Is being Transgender a choice?

[AgnosticBoy]

I'm of the opinion that gender expression is a result of social conditioning. I know I used the word "choice" in the title, but that's only because people tend to associate behavior that can be changed or conditioned as being a "choice" (borrowing from the debate on born this way vs. choice).

In this thread, I want to focus on being transgender. Based on my above opinion, I also believe that being transgender is also a result of social conditioning (i.e. childhood experiences, what they learn from society, etc). If I'm right then I think that the recent focus on transgenderism in the media, in Hollywood, in schools, could lead some children to become transgender. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I also bring these points up because when some parents complain about their kids learning about transgenderism in school, the reaction is that it won't impact (some say "groom" ) the child into becoming transgender. If my view is correct, I think the pro-trans crowd should acknowledge that it can potentially influence children AND there's nothing wrong with that.

For Debate
1. Is being transgender a result of social conditioning?
2. Edit: Removed. Teaching kids about gender identity can be a separate thread.

[Kylie]

Care to link to this study?

This might be it, but I don't keep track of all the sources I encounter.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 32784/full

MIGHT be? How about you go and actually find it, and then come back to me instead of posting random stuff and hoping it says what you want it to say?

Not random stuff. It does say what I claimed. Try reading it.

How about you quote the part of the study that actually shows it then?

[Kylie]

If you aren't aware that there are still a lot of anti gay, anti trans sentiments in society today, then I'd say you are the one who is in a sheltered environment.

That will always exist, but until recently it had reached an all time low. People of opposite political persuasion can hate each other. You can't legislate against hate. Unfortunately, the actions of activists are turning the tide as people become resentful of being forced to accept an ideology that is contrary to reality.

Circular argument. You disagree with it, so you claim it is "contrary to reality" and then you use the claim that it's "contrary to reality" to justify your disagreement of it.

[brunumb]

If you aren't aware that there are still a lot of anti gay, anti trans sentiments in society today, then I'd say you are the one who is in a sheltered environment.

That will always exist, but until recently it had reached an all time low. People of opposite political persuasion can hate each other. You can't legislate against hate. Unfortunately, the actions of activists are turning the tide as people become resentful of being forced to accept an ideology that is contrary to reality.

Circular argument. You disagree with it, so you claim it is "contrary to reality" and then you use the claim that it's "contrary to reality" to justify your disagreement of it.

What are you on about? Your response is not related to my post at all. There is no argument in what I said, just a statement of facts. Perhaps you have replied to the wrong post.

[brunumb]

How about you quote the part of the study that actually shows it then?

It's a very long document. Here is the beginning, which contains the information you requested. As you seem reluctant to read the document, I highlighted just one key sentence for you. You will need to read the rest to understand its significance.

A Follow-Up Study of Boys With Gender Identity Disorder
Devita Singh Susan J. Bradley Kenneth J. Zucker

This study reports follow-up data on the largest sample to date of boys clinic-referred for gender dysphoria (n = 139) with regard to gender identity and sexual orientation. In childhood, the boys were assessed at a mean age of 7.49 years (range, 3.33–12.99) at a mean year of 1989 and followed-up at a mean age of 20.58 years (range, 13.07–39.15) at a mean year of 2002. In childhood, 88 (63.3%) of the boys met the DSM-III, III-R, or IV criteria for gender identity disorder; the remaining 51 (36.7%) boys were subthreshold for the criteria. At follow-up, gender identity/dysphoria was assessed via multiple methods and the participants were classified as either persisters or desisters. Sexual orientation was ascertained for both fantasy and behavior and then dichotomized as either biphilic/androphilic or gynephilic. Of the 139 participants, 17 (12.2%) were classified as persisters and the remaining 122 (87.8%) were classified as desisters. Data on sexual orientation in fantasy were available for 129 participants: 82 (63.6%) were classified as biphilic/androphilic, 43 (33.3%) were classified as gynephilic, and 4 (3.1%) reported no sexual fantasies. For sexual orientation in behavior, data were available for 108 participants: 51 (47.2%) were classified as biphilic/androphilic, 29 (26.9%) were classified as gynephilic, and 28 (25.9%) reported no sexual behaviors. Multinomial logistic regression examined predictors of outcome for the biphilic/androphilic persisters and the gynephilic desisters, with the biphilic/androphilic desisters as the reference group. Compared to the reference group, the biphilic/androphilic persisters tended to be older at the time of the assessment in childhood, were from a lower social class background, and, on a dimensional composite of sex-typed behavior in childhood were more gender-variant. The biphilic/androphilic desisters were more gender-variant compared to the gynephilic desisters. Boys clinic-referred for gender identity concerns in childhood had a high rate of desistance and a high rate of a biphilic/androphilic sexual orientation. The implications of the data for current models of care for the treatment of gender dysphoria in children are discussed.

