Boy ‘living life entirely as a girl’ removed from mother's care by UK judge - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zyler;51251542]By the same logic, having the neurological sex of a male, means that you're neurologically a male. And yet you cannot accept that because you claimed that "XX is female and XY is male", which we know is false because men can be XXY for example. Why do you only agree with the simple scientific definitions when it agrees with you personally? If a scientist tells you "this person is male and has a XXY chromosome" you blindly accept it, but when a scientist tells you "this person has the brain chemistry of a male and so is neurologically male" you disregard it? [editline]24th October 2016[/editline] Yes, because it shows how you're making wrongful assumptions and picking and choosing the scientific facts that suits you and ignoring the ones that don't.[/QUOTE] It's not blindly accepting it, it's is [B]known[/B] that Klinefelters only occurs in males, so logically I agree that those who have it are still male. Additionally it isn't picking and choosing I just wasn't aware to the limit of how pedantic you are. I didn't think every time I stated what makes a male a male and a female a female I also had to include the information keying in all the chromosomal disorders in existence, I actually thought you'd be able to understand immediately that in this obvious logical cases of when these few people don't have the standard XX or XY you'd know which one they more closely fit in to.

[QUOTE=wystan;51251572]It's not blindly accepting it, it's is [B]known[/B] that Klinefelters only occurs in males, so logically I agree that those who have it are still male. [/QUOTE] People with klinefelter are not male because they do not have male chromosomes.

[QUOTE=wystan;51251572]It's not blindly accepting it, it's is [B]known[/B] that Klinefelters only occurs in males, so logically I agree that those who have it are still male. Additionally it isn't picking and choosing I just wasn't aware to the limit of how pedantic you are. I didn't think every time I stated what makes a male a male and a female a female I also had to include the information keying in all the chromosomal disorders in existence, I actually thought you'd be able to understand immediately that in this obvious logical cases of when these few people don't have the standard XX or XY you'd know which one they more closely fit in to.[/QUOTE] It is also [b]known[/b] that prenatal hormones dictate a human being's neurological sex, which can differ from other criteria of sex. Notice how making a word bold doesn't make it extra true? [editline]24th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=phygon;51251579]People with klinefelter are not male because they do not have male chromosomes.[/QUOTE] Exactly. Wrystan, prove to me that people with klinefelter are male. As you know, males are defined as having male chromosomes (XY) and females are defined as having female chromosomes (XX). So it's only logical to assume that a person with a chromosome that is not XY cannot be male. Just a hint though, you might want to realize that this is the exact same 'logic' you were using to say that trans people cannot exist.

This is getting circular and we aren't going anywhere. How do you not get that a condition that is only found in males, makes the resulting people who have it male? You can only get Klinefelters if you are male, so if you have it, you are a male. It's like how nearly all calico cats are female, exceptions only in rare cases of cats with chromosomal disorders, weird.

[QUOTE=wystan;51251619]This is getting circular and we aren't going anywhere. How do you not get that a condition that is only found in males, makes the resulting people who have it male? You can only get Klinefelters if you are male, so if you have it, you are a male. It's like how nearly all calico cats are female, exception in rare cases of cats with chromosomal disorders, weird.[/QUOTE] You're avoiding the question. It is also [b]known[/b] that prenatal hormones dictate a person's neurological sex, which can differ from other criteria of sex. Why do you accept one kind of scientific fact (that male and female does not necessarily mean XX and XY) and ignore the other (that neurological sex is defined by prenatal hormones)?

[QUOTE=wystan;51251340]I don't know where you're getting this "emotional" vibe from my posts, I explained my line of thinking you have yet to show me I'm actually wrong. I am wrong for saying that people with XX chromosomes are male, and those with XY chromosomes are female?[/QUOTE] Aight fine, but what exactly do you intend when you tell us this knowledge? To offend? To prove a point? Even if being transgender or gay was completely by choice, does it fucking matter? These are people's own lives, and how they live it is of no concern to you. Chromosomes don't mean shit when you're born with these feelings, hell it could be a different chromosome thing we just haven't figured it out yet, and probably won't figure it out with scientific illiterate people hounding trans people.

