Havard offers course on healthcare about LGBT "from Infants to adults"

[Cyclops]

...
However, as we don't promote the bravery of people born with 4 kidneys like my father or left-handed or albinos nor there are entire pride parades dedicated to "melanin-challenged" but we accept that those born with such abnormalities deviate from the norm, we should do the same with LGBT people....

Blowing your top over someone running a short course to build skills around healthcare for intersex children (among others) isn't acceptance.

This thread has morphed from vaguely misrepresenting a healthcare short course as 'they are castrating babies!" to "I don't care for gay people agitprop", well thats a nice journey but OT. The first post in 100% a bust and fails as a platform for a pivot to "gays are rotting western Civilisation from within".

[Lord Thesaurian]

Blowing your top over someone running a short course to build skills around healthcare for intersex children (among others) isn't acceptance.

What about the LGBTQ babies? 20-40% of all babies? It seems that would be the vital focus group if medical professionals managed to miss these babies completely for all of recorded history, let alone information Harvard should include in any relevant response to public commentary. Not the less than 2% of babies born intersex Harvard chose to exclusively focus on in their statement.

This thread has morphed from vaguely misrepresenting a healthcare short course as 'they are castrating babies!" to "I don't care for gay people agitprop",

That would be silly. Current medical guidelines suggest waiting until the ripe old age of 8 to start castrating kids, at least, that’s how Wiki describes the totally safe but also off-label and still most common puberty blocker used in kids.

Leuprolide acetate is an LHRH agonist that is most commonly used in chemical castration today.[16] This drug has been observed as having higher rates of success in reducing abnormal sexual urges and fantasies, but is often reserved for those offenders who are at a high risk of reoffending due to the drug's intense effects.[17]

This is just step one, the “try before you buy” literal gateway drug for child sex changes. We actually haven’t brought that up until you did for the most part. But since it appears to interest you more, perhaps you or Harvard could explain how their course teaches medical professionals to properly identify trans babies and how to prep them for their bright future ravaging their bodies with drugs and surgery.

well thats a nice journey but OT. The first post in 100% a bust and fails as a platform for a pivot to "gays are rotting western Civilisation from within".

Idk how an OP can be off topic, let alone because it doesn’t mention something you’d prefer to focus on. If it makes you feel any better, the Overton window has already shifted to transabled furries rotting drag queen story hour from within. Christian civilization faded away in the west a long time ago, and “gays” had little to do with it.

[mishkin]

The natural number of LGBT people without external influences is about 3% I think.

Where did you get that figure from, and how has it been assessed that this percentage of LGTBI+ people is not LGTBI+ due to magic "external influences"?

I don't necessarily understand what you mean by "allow". They are what they are we have nothing to allow or prohibit. Not "allowing" them is like saying "how many left-hand dominant people we should allow?". That question doesn't make sense.

However, as we don't promote the bravery of people born with 4 kidneys like my father or left-handed or albinos nor there are entire pride parades dedicated to "melanin-challenged" but we accept that those born with such abnormalities deviate from the norm, we should do the same with LGBT people.

What we should not rally against* is SJWs forcing tv shows to shove left-handed people or albinos or 6 fingers or gays down our throats as must-in shows. And lo-and-behold, showmakers don't feel pressured by SJWs to put left-handed people and albinos in each and every show. But they do that for gays.
And yes, albinos and left-handed people (and I am pretty sure people with 6 fingers) have been marginalized and prosecuted in the past. I am pretty sure I read an article that albinos are still hunted in some parts of the world.
So... it is as arbitary to promote homosexuals etc as a uniquely prosecuted minority when nobody cares about left-handed people that have been prosecuted in the past.


*Not prohibit, mind you. Freedom of speech is also for people I strongly disagree with and who support ideas I find dangerous for society.

accepting/presenting/dealing with something as normal is not the same as indoctrination. As I think it has already been said here, if that were the case, 100% of Western society would have embraced heterosexuality decades ago. So yeah, you're talking about banning.
Please tell me explicitly what you want to ban. Too many gay couples on a TV show? Public figures happy with their transgender lives? Please tell me what your plan is apart from misrepresenting news to give the impression that doctors go around unexpectedly operating on the genitals of children who do not know what is happening (neither they, nor their parents, nor the authorities of the country).

