It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Debunkology
originally posted by: ketsuko
They know that gender is solely in the brain, and therefore, it is 100% subjective.
Not true. Sex represents gender. The people with gender dysphoria are uncomfortable in their bodies and believe they should be the opposite SEX.
99.9% of the human race has either the MALE or FEMALE chromosome which is in nucleus of every single cell in their entire body. Never a mixture of the two unless on very very rare occasions in which a person is intersex.
There is no difference between species dysphoria and gender dypshoria. There is absolutely no difference between a boy who thinks he should be a male chimp, and a a boy who thinks he should be a girl.
originally posted by: Wardaddy454
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Wardaddy454
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: ketsuko
I find it amusing how as this fake debate rages on, the potential society upending threat has been winnowed down to men walking into women's locker rooms.
It's like conservatives are stuck on the plot of some campy 80's movie.
What laws were on the books this time last year that prevented men from entering women's locker rooms that have been circumvented by this "giant loophole" you speak of? I'm pretty sure that loopholes require laws to exist in the first place. How would these laws even be enforced?
Are we going to have frantic calls to 911 about suspected interlopers?
"She says her name is Anne Coulter and that she's a female but I just... I just can't be sure. Her hands are huge. Please send help quickly! Society is in immediate danger of being upended."
What a Transgender thinks.
*Drops Mic*
Were you totally surprised to find a trans* person who espouses standard right-wing rhetoric?
LOL.
You might also be surprised that there are also Americans who are gay, Black, Latino, lower and middle income White and Women who also support politics that are not in their own best interests.
Every demographic has outliers.
*puts mic back on stand*
Nope, just found a Transgender who points out the actual issue. But sure, its "standard right-wing rhetoric".....You really are the problem LOL.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Wardaddy454
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Wardaddy454
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: ketsuko
I find it amusing how as this fake debate rages on, the potential society upending threat has been winnowed down to men walking into women's locker rooms.
It's like conservatives are stuck on the plot of some campy 80's movie.
What laws were on the books this time last year that prevented men from entering women's locker rooms that have been circumvented by this "giant loophole" you speak of? I'm pretty sure that loopholes require laws to exist in the first place. How would these laws even be enforced?
Are we going to have frantic calls to 911 about suspected interlopers?
"She says her name is Anne Coulter and that she's a female but I just... I just can't be sure. Her hands are huge. Please send help quickly! Society is in immediate danger of being upended."
What a Transgender thinks.
*Drops Mic*
Were you totally surprised to find a trans* person who espouses standard right-wing rhetoric?
LOL.
You might also be surprised that there are also Americans who are gay, Black, Latino, lower and middle income White and Women who also support politics that are not in their own best interests.
Every demographic has outliers.
*puts mic back on stand*
Nope, just found a Transgender who points out the actual issue. But sure, its "standard right-wing rhetoric".....You really are the problem LOL.
"No, you're the problem. Nyah."
Trans* folks constitute, on a low estimate about 1% of the population, give or take.
So your claim is that 1/3.3 M is "significant"?
Again, 856,784th verse same as the first: Confirmation bias
856,784th verse same as the first
originally posted by: mouthfullofkefirgrains
youtube: Gay science is all fake, how gays control psychology
youtu.be...
Gay activist are very fond of throwing science into the face of all that disagree with them. The only problem is--that "science" is FAKE. Dr. Nicholas Andrew Cummings explains in great detail how gay activist got into control of American psychology in the 1970's and manipulated it from then on for political gain, making sure that being gay was never actually studied and thereby no actual scientific results were ever produced.
THIS IS IMPORTANT! This isn't just any old doctor, THIS IS THE MAN that made the resolution that declassified homosexuality as a mental illness, WHICH IS THE REASON SO MANY PEOPLE IN AMERICA THINK THAT THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING GAY, AND THAT ANYONE WHO DOES IS A CAVE MAN. When Dr. Cummings, as president of the American Psychological Association (APA) made the resolution it was stipulated that honest and open unbiased research would be done on the subject to make sure that this change was accurate scientifically. THAT RESEARCH WAS NEVER DONE.
In those days the American Psychological Association had a rule called "The Leona Tyler Principle," that stated that all findings would be based on "scientific data and demonstrable professional experience." After the decision to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness was made, gay activist and their allies gained control of the APA and from then on all findings were cherry picked in favor of what these people wanted the information to say to serve their political needs. The Leona Tyler Principle not only ceased to be followed, it was wiped from the annals of the APA, and with that, dedication to reason and logic stopped. Political stances overrode scientific results, and as time progressed it became about building the case for homosexuality as a civil rights issue, instead of about studying homosexuality scientifically.
Its important to realize that this doctor is not an extremist. He is not even against gay marriage. He is just dedicated to science and thinks that results that are purported as scientific ought to actually be scientific.
originally posted by: Deaf Alien
Oh yeah we're getting tired of the far right Fundamental Christians making issues up like this. They are sore losers in the gay marriage and they've decided to attack the transgender people because it's election year.
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
So while Obama and the rest of the nut cases have no problem committing child abuse (using the words from this article), the American College of Pediatricians says to "reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex.".
So who to believe...a liar or Pediatricians? Not too difficult.
Some of the covered subjects:
A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking.
According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.
Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT – affirming countries.
Here is the article: ACPEDS.org
I think that the source, the information etc. basically ends any argument. What do YOU think? And you might want to keep in mind that these people are educated Doctors, not emotional and potentially emotionally impaired.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: jimbo999
Do you belief religious people have the right to be religious? Or is it a psychological problem that should not be catered to?
I didn't say social engineering was kooky. I said the idea of the government trying to bring down western democracies was kooky.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
8snip*
Well then, let's go after the real danger to children, eh? One substantiated over decades?
There is overwhelming evidence that some priests, pastors and others in religious authority regularly molest children of all sexes.
Shouldn't we close the churches because of this very prevalent and long-standing trend? "For the children?"
What rank absurdity! Of course not.
The source of all this hysteria is that some fundamentalists and some conservatives have been utterly devastated that civil rights and equal rights are being legally achieved by Americans who they consider deviant, perverted and vile. Period.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Where was the outrage over "family style" bathrooms? These started appearing regularly in public over a decade ago?
Where were the horror stories of men (who could enter these areas freely as well as women and childre) lying in wait for predation?
Was it basically silent?
Is it still basically silent among the hysterical reactions noted here?
Why is that?
Part I – A “Fraudulent Healthcare System”
“If you’re going to challenge the archdiocese in its attempts to introduce what I consider to be a ‘fraudulent healthcare service,’” said Gonsiorek, “then you need to become educated about what the behavioral sciences say about sexual orientation. That has to be the base from which you operate as opposed to reacting to the ‘flakiness’ of organizations like NARTH.”
The Origins of NARTH
Dr. Gonsiorek then proceeded to provide some insightful background information on the origins of NARTH – origins inseparable from the wider cultural debate on homosexuality and, specifically, the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders (followed two years later by the passage of a similar resolution of the American Psychological Association).
This change in the diagnosis of homosexuality was the result of the wealth of research data gathered since the early 1950s that showed no difference between homosexual and heterosexual populations in terms of “adjustment.”
Gonsiorek also noted that a significant “sea change” took place in the early 1970s when biological psychiatry began taking over the field of behavioral science from the psychoanalytical establishment. Indeed, the change in the diagnosis of homosexuality, says Gonsiorek, was “essentially a run-up of a long-standing fight” between these two groups, and was an important moment for the biological psychiatrists, “not only because they had a strong data base to support such a change, but because the psychoanalysts had always considered human sexuality to be their domain.”
In time, the psychoanalytical establishment also changed in its understanding of homosexuality; it now has the same sets of policies and principles about sexual orientation as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. Yet there were “old guard” psychoanalysts who were disgruntled about being displaced and seeing their organization change its views on homosexuality. This disaffected group of psychoanalysts formed an alliance with conservatively- and religiously-oriented psychotherapists. It was from this alliance that NARTH was established.thewildreed.blogspot.com...
originally posted by: Violater1
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE
SnF! I agree with the American College of Pediatricians. Of coarse, the misguided will always disagree.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
originally posted by: Gryphon66
8snip*
Well then, let's go after the real danger to children, eh? One substantiated over decades?
There is overwhelming evidence that some priests, pastors and others in religious authority regularly molest children of all sexes.
Shouldn't we close the churches because of this very prevalent and long-standing trend? "For the children?"
What rank absurdity! Of course not.
The source of all this hysteria is that some fundamentalists and some conservatives have been utterly devastated that civil rights and equal rights are being legally achieved by Americans who they consider deviant, perverted and vile. Period.
Yes, that is absurd. First off, it's inflammatory to pretend that most religious people are pedophiles, and you know it. Second, that sort of thing doesn't happen in churches that have standards for conduct. Meaning, those with children work in pairs, and doors cannot be closed, or view blocked into the rooms, bathroom trips are likewise handled, and there are not made opportunities for such abuses. Now that your deflection from the actual topic has been addressed care to address the very real cases of people taking advantage of these new directives, and why such directives should, in your opinion, be allowed, even in the face of the obvious issues?