[QUOTE=Zyler;51251630]You're avoiding the question. It is also [B]known[/B] that prenatal hormones dictate a person's neurological sex, which can differ from other criteria of sex. Why do you accept one kind of scientific fact (that male and female does not necessarily mean XX and XY) and ignore the other (that neurological sex is defined by prenatal hormones)?[/QUOTE] So are you pal. What you mean that wiki article that talks about prenatal hormones talking about sexual orientation? That's something completely different than what we are discussing. Or the part within the article that talking about GID and Transsexualism? All of which is written very tentatively and stresses how much of a theory it is, and not like har har gravity is a theory or the big bang is a theory, or evolution is a theory, or the part saying "Due to relatively small population sizes, generalizability of studies on transsexuality cannot be assumed.". You sure you aren't the one blindly accepting something you're given?

The guy using circular logic to argue that trans people don't exist because it can't be conditioned and because it's based on a hard lined arbitrary definition is complaining it's getting circular?

[QUOTE=Megadave;51251652]Aight fine, but what exactly do you intend when you tell us this knowledge? To offend? To prove a point? Even if being transgender or gay was completely by choice, does it fucking matter? These are people's own lives, and how they live it is of no concern to you. Chromosomes don't mean shit when you're born with these feelings, hell it could be a different chromosome thing we just haven't figured it out yet, and probably won't figure it out with scientific illiterate people hounding trans people.[/QUOTE] Well, the problem is more the fact that his claim is entirely false and likely emotionally driven. I doubt he necessarily intends anything when he makes the claim, he's just uncomfortable around trans people and feels the need to mark his claim in order to stop himself from feeling uncomfortable. In order to not do this, he would need to not feel uncomfortable about the idea of trans people, i.e. not care either way. People tend to only argue about things when they feel strongly about them, or if they just enjoy arguing like me.

[QUOTE=Zyler;51251667]Well, the problem is more the fact that his claim is entirely false and likely emotionally driven. I doubt he necessarily intends anything when he makes the claim, he's just uncomfortable around trans people and feels the need to mark his claim in order to stop himself from feeling uncomfortable. In order to not do this, he would need to not feel uncomfortable about the idea of trans people, i.e. not care either way. People tend to only argue about things when they feel strongly about them, or if they just enjoy arguing like me.[/QUOTE] So what if I just enjoy arguing? And the rest of that you said was false? I suppose it's just all an exercise in futility isn't it. None of this matters.

[QUOTE=wystan;51251657]So are you pal. What you mean that wiki article that talks about prenatal hormones talking about sexual orientation? That's something completely different than what we are discussing. Or the part within the article that talking about GID and Transsexualism? All of which is written very tentatively and stresses how much of a theory it is, and not like har har gravity is a theory or the big bang is a theory, or evolution is a theory, or the part saying "Due to relatively small population sizes, generalizability of studies on transsexuality cannot be assumed.". You sure you aren't the one blindly accepting something you're given?[/QUOTE] Have you read the original paper by Bao and Swabb? Can you argue the legitimacy of it? Anyway, once again you've demonstrated your ignorance after spending 5 minutes going back two pages and reading the information I gave to inform you and then assuming that means you now know more than me. "The small sample sizes" refers to the difficulty of doing studies on trans people because they make up such a small percentage of the population, it's a well-known problem in social studies on the issue. It has nothing to do with the biological studies which don't depend on the same criteria as social studies. The irony of you saying that I'm blindly accepting something when you're only sources are the ones I gave you is hilarious. You blindly and automatically assume you are correct and then ignore any scientific evidence that goes against your beliefs, and I'm the blind one? [editline]24th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=wystan;51251672]So what if I just enjoy arguing? And the rest of that you said was false? I suppose it's just all an exercise in futility isn't it. None of this matters.[/QUOTE] Bad reading. I said that [b]I[/b] (Zyler) enjoy arguing. Nice projection though. Can you at least see the sillyness of you telling me things are true or false when I clearly know more than you about the subject. You really don't think I read my own sources?