[Purple Knight]

The first one is merely a statement of fact. It does not hurt anyone. If some individuals gets their knickers in a knot over it, that's their problem, not mine.
The second is a direct incitement to violence driven by hate. It's not okay under any circumstances.

Let's have a thought experiment. I'm God and I want you to use the intellect, thoughtfulness, and reason I see in you, and guide a People as their leader. If you do well, I'll give you immortality and let you help them forever, or as long as you can keep them alive.

So here we are in the infancy of a civilisation when laws are just being smoothed out. You've said something along the lines of, don't hit don't steal, that's the law. Let's say that we're also in a trial period and you haven't said anything like, "I absolutely won't punish anyone for violating a law that's not on the books yet."

So in your infant society, there's one fat person. He's a hard worker and a benefit to your society. There's also this other guy, who's more of an exploiter. He's not as hard a worker as the fat guy, but he gets by. He's actually wealthier than harder workers because he's good at running things. He doesn't break the law. He doesn't hit, and he doesn't steal. But he's a @$$#@)%. But that's okay, right? In your society, it's okay to be rude. In fact, he's probably legally protected. If he wasn't a bit mean, he wouldn't be as good at his job.

So one day this mean guy decides, I'm going to follow the fat guy around and make fun of him. So he does that. He never trespasses. But whenever that fat guy is in a public place, there he is, heckling. He does this until the fat guy hits him. Now he comes to you, and says, "That fat guy broke the law I want him punished!"

This mean guy, well, this is one of the things he's good at: He figures out systems and how to situate himself so that the best benefit from that system, comes to him. That's what I mean by exploiter. The 2nd day a potentially beneficial bug is live in an MMORPG, he's level 12,300,821. He finds it, he sees how to best use it, he maximises his personal benefit.

I've given you the authority to build this society. What do you do with it?

[tam]

Peace to you,

I'm curious where you're going with this so...

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #225]

If your society does not allow people to give a physical response (punching) to harassment, then you have to provide the "fat man" with some other recourse. That would include stating that harassment is not permitted, defining harassment(s), and then defining the consequences of harassment (as well as defining the options available to the victim of harassment).

**

We currently have a system like that in place (I am sure it has short-comings and it varies depending on country/state/province/etc). Included in that system are consequences for breaking the law in response to the harassment... but extenuating circumstances can be taken into consideration on a case-by-case scenario, and that is why there is often a range: min-maximum penalties (and sometimes charges might even be dismissed).

(Systems don't work well in schools with bullying.)

Following someone around could be classified as criminal harassment (stalking) in the system we have in place today.



Peace again.

[Purple Knight]

Following someone around could be classified as criminal harassment (stalking) in the system we have in place today.

It also denies someone the right to be in a place they ought to have a right to be, simply because someone who is there claimed harassment. Imagine what the exploitative man does, if this is implemented. He makes every excuse he can that he is harassed, and makes a point to be where these people need to be, to stop them from being there.

And again, Brunumb, if he is a man of the Rule of Law, cannot get this fellow because he used my godly authority and gave him the restraining order.

Our system needs to be scrapped.

There is, however, a fair way to deal with this.

If I'm ruler, here's what I do.

You want to punch Nazis? Go ahead. If you want to say, those hateful words made me use violence, go ahead. However the Nazi has total impunity when he hits back, because you hit first. If you want to wale on him because he hurt your feels, okay fine, I accept that pain is equal to pain, but if he does not hit back you had better not cause one iota of permanent damage or you're paying him for it. How long did you spend online reading his rant? You had better not beat him for one minute longer. He may have caused you pain, you cause him pain. But if he didn't break bones, you can't either. If he needs stitches, you're paying. And if he fights back and beats the tar out of you, I will not do a single thing except shut down any media outlet that tries to ruin his life.

I would have legalised Nazi-punching. I would also have legalised (and 100% protected) retaliation. In other words, go ahead and start fights. Each side gets to "up the ante" one stage. People who don't violate this get enforced immunity from legal and social consequences. Did his words hurt you? Hit him. Did his fists hurt you? Break his skull. In one generation people will come to their bloody senses.

The problem, as I see it, is that at every stage, the law tries to protect people from the natural consequences of their antagonism, and that makes the only successful strategy, the exploiter, who will carefully cover himself, make sure he follows the letter of the law, and bleed the justice system dry to protect him while he starts fights. I'm just going to let him deal with what he stirs up, and he'll stop.

