Against Me! Singer Tom Gabel Comes Out As Transgender, Plans On Starting Hormone Treatments - Polidicks

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35911472]my "argument" is that you're wrong (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻[/QUOTE] You are being both overly pedantic and not providing anything worthy of discussion. Structures and organs have a [i]function[/i], that is they [i]actually do something[/i] in a evolutionary context. Evolution does not have a "result", as it is a continuous process. Attacking the terminology of the person your taking do just makes it seem like your point of view carries no weight.

[QUOTE=N0 WAR;35911490]Yeah a few minutes is totally worthwhile time I should've been spending curing cancer lol[/QUOTE] i could be making more posts about john travoltas butthole but instead I'm wasting time here telling a dude how he can't just post fragmentary, context free jpegs of random scholarly articles and act like that comprises an argument [editline]11th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=danharibo;35911510] Structures and organs have a [i]function[/i], that is they [i]actually do something[/i] in a evolutionary context. Evolution does not have a "result", as it is a continuous process. [/QUOTE] no, it's not a process. natural selection is a process, evolution is the result of that process. it has no designs of it's own

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35911522]i could be making more posts about john travoltas butthole but instead I'm wasting time here telling a dude how he can't just post fragmentary, context free jpegs of random scholarly articles and act like that comprises an argument[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35911522]there's no such thing as an "evolutionary function" dogg[/QUOTE] The picture I posted was randomly chosen out of many google search results simply to prove that there is such thing as an evolutionary function, dogg Edit: And anyway, why are we arguing about the finer points of evolution? The whole argument was because some guy said that animals don't have an urge to reproduce, which was wrong. So I think I'm going to call it there. Argument over ok?

[QUOTE=Platinumcs;35911538]The picture I posted was randomly chosen out of many google search results simply to prove that there is such thing as an evolutionary function, dogg[/QUOTE] randomly posting google results is a fucking crazy way to argue. you can't do that

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35911546]randomly posting google results is a fucking crazy way to argue. you can't do that[/QUOTE] also so is spending five bucks on a giant red title for people who disagree with you, and arguments aren't composed of cardboard boxes the more you know

[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;35908108]No. Transgirl GENDER is always female, no matter what you say. Their legal SEX remains male until sex reassignment surgery. But they are and will always be a female. You do not consider her a he. That's ignorant.[/QUOTE] One of my friends didn't get bottom surgery due to thinking it wasn't that good and it's really expensive. Yet she still got boobs, hormones etc and was allowed to change her sex legally anyway apparently. I was happy for her but if she ever needed a doctors visit/checkup or something idk how that would work :v:

[QUOTE=Platinumcs;35910659]For this particular post: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Tfs7f.jpg[/IMG] Although 'designed' was not the word I should have used, anyone who has done even high school science knows what I'm getting at. He didn't even back up his argument, instead just went back through the thread rating all my posts dumb.[/QUOTE] no I'm pretty sure you spent $4 to give me a title because you're an angry childish transphobe. nice try attempting to deflect though [editline]1[/editline] btw I didn't "go back through the thread" to rate you dumb. I rated all of your posts dumb as you posted them because they were all dumb [editline]11th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Platinumcs;35911538] Edit: And anyway, why are we arguing about the finer points of evolution? The whole argument was because some guy said that animals don't have an urge to reproduce, which was wrong. So I think I'm going to call it there. Argument over ok?[/QUOTE] no the argument was animals were not designed to reproduce. nobody said anything about urges. if you're going to argue about biology perhaps you should use the proper terminology

[QUOTE=thisispain;35906985]yeah i guess evolutionary research is really comprised of idiots good catch there mate really exposed those dickheads![/QUOTE] Human genes dictate that males have a male reproductive system and females have a female reproductive system, and that males produce hormones that cause them to be attracted to the opposite sex and vice-versa. The function of the male reproductive system is to interact with the female reproductive system to pass on genes and produce offspring. Humans have evolved to function in this way- they are 'meant' to be this way. Exceptions to this are anomalous. Either stop smoking that weed or go and discuss metaphysics instead of trying to talk about science, because the way you've been thinking about things in this thread hinges on philosophy. Questioning the very meaning of 'purpose' and meaning itself is not science

[QUOTE=RobbL;35915639]Human genes dictate that males have a male reproductive system and females have a female reproductive system, and that males produce hormones that cause them to be attracted to the opposite sex and vice-versa. The function of the male reproductive system is to interact with the female reproductive system to pass on genes and produce offspring.[/QUOTE] Then how do Homosexual people work? Their very existence disproves what you just said.

[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;35916863]Then how do Homosexual people work? Their very existence disproves what you just said.[/QUOTE] Hormone imbalances, likely to be caused by faulty genes. An error in a system doesn't disprove the system

[QUOTE=RobbL;35917115]An error in a system doesn't disprove the system[/QUOTE] homosexuality isn't an error because there is no system

[QUOTE=thisispain;35917168]homosexuality isn't an error because there is no system[/QUOTE] The human body is a system. Everything that exists is part of a system.

[QUOTE=RobbL;35917115]Hormone imbalances, likely to be caused by faulty genes.[/QUOTE] there's zero evidence for that.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35917178]there's zero evidence for that.[/QUOTE] Still, our genes dictate that we mate with the opposite sex

[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;35916863]Then how do Homosexual people work? Their very existence disproves what you just said.[/QUOTE] Because it's not like there's any gay sex going on in any other species. oh wait.

[QUOTE=RobbL;35917115]Hormone imbalances, likely to be caused by faulty genes. An error in a system doesn't disprove the system[/QUOTE] I'm fairly certain we don't exactly know for sure what causes transgenderism to occur.

