Gender dysphoria doesn't exist

submitted by SexualityCritical from self.GCdebatesQT

Repost from: https://saidit.net/s/GenderCritical/comments/82f1/gender_dysphoria_doesnt_exist/

The linguistic element to this needs to be addressed first.

The state of being a virgin glaringly exists. When people say 'virginity doesn't exist,' they're not saying that virgins don't exist. Clearly, there are those who haven't engaged in sexual intercourse. What they're saying is that the social construct known as 'virginity' is pseudo-science, that there is no genetic difference between those who've had sex and those who haven't, since the body is unable to biologically recognise 'pre' and 'post' fucked. So, when 'gender dysphoria' is referred to as a myth here, it is, indeed, a myth, but it's not claiming that psychological suffering derived from believing one was supposedly born in the wrong body doesn't exist.

Gender dysphoria doesn't exist, and minus the abuse of labels and terms, including by otherwise pro-science organisations, it's not actually claimed to be a scientific, material phenomenon. Aside from being observed only extremely recently in human history, with zero cases ever found prior to the transgender movement, beginning in the 1970s, and even less, far less, cases prior to the 21th century, which proves it's a cultural invention, not something biological, it's also the case that the medical experts who 'diagnose' someone with gender dysphoria don't claim they've found any gene within them causing such misery, or that a certain genetic arrangement has been found within them, which testifies to the apparent existence of such dysphoria. In other words, dysphoria is not medical, but made up.

A 'diagnosis,' in reference to gender dysphoria, refers to medical experts asking trans-identified individuals questions about their sexual identity, whether they want to be male or female, or if they're non-binary, and considering their responses in relation to suffering. For instance, if a trans-identified girl say she's been experiencing 'discomfort, 'distress,' and 'anxiety' due to longing to be a 'boy,' a doctor, or general physician, will check one of the many boxes for dysphoria. If they receive enough answers of a similar calibre, the child will be classified as possessing 'gender dysphoria.'

Depression is a real thing, and exists purely as a genetic phenomenon. There are two ways of diagnosing someone with depression. The first is the fake diagnosis, a 'pseudo-diagnosis,' if you will. It is asking depression-identified people if they've suffered immensely recently, and can't be happy, no matter the level of good things which enter into their life. There is nothing genetic about this 'diagnosis.' It doesn't actually show if someone has depression, which is the genetic defect of being incapable of being unhappy regardless of circumstances, that is chronic and persistent, but only that someone is, or a bunch of people are, sad. That's it.

The real diagnosis for depression would be to conduct a brain scan, to see which parts of the mind are functioning abnormally. They could inspect it, and find the area responsible for their depression. This actually scientifically proves one has depression.

Gender dysphoria has never, by anyone, let alone medical professionals, been claimed to be materially examined. It is entirely, has always been, based off of subjective responses from institution patients. This doesn't mean they have a sickness, an illness. Get fucked, trans-medicalists. Gender ideology itself, alone, is responsible for the intense misery and misfortunate of all these children and adults. It is telling someone that they supposedly belong in a different body which is causing all this mental trauma. If transgender politics didn't exist, neither would the harm that is gender dysphoria. Since gender dysphoria didn't exist to any extent until transgender-identification ideology sprung about, it is literally trans-identified people, and TRAs, who are the fault for this psychological cruelty.

Done. Someone had to say it.

all 58 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

I feel like it doesn’t make sense to say it isn’t real. Just because something may only exist in a society or has a societal part mean it isn’t real. If you applied the same standard you are trying to apply to gender dysphoria, you’d throw out all sorts of mental illnesses. Very few can be easily located in the brain I don’t think. As u/loveSloane said, it’s a mental condition that exists. How can it exist and not be real?

[–][deleted] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

How can it exist and not be real?

Exactly.

Hysteria was "real" and was written about and diagnosed and treated . . . until we had a far better science-to-supposition ratio going and diagnostics improved. Now we know there are a lot of distinct physiological and psychological issues that present as (what used to be called) "hysteria," and none of them have to do with wandering wombs or whatever else.

Depression is also way more complex than presented, and it may or may not be genetic. Clinical depression can be triggered by genetics, stress, pain, trauma, low light exposure, severe nutritional deficiencies, endocrine and autonomic dysregulation, reactions to nonpsychiatric meds, physical illness, and a whole buncha stuff.