[swabian]

Blowing your top over someone running a short course to build skills around healthcare for intersex children (among others) isn't acceptance.

This thread has morphed from vaguely misrepresenting a healthcare short course as 'they are castrating babies!" to "I don't care for gay people agitprop", well thats a nice journey but OT. The first post in 100% a bust and fails as a platform for a pivot to "gays are rotting western Civilisation from within".

"Intersex" children certainly do not exist. This is a monstrous approach. I'm not surprised you lack the critical thinking skills to asses the depth of this silent ideological crisis.

[Muizer]

"Intersex" children certainly do not exist. This is a monstrous approach. I'm not surprised you lack the critical thinking skills to asses the depth of this silent ideological crisis.

I take it you're being sarcastic? Have to ask. Never know these days, especially in this thread.

[swabian]

absolutely no one is here advocating for the abolition of heterosexuality.

It is clear that there have always been homosexual, bisexual or transgender people in our society and that they have usually been considered undesirable or people to be marginalized. and the percentage of, for example, gays, possibly has not increased, simply the prejudices of society to accept them have decreased.

the two options that society has always had
- accept that these people live a normal life in society
- marginalize them (because they are aberrations or mere fetishists or a threat to society, for example).

I would like those of you who consider that the acceptance of LGTBI+ people poses a threat to society to tell me what percentage of them should be acceptable. What seems to you a "natural" number, and not due to external influences. 5% of the population? Ten? How much of "them" should we allow? And how could we distinguish how many of them are "natural "* and how many are influenced by a progressive agenda?"

*I am assuming that you think that many LGTBI+ peoplehave a natural sexuality. maybe I have rushed?

"Trans people", as in "transitional state between female and male" do not exist. "Gender" is basically a pseudophilosophical byproduct of the marxist-feminist movement in the 70's of the US. Its meaning is utterly founded in postmodernism and radical constructivism, which is a bunch of important sounding words that actually stand for pseudointellectual passive aggressiveness with regard to criticism of the social status quo at the times.


That basically means, that "gender" itself is an entity, not unlike "soul" that supposedly exists in a space that cannot be interacted with by objective, scientific probing, measuring and assessing. It is by it's propagandists to be understood as an immaterial, ghost-like web of wonders that changes nature and its laws into something that appeals to a small minority of people.

And because we are taking everyone's problems so seriously these days, trying to be sensitive and helpful, certain left leaning elements of society think, sharing in the trans-delusion would help anyone

Will paranoid schizophrenics have their versions of reality validated by you guardian angels next? Are we to accept their hallucinations as part of intersubjectively accessible reality as well?

[swabian]

I take it you're being sarcastic? Have to ask. Never know these days, especially in this thread.

Oh yeah, there is the very rare phenomenon of hermaphrodism, but even here, one sex is always prevaling. Humans are always uniquely and invariably identifiable as either female or male according to scientific biological standards. There are no "transitions" by any measure (except maybe in true hermaphrodites, but not really). That is secured scientific standard. "Intersex" is of course unscientific garbage and toxic of the highest order. Kids who want to play with puppets are not more male or female than kids who want to play with toy trucks. Anyone who "encourages" a kid's natural development according to these pseudo-scientific schematics is a degree of a child abuser, or at the very least a horrible parent.

It is in fact not science at work in "gender studies" it is stereotypes these individuals are working with, misinterpreting that there are variations within both genders. What is happening in reality is, that gender studies takes chauvinistic categories seriously and subsequently models "male" and "female" according to those categories, thereby enhancing their toxic influence. It's beyond perverse and actually pretty insane. It's a destructive, toxic cult that has taken a hold of people who already have a disposition towards irrationality and narcissism.

Stereotypical masculine females or stereotypical feminine males do not constitute new "phases" between the biological sexes, which are of course only and strictly "male" or "female". This is how it is with every higher order creature on earth. Unsurprisingly, humans are not different with that regard.

I think that the concept of "gender" never has been intellectually meaningful in any way shape or form. It is the most disingenuous garbage, a self-righteous, permanently indignant fool can come up with to get attention. It certainly is not a scientific category by any means. What it typically truly is, is a convenient assortment of lies cheaply provided to incompetent journalists who want to suck up to another foolish youth-movement and thereby distinguish themselves in their own minds. It can also be a means of political populism, no doubt. Whatever the modern meat grinder currently has in its wheels.