[QUOTE=RobbL;35917177]The human body is a system. Everything that exists is part of a system.[/QUOTE] that's a cop out. we know through psychology that humans are not exclusively heterosexual and never have been, courtesy of the sliding scale. not to mention plenty of animals engage in homosexual behavior as well, including animals that are extremely divergent from the human genome. [editline]11th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=RobbL;35917194]Still, our genes dictate that we mate with the opposite sex[/QUOTE] oh does it? [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=omim[/url] point out which genes dictate that.

[QUOTE=Coffee;35917204]I'm fairly certain we don't exactly know for sure what causes transgenderism to occur.[/QUOTE] Hormonal imbalances in the brain during fetal development is our best guess.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35917207] [editline]11th May 2012[/editline] oh does it? [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=omim[/url] point out which genes dictate that.[/QUOTE] Uh, the genes which give us reproductive systems?

[QUOTE=RobbL;35917265]Uh, the genes which give us reproductive systems?[/QUOTE] well an expert in genetics such as yourself, who can make statements about human behavior and genome that surpasses current genetic expertise, should be able to point out those genes. otherwise i'll likely agree with genetic scientists who don't agree that there is a gene which expresses heterosexuality or homosexuality, rather that heterosexuality is acquired through several ways which is a concept dating back to the Freud days. [editline]11th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Skelmech;35917236]Hormonal imbalances in the brain during fetal development is our best guess.[/QUOTE] central nervous system actually is the one theory another theory is androgen exposure, another theory is a specific genotype expressing differently. there's some information on whether transsexualism or transgenderism is genetic but it always gets contradicted like a month later.

[QUOTE=RobbL;35917115]Hormone imbalances, likely to be caused by faulty genes. An error in a system doesn't disprove the system[/QUOTE] Saying that homosexuality is an error implies that something specifically designed the human body to be this heterosexual system of reproduction. I can assure you that nothing designed the human body.

Following your logic, genetic, mental, and other types of disorders aren't actually disorders because humans aren't meant to be a certain way in the first place

[QUOTE=RobbL;35917894]Following your logic, genetic, mental, and other types of disorders aren't actually disorders because humans aren't meant to be a certain way in the first place[/QUOTE] We call something a disorder if it is detrimental to the person. Do you believe that homosexuality is detrimental?

learn what the fucking word means before you use it. Disorder in the medical sense means something that impedes proper function as a person. incontinence or the inability to be empathetic is a disorder, liking men is a sexual orientation.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35917168]homosexuality isn't an error because there is no system[/QUOTE] the human body is a system, but there is no teleology to that system. it is a system because it is comprised of parts which interact, but that system has no "purpose" or "design"; it is a system in which parts only have "function" in reference to each other [editline]11th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;35917935]learn what the fucking word means before you use it. Disorder in the medical sense means something that impedes proper function as a person. incontinence or the inability to be empathetic is a disorder, liking men is a sexual orientation.[/QUOTE] yeah. The course of a human life, when ascribed purposes like "the pursuit of happiness" or "developing close relationships" can deviate from those purposes and therefore can be said to have a "disorder" when it fails to work towards those ends. Continued human existence (reproduction, essentially), however, only has purpose in reference to the aforementioned ascribed purposes and therefore the only things which can be classified as a disorder are those which interfere with those initial ascribed purposes. The only way you can argue that homosexuality is a "disorder" which goes against the "purpose" of a human body is to first argue that "the meaning of life" is to reproduce; which is something you're going to have a hell of a time trying to convince me of. [editline]11th May 2012[/editline] because, like, "the reason that we exist is so we can reproduce" seems at once paradoxical and infinitely recursive

Plat, your entire argument is "We need to reproduce and trans people can't, ergo they are wrong." Well then pretty much every contraceptive is "wrong" what about people who don't have sex? Are they "wrong" too? Your entire argument is based on the assumption that we still need to fuck like rabbits in this day and age where we live, on average to the age of 72 and infant mortality amongst 1st world countries is extremely low. By your (Flawed) logic the fact that the rest of the world isn't as populated as china is wrong. In conclusion you've made an ass of yourself talking about things which you know nothing about.

"HE'S A SHE." "NO, HE'S A HE." /thread Onto more serious topics, there is this ongoing experiment with uteral transplants and whatnot. In other words, reproduction for transgender people. You argument will be invalid in about 10 years.

[QUOTE=Usernameztaken;35918566]Onto more serious topics, there is this ongoing experiment with uteral transplants and whatnot. In other words, reproduction for transgender people. You argument will be invalid in about 10 years.[/QUOTE] Not on a chromosome level. Besides I can only imagine the magnitude of the hissyfit all the fundies are gonna throw, while they're accusing people for "playing god".

Platinum you're so intuitively and glaringly wrong. Natural selection doesn't focus on just one thing. The phrase 'survival of the fittest', doesn't imply things like survival of the [I]strongest[/I] or [I]species who has tons of exclusively heterosexual intercourse for procreation[/I]. There are [I]multiple[/I] traits that benefit the propagation of a species. For example, a [I]decent intelligence[/I] to recognize STDs and be able to prevent them from spreading. There have even been some studies that show homosexuality conveys an evolutionary benefit. [url]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html[/url] [url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm[/url] [url]http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20100104222002data_trunc_sys.shtml[/url] "[I]Naturally[/I]" humans are not exclusively about reproduction. I really wanna ad hominem right now son.

[QUOTE=Pal13;35918876]Platinum you're so intuitively and glaringly wrong. Natural selection doesn't focus on just one thing. The phrase 'survival of the fittest', doesn't imply things like survival of the [I]strongest[/I] or [I]species who has tons of exclusively heterosexual intercourse for procreation[/I]. [/QUOTE] well it used to.