Diagnosing relies on signs and symptoms. Sometimes it reveals an easily identifiable problem (like an easily detected infection). Sometimes it can only describe a syndrome that shows up in a number of people, or a pronounced dysfunction whose causes we don't yet understand (like GD). In no way does that mean that the dysfunction isn't real.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (14 children)

'It may or may not be genetic.'

This is an anti-scientific claim. Depression has long been understood to be virtually entirely genetic.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6065213/pdf/fpsyt-09-00334.pdf

What kind of mental illness is environmentally produced and sustained? If it is, it's not a mental illness, since there's nothing biological about it.

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Depression is not exclusively genetic. Many illnesses are multifactorial. These are well-established understandings.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/what-causes-depression

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (12 children)

'Research shows that the hippocampus is smaller in some depressed people. For example, in one fMRI study published in The Journal of Neuroscience, investigators studied 24 women who had a history of depression. On average, the hippocampus was 9% to 13% smaller in depressed women compared with those who were not depressed. The more bouts of depression a woman had, the smaller the hippocampus.'

Bruh, your own study seems to disprove what you've been saying (though, I must admit, the sample size was pretty small, unfortunately). Additionally, the article you referenced literally showed which exact areas of the brain were affected by depression, meaning that it can, accurately, be neurologically examined.

[–]Juniperius 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Brains are plastic. They change in function, interconnectivity, and size of various areas in response to the environment and habits of the person. If the hippocampus is smaller in depressed people, it could just as easily be an effect of depression, rather than a cause. Furthermore, a) fMRI studies are stupid, they can find what appears to be brain activity in a dead fish, b) 24 study participants is insufficient to draw any kind of conclusion and should only be used to suggest that further study might be interesting, c) one study doesn't mean anything until it has been replicated, it's only when a mass of evidence starts to build up that scientists will begin to treat the hypothesis as being strongly supported.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 10 insightful - 7 fun10 insightful - 6 fun11 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

In one research tram drivers all had similar brain structure.

Tram-driving is the new sex!

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

one study doesn't mean anything until it has been replicated, it's only when a mass of evidence starts to build up that scientists will begin to treat the hypothesis as being strongly supported.

Hugely important point. Cochrane reviews and meta-analyses are our friends.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

'If the hippocampus is smaller in depressed people, it could just as easily be an effect of depression, rather than a cause.'

This would still mean depression is genetic, or else this brain area would not be affected. Also, it was your study, not mine, and it didn't even agree with you. It's still, even with the lackluster sample size, most likely, statistically, that is, the case that the brain is functioning differently when it comes to those with depression. Depression is persistent, what prevents happiness, and is ongoing and continuous, unlike mere sadness. Depression is genetic because if it's not, there's no such thing as depression. What you're referring to, then, is just sadness. Depression should be understood as a disease.

[–]Juniperius 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You should probably go look up the word "genetic" before you try to have this conversation.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I know what genetic means. I know what biology is. Depression is genetic, or else what's being referred to as depression is just intense sadness, or long lasting waves of sadness.

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, you crearly don't. If you want to continue this conversation, I suggest you learn more about genetics, neuroplasticity and how they work. Otherwise, you can expect to keep being corrected.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Suggest you read the entire article for context and clarity on that. And feel free to address your concerns to the authors and editors at Harvard Medical School.

ETA you've formed a conclusion and are cherry-picking evidence to support it. That's backwards sciencing. Also academically dishonest.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (2 children)

Your comment isn't a helpful comment. It's not adding anything to anything. I would advise at least attempting to rebut any of what I've stated.

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The entire Harvard article supports my assertions, which I've already articulated. I stand firmly by my conclusion-to-proof assessment of your reasoning. Please take your trolling elsewhere.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Again, you've made no argument. You claim I'm trolling, while also refusing to engage with any of my ideas. Again, the article you yourself cited does not agree with your beliefs.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

What sort of mental illnesses can't be located in the brain? I mean, you could name some. But, I believe they're either found within a person's neurology, or, they're not mental illnesses at all. I don't believe something should be called an 'illness' unless there exists some sort of medical basis to it.

As stated, while doctors and general physicians might sometimes refer to gender dysphoria diagnoses as 'medical,' there is never the claim from them that a diagnosis involves looking at, A, neurology, or, B, discovering some type of gene, or genetic arrangement, which testifies to the existence of dysphoria. So, in a sense, it's never claimed to be a scientific process. Gender dysphoria doesn't exist, is my claim, in the identical sense to how virginity doesn't exist. I've already explained this part.

