(11-08-2014, 09:19 PM)MissC Wrote: You are welcome to view it however you please. That is not my intent.
Rather, bluntness is more easily understood by most audiences than is subtlety.
If it is my aim to influence the conversation (and it is) then it behooves me to use the tools at my disposal. One of those tools is controversy, which begins conversations, which lead to enlightenment or compromise. I could write so subtly and clinically that no one would get the point... but what would be the point?
I'm not out to be liked and loved by all. Whether I'm on the wrong side or the right side of history, only time will tell. I can only speak what appears correct to me at a time in history. There is no such thing as a universally loved and accepted idea -- even the very best of ideas have detractors.
If it is not your intent then may I suggest you read through your past posts and try to understand why its easy to come to that conclusion.
Its hard to except that its unintentional when it has been pointed out to you so many times by half a dozen difference people and yet your statement of none intention does not change you posts.
Yes, bluntness is an totally acceptable tool in conversation/debate yet it still does not excuse rude, offensive, derogatory and condescending statements. A true strong statement has far better impact upon a person if it is not clothed in a rude excuse of bluntness.
Controversy or shock tactics are a poor way to open any intelligent and meaningful conversation. It often detracts from the validity of information by forcing people "take sides" resulting in less understanding of the subject and the negativity in controversy almost always affects the chance of compromise as people are less willing to change once a "side/stance" is taken.
(11-08-2014, 12:31 PM)Denita Wrote: If you don't understand or empathise with Gender Dysphoria and transitioning then why do you feel the need to post strong views in opposition to it in a forum?
(11-08-2014, 09:19 PM)MissC Wrote: You mistake me. By the clinical definitions, and the terminology used by most here in this forum, I am gender dysphoric, and I have transitioned to live as female, minus hormones and surgery. I don't look at it that way, of course, but that is what I appear to be, by those definitions.
However, I have rejected the thinking behind those clinical definitions and terminology, because it does not suit many of the people who find themselves in my position. For example, I reject the notion of binary gender -- that a person must be thoroughly male or thoroughly female, or as thoroughly as possible, which is what we're discussing here.
I also unambiguously reject the notion that gender variance is, in all cases, a disorder or disease that requires medical treatment. In many cases, the removal of some societal barriers (such as not letting boys wear dresses on occasion, or play with dolls, or the like) is all that is necessary to ensure an individual grow up well adjusted. Denial of some aspects of a child's nature is the surest way to intensify them -- and that cycle of denial and intensification is what often leads to mental illness.
It's an easy conclusion: gender variance exists in some form in every culture on Earth. It's the same thing. However, what happens to it, and to the variant, is a matter of which culture they belong to. It is my belief that our Western first world culture has not yet got it right.
If I mistake you its because you show little or no understanding and empathy to other members who's situation is different than your own.
If a question arises about GRS, then is it not right to try to impart knowledge with a balanced view in an informed way (everyone else's post has). As opposed to the insensitive, mis-informed, one sided, ridiculing, derogatory and condescending opinion that you forwarded.
Your not stupid and know full well that there is a person receiving your post aimed at them and yet you show no regard for any upset caused by your rantings.
My opinion about GRS is its based on an individuals own circumstances. There simply is NO right or wrong. You can say its wrong for yourself. You can say based on evidence from observing friends that it was probably wrong for them. But you can't say, in any way, its wrong for me or anyone else as you have no idea of the circumstances.
(11-08-2014, 09:19 PM)MissC Wrote: I trivialize and ridicule junk science. Even physics can harbor junk science, but it's far more prevalent in the "social sciences" due to the impossibility of objectively quantifying something as complex as human emotion and behavior into empirical data.
We now live in a time when, thanks to the internet, the gender variant can read all of the papers, and practically quote them verbatim to the gender therapist. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle wherein scientific objectivity becomes much more difficult, because self-diagnosis has become the new reality. Each new finding brings new deceptions to bear on the gatekeepers.
Yes "social science" is not an exact science and never does it pertain to be. Every study, every paper has a error differential and take into account the varying results according to circumstances or relevant factors.
They are indicators only and are never portrayed as exacting results. Yet this variance are used to dismiss all data for every professional research institute around the world like there is some huge conspiracy? What would a Serbian transgender clinic hope to gain in collaborating findings with Australia, Brazil, Israel, Thailand, Uk, Sweden and USA? What would be the motivation for this mass conspiracy?
Or is it simply that the results don't match you opinion? 99% (+- <99%) of the time.
Its possible that access to information is giving previously undiagnosed people the chance of a diagnosis. I for one as a tall hairy guy probably would never have approached my doctor with the symptom that I've spent most of my life feeling like a girl. Until I found this site I just thought I had something weird that I would have to suffer. Now I have options.
Denita
