I really do not know what you are suggesting here. Any significant human population has a wide range of attributes in its membership. Pidgeon holing women has been a problem, not a solution. It has kept women diminished.
What I’m suggesting is some believe a woman is anyone who think they are a woman. If that’s the case then we are advocating for diminishing womanhood to a thought. Without the physical attributes of a woman then it’s nothing more than a thought. And the things that make a woman in opinion are a combination of physical traits. Things like chromosomes, ovaries, uterus, vagina, breasts are physical existing matter. All natural and needs no surgeries for them to exist. They are actual scientific and observable traits women have. if you were to ignore all that for just a thought or a belief it literally diminishes a woman to a simple idea. Nothing more than the same things myths rely on to survive. Just a simple thought.
But, you're complaining about trans. And, your idea that you will have the medical history of those you meet socially or at work is ridiculous - for men and for women.
No, I’m not even asking that. But people like this judge and many more should have had an opinion on it. It also strikes me as odd or not so odd that women have the hardest time trying to come to a conclusion on what a woman is. It seems so many are quick to reduce a woman to the same thing that myths thrive on. Just a simple belief
Transgender is a condition within a person where the sense of self, or gender, is incongruent with the statistical standard of such self to the biological sex. In most, but not all cases, this causes the condition of Gender Dysphoria, which in turn causes stress and anxiety within the affected person. At this time, it is no more a curable condition than say depression. It can be treated, but not cured. The word itself can be used as either a noun or an adjective The actual study of transgenders and GD is something that is relatively recent, although there have been some forays into it, directly or obliquely, in the past. There is science being done that is suggesting that the physical structure of the brain of transgender people is closer to, but not exactly the same as, people of the opposite biological sex than that of their own biological sex. The same has been linked to sexualities other than heterosexuality. IIRC, the hypothalamus is what is linked to gender, and the amygdala to orientation, but I might have that backwards. Pain is also based on emotion and self perception. Does that make pain not real? Begging the question fallacy. There is nothing that requires that all things have a "scientific function" to exist. What is the scientific function of CAIS, or Klinefelter syndrome? Not knowing the cause of a condition does not render the condition non-existent. We don't know if the cause is biological, environmental or both, or neither. Or whether different people are transgender because of different vectors. Diabetes, for example can be occurring from a matter of birth, or be caused from external vectors. We know of the existence of diabetes long before we knew what caused it.
What you are describing here is for female in and of itself. Whether the label woman is to be synonymous with the label female or attributed to something else, is another matter altogether. And similar to your point of disassociating women from female reduces woman to a simple idea, and by extension reduces man to a simple idea (why is it you opponents never lead with trans men or homosexual women and only bring them up when it is pointed out?), likewise making the association inflates the two labels to more than idea, when in the end, all labels do is to put ideas and concepts into a short communication form. Do you have anything that shows that womanhood or manhood is anything more than simply being female or male respectively? If so, what is it? If not, why does it matter whether we use woman or man over female or male?
There are things in science that do in fact justify pain as a physical reality. Pain is caused by physical things called nerves.
First of all Klinefelter syndrome is not indicative of transgenderism and again is a physical trait not link to transgenderism at all. Yes some transgenders have this but not all and a study has never been concluded that this is an underlying genetic base for transgenders.
This just further indicates it’s a mental illness in my opinion. There are also people who believe they should have been born blind and can see perfectly clear. I’m sure if you study their brain they may have things that fire the same way or close to the same way as a blind individual. Obviously this can’t be backed up and makes it an assumption. But being the brain functions with this belief I am sure you would find some degree of similarity or they wouldn’t believe that they should be blind. It’s still just a mental disorder at the end of the day. Hell they may even some degree of chromosome abnormality for all we know. My point is the brain has not been studied enough to draw any conclusion either way.
While I agree with this somewhat, there is no studies that draws a scientific conclusion that transgenderism is nothing more than a mental disorder or abnormality.
The term woman in my opinion should be kept for what has been embarrassingly described as cisgender woman. The term woman took a back seat to this relatively new term to accommodate for mentally ill fake women. that’s a whole other rant though. That said, I believe a woman to be the same thing pre 1994 before the term was perverted to exclude women into the new category of cisgender women. That means there is definitely science to backup woman hood. Physical chromosomes, uterus, vagina, ovaries, breasts all of which serve as a reproductive means and also produce natural not man made hormones or are capable at some degree of natural function. I suppose what I’m getting at is nature designates a man or a woman not a knife. I actually believe the way pro transgenderism people are the ones looking at it in a form of simple. Just a simple say so and that’s it.
Pleasure is also caused by those things called nerves. Actually pain and pleasure are set by how the brain interprets those signals from the nerves. Meaning that the same sensation on two different people can result in one feeling pleasure and the other pain. The fact that the nerve signals are interpreted differently does not make pleasure or pain not real, and likewise the fact that two different brains interpret the "rightness" of the body does not make transgender or cisgender not real.
You seem to misunderstand the point. You made a claim that transgender serves no scientific function, with an implication that such a lack means that it is not real. I asked you to show where two other things that are real have a scientific function. There was no intent to make them linked with transgender. If I left that impression, then you have my appologies.
Well it certainly an abnormality since it affects only a single digit percentage of our population. But then again so are so many other conditions and afflictions. Whether it qualifies as a mental disorder or something else, it is something that requires medical treatment. Right now transitioning (after therapy to ensure that it actually is transgender and GD, and not something else masking as such) is the most effective treatment we have at treating the GD. It has a 44% reduction in suicidal ideation, and that is before taking into account external factors such as harassment and marginalization. No other treatment attempted has come close. BTW, transition does not automatically mean surgery. Transitioning can range from simple presentation to the full SRS and many points in between. The key is to do the least in order the alleviate the GD.
You'll have to show me some cases of people who believe that they should have been born blind. And even then their brain structure can only be compared to those who were born blind, as opposed to those who became blind. But when it comes down to it, there are indeed cases of BID where the only treatment that was effective was the amputation of the offending body part. And yet we still have those who are making the claim that it can't be. That does seem to be what most of your posts and arguments indicate. And not to be misunderstood, I am not making a claim that it is due to the brain structure. I am saying that there have been studies that indicate the such has a good probability, but such indications have fallen through before. But it is being studied as to cause. But that it exists is established fact, regardless whether one claims that it is mental illness or something else. And unlike homosexuality (or other non-heterosexual orientations), it does require a medical treatment even if no external forces were present to cause other issues. Further, simply because the only treatment that is effective right now is transitioning, that doesn't mean it will always be. I do know that there are some transgender people who would rather have the GD alleviated by shifting the self to match the body rather than shift the body to match the self. They will take the process that currently works, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't rather have it the other way.
What I see here is everything that would apply to the biological sex, and I agree with it all insofar as it applying to said biological sex. What I am looking for is why should a given label remain attached to said biological sex, especially with other labels already in place? Why should "man" stay synonymous with "male"? Simply because it always has 1) falls under your complaint of "Just a simple say so and that’s it." and 2) why shouldn't it change when so many other words have changed over time? And remember that those changes had to have happened in other people's lifetimes, so there is no reason a change should not happen in ours.
