Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than two sexes

[Zeropoint]

Axton, you really don't look like you're arguing in good faith any more. Maybe you should take a break and re-read this thread when you're calmer.

[Axton]

I'm not un-calm. I just don't take to being flamed, particularly over a differing point of view over a scientific question. There's way too much personal and political investment from formless and Alyrium Den-whatever-I-can't-remember-how-it's-spelled, in this thread. I assume there's some personal catalyst on his/her/their parts for that, but that's not supposed to be injected into an adult conversation on the subject.

Let me repeat, since it seems not to be sinking in:

I'm not judging anyone.

I'm not casting value judgments on anyone. I made that perfectly fucking clear. Don't put words in my mouth, and don't ascribe motives to me that I have not explicitly expressed. You do not have that fucking privilege.

I'm discussing something that, for me, is an abstract question of science. Some of you are getting seriously fucking personally invested in it, to the point of tossing accusations of "-ist!!1" around. I'm not fucking having that.

Alyrium, you say you hold a Ph.D. Unless you're Doogie fucking Howser, I expect you to desist from the "asshole" this and "bigot" that. You're a grownup. Act it.

I don't know about Formless, he or she may be a wet-behind-the-ears child for all I know. But he or she is here, so I'm going to hold him or her to that same standard.

I'm not here to offend you, but at the same time, I don't care if I do offend you, either. Your egos' eggshells don't steer my path.

[Axton]

Anyway, way late now. Going to bed.

[Formless]

Grow a thicker skin, blowhard. The rules of the forum literally contain the words "grow a thick skin." I wonder why *cough*Mockery of Stupid People*cough*.

Go fuck yourself. I mean it. You'll feel better after having a date with rosy palms. It'll make you a hypocrite, but it'll make you feel better.

[Axton]

So never mind this very forum's focus on science, logic, & morality, you're going right to poisoning the well, eh?

Your concession is accepted, junior.

[madd0ct0r]

Guys. Stop feeding the troll.

[Axton]

There's no trolling happening here, shitwit. I posted a dissenting opinion. That's it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And again you're claiming that the mind is independent of the brain. Christer-ville. Bullshit.

No, I am not. You, however, lack the grounding beyond google searches to understand that. A cognitive process that is disordered does not have to have an attendant neurochemical imbalance or anatomical variation. A brain can be functioning normally, but still have disordered thoughts that need to be corrected through therapy. This is because the actual cognitive process happens between groups of neurons and their tiny and flexible connections. Through therapy, it [the brain] can be convinced to switch from one particular connective routing to another. This is why someone who has bad self-esteem is not necessarily clinically depressed. They have just been convinced or have come to believe that they are not as good as everyone else. That can be fixed by convincing them otherwise.

All right, you've named three conditions you contend are not genetically based. Substantiate your claim that they have no genetic indicators.

Situational depression is situational. Everyone gets it.

Addiction is acquired. There might be some genetic predisposition to being vulnerable to addiction, but the chemical imbalance caused by the opponent-process of addiction itself is not genetic. If your brain is not producing endorphines because it is getting its endorphines from opium, it is still a chemical imbalance

Post-Partum Depression is also not genetic.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond ... n-20029130

I assume you'll cite some sources beyond mass consumption soundbites.

Awwww, does the paywall make you sad?

http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article ... eid=497962

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf ... 60.11.2046

As for case studies on transgender people and therapeutic approaches, it was found not to work half a century or more ago. I dont have ready access to those papers. What I do have are the anatomical studies, the existence of which precludes the use of therapy because therapy cannot change brain anatomy.

http://journals.lww.com/neuroreport/Abs ... _in.7.aspx

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0083947

[Formless]

Jesus christ you are stupid, Axton. You need to meet the owner sometime. Unfortunately, Mike Wong no longer lurks his own forum because he got tired of certain people either worshiping him or hating him and never anything inbetween, but he would have metaphorically torn your throat out for even a fraction of the shit you've pulled in this thread, like using the word "corruption" to describe human beings and then having the gall to claim you aren't judging anyone; or using a well known homophobic argument promoted by the Catholic church. He has an entire website dedicated to calling creationists lying assholes for misrepresenting biological science or just science in general. Here is a thread posted by him in the Library subforum of this subforum called The Asshole Debater Checklist. And that was the thread's TITLE. (incidentally, 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 all describe you perfectly) You have no idea the principles of this board. 99% of the time, Honesty > Politeness.

I'm not saying you should accept this treatment. I'm saying that's the way things are around here, there are reasons for that, and you can either accept those reasons or leave. If you keep this up, though, well, people have been banned for this behavior in the past. I'm not a moderator, and that's not a threat. I'm just saying. You should have lurked the forum before even signing up, or at least read the damn rules.

[Axton]

Look, taking all of that and wrapping it in a ball:

Everything mental has its physiological foundation in the brain.

There is nothing the mind does that is independent of the brain. And everything the brain does is predetermined by the anatomical structure of the brain, which is predetermined by its formation and development, which is predetermined by the genetic source material.

There is no "god", there is no "soul", there is anatomy and physiology and neurochemistry, and that is what you are. That and programming via a priori and a posteriori knowledge, that's you. You're a machine, limited by your hardware and software.

[Axton]

I'm not saying you should accept this treatment. I'm saying that's the way things are around here, there are reasons for that, and you can either accept those reasons or leave. If you keep this up, though, well, people have been banned for this behavior in the past. I'm not a moderator, and that's not a threat. I'm just saying. You should have lurked the forum before even signing up, or at least read the damn rules.

Where did you see a complaint, you limp-dicked little mental homunculus? All I said was, you do it to me, you open yourself up to me doing it to you.

[Formless]

You just told Alyrium to stop using the words "asshole" and "bigot," you spineless skinwalker!

[Alyrium Denryle]

You just told Alyrium to stop using the words "asshole" and "bigot," you spineless skinwalker!

I will admit, limp-dicked mental homunculus is pretty good as insults go. Adding "little" to it however just ruins it. He over-extended.

[Axton]

You just told Alyrium to stop using the words "asshole" and "bigot," you spineless skinwalker!

I told him, like I told you, to grow up and stop trying to poison the well or employ the ad hominem fallacy.

Do you know what is, versus what is not, the ad hominem fallacy?

If you say, "1 + 1 = 3"

And I say, "1 + 1 = two, you stupid little weaselfucker!" that is not an ad hominem fallacy, because I'm stating a point and, although I'm insulting you along with stating that point, I'm not insulting you instead of making a point."

If you say "1 + 1 = 3"

And I say, "Fuck you, you're stupid.", that is an ad hominem fallacy, because I haven't addressed your claim.

You've done the same here. You've slung mud without addressing my claims. I've slung mud, too, but I've addressed your claims each time I did that.

You're way more inexperienced than I am at this, regardless of the size of your ego, and you have not been addressing my points commensurate with your slinging of turds. Correct that.

[Formless]

This is basic hypocrisy on your part. When you call me a "limp-dicked little mental homunculus" apparently that isn't an ad hominim, but when I call you a spineless skinwalker suddenly I committed a fallacy. Yeah, take my prior advice and have that date with rosy palms already.

You are right about what an ad hominim is. You are wrong when you claim I used one. I just told you when and where you complained about people insulting you. You focus on the insult and pretend I didn't point out exactly the point where you rewrote history yet again.

[Axton]

This is basic hypocrisy on your part. When you call me a "limp-dicked little mental homunculus" apparently that isn't an ad hominim,

No, it totally is. But let's review who started slingin' that shit first, why don't you.

Because it was you, little buddy. You thought that shit was kosher when I hadn't sparked one fuckin' flame. And now you wanna cry over it?

You dodge all you fucking want, the record is there for anyone to see. You wanna get your shit back on the rails, you knock off the ad hominems and so will I. But as long as you think that grade school playground shit is fair game, well, I'm better at it than you are anyway, so bring it. But my preference is that you make an effort to debate like an adult instead. I'm not here to start shit, but I won't be taking any shit. You wrap your head around that.

[Axton]

Y'all seem to have a generally "new-age-y" perspective on this, so here. Enjoy. Be comforted.

[Thanas]

.....

Sometimes, you have a good sunday and then you get this shit.

Congrats Axton, threadshit accomplished.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm not un-calm. I just don't take to being flamed, particularly over a differing point of view over a scientific question.

Then why did you ever sign up for this website, child?

Despite which, the flaming started differently than you remember. You were actually the first to fling gratuitous insults, when you started comparing transgender people to inbred people, and in particular broke out the stereotype of Appalachian people being inbred. Maybe you thought there were none of either here, so your insult would pass unnoticed and uncared about. Which is untrue, there are prominent posters in both the past and present of this forum who match both descriptions.

But perhaps you thought that both rural Appalachians and transgender people were acceptable targets. Because they're "weird." And children like you just love bullying weird people, don't they?

The first insult directed at you was "For someone who claims not to want to patronize people, you certainly do a good job coming off as a condescending prick." Which was true, child. It was true. I'm hoping you'll learn that. Saying you're not being patronizing is not the same as not being patronizing.

Then I accused you of delusions of divine grandeur, because, well, you were taking upon yourself the rights of a god to pronounce what is and is not 'right' in biology.

The flaming didn't really start in earnest until the third or so round of responses and counter-responses, when people had repeatedly tried to teach you scientific facts and scientific vocabulary you were clearly not aware of, or did not understand. And you had refused to understand them- not just failed to understand, but refused.

I'm not judging anyone.

I'm not casting value judgments on anyone. I made that perfectly fucking clear. Don't put words in my mouth, and don't ascribe motives to me that I have not explicitly expressed. You do not have that fucking privilege.

Poor child thinks that calling people 'corruptions' isn't a value judgment. Poor child thinks that if they say "I'm not judging," that means they're not judging and no one can claim they're judging, no matter what they say.

[Shakes his head]

Poor silly child.

I'm discussing something that, for me, is an abstract question of science. Some of you are getting seriously fucking personally invested in it, to the point of tossing accusations of "-ist!!1" around. I'm not fucking having that.

Alyrium, you say you hold a Ph.D. Unless you're Doogie fucking Howser, I expect you to desist from the "asshole" this and "bigot" that. You're a grownup. Act it.

Poor child didn't read the forum rules.

I'm not here to offend you, but at the same time, I don't care if I do offend you, either. Your egos' eggshells don't steer my path.

Poor child doesn't understand why "do as I say, not as I do" is wrong. Other people hurt poor child's little ego, and poor child lashed out, and now poor child is attributing the crisis to other people's bruised egos.

No, it fucking isn't. Are you dim?

Of course I am, dear child. Of course I am. Does it make you feel better to think I am dim?

The word anomaly denotes that which is not common. If it happens to everyone, it is not, by definition, anomalous. Hands with five digits are not anomalous on human beings. Just one example.

Every person on the planet contains genetic anomalies, because the genetic code is too complicated for us not to. Every person likely contains lethal genes that are "switched off" by random epigenetic happenstance. Every person contains recessive genes that are likely to be counterproductive.

Or are you such a silly child that you believe in genetically perfect humans? Oh, my, are you so lucky as to be one of them? Do you happen to think all the genetically perfect humans come from the same part of the world?

Listen to me: set your identity politics, or your social justice warrior shtick, or whatever the fuck it is that's got your head scrambled like a plate of eggs, aside. You're not dealing with other high school kids here. Okay? So get your shit ironed out and then come back to the grownups, table. Okay? Thanks, pumpkin.

It's cute how it thinks it's at the grownups' table.

Name three chemical imbalances in the brain that are not genetically based.

Why, whatever causes acid flashbacks, for one. Adrenaline releases associated with post-traumatic stress disorder. Aaand everything that happens in a case of adjustment disorder.

See, I can provide evidence to support my assertions about biology, aside from my own delusions of godhood. Can you?

Anorexia and gender dysphoria have some shared symptoms (body dysmorphia). But that doesn't mean they have the same kind of cause or are comparable conditions or should be treated the same way.

Demonstrate why that claim is valid.

I just did, child. I just did.

Conditions with shared symptoms are not necessarily conditions with the same type of cause. And conditions with shared symptoms are not necessarily treated the same way. I proved those things. Therefore I demonstrated that claim. Or did you think that mental conditions are different from bodily conditions in that respect, that bodily conditions can happen for more than one reason and mental ones can't?

