point, or that you are arguing, in a highly disingenuous fashion, for the sake of being contrary.
Click to expand...

Really? Either you're having a big problem comprehending my position over the years, or you're completely obtuse? I've never claimed to be an expert because being an expert in a field that has delivered no concrete scientific results doesn't require expertise. It requires the observer to be objective in their analysis of the data that gets spit out. Which is what I do.. Now, if you want to know what I do that gives me an edge in deciphering complex data, and recognizing poor research methods, I'm not about to give up any secrets, but I can tell you that I do it for very large corporations every single day, in fact they rely on my expertise in analytics and statistics to make corporate decisions on their economic and technology futures.. I don't need to prove any credentials to you or anyone, all I need to do is offer objective analysis, put it into words, sentences, and paragraphs so that the average reader can comprehend them, and then allow the reader to make their own minds up.


Tim-
 
jmotivator said:
And I am tired of people on the "undisclosed" making veiled appeals to authority without actually making a point. I've provided studies that show there is severe health risks for transgendered people, and I'll also provide this article about a study that suggests there is little benefit to the transgendered person getting a sex change.
Click to expand...

All you've done is demonstrate that you don't know anything about this topic, and prefer to post studies that have nothing to do with what you want to prove, or articles that are also flawed. Notice... the writer says that many transsexual dropped out of the study, and then ASSUMES the worst about them. That's not research. That's bias.
 
jmotivator said:
So what does "after sexual reassignment" mean to you?
Click to expand...

What does "the general population" mean to you? Read the quote again. It's a false comparison. You compare transsexuals BEFORE sex reassignment to transsexuals AFTER sex reassignment. You don't compare the general population to transsexuals AFTER sex reassignment. That comparison is meaningless in trying to prove what you want to prove.
 
Hicup said:
Not to mention that the data is clear. You can add a penis, or make on into a vagina but stop those hormones and the mutilation was all for not.. No penis or vagina will help them if the hormones stop.. Look, CC thinks he's an expert, but he relies on the ignorance of the useful idiots, just like climate changers.. He's also wrong about how homosexuality was declassified, and no amount of saying he has told me before is going to change that.. But I do give him credit for his continued efforts.. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

Tim... I've proved you wrong on the entirety of the issues of which we discuss since you got here in 2009. Your denials of this fact is really irrelevant. The data is certainly clear about transsexuals. The research that jmotivator posted was irrelevant. Anyone who has a basic understanding of research knows that. And as far as the homosexuality declassification, I've beaten you on that one more times than I can count.
 
Nothing weirder than watching people who chant magical incantations to an imaginary sky friend whose help they need.... calling into question the mental health of people who are supported by mental health professionals.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
What does "the general population" mean to you? Read the quote again. It's a false comparison. You compare transsexuals BEFORE sex reassignment to transsexuals AFTER sex reassignment. You don't compare the general population to transsexuals AFTER sex reassignment. That comparison is meaningless in trying to prove what you want to prove.
Click to expand...



It doesn't say what you want it to say, it says that Transgender have increased morbidly After surgery, not before surgery.
 
Andalublue said:
You still pretending to be an expert in clinical psychology, Tim? Do you still get confused between gender and orientation? Do you still refuse to enlighten us as to the source of your expertise. I don't claim to be any expert, but CC most certainly is, and his entire professional life is dedicated to clinical psychology and therapy. Your argument can't even aspire to being an argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy, since that assumes that a person's (i.e. your) expertise is acknowledged, which it most certainly isn't.
Click to expand...

pure, factual, topical ignorance many times has no ability to see or even comprehend how factually wrong and uninformed they on a topic. That what you witness in his post. Its hilarious.
 
Hatuey said:
Nothing weirder than watching people who chant magical incantations to an imaginary sky friend whose help they need.... calling into question the mental health of people who are supported by mental health professionals.
Click to expand...

This may be the greatest post I've seen in some time. :peace
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Tim... I've proved you wrong on the entirety of the issues of which we discuss since you got here in 2009. Your denials of this fact is really irrelevant. The data is certainly clear about transsexuals. The research that jmotivator posted was irrelevant. Anyone who has a basic understanding of research knows that. And as far as the homosexuality declassification, I've beaten you on that one more times than I can count.
Click to expand...

Only in your dreams brother Courtesy...

pure, factual, topical ignorance many times has no ability to see or even comprehend how factually wrong and uninformed they on a topic. That what you witness in his post. Its hilarious.
Click to expand...


Ha, that's rich, coming from someone that wouldn't recognize a fact if it hit him square in the face.. You marginalized yourself a long, long time ago on this forum, and have zero credibility dude.


Tim-
 
jmotivator said:
It doesn't say what you want it to say, it says that Transgender have increased morbidly After surgery, not before surgery.
Click to expand...

I've explained this to you... and to the last two people who foolishly tried to use that study to prove their point. It says nothing of the sort. It compares suicide rates of post-op transsexuals with THE GENERAL POPULATION. It says NOTHING about pre-op transsexuals. If you think it does, pull a quote from the research that proves it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I've explained this to you... and to the last two people who foolishly tried to use that study to prove their point. It says nothing of the sort. It compares suicide rates of post-op transsexuals with THE GENERAL POPULATION. It says NOTHING about pre-op transsexuals. If you think it does, pull a quote from the research that proves it.
Click to expand...

Its crazy how often people misuse this study isnt it?
 
Omgitsme said:
Its crazy how often people misuse this study isnt it?
Click to expand...

This is at least the THIRD time I've had to correct someone because what the wanted it to have said, it didn't say at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom