Life Advice - Don't Easily Dismiss or Lose Respect for People

[Zero999]

Before you two get too upset. Look at his flag. He's from a very socially conservative country, so his views are going to reflect such a culture.

It's funny how the idea of cultural relativism has gained popularity in the west: all cultures are equal, yet different, but this is clearly flawed. I'm sure you'd rather live somewhere with a culture of law and order, rather than one of lynchings.

Relativism isn't an issue here -- we aren't on a Malaysian forum, but an English (read: commonwealth) forum.  Indeed it goes the other way, they are expected to follow our norms here.

Anyway, I already know from past experience, not to much much weight/trust in @Mechatrommer's arguments/statements/penchant for borderline trolling (or, I forget if they've received any disciplinary action?, in which case not just borderline).  Appreciate the reality check though.

Tim

I completely agree, but there are those who would disagree. Tell that to some of those who are in favour of mass immigration in to the UK. There are those who tolerate attitudes from those who are from less liberal countries, which they wouldn't otherwise tolerate if it was another Westerner.

I'm quite tolerant of different views, even if they are racist, homophobic or whatever. Perhaps I admit I'm slightly more understanding of those from different cultures, but I'd say the same about the older generation. This is also why I think we need to be careful about who we allow into the country: they need to have values compatible with our own.

I feel conflicted about things which affect others and could be the result of society. Abortion does affect an embryo, fetus or child, depending on the stage, yet on the other hand there's the rights of the woman. I think it should be permitted in the early stages of pregnancy, yet forbidden at the latter stages, when if it were born, it would be an otherwise healthy child. I think there should be more consideration to alternatives such as adoption and more maternal support as well as contraception. There are exceptions for this, such as when he baby will die anyway, when it's born and it should be removed to protect the woman's life.

There are other cases where we risk the life of one to save another.

Is it right to take a blood transfusion from one person, if it means saving another?
Is it right to take an organ transplant from one person, if it means saving another?
Is it right to use the uterus in one person, if it means saving another?

All are cases strictly trading bodily autonomy of one, for survival of another.

Note that the first is almost never fatal to the donor, and the second can have either a small quality-of-life cost (e.g. one kidney, liver section), or is performed after the donor ceases to exist (any other organ donation).

In 2/3 cases, we rule unanimously in favor of the donor: it must be voluntary, and well informed.

And yet we* rule differently in the last case.  Why?  A fetus is important, sure, but it's no thriving 8-year-old child.  Or 25-year-old adult earning income.  Or any other stage of life we might value, for whatever reasons, emotional or economic.

*Again, in the sense of those that do, and where they do.

Yet there is a group which professes an outsized, indeed fetishized I would say, fervor for the unborn.  Why?  Well, you can't understand it on a rational basis, that's for sure.  And they sure as hell aren't going to be kicked out of that mindset with a rational argument.  It's a peer belief: a shibboleth.  It doesn't need any particular meaning, just that it remains something polarizing to maintain the group dynamic.

And taking something manifestly irrational and making a shibboleth out of it, ensures no one leaves by rational argument -- they already rejected reason on it, when they accepted the group.  Easy.

Indeed, it is by design.

No one in that group thought particularly much of the idea before it was introduced, yet treat it as so obvious as to need no explanation now.  American Catholics and evangelicals are a prime example: largely being the same population before and after the anti-abortion movement occurred, and not being particularly against it beforehand.

The question remains, whose design is it?

Indeed, there are direct historical sources which answer this question (for this particular group), but I'll leave it hanging for now.

Tim

I don't see the idea of protecting the unborn to be any more illogical, than a baby. The problem is extremes. In most of Europe where abortion is allowed, it's only permitted in the early stages of pregnancy. I believe the UK has one of the most liberal laws at 24 weeks. When it was originally legalised back in the lat 60s, it was 28 weeks, because most babies born before then didn't survive anyway, but cut to 24 in the early 90s, based on the high survival rates of babies born before 24 weeks, due to medical advancements.  My own personal view is 12 weeks, based on what we know about fetal development, i.e. the ability to feel pain, but since very few abortions occur beyond this period in the UK, there's little point in changing the law and it's not politically possible. The problem in the US is many on the pro-choice side want no limits. The idea that it's okay to kill a perfectly healthy child, 9 months after conception whilst it's still in the womb is legal and fine, yet just a couple of hours later, after it's born, is morally wrong and inconsistent.

[Mechatrommer]

Before you two get too upset. Look at his flag. He's from a very socially conservative country, so his views are going to reflect such a culture.

dont look! otherwise you'll be missing the good stuffs! by hating and ignoring me and i think you have not gone to my country. its becoming the one like yours so its a fight before its too late for us. by awareness on your side, its probably will come back to us because most of us are putting your culture as the standard way of living. but i can see problems here and there so maybe its wise for me to address it the soonest i can when i see circumstances is right, like in this thread (violation of eevblog rules ) but even "wise" is relative term, thats why i said its the definitions we developed from our ground up.

[fourfathom]

But you can't reason someone out of an idea they didn't reason into.

But for most of the issues we are discussing "reason" isn't really a factor.  In the case of abortion we are talking about things like "souls" and "when does a sperm / egg/ fetus /baby become a human?"  If we can't prove any of this (and we can't), then the best we can hope for is to reach consensus.  But that consensus won't be based on reason, it will be based on utility and whatever morality is in fashion.  And obviously this consensus has room for vast grey areas, so even logical people may reach quite different conclusions.

The same holds for most anything that involves humans.  We have consensus rules, but these vary by time and place and there is no scientific proof for these rules, just opinion.

Me, I believe in the Golden Rule: Do as to others as you would have them do unto you (but even this is fraught with problems.)  I believe that the universe has no rules other than the laws of physics (which we don't fully understand).  Humans have to make up the rest.

[pcprogrammer]

The problem in the US is many on the pro-choice side want no limits. The idea that it's okay to kill a perfectly healthy child, 9 months after conception whilst it's still in the womb is legal and fine, yet just a couple of hours later, after it's born, is morally wrong and inconsistent.

Good point. Yes where do you draw the line. When does a child become aware of life. I see death as final, you are no longer in existence, no after life, so for the person dying it has no impact, other then being dead. In light of this one can wonder if it is so bad to die when you have never really been aware of living.

The emotional impact for the parents might be bigger after the baby has been born though.

[pcprogrammer]

You don't want to feed the man who won't take responsibility for their actions. It will leave you broke

but everybody is doing just that! the problem is not in the feed them or not, its in the education.. once the scheme got wrong boom, you are producing just that!

Clearly you did not get the intent of that statement. It is a Dutch expression to indicate the vastness of something. "Je zal ze maar te eten moeten geven" meaning something like "oh boy do I have to feed all those people"

But sure, proper education might enlight some of these problems, but jerks will always be there.

[Cerebus]

A big worry in society, a homosexual couple having a child. Will it also become homosexual.

That's an easy one to answer because there's now enough experience with same sex couples with children to say "No, they do not. At least, no more often than the children of heterosexual couples".

[pcprogrammer]

A big worry in society, a homosexual couple having a child. Will it also become homosexual.

That's an easy one to answer because there's now enough experience with same sex couples with children to say "No, they do not. At least, no more often than the children of heterosexual couples".

Which would imply that homosexuality is nature and not nurture, and to me that was the whole point of T3sl4co1l statement, and what a big part of this discussion is about.

[Mechatrommer]

Me, I believe in the Golden Rule: Do as to others as you would have them do unto you (but even this is fraught with problems.)

right! but that alone is not enough, just because A likes his wife/daughters to get spanked, so he can do the same to others... no! even if the others and the wife/daughters like to it will create problems in the end.. thats why the definitions of whats right and wrong must be correct. and how to know if its correct? it will not create problems later! and usually social problems are hard to solve because of long chain of cause and effects. and the chain could have developed in so many years or decades. cheers.

A big worry in society, a homosexual couple having a child. Will it also become homosexual.

That's an easy one to answer because there's now enough experience with same sex couples with children to say "No, they do not. At least, no more often than the children of heterosexual couples".

Which would imply that homosexuality is nature and not nurture, and to me that was the whole point of T3sl4co1l statement, and what a big part of this discussion is about.

nurture effect is not only from parents, its also from surroundings (society), and since homosexuals know the value of "freedom of choice". but agreed nature also plays a big role. disorders need to be fixed if possible, not exaggerated. i've mentioned that earlier.

[fourfathom]

[...homosexuals...] disorders need to be fixed if possible, not exaggerated.

The homosexuals I've known would not consider it a disorder. 

FWIW I think it's likely 90% nature and 10% nurture, but social pressure during the "formative years" might significantly skew those percentages.  Again, FWIW, the homosexual couples with children (I've known a few) seem to try to raise them without indoctrination, probably not wanting to subject their child to the social difficulties they've encountered.  But this is merely a personal observation based on a very small sample size.

[Zero999]

The problem in the US is many on the pro-choice side want no limits. The idea that it's okay to kill a perfectly healthy child, 9 months after conception whilst it's still in the womb is legal and fine, yet just a couple of hours later, after it's born, is morally wrong and inconsistent.

Good point. Yes where do you draw the line. When does a child become aware of life. I see death as final, you are no longer in existence, no after life, so for the person dying it has no impact, other then being dead. In light of this one can wonder if it is so bad to die when you have never really been aware of living.

The emotional impact for the parents might be bigger after the baby has been born though.

Abortion later on in the pregnancy also carries greater risks for the women. I've heard all sorts of nasty stories from women in the US who have had abortions which have gone badly, resulting in infertility and are now strongly pro-life. Had they had the termination early on, it most likely would have gone without complication.

A big worry in society, a homosexual couple having a child. Will it also become homosexual.

That's an easy one to answer because there's now enough experience with same sex couples with children to say "No, they do not. At least, no more often than the children of heterosexual couples".

Which would imply that homosexuality is nature and not nurture, and to me that was the whole point of T3sl4co1l statement, and what a big part of this discussion is about.

[...homosexuals...] disorders need to be fixed if possible, not exaggerated.

The homosexuals I've known would not consider it a disorder. 

FWIW I think it's likely 90% nature and 10% nurture, but social pressure during the "formative years" might significantly skew those percentages.  Again, FWIW, the homosexual couples with children (I've known a few) seem to try to raise them without indoctrination, probably not wanting to subject their child to the social difficulties they've encountered.  But this is merely a personal observation based on a very small sample size.

All the evidence I've seen points to homosexuality being nature, rather than nurture. The fact it's existed in societies where it's hugely taboo, just as much as those where it's celebrated is indicative of this. It's also the experience of homosexuals I know personally, which includes my brother.

Transexualism on the other hand is something completely different altogether. It just got tied up with homosexuality because there are many homosexual men who are very feminine and women who are masculine. This is unfortunate in my opinion. I think making irreversible changes to ones body, which can have long term impacts on their health, because of how they feel psychologically is something which should be discouraged. I've heard all sorts of harrowing stories from those who regret it. I know there are also plenty of people who transition and it was positive, but it's something which needs to be treated with caution.

I don't view homosexuality as a disorder because it doesn't affect one's quality of life. It's discrimination which does that. The one thing I do acknowledge is homosexual men are indeed more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviours, than other demographics, which do increase the risk of contracting diseases. This is why I think discouraging promiscuity is a good thing.

[pcprogrammer]

[...homosexuals...] disorders need to be fixed if possible, not exaggerated.

The homosexuals I've known would not consider it a disorder. 

FWIW I think it's likely 90% nature and 10% nurture, but social pressure during the "formative years" might significantly skew those percentages.  Again, FWIW, the homosexual couples with children (I've known a few) seem to try to raise them without indoctrination, probably not wanting to subject their child to the social difficulties they've encountered.  But this is merely a personal observation based on a very small sample size.

Neither do the homosexuals I know.

With social pressure you mean it causing the suppression of any homosexual feelings?

Because even though society has seen a rise in acceptance, in school there might still be a very homophobic attitude. And with society showing a possible shift to right extremism, acceptance is likely to drop again. Take a look at the latest French elections. Even though Macron won the first two rounds he lost to the right in the second rounds.

And homophobia has deep roots. For example. Long ago in a work environment there was a discussion about handsomeness. I said that for me Richard Gere is a handsome man. The reaction of some was immediately, oh "HOMO". And that I'm not, never had sexual feelings for an other man. But that does not mean that I can't appreciate how someone looks, both man or woman.

[pcprogrammer]

Abortion later on in the pregnancy also carries greater risks for the women. I've heard all sorts of nasty stories from women in the US who have had abortions which have gone badly, resulting in infertility and are now strongly pro-life. Had they had the termination early on, it most likely would have gone without complication.

Did not think about that, but seems logical. Might it also have to do with under what circumstances they were performed? You sometimes hear these horror stories about illegal abortions in not to proper clinics.

All the evidence I've seen points to homosexuality being nature, rather than nurture. The fact it's existed in societies where it's hugely taboo, just as much as those where it's celebrated is indicative of this. It's also the experience of homosexuals I know personally, which includes my brother.

Transexualism on the other hand is something completely different altogether. It just got tied up with homosexuality because there are many homosexual men who are very feminine and women who are masculine. This is unfortunate in my opinion. I think making irreversible changes to ones body, which can have long term impacts on their health, because of how they feel psychologically is something which should be discouraged. I've heard all sorts of harrowing stories from those who regret it. I know there are also plenty of people who transition and it was positive, but it's something which needs to be treated with caution.

I don't view homosexuality as a disorder because it doesn't affect one's quality of life. It's discrimination which does that. The one thing I do acknowledge is homosexual men are indeed more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviours, than other demographics, which do increase the risk of contracting diseases. This is why I think discouraging promiscuity is a good thing.

I have no personal insights in transsexualism because I have never met a person who had these feelings. But your argument of making irreversible changes to ones body should then also extend to plastic surgery, where it might also go wrong. Think about nose jobs because a person does not like his appearance and has mental problems because of that. Not an exact comparison with chopping your penis off (to put it bluntly) but it might also back fire. Same as with breast implants and so on.

About the homosexual man being more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors I can vouch for that. I was befriended with a guy a long time ago who came out after being married and he jumped into the scene. At some point he did contract HIV. Lost contact when we moved further south. The only thing we really had in common was badminton.

[rx8pilot]

I support people I like and trust to be a reasonable contributor to society.
I do not support people I don't like or trust to be a reasonable contributor to society.

For those that I like and trust.....I still treat with skepticism.
For those that I do NOT like or trust......they get treated with considerably more skepticism.

For those that I do NOT like or trust because of some specific issues, I will still potentially believe and benefit from other areas where they have a solid knowledge base.
When consuming that knowledge benefits them in some way (YouTube views for example), I stay away. There are so many places and methods to learn what I want to learn so unless the person I don't like has something particularly unique and amazing to offer....I will support others that I feel make a better overall contribution to society.

I only have so many hours in the day and could not consume even the tiniest fraction of all the knowledge on the internet, so why not choose to support those that I have reason to trust or like? Some of them may be total hidden scoundrels in real life, but if they are not pushing nasty things to huge audiences - whatever. I cannot analyze everyone and everything, just the people that choose to voice their opinions. Once they do that, I have something to base a decision on.

I totally support anyone's right to air an opinion while totally supporting my right to click-away to find useful information from somewhere else.

There are only a few places on the internet that offer uniquely useful information to me. So far, those places stay sharply on topic and I have zero clue about who they are in real life. Even if they turned out to be nut-jobs [in my personal view of course] at some point, I will still consume their content based on its uniqueness - but no direct support like Patreon, merch, affiliate links, etc, etc.

[Mechatrommer]

[...homosexuals...] disorders need to be fixed if possible, not exaggerated.

The homosexuals I've known would not consider it a disorder.

thats the problem, they dont want to get fixed, instead they take female hormone, fix their genital etc, even when knowing certain risks... i have lesser problem with gay or an inversed-trans (female want to be male), hot chicks with dicks is what sometime get into my nerve. there is a "female" ee youtubers linked here sometime ago, i got a delusion that just if my wife is like that interest, my lab will be 2 persons instead of me alone and the one is up top looking at FB status without knowing or appreciating what i'm doing down here, not even a glance. but when browsing the youtuber's video's to the early beginning, i was like  they are playing with people's feeling. from there on i'll be wary if i see an ee-female around in youtube... btw i saw a video about few trans who regretted it, but i cant find it so far, this is what i can show you right now.. wait until you are old enough and come back to draw you opinion, dont while you are hot and gorgeous...

[RoGeorge]

Do as to others as you would have them do unto you (but even this is fraught with problems.)

We have a similar saying (based on reciprocity, in Romanian, "Ce ţie nu-ţi place, altuia nu-i face."), in translation "Don't do to others what you wouldn't like" (for others to do to you).  The outcome is very different from the En saying.

The Ro saying avoids enforcing to others something that one might like, but the others wouldn't like at all for that to be done to them.

[T3sl4co1l]

Abortion later on in the pregnancy also carries greater risks for the women. I've heard all sorts of nasty stories from women in the US who have had abortions which have gone badly, resulting in infertility and are now strongly pro-life. Had they had the termination early on, it most likely would have gone without complication.

AFAIK, most US states ban it after 24 weeks or thereabouts; which is also well past the point where, you know you're having it, and you've probably named it besides.  It's a wanted birth, as long as it's viable of course.

And on that note, don't forget the cases where abortive procedures are needed, for medical reasons.  Miscarriage is a natural consequence, sometimes.  There should be no shame in that, nor in cleaning up a stillborn birth.  Sometimes the placenta doesn't completely release, leaving material stuck in the birth canal -- even from an otherwise healthy birth.  If that material isn't cut off, it will inevitably become septic; and pulling it out will likely cause internal bleeding.

These are not cases where abortion kills a viable, healthy, wanted, already-loved fetus/baby.  But they are instances that are becoming unavailable in some states now.  The recent SCOTUS decision is doing violence on women in those states.  Hopefully this will not last for long*, but it will still leave millions of women traumatized, disfigured -- or dead.

*The soonest it can be corrected is probably early next year, contingent on Congress gaining enough votes to, you know, actually do something.

Which would imply that homosexuality is nature and not nurture, and to me that was the whole point of T3sl4co1l statement, and what a big part of this discussion is about.

There are plenty of cases where, say the parents, already realized their child showing counter-gender differences by, like, age 6 or 8.  Things like clothing preferences, toys, music, whatever.  Later, coming out basically something like, "Mom, Dad, I'm gay." "We know. Hungry for dinner yet?"

And there's plenty of ways to show preference.  Cross dressing, homosexuality, gender identity, and much more.  How much any of those might manifest during childhood, and whether as just a fun thing (momentarily, or persisting through life), whether it's imitating something seen in society, whether a deeper underlying preference -- take your pick.

An upside of humans' anomalously long childhood, is having lots of time to figure out these feelings (or, well... to at least begin to), and the best thing we can do is welcome all types, whatever they decide to present as -- if indeed they choose to present as anything consistently at all (gender-fluid), or nothing, for that matter (asexual).  We can just be nice to people!

Transexualism on the other hand is something completely different altogether. It just got tied up with homosexuality because there are many homosexual men who are very feminine and women who are masculine. This is unfortunate in my opinion. I think making irreversible changes to ones body, which can have long term impacts on their health, because of how they feel psychologically is something which should be discouraged. I've heard all sorts of harrowing stories from those who regret it. I know there are also plenty of people who transition and it was positive, but it's something which needs to be treated with caution.

Well, lots of things have been tied up together as "deviant", regardless of how they were deviant.  Past discrimination/prosecution of a group is no excuse for present discrimination, of course.

You know why there's many stories of post-op regret?  Because pre-op suicides don't tell tales.

The numbers show lifesaving outcomes.

Some background data:
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/blog/the-trevor-project-publishes-new-journal-article-on-trans-and-nonbinary-youth-mental-health/
From Canada:
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/194/22/E767

Outcomes:
https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(21)00568-1/fulltext
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2779429

Also just to clear up ignorance on the matter, if applicable.  Trans therapy is not done lightly.  It has life changing purposes and outcomes, and takes time for the patient to adjust to it.  It involves, not necessarily in order: therapy, hormones, gender transition counselling, and gender-affirming surgeries.  Mind that some surgeries are not permanent in the way you think, but cosmetic.  Brow ridge reduction, voicebox sizing, implants / breast reduction, etc.  Genital reconstruction is only done after considerable counselling, and often isn't done at all -- especially as people realize penises can be feminine, or vulvas masculine.  (Insert

for relevant wit.)

I'm sure some processes aren't conducted so well, and shame on the doctors -- or hospitals or other systems -- that fail their patients.  And no, there's no guarantee one won't regret their decisions.  Do you regret your <embarrassing life event>?  Yeah, there you go.  But you gotta live with it.  Sometimes that's breaking up with an SO, sometimes that's a disfiguring car crash, sometimes that's a surgery.  It's unfortunate, but it happens.  All that medical science can do -- at least at the present, until such time as we develop enough instrumentation to individualize medical therapies -- is statistical, on populations.  And the science says it works, so that's the best solution for now.

It is, very much, a personal decision, and that's very much something a "libertarian" for example should approve of.

Tim

[Zero999]

Abortion later on in the pregnancy also carries greater risks for the women. I've heard all sorts of nasty stories from women in the US who have had abortions which have gone badly, resulting in infertility and are now strongly pro-life. Had they had the termination early on, it most likely would have gone without complication.

Did not think about that, but seems logical. Might it also have to do with under what circumstances they were performed? You sometimes hear these horror stories about illegal abortions in not to proper clinics.

They were legal, as far as I'm aware.

All the evidence I've seen points to homosexuality being nature, rather than nurture. The fact it's existed in societies where it's hugely taboo, just as much as those where it's celebrated is indicative of this. It's also the experience of homosexuals I know personally, which includes my brother.

Transexualism on the other hand is something completely different altogether. It just got tied up with homosexuality because there are many homosexual men who are very feminine and women who are masculine. This is unfortunate in my opinion. I think making irreversible changes to ones body, which can have long term impacts on their health, because of how they feel psychologically is something which should be discouraged. I've heard all sorts of harrowing stories from those who regret it. I know there are also plenty of people who transition and it was positive, but it's something which needs to be treated with caution.

I don't view homosexuality as a disorder because it doesn't affect one's quality of life. It's discrimination which does that. The one thing I do acknowledge is homosexual men are indeed more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviours, than other demographics, which do increase the risk of contracting diseases. This is why I think discouraging promiscuity is a good thing.

I have no personal insights in transsexualism because I have never met a person who had these feelings. But your argument of making irreversible changes to ones body should then also extend to plastic surgery, where it might also go wrong. Think about nose jobs because a person does not like his appearance and has mental problems because of that. Not an exact comparison with chopping your penis off (to put it bluntly) but it might also back fire. Same as with breast implants and so on.

I agree about cosmetic surgery, but you're right, chopping parts of and taking hormones is a much bigger deal.

I haven't known any transgender people personally, but I have read quite a lot about it. it's a complex topic. Much more so than the simple narratives given by the mainstream media.

[...homosexuals...] disorders need to be fixed if possible, not exaggerated.

The homosexuals I've known would not consider it a disorder. 

FWIW I think it's likely 90% nature and 10% nurture, but social pressure during the "formative years" might significantly skew those percentages.  Again, FWIW, the homosexual couples with children (I've known a few) seem to try to raise them without indoctrination, probably not wanting to subject their child to the social difficulties they've encountered.  But this is merely a personal observation based on a very small sample size.

Neither do the homosexuals I know.

With social pressure you mean it causing the suppression of any homosexual feelings?

Because even though society has seen a rise in acceptance, in school there might still be a very homophobic attitude. And with society showing a possible shift to right extremism, acceptance is likely to drop again. Take a look at the latest French elections. Even though Macron won the first two rounds he lost to the right in the second rounds.

And homophobia has deep roots. For example. Long ago in a work environment there was a discussion about handsomeness. I said that for me Richard Gere is a handsome man. The reaction of some was immediately, oh "HOMO". And that I'm not, never had sexual feelings for an other man. But that does not mean that I can't appreciate how someone looks, both man or woman.

It depends on how you define the word homophobia? Is being disgusted at the sight of two men kissing homophobic? How about refusing to employ someone who's homosexual? I admit, I don't like seeing two men kissing, but what someone gets up to in their own time is their business and I would have no problem employing someone who's homosexual.

[...homosexuals...] disorders need to be fixed if possible, not exaggerated.

The homosexuals I've known would not consider it a disorder.

thats the problem, they dont want to get fixed, instead they take female hormone, fix their genital etc, even when knowing certain risks... i have lesser problem with gay or an inversed-trans (female want to be male), hot chicks with dicks is what sometime get into my nerve. there is a "female" ee youtubers linked here sometime ago, i got a delusion that just if my wife is like that interest, my lab will be 2 persons instead of me alone and the one is up top looking at FB status without knowing or appreciating what i'm doing down here, not even a glance. but when browsing the youtuber's video's to the early beginning, i was like  they are playing with people's feeling. from there on i'll be wary if i see an ee-female around in youtube... btw i saw a video about few trans who regretted it, but i cant find it so far, this is what i can show you right now.. wait until you are old enough and come back to draw you opinion, dont while you are hot and gorgeous...

You're confusing transgenderism with homosexuality. There is a big difference between the two.

Someone who's homosexual is happy with their biological sex, they're just attracted to others of the same sex. For example, men who are attracted to other men. This is simple and isn't regarded as a disorder by most people because the individual would be fine if it wasn't for others having a problem with his or her same sex attraction.

Transgenderism is when someone wants to change their body, or live their life as though they're of the opposite gender, to their biological sex. This can range from a man who wears women's clothes all of the time and wants to be known as her and she and by a feminine name, to wanting to have breast implants, take hormones and have his penis removed. There are many reasons why people feel the need to do this. It's complicated and not fully understood.

[pcprogrammer]

Do as to others as you would have them do unto you (but even this is fraught with problems.)

We have a similar saying (based on reciprocity, in Romanian, "Ce ţie nu-ţi place, altuia nu-i face."), in translation "Don't do to others what you wouldn't like" (for others to do to you).  The outcome is very different from the En saying.

The Ro saying avoids enforcing to others something that one might like, but the others wouldn't like at all for that to be done to them.

In (somewhat old) Dutch it is "Wat gij niet wilt dat u geschiedt, doe dat ook een ander niet" and translates into "don't do upon others the things that you don't want done to you"

[Mechatrommer]

I haven't known any transgender people personally, but I have read quite a lot about it. it's a complex topic. Much more so than the simple narratives given by the mainstream media.

You're confusing transgenderism with homosexuality. There is a big difference between the two.
Someone who's homosexual is happy with their biological sex, they're just attracted to others of the same sex. For example, men who are attracted to other men. This is simple and isn't regarded as a disorder by most people because the individual would be fine if it wasn't for others having a problem with his or her same sex attraction.

no i'm not confusing them. same applied to trans, they think its not a disorder, they exagerate it. if you want to see lots of trans (and some inversed, some are my close related), you can come to my "conservative" country over here, they even cut and fondle my hair (if my fav barber is fully occupied) they do things and jobs and very well accepted by majority. i dont have much problem with them since even with much effort to try to look like a woman and more body part exposure, we can still distiguish from the way they walk homo otoh is pure disgusting (for me esp male when they do love things in public) they are very very seldom here but i've encoutered one or two. imho its a feel good stink-ass sickness just want to get rid of sexual-related responsibility. i'm sorry if you have a family of such.

[pcprogrammer]

It depends on how you define the word homophobia? Is being disgusted at the sight of two men kissing homophobic? How about refusing to employ someone who's homosexual? I admit, I don't like seeing two men kissing, but what someone gets up to in their own time is their business and I would have no problem employing someone who's homosexual.

Tricky one. Some people don't like seeing any sexual or affectionate display between either sexes in what ever combination. Would that be sexophobic (just making up a word here to make a point) I don't consider myself homophobic, but I don't like seeing two man kissing. Would have no problem hiring a homosexual if his or her qualifications meet the job. But we have addressed this before

I think more in the lines of discriminating (which I guess refusing to employ is also a form of) or even worse beating them up as being homophobic.

But you are right human psyche is very complex indeed.

Signing of for my daily dose of sleep.

[Zero999]

Abortion later on in the pregnancy also carries greater risks for the women. I've heard all sorts of nasty stories from women in the US who have had abortions which have gone badly, resulting in infertility and are now strongly pro-life. Had they had the termination early on, it most likely would have gone without complication.

AFAIK, most US states ban it after 24 weeks or thereabouts; which is also well past the point where, you know you're having it, and you've probably named it besides.  It's a wanted birth, as long as it's viable of course.

And on that note, don't forget the cases where abortive procedures are needed, for medical reasons.  Miscarriage is a natural consequence, sometimes.  There should be no shame in that, nor in cleaning up a stillborn birth.  Sometimes the placenta doesn't completely release, leaving material stuck in the birth canal -- even from an otherwise healthy birth.  If that material isn't cut off, it will inevitably become septic; and pulling it out will likely cause internal bleeding.

These are not cases where abortion kills a viable, healthy, wanted, already-loved fetus/baby.  But they are instances that are becoming unavailable in some states now.  The recent SCOTUS decision is doing violence on women in those states.  Hopefully this will not last for long*, but it will still leave millions of women traumatized, disfigured -- or dead.

*The soonest it can be corrected is probably early next year, contingent on Congress gaining enough votes to, you know, actually do something.

I think the pro-choice advocates who don't want any limits are as bigger problem as those who want it banned under all circumstances. They only polarise people into being more anti-abortion.

Most abortions in the US occur as a form of birth control. The law should be the same across all states. A limit of say 12 weeks, with exceptions which you've mentioned, would remove any concerns of sex selection, eugenics and the foetus feeling pain, since it's almost impossible to tell what it's going to be and the evidence suggests the brain isn't developed enough at that point. It wouldn't have much effect in states where it's legal and the limit is 24 weeks, because most abortions occur within the first 12 anyway.

Which would imply that homosexuality is nature and not nurture, and to me that was the whole point of T3sl4co1l statement, and what a big part of this discussion is about.

There are plenty of cases where, say the parents, already realized their child showing counter-gender differences by, like, age 6 or 8.  Things like clothing preferences, toys, music, whatever.  Later, coming out basically something like, "Mom, Dad, I'm gay." "We know. Hungry for dinner yet?"

And there's plenty of ways to show preference.  Cross dressing, homosexuality, gender identity, and much more.  How much any of those might manifest during childhood, and whether as just a fun thing (momentarily, or persisting through life), whether it's imitating something seen in society, whether a deeper underlying preference -- take your pick.

An upside of humans' anomalously long childhood, is having lots of time to figure out these feelings (or, well... to at least begin to), and the best thing we can do is welcome all types, whatever they decide to present as -- if indeed they choose to present as anything consistently at all (gender-fluid), or nothing, for that matter (asexual).  We can just be nice to people!

