It's been said that when you try to break a law of nature, you only serve to illustrate the law. If you jump off a bridge, you don't break the law of gravity–you illustrate the law of gravity. If you gab a power line with both hands, you don't break the laws of electromagnetism, you demonstrate them. There's a reason why homosexuality is such a disease-ridden activity.
In a way, I'm glad the liberal establishment is pushing the transgender agenda. That has even more potential to backfire than the homosexual agenda. Although sodomy is perverted, it has a basis in reality. Sadly, there really are men who are physically attracted to other men.
By contrast, transgender identity is fictitious. Pretending to be something you're not. When fiction collides with reality, reality wins every time.
The transgender agenda is totally unworkable in practice, and that's becoming quickly evident. Take the "right" of grown men who "self-identify" as female to use the women's (or girl's) locker room. Many people, not just right-wingers, rebel it that.
But that's not where it ends. Take a physiologically male patient who "self-identifies" as female. "She" goes to the doctor. The doctor diagnoses "her" as suffering from stage-1 testicular cancer. He advises an aggressive course of treatment.
Or take a physiologically female patient who "self-identifies" as male. "He" goes to the doctor. The doctor diagnoses "him" as suffering from stage-1 cervical cancer. He advises an aggressive course of treatment.
But isn't that transphobic? I mean, it's not as if "she's" really a man. It's not as if "he's" really a woman. To say so is grounds for termination.
So what is oncology supposed to do in that situation? Is gender objective? Is gender grounded in physiology? Or should we fire an oncologist who gives a patient "offensive" medical advice about the gender-specific course therapy which the patient must undergo to survive? Should oncology be outlawed?
For that matter, isn't gynecology transphobic? If gender has no objective physiological basis, if gender is just a social construct, then isn't gynecology a hate crime? Should gynecology be outlawed?
Or take endocrinology. Since men and women produce different hormones, I assume an endocrinologist must take that into account when treating his patients. But what if a man self-identifies as a woman, or vice versa? Is the endocrinologist allowed to state the obvious, or is giving sound medical advice now grounds for revoking his medical license because the patient was offended by his politically incorrect diagnosis? If gender no longer correlates with physiology, where does that leave medical science?
If you would have bothered to actually talk to some trans people, you wouldn't have bothered to write such an ignorant article. Seriously, I'd be ashamed of myself if I wrote something this misinformed.
ReplyDelete"If you would have bothered to actually talk to some trans people, you wouldn't have bothered to write such an ignorant article. Seriously, I'd be ashamed of myself if I wrote something this misinformed."
DeleteOn the plus side, and however misplaced, I guess it's good to see you have a sense of shame.
While I'd like to say it was enjoyable reading something written by someone who is blatantly clueless and ignorant concerning the subject mater---- good grief, man. ("man" <-- see what I did there!!)
ReplyDeleteYou should try *some* research and investigation into a topic before punishing your keyboard and everyone's brains with such posts.
"Have" "a" "pleasant" "day", """sir"""
No logic or reason or even an attempt at argumentation. Just an emotional tirade. Perhaps your hormones need to be checked.
DeleteA viciously hilarious response concerning ^*this* article. [small round of applause]
DeleteIf you actually defend the nasty, ignorant, hateful words such as the ones Steve wrote here... then there's certainly nothing *I* could say to you. Enjoy misplacing useful energy towards groups that don't warrant it.
Have a good one~
Translation: I have no argument..
Delete"If you actually defend the nasty, ignorant, hateful words such as the ones Steve wrote here..."
DeleteI suppose the Groucho glasses mask the truth: you're still far too emotionally worked up, ranting and raving about "nasty, ignorant, hateful words" without actually bothering to explain your reasoning for why you think so.
In any case, it's (deliciously) ironic someone who believes another person's words are "nasty, ignorant, hateful" is himself making use of "nasty, ignorant, hateful" words to say so.
"then there's certainly nothing *I* could say to you."
Phew! Good thing I don't live for your approval.
"Enjoy misplacing useful energy towards groups that don't warrant it."
It's a further irony you obviously believe Steve is in a "group" that doesn't "warrant" "misplacing useful energy," yet here you are "misplacing useful energy" to comment!
Good job, St. Nimbus! :-)
JD and St N seem to think there's something wrong with being nasty, ignorant, hateful. If they're atheists they have no sensible grounds for saying anything is wrong. If they claim to be Christians then they're in serious denial about what the Bible says.
Delete"No logic or reason or even an attempt at argumentation."
ReplyDelete"Translation: I have no argument.."
What, exactly, are we supposed to be arguing against? This entire blog post is a series of unsupported claims interspersed with snark and ridicule for LGBT people. I mean, I could point out how ridiculous some of those claims are. Like so:
"There's a reason why homosexuality is such a disease-ridden activity."
It's not. Promiscuity is. Heterosexuals and homosexuals who are promiscuous are both at greater risk for disease. And heterosexuals and homosexuals who are *not* promiscuous are both at lower risk for disease. Remember, the cause of disease is bacteria or virus. Disease doesn't just magically materialize because two people touched each other and happened to be of the same sex.
"By contrast, transgender identity is fictitious."
It's not. Gender dysphoria is well-recognized and well-documented in psychology.
"But isn't that transphobic?"
It's not. Trans people are not so stupid as to deny having cancer when a doctor tells them they do. To suggest that they are so stupid is to disrespect them. Maybe you're ok with that, but if you care at all about people, you shouldn't be.
Not to mention, the whole post is full of hilarious scare quotes. That's not something that can be argued against, because it's not itself an argument, or even a claim. It's just propoganda. And furthermore, as I hinted at in my original comment, the author of this post clearly didn't do any research on what trans people actually think, and made no effort at all to accurately represent them.
Of course, I have my suspicions that no amount of argument will ever satisfy some people.
@ John Doe
Delete1. I'll just note in passing you use quite a bit of space to complain there's precious little to argue against.
2. However, you do bring up two points worth discussing. I'll address them now.
3. Here's the first:
[Steve:] "There's a reason why homosexuality is such a disease-ridden activity."
[John Doe:] "It's not. Promiscuity is. Heterosexuals and homosexuals who are promiscuous are both at greater risk for disease. And heterosexuals and homosexuals who are *not* promiscuous are both at lower risk for disease. Remember, the cause of disease is bacteria or virus. Disease doesn't just magically materialize because two people touched each other and happened to be of the same sex."
a. Steve didn't say anything about promiscuous heterosexuals in this post. He certainly didn't say promiscuous heterosexuals aren't at risk of sexual disease. So the comparison is neither here nor there. It's just a straw man for a separate issue.
Or to put it another way, the fact that promiscuous heterosexuals are at high risk of sexually transmitted diseases doesn't mean homosexual sexual practices don't put one at risk for sexually transmitted diseases. Again, the two are distinguishable issues.
b. All things equal, men having sex with men is quite arguably medically riskier than men having sex with women. That's because heterosexual men generally have vaginal sex with women, whereas homosexual men generally have anal sex with men. For instance, here's an excerpt from WebMD:
An estimated 90% of men who have sex with men and as many as 5% to 10% of sexually active women engage in receptive anal intercourse...
There are a number of health risks with anal sex, and anal intercourse is the riskiest form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following:
* The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has.
* The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus.
* The anus was designed to hold in feces.
* The anus is full of bacteria.
Anal sex can carry other risks as well. Oral contact with the anus can put both partners at risk for hepatitis, herpes, HPV, and other infections.
Even though serious injury from anal sex is not common, it can occur. Bleeding after anal sex could be due to a hemorrhoid or tear, or something more serious such as a perforation (hole) in the colon. This is a dangerous problem that requires immediate medical attention. Treatment involves a hospital stay, surgery, and antibiotics to prevent infection.
c. Of course, it's possible homosexuals engaging in anal sex practice "safe" anal sex (e.g. using condoms). But how many actually do this?
DeleteNot to mention even using a condom in anal sex is far from full proof (e.g. it's arguably easier to tear a condom in anal sex than it is to tear a condom in vaginal sex).
And as alluded to above, many homosexuals have admitted they engage in sexual practices like rimming which possess precious little in terms of health safety.
d. Homosexual men further have increased rates of anal carcinoma (and not just in the HIV infected but also the non-HIV infected). The presumed main cause is infection with human papilloma virus (HPV) which seems to progress from anal dysplasia to anal carcinoma (similar to how cervical HPV infection progresses to cervical carcinoma in women) (Palefsky, "Anal human papillomavirus infection and anal cancer in HIV-positive individuals: an emerging problem," AIDS, 1994).
e. As a side note, you're wrong about "the" cause of disease" it's not limited only to "bacteria or virus." There are a lot of other causes of disease - e.g. cancers, autoimmune diseases, etc.
f. The risk of breast cancer in homosexual women who have sex with women is estimated to be as high as 1 in 3, which stands in contrast to the 1 in 8 risk of breast cancer in women overall (Haynes, "Risk of breast cancer among lesbians," presented at Cancer and Cancer Risk Among Lesbians, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, 1994).
g. The risk of developing ovarian and endometrial cancers is also increased in homosexual women due to associated risk factors (Dibble, Roberts, Robertson, & Paul, "Risk factors for ovarian cancer: lesbian and heterosexual women," Oncology Nursing Forum, 2002).
h. Pathogens can be transmitted from woman to woman through sexual behaviors like finger-to-vagina contact or sharing sex toys without cleaning the toys and/or without the use of condoms (and it's possible homosexual women have a lower likelihood of using condoms during sexual intercourse than homosexual men).
i. Fingers and sex toys can transmit bacteria from anus to the vagina since the two are quite close to one another. (In fact, this is why during pregnancy an episiotomy is sometimes performed as a prophylaxis to prevent a vaginal tear into the anus/rectum.)
j. Another question is, what are the stats on homosexual promiscuity? I don't necessarily vouch for this, but here's one place a person could begin with:
http://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity?
4. Here's the second:
[Steve:] "By contrast, transgender identity is fictitious."
[John Doe:] "It's not. Gender dysphoria is well-recognized and well-documented in psychology."
a. I'm not suggesting the following is analogous to your statement, but I'm instead examining the logic of your statement. In the past, phrenology was "well-recognized and well-documented" in medical science. What would this prove about phrenology?
b. Psychiatrists argue among themselves over this very topic, including over the definitions provided in the DSM-5.
c. You're equivocating: gender dysphoria isn't identical to transgender identity. For example, many transgender people don't believe gender dysphoria is inherent to being transgender.
John Doe "What, exactly, are we supposed to be arguing against? This entire blog post is a series of unsupported claims interspersed with snark and ridicule for LGBT people."
Deletei) In one respect, I can no more "ridicule" trans people than I can ridicule leprechauns. They don't exist.
ii) I suppose I could ridicule people who act like leprechauns. It's not necessarily wrong to ridicule people who say and do ridiculous things.
iii) If a guy believes he's Superman, and tries to prove it by jumping off a bridge, should I applaud him or tackle him? Which is more compassionate? To let him jump or rescue him? "It's not. Promiscuity is. Heterosexuals and homosexuals who are promiscuous are both at greater risk for disease."
So anal sex is healthy? It's just promiscuous anal sex that's unhealthy? If you have just one sexual partner who sodomizes you many times rather than many sexual partners who sodomize you one time apiece, that's healthy?
Is that why homosexuals undergo so many colectomies? Because they practice promiscuous anal sex rather than monogamous anal sex?
Is monogamous scat and rimming healthy? Is it just promiscuous scat and rimming that's unhealthy?
Why is AIDS far more common among promiscuous homosexuals/bisexuals than promiscuous heterosexuals?
"Gender dysphoria is well-recognized and well-documented in psychology."
i) So you're admitting that trans people are mentally ill?
ii) Of course, psychology is highly politicized.
"Trans people are not so stupid as to deny having cancer when a doctor tells them they do."
The issue is how they should respond to a *gender-specific* cancer diagnosis that's *at odds* with their "self-identified" gender.
John Doe
Delete"Gender dysphoria is well-recognized and well-documented in psychology."
The same claim was made for "repressed memories" of ritual Satanic abuse.
It's easier for many if not most women than men to get diseases during sexual intercourse (e.g. UTIs, STDs). This is due to several different reasons. For starters, the female urethra is significantly shorter than the male's so pathogens don't have to travel as far. Also, in women pathogens can more easily migrate from the urethra and deeper into her body (e.g. bladder) during sexual intercourse, whereas in men the semen tends to carry organisms like pathogens in the urethra away from the body, not "into" the body. Plus, the female urethral and vaginal linings are much easier for bacteria to attach themselves to. There are other reasons, but I think these are the main ones.
DeleteIn heterosexual intercourse, the woman is generally at higher risk for STDs than the man due to the aforementioned factors in the above paragraph. If the man has an STD, then there's a higher chance the woman might receive it. If the woman has an STD, then it's more difficult for the man to receive the STD. If neither has an STD, it's unlikely for them to get an STD. But it's possible the STD is on some surface or the like that one of them contacts, and the woman would generally be more susceptible than the man.
However, in sexual intercourse between lesbians, both women could be at risk for STDs. If either lesbian has an STD, then it's possible for both to get it. Especially if they perform the sorts of (deviant) sexual practices reportedly common among lesbians. If neither has an STD, then neither may get an STD. But it's possible for the STD to be transmitted to one of them via some surface or the like, and then for the one woman to infect the other.
Pretty funny how Skepticism First (John Doe) "translates" what I said in this way: "translation of last paragraph: 'lesbian bedsheets are covered in AIDS'"
DeleteOnly to then take issue with his own "translation": "for f***s sake!"
I guess it's Skepticism First vs. Skepticism First! :-)