[–]Juniperius 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In general, if something can be found in the brain, clinicians will stop calling it a mental illness and start calling it a neurological disorder or something else.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, because what you're referring to than is not a mental illness at all. What do you think 'illness' means?

'A mental illness is a disorder diagnosed by a medical professional that significantly interferes with an individual's cognitive, emotional or social abilities.'

https://everymind.org.au/mental-health/understanding-mental-health/what-is-mental-illness

It can only ever refer to something which is genetic, either entirely or almost entirely. A mental illness is a disorder, and it is always neurological.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nearly all of them! If we could fine something wrong in the body it likely wouldn’t be considered a mental disorder. Anorexia nervosa for instance can’t necessarily be found in the brain, but lots of people still struggle with it. It’s understood by how people behave who have it. Sometimes, we will be able to locate things in the brain that are more likely to be present in someone with a certain disorder, but it’s always a mix of social and other things. Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (which is what I was diagnosed with) isn’t unique in this way. And we’re finding things in the brain for that too. It doesn’t mean that we were necessarily born like this, because brains are very plastic and can change a lot, but it is another indicator that it is a real thing. I feel like the only way your position makes sense is if you just say mental illnesses aren’t real to you.

https://www.eneuro.org/content/6/6/ENEURO.0183-19.2019

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

Maybe you're psychiatry critical and don't realize it? What kind of medical tests do you think are done to diagnose mental illness? You might be interested in hearing Paual Caplan describe her time on DSM committees.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That what happens when your whole healthcare system is privately owned and profit-oriented.

I have only good things to say about how my mental illnesses were treated by social healthcare (and for free) in Eastern Europe - it saved my life, as I completely lost my mind at one point. Not sure if it is because I was lucky to get to good doctors, or because in general it is good here.

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I get the impression you don't know what "genetic" means. You seem to be using it as a proxy for "physical" or "biological."

there is no genetic difference between those who've had sex and those who haven't, since the body is unable to biologically recognise 'pre' and 'post' fucked.

Yes, you're right, there's no genetic difference between those who've had sex & those who haven't. But who on earth has ever said there is? I read widely & so see a lot of loony stuff, but until now I've never heard that anyone is arguing that having sex changes your DNA.

Whilst having sex doesn't change anyone's genetics, it often changes - or reflects a change in - individuals' mindsets, stage of physical & psychological development & level of maturity. Most people remember the first time they had sex & would say this was a milestone of some significance in their lives.

The key difference here isn't between two different population groups, it's between two distinct phases of the lives of individuals.

Whether we first had sex by choice in adolescence or adulthood, we were subjected to sexual abuse as a child, or our introduction to sex occurred when we were raped after turning 18, most of us are able to divide our lives into a before & an after.

the body is unable to biologically recognise 'pre' and 'post' fucked.

You don't seem to realize that legions of girls & women have gotten pregnant the first time they had PIV, whether willingly or by rape. As one of the few posters here who has been pregnant, I can assure you that if "the body" is a female one, there are many ways it can "biologically recognize" the difference between the " 'pre' and 'post' fucked" state.

Similarly, the bodies of male children who have been anally raped by adults or older boys are very often able to "biologically recognize" the difference between the " 'pre' and 'post' fucked" states in their own lives because of the injuries to the anus they endured.

Many people of both sexes have acquired various STDs the first time they had sex. Their bodies certainly can "biologically recognize" the difference between the " 'pre' and 'post' fucked" states" in their lives.

Your comments on depression are ignorant & offensive.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (10 children)

You seem to have contradicted yourself consistently here. First, you state that nobody is stating that there's a biological difference between 'pre' and 'post' fucked, and then, you yourself, go on to state that there is a way to biologically determine whether or not someone has had sexual intercourse.

Firstly, outside of yourself, people have been, and are claiming, that there exists a genetic difference between those who've had sex and those who haven't, in the context of what's known as 'virginity tests.' See, since no one can actually test if someone's a virgin or not, it cannot be biologically recognised, a pseudo-scientific practise has historically, and presently, all unfortunately, been put in place. It never should have, to any degree, since it's a form of sexual assault, and oftentimes rape. It is sticking one's hand, usually two fingers, into a vagina, to see if the hymen has been torn (this is a misconception. Upon engaging in sex, the hymen is not torn, or damaged in any way. Additionally, for when hymens are actually injured, it doesn't have anything to do with sex). Hymens also heal over time, so even if it was injured during past penetrative experiences, it most likely isn't what it used to be upon the vaginal examination. And, to top it all off, PIV isn't the only form of sexual intercourse among opposite-sex sexual partners, as anal sex, finger based sex, and oral sex also exist.

In one study, looking at both rape victims and virgins, the group who haven't engaged in any form of sex (their word of mouth only), 32% of such a group had torn hymens. Likewise, 32% of the non-virgin group, who were all rape victims, had genital injuries. However, it appears that those who've had sex were less likely to have torn hymens, as this, the 32%, refers to all genital injuries, which implies that torn hymens are found in less than 32% of non-virginal patients.

The study: https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jcfm.2006.02.006

Virginity tests are sexual assault, because even though patients can say yes, that doesn't mean they've consented. It is still sexual assault, as the patient, whether or not they've actually had sex, has zero enthusiasm for the procedure, and are only doing it because there's the slim chance the state may prosecute their rapist, if they've been found out to have been screwed. Aside from the state never imprisoning rapists, there's also the reality that, A, virginity tests are pseudo-scientific, and, B, it's still sexual assault, further fuelling the flames of pure evil. Women and girls don't consent to have their vaginas touched, a lot of the time penetrated by a hand, or two fingers, and just do it because that's what physicians have ordered. And girls can never consent to sexual activity, anyway, regardless of contextual circumstances. This is why virginity tests should always be illegal.

I never claimed that a psychological difference between those who've had sex and those who haven't doesn't persist in individuals, on an individual, purely culturally woven level. This is an irrelevant 'point' if you to bring up, as it suggests I don't understand the psychological agony individuals experience as a result of being raped. I clearly do understand this. I understand that alternative mental states are brought about as a means of horrific, non-consensual sexual experiences. However, the differences in question can only be socially recognised, and only if rape victims are honest about their tragic experiences. Biologically, there's nothing different between a rape victim and someone who isn't a victim of rape. If we could actually know for sure if someone had been raped, through biology, we'd know, since biology would be there. As long as it doesn't involve sexual assault, as in the case of the 'two finger' system, it could be a helpful way of getting rapists imprisoned. It's a shame, though, since there is no biological difference. It can't be recognised.

You don't need sex in order to get pregnant. Pregnant simply occurs when a vagina arrives into contact with sperm. Someone could just masturbate onto a leaf, and then hand that leaf to a female individual, for her to pour the sperm into her vaginal opening. It doesn't require PIV, just masturbation. And, even then, not always masturbation, as people can cum as a result of experiencing wet dreams. So, it doesn't even require anyone to touch themselves.

The injuries both children and adults have endured from sex, including rape, are injured which can be discovered upon them without such sex, and oftentimes rape, having occurred. People have injuries in every place on their body, and none of it requires that they engage in sexual acts. People can have injuries on their anus from causes other than sex. The same with literally any body part.

STDs can be acquired outside of sexual acts (contrary to what the name indicates). They can be transmitted via needles, sharing certain hygiene products, transfusions of blood, consuming contaminated food, and the non-sexual touching of skin between individuals.

https://www.better2know.co.uk/blog/7-ways-you-can-catch-an-sti-without-having-sex/ https://www.bustle.com/p/8-stis-you-can-get-without-having-intercourse-7997497

My comments on depression are that of what medical professionals believe. While it's true that depression is often caused by environmental factors in a person's life, the curing of depression is more often caused by genetic alternations to a person's biological system, or the passing of time, as opposed to any environmental life changes. Depression is, in its essence, literally defined by an absence of a person's ability to experience happiness, even while faced with things they love, while committing themselves to things they'll hope will make them happier. That sounds entirely genetic to me.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I will restate my original charge: you don't seem to know what the word "genetic" means.

Biologically, there's nothing different between a rape victim and someone who isn't a victim of rape. If we could actually know for sure if someone had been raped, through biology, we'd know, since biology would be there. As long as it doesn't involve sexual assault

WTF? Rape victims frequently show physical signs of having been raped - bruising & tearing of the genitals & the area around the genitals; injuries to other parts of the body; the rapists' semen, saliva & fingerprints on the victims' bodies; STDs. A female victim of rape might well have become pregnant as a result.

Your contention that rape doesn't always involve "involve sexual assault" is as ignorant & offensive as your comments on depression.