We shouldn't read into things. Children change as they grow up and often revert to more typical interests for their sex when they get older. The problem people often read into this sort of thing too much. I used to like rainbows, flowers and would play with a doll's house when I was 6, but I grew up to be straight and it was my brother who turned out gay. There are some radicals who are promoting the idea of transgenderism to vulnerable young people. It really is a problem.

Transexualism on the other hand is something completely different altogether. It just got tied up with homosexuality because there are many homosexual men who are very feminine and women who are masculine. This is unfortunate in my opinion. I think making irreversible changes to ones body, which can have long term impacts on their health, because of how they feel psychologically is something which should be discouraged. I've heard all sorts of harrowing stories from those who regret it. I know there are also plenty of people who transition and it was positive, but it's something which needs to be treated with caution.

Well, lots of things have been tied up together as "deviant", regardless of how they were deviant.  Past discrimination/prosecution of a group is no excuse for present discrimination, of course.

You know why there's many stories of post-op regret?  Because pre-op suicides don't tell tales.

The numbers show lifesaving outcomes.

Some background data:
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/blog/the-trevor-project-publishes-new-journal-article-on-trans-and-nonbinary-youth-mental-health/
From Canada:
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/194/22/E767

Outcomes:
https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(21)00568-1/fulltext
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2779429

Also just to clear up ignorance on the matter, if applicable.  Trans therapy is not done lightly.  It has life changing purposes and outcomes, and takes time for the patient to adjust to it.  It involves, not necessarily in order: therapy, hormones, gender transition counselling, and gender-affirming surgeries.  Mind that some surgeries are not permanent in the way you think, but cosmetic.  Brow ridge reduction, voicebox sizing, implants / breast reduction, etc.  Genital reconstruction is only done after considerable counselling, and often isn't done at all -- especially as people realize penises can be feminine, or vulvas masculine.  (Insert

for relevant wit.)

I'm sure some processes aren't conducted so well, and shame on the doctors -- or hospitals or other systems -- that fail their patients.  And no, there's no guarantee one won't regret their decisions.  Do you regret your <embarrassing life event>?  Yeah, there you go.  But you gotta live with it.  Sometimes that's breaking up with an SO, sometimes that's a disfiguring car crash, sometimes that's a surgery.  It's unfortunate, but it happens.  All that medical science can do -- at least at the present, until such time as we develop enough instrumentation to individualize medical therapies -- is statistical, on populations.  And the science says it works, so that's the best solution for now.

It is, very much, a personal decision, and that's very much something a "libertarian" for example should approve of.

Tim

It's silly to compare chopping of my penis to other dumb decisions and cosmetic surgery. 

Two of those studies just show the obvious: people with a mental heath disorder are more likely to commit suicide. The same could be said about bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia, which are also stigmatised by society. The one regarding hormone therapy is interesting but it's impossible to tell whether it's the hormones themselves, or other factors. They did account for parental support, but not others such as counselling. It's not a long term study and no temporal relation to the start of treatment is made. It's just a snapshot of how the participants were doing at that point in time. As is often the case with studies into transgenderism, there's a political bias, which taints it somewhat.

"High rates of depression, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts among transgender youth are sometimes used by antitransgender politicians and activists to erroneously suggest that transgender identity is a mental health condition that can be treated through counseling and conversion efforts [[27]]. These individuals ignore the impacts of gender dysphoria and minority stress [[28]] and suggest that GAHT is not necessary if transgender youth can be counseled into accepting their sex assigned at birth."

They haven't proved that counselling isn't sometimes an effective treatment for gender dysphoria in some cases. It's certainly a lower risk option. I'm not flat out against the use of medication, but I've heard too many instances of it being used inappropriately.

I am in favour of allowing people to decide what they do with their own bodies. Despite the tone of some of my posts, I'm as much against anti-trans as pro-trans activists. The problem is when someone has a mental health problem, they are in a vulnerable position and the health provider needs to do due diligence i.e. provide other forms of non-invasive treatment first. Unfortunately there are too many instances of this not happening. Ideologies such as gender identity are not helping  matters. There's difference between encouraging acceptance of those who are different and playing identity politics.

There are countless stories of those who regret transitioning and are suing healthcare providers for inadequate safeguards. There is not conclusive scientific evidence to support treatments such as hormones and surgery are associated with positive outcomes.

Blaire White a transwoman who's concerned about this trend has an interest in detransitioners. It isn't just the lack of safeguards which is worrying but the abuse detransitioners receive from the trans community and lack of treatment and care to repair the damage.

[tszaboo]

or simply is it just a desire? at later point in life, because there are many trans around and they are cool!?

Is heterosexuality simply because there are so many straight people around?

What makes a person straight?  Childhood trauma?  Lifestyle choice?  Do you simply choose to be straight?

Genes, and genes, and probably more of those genes with just a little bit of the upbringing.
You have 50% correlation for twins, if one is gay, the other has 50% likelihood for it. Which is a lot larger than other siblings. Or the random samplings, which is 2-3%.

"High rates of depression, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts among transgender youth are sometimes used by antitransgender politicians and activists to erroneously suggest that transgender identity is a mental health condition that can be treated through counseling and conversion efforts [[27]]. These individuals ignore the impacts of gender dysphoria and minority stress [[28]] and suggest that GAHT is not necessary if transgender youth can be counseled into accepting their sex assigned at birth."

If we are already talking about statistics. As I recall there is a 40% suicide rate for people with gender dysphoria, and the same 40% for transgender people.
Without jumping to conclusions, the data suggests that surgery and hormones don't always work, at least for a large number of these people.
The real tragedy is that this is swept under the rug (forcefully with cancel culture) by the people that are the loudest to support this group. If you go to the doctor, and say "I feel like a woman" their answer is "That's OK, let me get my scissors and pills". They actually need help, by professionals, individually, and not just a canned reply.

[T3sl4co1l]

We shouldn't read into things. Children change as they grow up and often revert to more typical interests for their sex when they get older. The problem people often read into this sort of thing too much. I used to like rainbows, flowers and would play with a doll's house when I was 6, but I grew up to be straight and it was my brother who turned out gay. There are some radicals who are promoting the idea of transgenderism to vulnerable young people. It really is a problem.

Not saying it's a rule or anything.  Or that people (esp. kids) should be pushed into anything.  (Which goes for a hell of a lot broader things, like religion.)  Just making something familiar and acceptable.  Parents always say "you could be anything, you could be a plumber, you could be an electrician, you could be a priest, you could be a doctor..", well, the list grows.  And there are multiple non-exclusive ways people can be, that they might not even know are options until they're made aware of them.

It's silly to compare chopping of my penis to other dumb decisions and cosmetic surgery. 

Why? A penis is just a growth of soft tissue.  There are surgeries to enhance it.  I forget if reductions have been done but probably.

How is that different?  Functional, you might complain?  There is assistance for that.  Maybe someone doesn't need that function anymore, at least on the same regularity you see fit.  Why do you feel it necessary to project your preference on others?

Anyway, it's not "chopped off", it's reconstructed.  The clitoris, vulva, etc. are all descended from the same cell line as glans, scrotum, etc. in the male genitalia.  They're remarkably similar structures once you realize this.  And then it becomes obvious how they can be reconstructed, to remain (neurologically) functional even, and it's just a matter of careful plastic surgery to get a natural appearance.

Reconstruction can be reversed, with significant difficulty, I would think; the corpus collosum and ligaments I think are mostly removed, so they'd need to be replaced with artificial or donor material.  (Which again, is a mostly solved problem; they make pumps and bladders to treat refractory ED.)  Not an easy surgery, not original level functionality, but something.

Tim

[Zero999]

We shouldn't read into things. Children change as they grow up and often revert to more typical interests for their sex when they get older. The problem people often read into this sort of thing too much. I used to like rainbows, flowers and would play with a doll's house when I was 6, but I grew up to be straight and it was my brother who turned out gay. There are some radicals who are promoting the idea of transgenderism to vulnerable young people. It really is a problem.

Not saying it's a rule or anything.  Or that people (esp. kids) should be pushed into anything.  (Which goes for a hell of a lot broader things, like religion.)  Just making something familiar and acceptable.  Parents always say "you could be anything, you could be a plumber, you could be an electrician, you could be a priest, you could be a doctor..", well, the list grows.  And there are multiple non-exclusive ways people can be, that they might not even know are options until they're made aware of them.

There's a difference between encouraging a child to embark on a path with the potential to seriously damage their health in the long term and accepting they might be gay.

It's silly to compare chopping of my penis to other dumb decisions and cosmetic surgery. 

Why? A penis is just a growth of soft tissue.  There are surgeries to enhance it.  I forget if reductions have been done but probably.

How is that different?  Functional, you might complain?  There is assistance for that.  Maybe someone doesn't need that function anymore, at least on the same regularity you see fit.  Why do you feel it necessary to project your preference on others?

Anyway, it's not "chopped off", it's reconstructed.  The clitoris, vulva, etc. are all descended from the same cell line as glans, scrotum, etc. in the male genitalia.  They're remarkably similar structures once you realize this.  And then it becomes obvious how they can be reconstructed, to remain (neurologically) functional even, and it's just a matter of careful plastic surgery to get a natural appearance.

Reconstruction can be reversed, with significant difficulty, I would think; the corpus collosum and ligaments I think are mostly removed, so they'd need to be replaced with artificial or donor material.  (Which again, is a mostly solved problem; they make pumps and bladders to treat refractory ED.)  Not an easy surgery, not original level functionality, but something.

Tim

Yes I'm aware of gender reassignment surgeries. Call it reconstruction if you will, but if you regret it, then it's mutilation. Female genetical mutilation is outlawed in most western countries. Perhaps it should be allowed if the girl gives her consent? It's just soft tissue after all.

[T3sl4co1l]

Mutilation implies involuntary, I would say, yes.

Male genital mutilation is also very common, even in the west; fortunately, it's finally falling out of vogue.

There are indeed people who do very strange things to their bodies.  As adults, with consent.  Often without medical oversight, at that; so, they get such modifications done at the piercing parlor rather than the doctor's office, and don't benefit from anesthesia.  So it's also a pain tolerance thing.  Split tongue (yikes), pierced labia (ouch), various kinds of implants, etc.  I think there's some even with split dicks, which... not honestly sure if that's as in a real living thing or shock content (I mean, it's certainly the latter regardless), but... if you like it that way? I guess so?

Oh yeah, random question: do you smoke?  Do you know friends who smoke?

Tim