We live in a society of heroes, everyone pushing and shoving to get a chance to fight that noble fight and stand up for righteousness and justice. But what they want isn't a battle where they put anything at all on the table, one that entails some slight risk to themselves; they want to punch Nazis and have the law stop the Nazis from hitting back. Of course everyone is eager to don a cape in these conditions, when you get all the clout with none of the risk. Make these would-be justicars accept a little risk, and there will be less of them. And that will be a good thing, for them, and for everyone else.

[Kylie]

How about you quote the part of the study that actually shows it then?

It's a very long document.

Yeah, that's why I didn't want to have to read through the whole thing lookign for one little bit.

Here is the beginning, which contains the information you requested. As you seem reluctant to read the document, I highlighted just one key sentence for you. You will need to read the rest to understand its significance.

A Follow-Up Study of Boys With Gender Identity Disorder
Devita Singh Susan J. Bradley Kenneth J. Zucker

This study reports follow-up data on the largest sample to date of boys clinic-referred for gender dysphoria (n = 139) with regard to gender identity and sexual orientation. In childhood, the boys were assessed at a mean age of 7.49 years (range, 3.33–12.99) at a mean year of 1989 and followed-up at a mean age of 20.58 years (range, 13.07–39.15) at a mean year of 2002. In childhood, 88 (63.3%) of the boys met the DSM-III, III-R, or IV criteria for gender identity disorder; the remaining 51 (36.7%) boys were subthreshold for the criteria. At follow-up, gender identity/dysphoria was assessed via multiple methods and the participants were classified as either persisters or desisters. Sexual orientation was ascertained for both fantasy and behavior and then dichotomized as either biphilic/androphilic or gynephilic. Of the 139 participants, 17 (12.2%) were classified as persisters and the remaining 122 (87.8%) were classified as desisters. Data on sexual orientation in fantasy were available for 129 participants: 82 (63.6%) were classified as biphilic/androphilic, 43 (33.3%) were classified as gynephilic, and 4 (3.1%) reported no sexual fantasies. For sexual orientation in behavior, data were available for 108 participants: 51 (47.2%) were classified as biphilic/androphilic, 29 (26.9%) were classified as gynephilic, and 28 (25.9%) reported no sexual behaviors. Multinomial logistic regression examined predictors of outcome for the biphilic/androphilic persisters and the gynephilic desisters, with the biphilic/androphilic desisters as the reference group. Compared to the reference group, the biphilic/androphilic persisters tended to be older at the time of the assessment in childhood, were from a lower social class background, and, on a dimensional composite of sex-typed behavior in childhood were more gender-variant. The biphilic/androphilic desisters were more gender-variant compared to the gynephilic desisters. Boys clinic-referred for gender identity concerns in childhood had a high rate of desistance and a high rate of a biphilic/androphilic sexual orientation. The implications of the data for current models of care for the treatment of gender dysphoria in children are discussed.

I'd doubt that a sample size of 139 is sufficient to determine whether or not that holds for all people who identify as trans.

I'd also like to see how many of those people transition later on. I mean, there could be any number of reasons why the desisted. Perhaps they faced pressure at home or from their peers, and desisted unwillingly. If you look at people when they are older, many of them might have retransistioned.

Also, the age ranges seem a little odd to me. The children were between 3 and 13 years, and the adults were between 13 and 39. I think it';s not valid to consider the results of a 13 year old in the second group with a 39 year old in the second group, particularly when there are some people who are 13 years old in the first group.

Also, I note that the different people were not studied at the same time, so I'm not sure that we can conclude that the results are valid. Different societal pressures could have existed at different times which could have affected the results, and there's no way of knowing that the same conditions for the collection of data from each person were in place.

https://www.kqed.org/futureofyou/441784 ... nder-youth

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/tra ... y-suggests

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ ... transition

[brunumb]

[Replying to Kylie in post #228]

Heaps of claims but no receipts. You get claims like this, and nothing more:

"The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, a nonprofit group of health professionals who are concerned about medical transition risks for minors, said other evidence shows high numbers of kids outgrow transgender identities by puberty or adulthood. Some researchers point to flaws in that data.".

Studies from Europe, including Scandinavia and the UK and even the US are prompting a complete about turn on the notion that so-called "gender affirming care" actually helps. It seems that the best treatment for gender dysphoria is puberty. Blocking this natural biological process actually does more harm than good. People who have had their lives ruined by this ideology are now starting to fight back with legal action. The tide is turning, thank Zeus.

[historia]

I'm not sure that we can conclude that the results are valid.

We have over 50 years of long-term studies showing that on average 80% of young children who experience gender dysphoria will naturally grow out of it as they go through puberty.

This is pretty well established. Even doctors who provide so-called "gender affirming care" admit that the majority of young children with gender-related distress will see that resolve by the time they reach adulthood. So this is not a controversial point.