You don't need sex in order to get pregnant. Pregnant simply occurs when a vagina arrives into contact with sperm.

I never said that a female person needs to have sex to get pregnant. In an era of IUI, IVF & turkey baster babies, who on earth would make such a silly claim? I simply said that over the course history

legions of girls & women have gotten pregnant the first time they had PIV

I am simply challenging your preposterous claim that there's no way ever to tell whether individuals have had sex or not because having sex never results in any physical or psychological changes discernible to themselves or others.

As to your claim that "Pregnant simply occurs when a vagina arrives into contact with sperm," LOL, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Depression is, in its essence, literally defined by an absence of a person's ability to experience happiness, even while faced with things they love, while committing themselves to things they'll hope will make them happier. That sounds entirely genetic to me.

Well, if it sounds that way to you in all your obvious wisdom, then what you think is true must be true with absolute certainty. Case closed. LOL.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know why you took my 'involving sexual assault' comment out of context. I presume it was an accident? I doubt you'd be deliberately disingenuous. I stated that any system, which could figure out if someone has been raped, or even more specifically, raped by a certain individual under legal suspicion, that doesn't involve sexual assault, would be a good invention. Obviously, all rape involves sexual assault. I don't really know how you misread my written sentiment, but whatever. You, also, appear to have misunderstood my first statement. I never claimed that rape doesn't create physical injuries for the victim, or that there aren't material scars which have manifested onto the bodies of the victims of sexual violence. Women and men can, and do, have injured genitalia from being raped. Now, the thing is, this is what I was saying, a person can have all these injuries, can have sustained them, from non-sexual activities. Anyone can be injured in an identical way, so there's no method of discovering they've been raped, or have had sexual intercourse. Again, there are zero genetic differences between virgins and non-virgins. Whether one has had sex or not, it cannot be biologically recognised. No technology can scan for this, nor can it be visually determined.

'I simply said that over the course history..." You appear to have cut yourself off here. I believe you were attempting to say something more? Well, anyway, since someone doesn't need to have sex in order to get pregnant, there is no physical evidence which can be pointed to, to show if someone has experienced sexual intercourse, or who has endured any level of sexual touching.

"Pregnant simply occurs when a vagina arrives into contact with sperm," LOL, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about." Yet... you said, "In an era of IUI, IVF & turkey baster babies, who on earth would make such a silly claim?" What? I'm not really sure what you were trying to say here.

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

What are you talking about?! Virgnity tests are bullshit, but they never were about genetics. Genetic is not a synonimous of biological.

You don't need sex in order to get pregnant. Pregnant simply occurs when a vagina arrives into contact with sperm. Someone could just masturbate onto a leaf, and then hand that leaf to a female individual, for her to pour the sperm into her vaginal opening. It doesn't require PIV, just masturbation. And, even then, not always masturbation, as people can cum as a result of experiencing wet dreams. So, it doesn't even require anyone to touch themselves.

LOL

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

What are you talking about? A tear to one's hymen is a genetic occurrence. People who claim virginity tests work claim that there's genetic differences between virgins and non-virgins.

[–]BiologyIsReal 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No, tearing a hymen does not change the DNA and I'm not aware that people who believe in virginity tests think it does. Genetic refers to gen and a gen is the basic unit of hereditary information. Mutations, i.e. permanent changes in the DNA, may happen because of errors during DNA replication or cell division, radiation, certain chemical sustances or virus.

[–]kwallio 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We're arguing with someone who doesn't know shit about biology or genetics again, lol.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

'I'm not aware that people who believe in virginity tests think it does.'

That, right there, is your fault, not mine whatsoever. People who believe in the supposed validity of virginity tests literally believe this, though.

[–]BiologyIsReal 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If they really believe this as you say, then provide proof. Really, though, I think what is happening is that you're misunderstanding what they say because you don't know how genetics works.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What? What's wrong with that statement? I just accurately described how pregnancy can, and does, occur without sexual intercourse, or any sexual touching.

[–]BiologyIsReal 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are replying to this part of my comment just now?!

I get that as a gay man you don't like the idea of having sexual intercourse with a woman, but really... heterosexual people do exist without need of social coercion. How do you think humans could have naturally evolved to reproduce through this convoluted and little intuitive method that you described? Not to mention little effective, too. Do you know that eggs are not hanging around in the vagina?