[QUOTE=Zyler;51251678]Have you read the original paper by Bao and Swabb? Can you argue the legitimacy of it? Anyway, once again you've demonstrated your ignorance after spending 5 minutes going back two pages and reading the information I gave to inform you and then assuming that means you now know more than me. "The small sample sizes" refers to the difficulty of doing studies on trans people because they make up such a small percentage of the population, it's a well-known problem in social studies on the issue. It has nothing to do with the biological studies which don't depend on the same criteria as social studies. The irony of you saying that I'm blindly accepting something when you're only sources are the ones I gave you is hilarious. You blindly and automatically assume you are correct and then ignore any scientific evidence that goes against your beliefs, and I'm the blind one? [editline]24th October 2016[/editline] Bad reading. I said that [b]I[/b] (Zyler) enjoy arguing. Nice projection though.[/QUOTE] Yea, I can. It requires further research, it needs to be replicated. Even more so with such small sample sizes. Everything is subject to skepticism, and I'm not convinced. [editline]23rd October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zyler;51251678]Have you read the original paper by Bao and Swabb? Can you argue the legitimacy of it? Anyway, once again you've demonstrated your ignorance after spending 5 minutes going back two pages and reading the information I gave to inform you and then assuming that means you now know more than me. "The small sample sizes" refers to the difficulty of doing studies on trans people because they make up such a small percentage of the population, it's a well-known problem in social studies on the issue. It has nothing to do with the biological studies which don't depend on the same criteria as social studies. The irony of you saying that I'm blindly accepting something when you're only sources are the ones I gave you is hilarious. You blindly and automatically assume you are correct and then ignore any scientific evidence that goes against your beliefs, and I'm the blind one? [editline]24th October 2016[/editline] Bad reading. I said that [b]I[/b] (Zyler) enjoy arguing. Nice projection though. Can you at least see the sillyness of you telling me things are true or false when I clearly know more than you about the subject. You really don't think I read my own sources?[/QUOTE] "Or if they enjoying arguing like me", I then said what if I too also enjoy arguing. Do you struggle with interpersonal communication?

[QUOTE=wystan;51251687]Yea, I can. It requires further research, it needs to be replicated. Even more so with such small sample sizes. Everything is subject to skepticism, and I'm not convinced.[/QUOTE] You're not convinced because you're ideologically biased. You subject the things you agree to with a lower degree of skepticism to the things you disagree with. You aren't logical. You aren't scientific. Your definition of sex makes no sense. And you've consistently moved the goal posts since the beginning of this argument. There's no basis to anything you're saying. [editline]24th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=wystan;51251687]Yea, I can. It requires further research, it needs to be replicated. Even more so with such small sample sizes. Everything is subject to skepticism, and I'm not convinced. [editline]23rd October 2016[/editline] "Or if they enjoying arguing like me", I then said what if I too also enjoy arguing. Do you struggle with interpersonal communication?[/QUOTE] No you said "So what if I enjoy arguing?". There's no "too". This was your post: [QUOTE=wystan;51251672]So what if I just enjoy arguing? And the rest of that you said was false? I suppose it's just all an exercise in futility isn't it. None of this matters.[/QUOTE] You don't have to correct yourself in front of me, I really don't care.

[QUOTE=Zyler;51251695]You're not convinced because you're ideologically biased. You subject the things you agree to with a lower degree of skepticism to the things you disagree with. You aren't logical. You aren't scientific. Your definition of sex makes no sense. And you've consistently moved the goal posts since the beginning of this argument. There's no basis to anything you're saying. [editline]24th October 2016[/editline] No you said "So what if I enjoy arguing?". There's no "too". This was your post:[/QUOTE] And you really couldn't glean from my post that I was saying that I was like you and enjoyed arguing just for the sake of it? You do struggle with interpersonal communication. And you can say these things about me, but that doesn't make them true, you try and pull some high ground here but really you're no different.

[QUOTE=wystan;51251703]And you really couldn't glean from my post that I was saying that I was like you and enjoyed arguing just for the sake of it? You do struggle with interpersonal communication.[/QUOTE] You struggle with writing clarity, there's no "too" in your post. You literally said "So what if [b]I[/b] enjoy arguing." You really do enjoy arguing over meaningless semantics, I'll give you that. You're a funny guy. [editline]24th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=wystan;51251703] And you can say these things about me, but that doesn't make them true, you try and pull some high ground here but really you're no different.[/QUOTE] So you admit that you are ideologically biased? If so, than how can you trust your own 'logic' in terms of what 'male' or 'female' means?

[QUOTE=Zyler;51251708]You struggle with writing clarity, there's no "too" in your post. You literally said "So what if [b]I[/b] enjoy arguing." You really do enjoy arguing over meaningless semantics, I'll give you that. You're a funny guy.[/QUOTE] Semantics matter. I'm sorry you couldn't tell within context that I was pointing out a similarity between you and I.

[QUOTE=wystan;51251714]Semantics matter. I'm sorry you couldn't tell within context that I was pointing out a similarity between you and I.[/QUOTE] There was no context for that within that post. Semantics is only so important as it allows meaning to be conveyed- if I cannot understand what you're saying because your writing is terrible that means your semantics is terrible. In the same sense, the context of the words 'male' and 'female' defines what they mean as semantic terms, they can either refer to biological sex, physical/functional sex or neurological sex. In the context of GID and gender dysphoria, 'male' and 'female' refer to neurological sex. In the context of biological reproduction, 'male' and 'female' refer to the existance or lack thereof of sexual organs. In the context of genetics, 'male' and 'female' refer to one of 5 possible chromosomal combinations.

[QUOTE=Zyler;51251723]There was no context for that within that post. Semantics is only so important as it allows meaning to be conveyed- if I cannot understand what you're saying because your writing is terrible that means your semantics is terrible.[/QUOTE] The context was your post I was quoting, you said "or if you enjoying arguing like me", and I said "So what if I enjoying arguing?", it was pretty clear, I'm sorry your social and/or conversational ineptitude didn't pick up on that.

[QUOTE=wystan;51251728]The context was your post I was quoting, you said "or if you enjoying arguing like me", and I said "So what if I enjoying arguing?", it was pretty clear, I'm sorry your social and/or conversational ineptitude didn't pick up on that.[/QUOTE] I like how you can't make an argument, so you just resort to insulting me personally. You must be fun at parties. Again, I'm sorry I triggered you. I see what you are talking about though, I used the informal 'you' in the general sense, I should've used 'if one should enjoy arguing'. Of course, it cannot be a combination of me using a correct but misleading term and you misinterpreting it, it must all be my fault because your ego demands you cannot let anything go.

[QUOTE=wystan;51251619]This is getting circular and we aren't going anywhere. How do you not get that a condition that is only found in males, makes the resulting people who have it male? You can only get Klinefelters if you are male, so if you have it, you are a male. It's like how nearly all calico cats are female, exceptions only in rare cases of cats with chromosomal disorders, weird.[/QUOTE] Yes, but if you have non male chromosomes, you are not male by [I]literally any definition, including the biological one[/I]

[QUOTE=Zyler;51251734]I like how you can't make an argument, so you just resort to insulting me personally. You must be fun at parties.[/QUOTE] At least I even go to them. Not to mention your first post in this thread was insulting so don't try to pull that. I've given my argument, I'm not ideologically biased. Given the scientific facts at hand and the ways we currently define sex, you can keep trying to tell others it's emotional or not scientifically based, but it's just the opposite, I've given my logic and the science behind it. [editline]23rd October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=phygon;51251738]Yes, but if you have non male chromosomes, you are not male by [I]literally any definition, including the biological one[/I][/QUOTE] Klinefelters includes male chromosomes, you know, because it's only found in males.

[QUOTE=wystan;51251756]At least I even go to them. Not to mention your first post in this thread was insulting so don't try to pull that. I've given my argument, I'm not ideologically biased. Given the scientific facts at hand and the ways we currently define sex, you can keep trying to tell others it's emotional or not scientifically based, but it's just the opposite, I've given my logic and the science behind it.[/QUOTE] Just saying "I am not ideologically biased" and then continuing to ignore scientific facts that disagree with you while only agreeing with ones that do does not make you unbiased. [b]We define sex as either biological, neurological or physical/functional, that's the scientifically based definition. Your definition is not scientific, it is emotional and you have not demonstrated otherwise. Your only response is to fling insults at everybody around you like a petulant child, that seems pretty emotional to me.[/b] [QUOTE]Klinefelters includes male chromosomes, you know, because it's only found in males.[/QUOTE] What is 'male'? Can you provide your exact definition? [editline]24th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=wystan;51251756][b]At least I even go to them.[/b] Not to mention your first post in this thread was insulting so don't try to pull that.[/QUOTE] Me calling you out for being irrational does not mean I am insulting you. I'm sorry you feel that anyone claiming you are wrong is an insult. It's a real shame, but believe it or not I am actually trying to help you (by correcting you). Are you implying that I don't go to parties because I disagree with you? That's hilarious. You're just flaming people at this point.

"At least I go to parties" I am going to fucking remember that one buddy

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51252052]"At least I go to parties" I am going to fucking remember that one buddy[/QUOTE] Don't you know it's abnormal to remember being insulted by somebody? [editline]24th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Trebgarta;51252061]Out of all the things in wystan's post history that is pretty unremarkable IMO You guys are wasting your time and energy[/QUOTE] It's not so much the terribleness of the statement that makes it noteworthy, it's the sheer petty spitefulness and childishness of it. It's just a rung above "I know you are but what am I?" in terms of petulance.

[QUOTE=wystan;51251756] Klinefelters includes male chromosomes, you know, because it's only found in males.[/QUOTE] XXY "contains" male chromosomes AND female chromosomes XX and XY

[QUOTE=Zyler;51251152]Non-binary genders are a reflection of the fact that brain chemistry is not, y'know, binary. There is a range of neural wiring possible, but things tend to cluster around two groups we call 'male' and 'female'. For example, you can be male but someone else could be more 'male-ish' (not the scientific term obviously) than you simply because they are closer to the bell curve. The small number of people who aren't close to either group may choose to identify as male, female or non-binary, but it's a rather arbitrary distinction at that point. Most people are pretty close to one or the other but gay men might be further away from the male bellcurve and closer to the female bellcurve and lesbian women might be further away from the female bellcurve and closer to the male bellcurve.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I'm talking about identities that don't seem to fit into a point on a sliding scale between 100% masculine and 100% feminine. Should have clarified that.

[QUOTE=wystan;51251185]Really? Did it magically make them not male anymore? Did they somehow not have everything else that made them male?[/QUOTE] You cannot change the brain, if you are born with a female brain and you sex is male then we can't change your brain, what we can do however is change your body. Sounds like a good solution.

Transgenderedness could very well be a mental illness... But the best treatment we have right now is transitioning... I chose not to have surgery and to not fully transition but i do take hormones, they make me feel better about myself and who i am, i fully understand some people will continue to think of me as a tomboy girl, a girly man or neither/both and thats fine. I look like a man when i feel like a man and when i feel like its better to look like a girl i can pull that off too. I feel happy this way. Thats all that matters to me atm concerning this... Being okay with my body. If you think transgendered people are attention seekers or deluded or mentally ill or just born that way is irrelevant. What is relevant is how to help them best, if i was 14 again and there was a pill that would make me stop feeling like this i would have taken it. I would take it today even after spending this amount of money and time and becoming infertile and everything. that pill does not yet exist so i prefer to do everything i can to get as close to how i feel. I hope this adds something to the argument for both sides. I dont want to be contacted privately about this though, got shit to say do it in a thread.

imagine being so transphobic you spend 5 pages talking out your arse also news just in gender is fucking complicated and nobody really fully understands so all we can do is theorise and discuss and research but sitting around going "you got a dick that's a boy wahey" is just totally unwilling to engage with the idea that trans people exist, their experiences are valid and that's entirely [I]an emotional response based off your own internal prejudices.[/I]

wystan, when your arguments completely disrespect the identities of a whole group of people, your arguments are probably bad. Transgender people are legit and the only way to treat dysphoria is through transition and gender-affirmative therapies. This is the consensus of the psychological community at large because it is the observed reality that trans people are happier and kill themselves less when things like HRT/counselling/surgery are available. Please just look at the issue through a different lens and see how we tick before you discredit us and say we're illegitimate. I say "we" because I'm personally trans; and I don't "think" I'm a girl, I [I]am[/I] a girl. Your viewpoint personally offends me because you'd rather I pretend to be a man for the rest of my life.