Anorexia is the result of the mind, as distinct from a specific chunk of the brain, permanently trapped thinking the body is "too fat-" this becomes an idee fixe that will not go away. It is treated by convincing the anorexic person to change their mind- talk therapy can suffice.

Demonstrate that the mind exists independent of the functions of the brain.

Reread the words "A specific chunk." The mind is a function of the brain, but not every function of the mind can be localized to a specific part of the brain. We can localize the part that causes gender dysphoria, and papers have been published discussing it.

We can't localize the part that causes anorexia nervosa.

Moreover, exhaustive examination of transgender people does reveal the structure in their brain that is causing the dysphoria, while examination of anorexic people does not reveal the structure causing the anorexia. Thus, it is logical to conclude that gender dysphoria is caused by hardware, and anorexia is caused by software.

Which supports basic common sense. There are no examples of a person convincing another person that they are in fact a member of the opposite gender. Not against their will. There are numerous examples of people (or abstract social pressure) convincing people that they are too fat, against their will. This indicates that "I am too fat" is a message you can become 'reprogrammed' to believe without a basis in the mechanical structure of your brain- only chemical changes and switching of neurotransmitters are required, and chemistry is the brain's software, not its hardware. Meanwhile, you cannot become reprogrammed to believe you are female, when you once believed that you were male. This indicates that hardware is involved- or read-only-memory, which amounts to the same thing.

You should be rejoicing- we've found physical evidence of which gender people are!

But oh wait, poor child finds that the evidence contradicts his intended conclusion, and throws away his science fair backboard in a huff. So sad.

By the way, I'll note you didn't respond to my little thought experiment, probably because you couldn't find anything that your child-mind was able to nitpick.

[Thanas]

So....what do you think this accomplished despite baiting an already warned user into another warning?

[Simon_Jester]

My brain did not parse the "threadshit accomplished" post as a specific warning. It did not use the verb "to warn," it did not mention any specific consequences for Axton's bad behavior, and it was only remarkable in any way compared to other posts because I already knew you were a moderator in this forum. Moderators often comment in threads in the forums they moderate, without issuing formal moderator warnings.

You may reasonably argue that it should have been obvious that your post before mine was a moderator warning. My apologies for failing to read between the lines; I should have known that any post expressing your displeasure under such circumstances was to be regarded as a moderator warning.

[Thanas]

I am sorry that you failed to understand that, I will be more clear in the future.

[Axton]

You were actually the first to fling gratuitous insults, when you started comparing transgender people to inbred people...

Which is not an insult; it's a fact. Both are genetically anomalous. If you choose to take offense, I recommend you read Stephen Fry's opinion of the phrase, "I'm offended" -- I share it.

[Simon_Jester]

...That is the only response you have?

[nods to Thanas] I will refrain from making inflammatory remarks, at least until it's clear what the mods think of such a staggering level of "I ignore what people say when I can't think of a way to refute it."

But for form's sake I would like to respond to what he actually said.

Axton, your claim of "it's a fact" is simply false. You think it is a fact, but people who know a great deal about genetics are shooting you down left and right when you try to make "factual" assertions about biology.

Moreover, you are blatantly using "if you choose to take offense, that's your fault" as a stance that allows you to pretend you're being nice and inoffensive, while actually saying things we both know are deeply insulting about 'acceptable targets.' You've been doing this the entire time you've been in this conversation, from your first few posts, and it is a profoundly bad way to approach debate.

Because this idea that you can protect yourself from charges of being hostile towards the people you say nasty things about, by demanding that you didn't mean to be offensive and screaming at anyone who dares to accuse you of being offensive...

That's not how it works. That is simply not how language works, Axton.

Insults remain insults whether I want to admit they are insults or not. It is not a matter of 'identity politics' or 'manufactured outrage' or whatever pretext you use. Namely, the pretext used for claiming others are persecuting you when they object to you saying nasty things about people. If you persist in using words that have negative connotations, and do so regularly (you do), others will not give you the benefit of the doubt. They will assume you were insulting, not because of your persistent poor word choice, but because you actively desire to give offense.

Because seriously, only a complete and utter fool would, while desiring not to give offense, actually keep using words others routinely and normally find offensive. Pretending to be such a fool, or even actually being such a fool, is not a license to behave so foolishly.

...

Now, you have a right to say things that offend others.

What you do NOT have is a right to be taken seriously as worth listening to in a rational debate. Not if you regularly say things that are both false and insulting.

A person who says such things is demonstrating that they do not value truth, and they do not value politeness. Rational conversation requires, at a minimum, either a minimum degree of politeness or a commitment to truth. Preferably both. Anyone who is incapable of bringing either of those to the table simply does not belong at the table.

Now, Stephen Fry might disagree- but Stephen Fry is a professional comedian. Nobody takes him particularly seriously, and he has no right to expect to be taken seriously as a moral authority under normal circumstances. He has achieved the freedom of the court jester- he can say what he wants, and has nothing to lose from saying false or insulting things, because he has no credibility and his words are treated like a bunch of irrelevant wind.

Is that how you want to be thought of?

[Axton]

...That is the only response you have?

[nods to Thanas] I will refrain from making inflammatory remarks, at least until it's clear what the mods think of such a staggering level of "I ignore what people say when I can't think of a way to refute it."

But for form's sake I would like to respond to what he actually said.

Axton, your claim of "it's a fact" is simply false. You think it is a fact, but people who know a great deal about genetics are shooting you down left and right when you try to make "factual" assertions about biology.

Relate, for me, the percentage of people who have inbreeding-related deformities. Then relate, for me, the percentage of people who are anatomically intersexed or, even more broadly, display genetic mosaicism of any kind. They comprise a vanishingly slim statistical outlier, and whether you like it or not, whether it fits your ideologically-based prejudices or not, that is a fact.

Moreover, you are blatantly using "if you choose to take offense, that's your fault" as a stance that allows you to pretend you're being nice and inoffensive, while actually saying things we both know are deeply insulting about 'acceptable targets.' You've been doing this the entire time you've been in this conversation, from your first few posts, and it is a profoundly bad way to approach debate.

Then why do you do it when it suits you, and object to it when I do it? Iron out your stance on this. It's either wrong for both of us, or acceptable for both of us. You choose.

Because this idea that you can protect yourself from charges of being hostile towards the people you say nasty things about, by demanding that you didn't mean to be offensive and screaming at anyone who dares to accuse you of being offensive...

That's not how it works. That is simply not how language works, Axton.

Yes, it is. It takes two for something to be "offensive." It has to be intended to be offensive as well as taken that way. It wasn't intended that way. You chose to take offense where none was given. That's on nobody but you.

Insults remain insults whether I want to admit they are insults or not. It is not a matter of 'identity politics' or 'manufactured outrage' or whatever pretext you use. Namely, the pretext used for claiming others are persecuting you when they object to you saying nasty things about people. If you persist in using words that have negative connotations, and do so regularly (you do), others will not give you the benefit of the doubt. They will assume you were insulting, not because of your persistent poor word choice, but because you actively desire to give offense.

Because seriously, only a complete and utter fool would, while desiring not to give offense, actually keep using words others routinely and normally find offensive. Pretending to be such a fool, or even actually being such a fool, is not a license to behave so foolishly.

I speak my mind, plainly and directly. If you take offense from that, I don't want to hear you ever again accuse me of being "thin-skinned."

...

Now, you have a right to say things that offend others.

What you do NOT have is a right to be taken seriously as worth listening to in a rational debate. Not if you regularly say things that are both false and insulting.

Why not dress that down and just admit to stuffing your fingers in your ears while yelling, "LALALALALALALALALALALALALA!" Because that's exactly what you just excused.

A person who says such things is demonstrating that they do not value truth, and they do not value politeness.

I value truth over politeness. I don't have to be "nice" if I'm right. And I'm right.

Now, Stephen Fry might disagree- but Stephen Fry is a professional comedian. Nobody takes him particularly seriously, and he has no right to expect to be taken seriously as a moral authority under normal circumstances.

Why not, because he's gay? How prejudicial of you.