[–]worried19 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The history goes back further than you're suggesting. We have evidence from at least the late 19th and early 20th century of people who wanted to medically transition.

I think it's a real phenomenon. What I have a problem with is the assertion that having gender dysphoria makes someone a member of the opposite sex. It doesn't. It's simply a strong desire to be. And it has existed since way before the TRA movement started promoting craziness.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

'We have evidence from at least the late 19th and early 20th century of people who wanted to medically transition.'

1: Citation needed (such as names, at least. I can research them from there on). 2: The existence (which hasn't been proven) of trans-identified people doesn't mean the existence of gender dysphoria. There wasn't a gender dysphoria diagnosis until, to my knowledge, 2011.

[–]worried19 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Note, I'm only counting people who sought medical transition. Lili Elbe, Dora "Dörchen" Richter, Alan Hart, look up the work of Magnus Hirschfeld and his institute in Germany.

The term "gender dysphoria" might not have been coined until later, but these people suffered clear distress over their natal sex.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, I know about such people. But, they didn't have gender dysphoria (and nobody can have it anyway, but there wasn't even the claim that they did). And, also, that the transgender phenomenon wasn't a real, properly understood, prevalent thing until the 1970s. Trans-identified people though they were all alone.

[–]Penultimate_Penance 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think it is more accurate to call it sex dysphoria or body dysmorphia more akin to anorexia than anything. If a person was raised alone in a vacuum would she or he have sex dysphoria, anorexia or any other body dysmorphia disorder? We'll never know for sure, but I'd bet a lot less people would.

Social contagion can increase the odds of someone developing symptoms, and culture has a big role to play as well. I do believe that the trans movement is making the problem worse by encouraging people to ruminate about it and embrace it instead of finding healthier ways of coping that don't involve life long medicalization.

So I'd say body dysmorphia disorders are definitely a real thing, but they are inextricably linked to societal influence. There is something very wrong with society when a lot of teenage girls develop anorexia. Likewise there is something horribly wrong with society if a lot of people are damaging their bodies in the pursuit of the impossible goal of changing their sex. The culture at large has catastrophically failed to accept gender nonconforming people as they are, much in the same way it has failed to accept teenage girls and women as they are.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I don't disagree with this assessment.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This is a really interesting take lol

I think there was a post somewhere a while back where someone (I think Masks?) linked an article to argue that trans people’s brains are more in line with the gender they “identify” as, but someone explained that it was actually showing the differences between a dysphoric brain and one with out dysphoria. So I’m wondering if we can actually “see” dysphoria in a brain scan, does that lend credence to it existing?

I could be misremembering the post though

Or misunderstanding what you’re saying here lol

I think dysphoria is “real” in that it’s a mental condition that exists. But I tend to think it’s most often something developed in life rather than something someone is born with. Idk

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

I mean, if someone sends me the study, I can look at it.

However, even though I can't confirm this as a fact right now (due to not looking at the study), I presume what it's saying, and it's projecting hard, that what one identifies as dysphoria causes one's brain to look different temporarily, but it's, in fact, not dysphoria, and just correlates with those who say they have gender dysphoria.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

There have been a few brain scans indicating commonalities among trans women’s brains and differences from male typical brains. There’s been nothing conclusive but I posited that it could be a structural basis for gender dysphoria.

[–]kwallio 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Depression is not genetic. IDK what you mean by genetic but you are not using it as a biologist would use it. Please explain what you mean by genetic. When I say depression is not genetic I mean that people tried for years with millions of dollars in research money to find a genetic link for depression and found nothing. Depression is highly correleated with negative experiences, not genetics.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

Depression is subject to heredity. Those with biological relatives and siblings who have depression are multiple times more likely than the general public to develop depression themselves. To be precise, they're 400% to 500% more likely to have the depression disorder.

https://med.stanford.edu/depressiongenetics/mddandgenes.html

When examining the human genome, it has been found that a variety of genetic factors are directly responsible for an outburst of depression within an individual. Individual genes alone exist, more prominently than any other reason, to incite depression.

https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.10091342

So, yes, depression is genetic. Just because you don't know, that doesn't mean such genetics don't exist.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Depression is subject to heredity. Those with biological relatives and siblings who have depression are multiple times more likely than the general public to develop depression themselves. To be precise, they're 400% to 500% more likely to have the depression disorder

It's true that depression "runs in" families, & that most families consist of biologically-related individuals. But heredity doesn't necessarily mean genetics.

[–]kwallio 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You didn't answer my second question. What do you mean by genetic?

ETA - your sources don't exactly prove that depression is genetic. The first source doesn't give any proof and is imo wrong. It just talks about possible genetic links for depression and how inheritance works. Depression is much more correlated with negative experiences than any particular gene. The other paper is from 2011, the massive study showing that depression is much more related to negative experiences than genetics is much more recent that that. Look, I have depression and follow the news about it. YOu can't just say that depression is genetic and throw out a few sources because let me tell you, people have been trying to find a genetic link for depression for literally decades and have been unable to find it. If what you were saying was true and it was that robust you'd literally be getting a NObel prize or something.

[–]kwallio 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170404092316.htm

The link between inheritance and depression is imo not proved.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

'Researchers have found no evidence that the gene alters the impact stress has on depression.'

This is referring to one (as in, a singular) gene people, researchers and scientists, thought was the cause of stress and/or depression. Dispelling that myth, it's not attempting to say that depression doesn't have heredity-orientated roots. It's not saying what you're claiming.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

No cases before the 1970’s? What? Yes there are, Lili Elbe for one.

Also depression is a purely genetic phenomenon? What?

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

When was Lili Elbe diagnosed with gender dysphoria? Also, I never said there were, literally speaking, zero trans-identified people prior to the 1970s, but that it hadn't taken off until that general date. Before the 1970s, when sex roles had become more nuanced, trans-identified individuals were hidden, an underground phenomenon, and there were almost none of them to begin with.

Depression is genetic. That's the general consensus within medical communities and institutions.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

I assure you it does.

Aside from being observed only extremely recently in human history, with zero cases ever found prior to the transgender movement, beginning in the 1970s

The first SRS like procedure was preformed in the 1930’s and likely would have been popularized earlier than it was if the Nazis hadn’t destroyed Hirschfeld’s work. Gender variant individuals such as the Hijra have recorded history of literally thousands of years.

In other words, dysphoria is not medical, but made up.

Even discounting potential hormonal explainations or external causes, you are essentially arguing all mental issues don’t exist here you realize?

depression … exists purely as a genetic phenomenon.

No. It isn’t purely genetic. Just, wow. Depression doesn’t required a brain scan and can be caused or ameliorated by a variety of factors.

Gender dysphoria has never, by anyone, let alone medical professionals, been claimed to be materially examined.

You mean other than things like the brain scan studies or are you just ignoring those?

Gender ideology itself, alone, is responsible for the intense misery and misfortunate of all these children and adults.

Gender ideology didn’t make me incapable of showering with the lights on before surgery. You are entirely of base.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

I was referring to gender dysphoria, and not claiming that no trans-identified individuals existed before 1970. Yes, I'm well aware of the German institute, and of Hirschfeld.

Would you like to explain what the Hijra? I mean, if you so certainly, definitely, absolutely understand them, what their 'gender identity' means, please, explain what it is, and what a 'third gender' is. If you can't explain it, you can't use it to advocate anything.

All mental illnesses are medical, or else what's being referred to is not a mental illness.

You don't need a brain scan to recognise that someone has depression, but we absolutely needed brain scans in order to determine that depression was a valid, scientific phenomenon, and not made up, so we could separate it from 'long lasting sadness.' People often, correctly, state: 'Sadness is a feeling. Depression is a mental illness.' The two are separate because one is genetic, while the other, largely, isn't.

I don't really understand your last comment. You might want to rephrase it.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

Gender dysphoria is what makes someone trans. The idea that it didn’t exist until 1970 is absolutely ludicrous.

The Hijra don’t feel comfortable living as men, so they shed the male label and live separately in a way that better works for them, more mirroring women . It’s not like they had exogenous hormones available in 2000 BC so they couldn’t change physically like we do now originally though now many do. That seems at minimum a cleat analogue.

I can only assume you are trolling at this point.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

The Hijra referred to, and refers to today in South Asia, to men who don't fit the stereotypical roles associated with their sex. But, in truth, they were still considered men, because the people of India did, and do, recognise biological sex, which they recognise is what makes someone female or male.

It wasn't until the 1970s that trans-identification began to any even microscopically noticeable degree.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You are just factually wrong on both these facts. I won’t be responding anymore because you are either trolling or so like ignorant that meaningful discussion is impossible.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Still no argument from you...