It's time to get back to rationality and reason. The gender-construct has no place in a rational society, guided by actual science, reason and common sense.

[Muizer]

Oh yeah, there is the very rare phenomenon of hermaphrodism, but even here, one sex is always prevaling.[B] Humans are always uniquely and invariably identifiable as either female or male according to scientific biological standards.

Intersex is broader, meaning objectively verifiable, physiological, characteristics of both sexes (though rarely all of them at once. Not even sure true hermaphrodism exists in humans). They are present at birth and evidently they impact the sexual development. So, perfectly normal to teach it as a subject to medical students specializing in that field. It would in fact be objectionable if it wasn't.

[swabian]

Intersex is broader, meaning objectively verifiable, physiological, characteristics of both sexes (though rarely all of them at once. Not even sure true hermaphrodism exists in humans). They are present at birth and evidently they impact the sexual development. So, perfectly normal to teach it as a subject to medical students specializing in that field. It would in fact be objectionable if it wasn't.

Hermaphrodism is what is now called "intersex phenomena", but at the same time, "intersex phenomena" is being abused by gender-cultists to pseudo-scientifically substantiate that actual hermaphrodism is far more common than previously believed. You are wrong, if you believe that these phenomena are actually being "studied" with any scientific rigor or legitimacy. It is not perfectly normal at all.

Can you exemplify what you believe those "intersex phenomena" are supposed to be? I assure you, the whole mess is not what you assume it is.

[Muizer]

"intersex phenomena" is being abused by gender-cultists to pseudo-scientifically substantiate that actual hermaphrodism is far more common than previously believed.

I see. If a medical condition is rare, medical students should not study it if activists claim it isn't .

You are wrong, if you believe that these phenomena are actually being "studied" with any scientific rigor or legitimacy. It is not perfectly normal at all.

I think the burden of proof is on you here.

Can you exemplify what you believe those "intersex phenomena" are supposed to be? I assure you, the whole mess is not what you assume it is.

Why? I just described it. If you want specifics, you can find some on Wikipedia. Not sure if linking it here is permitted due to graphic material being shown/linked.

[mishkin]

"Trans people", as in "transitional state between female and male" do not exist. "Gender" is basically a pseudophilosophical byproduct of the marxist-feminist movement in the 70's of the US. Its meaning is utterly founded in postmodernism and radical constructivism, which is a bunch of important sounding words that actually stand for pseudointellectual passive aggressiveness with regard to criticism of the social status quo at the times.


That basically means, that "gender" itself is an entity, not unlike "soul" that supposedly exists in a space that cannot be interacted with by objective, scientific probing, measuring and assessing. It is by it's propagandists to be understood as an immaterial, ghost-like web of wonders that changes nature and its laws into something that appeals to a small minority of people.

And because we are taking everyone's problems so seriously these days, trying to be sensitive and helpful, certain left leaning elements of society think, sharing in the trans-delusion would help anyone

Will paranoid schizophrenics have their versions of reality validated by you guardian angels next? Are we to accept their hallucinations as part of intersubjectively accessible reality as well?

We call trans people those who have transitioned from one sex to another or are living that process. When it is necessary for the conversation. If not, we simply call them men or women.

Gender is a social construct, a continuum (from very male to very feminine) that has also varied over time. There have always been men considered effeminate and women considered very masculine. There have also always been women who have occupied the role of men and vice versa, temporarily or for life. Not to mention third genders accepted in other cultures.

None of this is an invention of the Marxist feminazis of the 1970s. There will have been extremists and scholars of the subject who have considered that their topic (genders, sexuality) are the most important thing there has ever been, but that happens in all academic and even professional fields.

They are not crazy people, for you to say so and compare them to schizophrenics is insulting.

[alhoon]

We call trans people those who have transitioned from one sex to another or are living that process.

Transition is impossible. Mutilating people's genitalia and altering their chemistry with drugs doesn't change one's sex, it is cosmetic surgery.
Telling the people with gender dysphoria what you said above is cruel and not helpful. You create expectations on them that are similar to telling to people that have lost a leg to a mine that a prosthetic leg would work just as fine. It won't.

There have always been men considered effeminate and women considered very masculine. There have also always been women who have occupied the role of men and vice versa, temporarily or for life. Not to mention third genders accepted in other cultures.

And those were effeminate men or masculine women. They were not women born in a man's body nor men born in a woman's body.
There have been third genders accepters in the past in our culture too, the castrati. Doesn't make cutting the genitals of young boys so their voices will remain soft any less cruel. In OUR culture, 3rd genders didn't work.
For other, different cultures, sure. Feel free to move the progressives to those cultures and leave our culture alone. As far as I know large parts of India, so quite a lot of people, live in such cultures and lo and behold, they don't try to convince everyone else that they are right. They live their lives.
And yes, here I am talking about both sides, the "scholars and extremists" you refer to.

[Cyclops]

Transition is impossible. Mutilating people's genitalia and altering their chemistry with drugs doesn't change one's sex, it is cosmetic surgery.
Telling the people with gender dysphoria what you said above is cruel and not helpful. You create expectations on them that are similar to telling to people that have lost a leg to a mine that a prosthetic leg would work just as fine. It won't.


And those were effeminate men or masculine women. They were not women born in a man's body nor men born in a woman's body.
There have been third genders accepters in the past in our culture too, the castrati. Doesn't make cutting the genitals of young boys so their voices will remain soft any less cruel. In OUR culture, 3rd genders didn't work.
For other, different cultures, sure. Feel free to move the progressives to those cultures and leave our culture alone. As far as I know large parts of India, so quite a lot of people, live in such cultures and lo and behold, they don't try to convince everyone else that they are right. They live their lives.
And yes, here I am talking about both sides, the "scholars and extremists" you refer to.

Meanwhile in the real world people transition. I have two family menbers now living as men, and they have stipped using psych meds and attempting suicide.

Theres conversations to be had here but your posting seems to be drifting into the ideological world of absolutes, "cultures" and ranting. Really not sure how castrati are relevant here.

Real people and real results generally show less suicides if transition is supported. This is widely available info.

[alhoon]

Meanwhile in the real world people transition.

There we disagree. In the real world people are told they have transitioned although they have not. They may live as the other gender but they are not of the other gender. All we do is telling them what they want to hear but we are lying to them.

There can be a discussion over the issue you touched: Telling them what they want to hear reduces the chances they will attempt suicide. I have heard of people telling relatives on their deathbeds things to make them feel better and at peace. I understand that, but I am not 100% aboard with this practice. Similarly, I am not aboard with telling troubled young people what they want to hear.
I believe, I honestly believe, that if we approached the subject with them in a loving, understanding way but without falsehoods we would have even better results. What I mean is that telling a person that he can become a woman may reduce the chances of that person to make a suicide, but I think that if we told that person that he cannot become a woman and then help him accept this, we would reduce suicides even further.

I am not saying we should ostracize such people or use conversion therapy or other horrible things on them. I am saying we should not tell them that cutting off their genitals and taking dangerous drugs would turn them to women. It would not. They will never be women and the more we help them accept the fact, sad as it may be for them, the better it would be for them in the end.

Really not sure how castrati are relevant here.

Castrati were considered by some as a 3rd gender in European culture. It was a barbaric practice never-the-less. I mentioned them to show to you that in European culture, 3rd genders didn't work. For other cultures they did.

[Cyclops]

There we disagree. In the real world people are told they have transitioned although they have not. They may live as the other gender but they are not of the other gender. All we do is telling them what they want to hear but we are lying to them.

There can be a discussion over the issue you touched: Telling them what they want to hear reduces the chances they will attempt suicide. I have heard of people telling relatives on their deathbeds things to make them feel better and at peace. I understand that, but I am not 100% aboard with this practice. Similarly, I am not aboard with telling troubled young people what they want to hear.
I believe, I honestly believe, that if we approached the subject with them in a loving, understanding way but without falsehoods we would have even better results. What I mean is that telling a person that he can become a woman may reduce the chances of that person to make a suicide, but I think that if we told that person that he cannot become a woman and then help him accept this, we would reduce suicides even further.

I am not saying we should ostracize such people or use conversion therapy or other horrible things on them. I am saying we should not tell them that cutting off their genitals and taking dangerous drugs would turn them to women. It would not. They will never be women and the more we help them accept the fact, sad as it may be for them, the better it would be for them in the end.

We're getting down to your feelings here, an as you're not being forcibly transitioned I think its a you problem.

Castrati were considered by some as a 3rd gender in European culture. It was a barbaric practice never-the-less. I mentioned them to show to you that in European culture, 3rd genders didn't work. For other cultures they did.

Castrati were a fashion phenomenon in Renaissance Europe related to music (the operation was illegal). Prior to that castrati were eunuchs, often court slaves with access to women and money: they were castrated for reasons of dynastic security. In neither case was their primary identity sexual, it was an external requirement for earning a living.

"Western Society" has included and excluded intersex as well as other non conforming individuals at different times: the argument for excluding nonconforming people now because of some unrelated past fashion is bizarre. You seem to be confusing your disgust for Renaissance and Enlightenment elites mutilating boys as part of the music industry with individuals seeking to live their lives in the 21st century.

Its not very coherent.

[alhoon]

We're getting down to your feelings here, an as you're not being forcibly transitioned I think its a you problem.

It is not a problem; it is my opinion on how to better help people with gender dysphoria with their problem.


Furthermore, I didn't say we should exclude non-conforming people. I said we should not be lying to them that they can change their gender just because of cosmetic (but dangerous) changes on their bodies.
What I said is we should address the people that DEMAND we lie to the non-conforming people. I.e. the doctors that are too hasty to prescribe gender-changing treatment, from dangerous hormone blockers to surgery and the progressives that demand we enable the lies that some of troubled individuals want to believe about their gender and the laws that demand we address people with their preferred pronouns.

[mishkin]

alhoon, I don't know what to say about the fact that at this point you continue to confuse sex and gender(last example: "change their gender just because of cosmetic (but dangerous) changes on their bodies").

[Muizer]

It seems Alhoon is sticking with the tenet that sex and gender (one thing), both have throughout history been assigned based on the shape of genitalia at birth. Evidently that assignment cannot be changed. So that is what it all boils down to: "now that science has made it possible to change the features that others have historically used to assign both sex and gender for individuals and at birth, can an individual now expect of society to reconsider the assignment also". It's a purely sociological issue. The whole chromosomes angle is a red herring. If that were a criterion for sex/gender roles, then there could not have been any until the discovery of genetics.

[alhoon]

alhoon, I don't know what to say about the fact that at this point you continue to confuse sex and gender(last example: "change their gender just because of cosmetic (but dangerous) changes on their bodies").

There is a difference between confusing sex and gender and a difference between refusing to accept the new fad about gender having a different meaning than sex, or that gender is a social construct while sex is biological. I simply don't accept the social construct aspect of it. In my language, we have ONE world for gender and sex and I think that should be the case everywhere.

I know that in modern (see 21st century) English, gender and sex are not synonymous. Well, I disagree with that development. As I disagree with calling Constantinople as Istanbul just because the country that owns the place decided to change the name, as I disagreed with calling FYROM as Macedonia or closer to my home, literally, I am against calling the gas-station nearby as "Silk-oil" station and I still call it the "Mobil Gas Station" because that was what it was when I came in here, or the name of the cafeteria next door that went from "Flytzana" (big cup) to "Krepitsa" (little Crepe) or something, etc. etc. <== Yes, those two making giving directions harder, when I say "go by the Mobil gas station and stop at Flytzana" only to be reminded that there's not a mobil gas station and no cafeteria called Flytzana. But that's the price of me refusing to change.
I.e. I am against changing the names of things after I learn their names. I am generally against change. It is called "being a real conservative".


The point I am trying to make with this is, nooope, I am not going to change how I use words just because some people change the meaning of words (or the name of places).

[The spartan]

There is a difference between confusing sex and gender and a difference between refusing to accept the new fad about gender having a different meaning than sex, or that gender is a social construct while sex is biological. I simply don't accept the social construct aspect of it. In my language, we have ONE world for gender and sex and I think that should be the case everywhere.

It's a new concept, but it comes with a lot of utility. Gender norms have changed drastically even less than 100 years ago, long hair can be masculine, women can have body hair again. The truth is we base our gender assumptions based on presentation and assumptions rather than innate and immutable characteristics. That's why I can post this picture without violating terms even though they have two X chromosomes and a vagina:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: