Former Stake President Excommunicated for being a woman.

[_Jersey Girl]

For 2 cents and an interest in investing time doing so, I would snatch up your remarks throughout this thread that serve as evidence of your indifference to these issues, WD.

As I see it, you're just one notch above MG because you at least look like you're attending or making an argument.

[_Jersey Girl]

We've descended into cat toy territory now...

Gender is in your head.
Sex is in your pants.

If independent, why cross dress, chop off functional organs, and so on?

Hello MG WD,

First, let's get out the way that no one chops off their functional organs. These are complex surgical procedures and chemical solutions. Your describing them as "chop off" is one of a multitude of crass and base comments you have made regarding the topic. If you're going to sit at the grown up table, try to communicate like a grown up. If you want to communicate like a 13 year old adolescent boy child, keep going.

Now, let me answer your question so even a moron could understand the answer.

Gender is in your head.
Sex is in your pants.

Q: If independent, why cross dress, chop off functional organs, and so on?

A: Because gender is in your head and sex is in your pants. When what's in their head doesn't match what's in their pants, some people choose surgical procedures and lifestyle changes so that the way they relate to and engage the world (their head) matches what's in their pants. Because who they are in their head constitutes their self concept. What's in their head is who they really are. Grown ups refer to these folks as...

What's the word girls and boys?

TRANS-GENDER.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The Brown Shirts have been hard at work attacking JHU and McHugh over all this.

Dude. You can't even get your rhetorical device right. FFS. You do know what "brownshirts" did to trans people, right?

You've really gone into Majax territory, my friend.

- Doc

[Guest]

You say "Johns Hopkins has disavowed" him, which isn't true. That isn't how things work. Other individuals, who also happen to be faculty at Johns Hopkins, expressed disagreement with him in an oped in a newspaper.

I stand corrected [correction is bolded below]:

Nearly 700 members of the Johns Hopkins community have formally called for the Baltimore-based university and health system to distance themselves from “a misguided, misinformed attack on LGBT communities.”

...Signatories on a formal petition coordinated by Johns Hopkins School of Medicine alumnus, physician and researcher, Carl Streed, Jr., include 264 Hopkins alumni, 200 current students, 30 faculty members, and more than 100 staff, medical interns, medical residents and fellows.

a few more:

In addition, last week, three Hopkins professors published a Baltimore Sun op-ed raising questions about the New Atlantis report’s credibility and concerns that it “could further stigmatize and harm the health of LGBTQ communities."

continuing:

Gender and sexuality researchers, including some of those cited in the report, have called out its serious flaws. Among them is distinguished geneticist and scientist emeritus at the National Institutes of Health, Dean Hamer. Hamer, whose career has included key publications on the relationship between genes and sexual orientation, says McHugh and Mayer “twisted and misinterpreted” legitimate research to their own ends.
http://www.Hillary Clinton.org/blog/johns-hopkins-c ... btq-report

And to repeat a little background regarding the science, since I don't think WD read it:

The paper was published in The New Atlantis, which is not a peer-reviewed medical journal, where reports by members of the Johns Hopkins team might normally be found. Instead, it’s the product of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), a Christian-focused conservative think tank “dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical areas of public policy.”
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

Further background:

While the report’s falsehoods attack the entire LGBTQ community, [author]McHugh’s history reflects particular animus toward transgender people, collaborating with an organization designated a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center to attack trans kids and penning opinion articles mocking people who transition as “caricatures,” “counterfeits,” “impersonators,” “confused” and “mad.”
http://www.Hillary Clinton.org/blog/johns-hopkins-c ... btq-report

this might explain WD's misunderstanding of the JH connection:

Because McHugh and Mayer lack research experience on gender and sexuality, and since the report was published in a magazine rather than a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it would normally be ignored beyond the authors’ fringe anti-LGBTQ circles. However, McHugh and Mayer have drawn on the Johns Hopkins name to persuade readers to take them seriously, leading numerous reporters to describe the article as a “Johns Hopkins study.”
http://www.Hillary Clinton.org/blog/johns-hopkins-c ... btq-report

And since WD doesn't like articles published on huffington post, let's see what Scientific American has to say about the science:

Yet a new study published in the fall issue of the nonpeer-reviewed journal The New Atlantis by Johns Hopkins University's Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh on “Sexuality and Gender” claims that “our scientific knowledge in this area remains unsettled,” that there is no “scientific evidence for the view that sexual orientation is a fixed and innate biological property,” and that no one is “born that way.” This sounds so 1990s, the last time the gender wars heated up. What's going on here?

One clue comes from the journal's co-publisher, the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), “dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy.” Already we're off the science page.

...[A]ccording to geneticist Dean Hamer, emeritus at the National Institutes of Health, “[the article] is a selective and outdated collection of references and arguments aimed at confusing rather than clarifying our understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

For example, Mayer and McHugh claim that the concept of sexual orientation is “ambiguous” and that there are “no agreed-upon definitions for purposes of empirical research.”

Not so. The American Psychological Association defines sexual orientation as “an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes,” and as Hamer points out, sexual orientation is far ess “ambiguous” than personality traits like “self-esteem” and “warmth” that scientists study without religious and political ramifications.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ientation/

bottom line, WD, you are using a single, non-scientific, thoroughly refuted reference to inform your state of mind.

And you still haven't explained what about this topic makes you feel neutered.

[_Lemmie]

Water Dog, please post links if you are going to just copy paragraphs from an article. In between your "translations" below is copyrighted work that you are not attributing.

For example one psychiatrist responds, "Does his report actually offer alternatives?...Because I don’t know of anybody who’s discovered a way to actually talk a transgender person out of their gender dysphoria."

Translation: Of course I haven't read the bill, did you see how long that thing is? We gotta pass the bill before we figure out what's inside it!

Or another person, "He’s right in the sense that there’s not as much data as, sure, probably everyone would wish that we had...I think that’s true probably of nearly everything that involves the medical industry, right? We don’t have all the slam dunk studies done."

Translation: Yes, we could be totally wrong and this might lead to bad consequences. But hey, the drug companies do the same thing, so it's cool, right?

Or Chris Beyrer, who is a gay man and McHugh's most vocal critic, "It’s sort of the usual junk science, cherry-picking data, outdated theories...It got picked up, and it is basically being used to say, ‘Johns Hopkins agrees that sexual orientation is a choice that can be cured, that transgenderism is an illness.’ If somebody were putting forward the intellectual inferiority of women compared to men, or blacks are inferior to whites, it would be hard to argue that they had the academic freedom to do that ... That’s junk science. And that’s how it feels from an LGBT perspective."

First, he completely mischaracterizes what McHugh has said. Second, this point he makes is pretty interesting. He flatly says that if someone had credible scientific evidence that race is tied to intellectual differences it should be ignored and buried. This is the reaction of a partisan, not a scientist following the evidence wherever it leads. He proudly politicized so-called "science."

Translation: I'm a gay man with a massive inferiority complex and I have dedicated my entire life to proving there is nothing wrong with me. Incidentally, gender studies as a field is dominated by people like me..

And your last translation is just flat out ignorance and bigotry. From the article you did not attribute:

Chris Beyrer, an epidemiologist who specializes in LGBTQ health issues at Johns Hopkins

https://undark.org/article/gender-lgbtq ... h-science/

[_Lemmie]

Actually I think Lemmie reduced the problem to its shortest form, so to speak. Of course you can imagine others being tricked which is why I would never ask if you can imagine others being tricked.

Thanks Gad, I had hoped I was expressing your concept correctly. It brings up an interesting point I learned when I was looking into some research that might explain this bigotry and fear of being neutered:

....[N]egative views of transgender people have long been posited to reflect a belief that transgender people are deceiving themselves and others by pretending to be something they are not....

from the same article, this seemed pertinent also:

For men, by contrast, transgender attitudes may serve other psychological functions. For example, they may arise from a need to reduce the anxiety that results when gender and sexual boundaries are blurred (a defensive function) or a need to be accepted by peers (a social expressive function).

Heterosexuals’ Attitudes Toward Transgender People: Findings from a National Probability Sample of U.S. Adults, June 2013
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 011-0110-6

[_Jersey Girl]

For men, by contrast, transgender attitudes may serve other psychological functions. For example, they may arise from a need to reduce the anxiety that results when gender and sexual boundaries are blurred (a defensive function) or a need to be accepted by peers (a social expressive function).

Heterosexuals’ Attitudes Toward Transgender People: Findings from a National Probability Sample of U.S. Adults, June 2013
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 011-0110-6

This.

[_DoubtingThomas]

He can't even comprehend what he himself posted. Let go or be dragged, DoubtingThomas.

Yea, I probably should let go.

[_Xenophon]

The back and forth here has been interesting to follow. Thanks to all for posting so much information.

Related to this topic, there is an AMA over at reddit that looks to be pretty promising. At 12pm EST today over on r/science there is going to be a Transgender Health discussion facilitated by Joshua Safer, Medical Director at the Center for Tansgender Medicine and Surgery at Boston Medical Center.Currently only the questions are posted, but if they are any indication the discussion looks to be pretty solid.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

by the way, still not a single shred of actual scientific evidence presented to support the idea that this male is actually a female.

I agree.

I am very open minded.

I am all for a man who says he wants to be recognized as a man who dresses like a woman. Drag queen, cross dresser, whatever. Vica-versa for the girls who want to be seen as more masculine.

Just don't ask me to recognize a person born as a male to be called female or a person born as a female and wants to be called a male.

What about that woman, Rachel Dolezal, who was born WHITE but has attempted to "identify" as black?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

Does she get a pass?

Or how about the fake war veterans walking around in real uniforms full of medals?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_imposter

Hand them a pass??

How far does this go?



Do we allow Dennis Avner to force the public to recognize him as a tiger or cat???

Oh DEAR! Rumor has it that he committed suicide! This is serious. We must allow people to be recognized for identifying across species!