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.

 

Prof: Transgenderism Not Scientific, 'Superstitious Belief'

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   

A noted Princeton University professor has attacked the very notion of transgenderism, saying that the belief “that a woman can be trapped inside a man’s body” is ludicrous and superstitious, with no basis in medical fact.

Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, sent out a tweet late Sunday evening questioning the science behind the transgender movement, in reaction to the Obama administration’s threatening letter to educators mandating accommodation of gender-confused teenagers.
Princeton Prof: Transgenderism Not Scientific, ‘Superstitious Belief’


Of course, the statements above are scientifically valid. You have to presuppose preexistence or something of that nature to believe “a woman can be trapped inside a man’s body."

Unfortunately, it does not matter how correct any professor or scientist is on this topic. Why?



The vast majority of people aren't rational or sane. The chart above proves that. Those of us trying to bring sanity into the world are mostly whistling in the wind.
edit on 17-5-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
What does your pie chart have to do with your opening post?

The "professor" is essentially saying that psychology isn't a science.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

i cannot argue with him.

What we choose to do is align the body to the mentality, since it is easier to do.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Professor of Jurisprudence...

Ok great.


Let me consult my friend who has a PHD in theology.



Lol. You know there are real scientists that disagree with these "professionals".

Would you take their word so quickly? Or make a thread about it?
Doubt it.


+4 more 
posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
What does your pie chart have to do with your opening post?

The "professor" is essentially saying that psychology isn't a science.


I think the professor is actually just saying that if you are a woman trapped in a mans body, then you are presupposing an external mind, or a mind that is not biological in basis.

Medically, there has been nothing to define a transgender person from a nontransgender person. Psychologically there are diagnostic criteria described. Medically....zilch.

It only becomes a medical issue when psychology determines a treatment plan that includes surgery or some other medical intervention (medication, etc). But this is taking the body and altering it to match a mental outlook, not repairing a damaged biological function.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
What does your pie chart have to do with your opening post?

The "professor" is essentially saying that psychology isn't a science.


My point is that people are mostly going to believe what they want regardless of the facts. That's what faith means. It takes faith to believe in religion.

The point I was alluding to is that if transgenderism is like any other religion (and that's basically what the professor was saying); trying to talk people out of their beliefs about it with logic, science, and facts will be useless.

Just like how trying to talk people out of their beliefs about any religious-type belief (of any sort) with logic, science, and facts is useless.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Even a belief that religions are false is a belief, unsubstantiated by any definitive proof.

So religious belief, of one sort or another, IS pretty much, the whole data-set. The few that admit they don't know and don't have any opinion at all would be the only exceptions.

To assume that religious belief is insanity presumes that no religious belief is true, something that cannot be proven.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Time will tell, I wouldn't be surprised if we found from more prenatal studies how important the exposure to estrogen/testosterone is for a developing child. There may be brain developmental stages we haven't noticed that are affected by levels of these sex hormones.

In male/female twin studies, the males exhibit more introversion and feminine-like personality traits whereas the female twin is more aggressive and extroverted.

We're really just starting to study this stuff...



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Profusion

Even a belief that religions are false is a belief, unsubstantiated by any definitive proof.

So religious belief, of one sort or another, IS pretty much, the whole data-set. The few that admit they don't know and don't have any opinion at all would be the only exceptions.

To assume that religious belief is insanity presumes that no religious belief is true, something that cannot be proven.


I haven't found a religion that doesn't contradict itself. If a religion contradicts itself; you can eliminate any possibility that it's true.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

In essence, the "professor" is suggesting something similar to: "you can't run Windows on a MacBook Pro".

You can, everyone understands that we are fairly 'hardware independent' when it comes to our minds.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

So you're basically saying since its faith-based, it's a choice? It's a willing decision these people ponder over and go, "Yep, I think being a woman sounds better than being a guy. From now on, I'm going to be a woman!"

That same line of thinking then could also apply to homosexuals.

I've known many, and even before they knew they were homosexual it was obvious to others they were different. Personalities and psychological traits are something we know very little about -- and I find it a bit callous to just shrug and assume its a conscious choice.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

agreed. I think we will find an epigenetic basis in the end, as a result of mostly environmental stressors in prenatal and neonatal conditions.

The important thing to get an agreement on is that its natural. It arises from nature, so must be natural.

Beyond that, im sure as we study human consciousness further and further these things will be less of a mystery, and we will find ways to help people cope with the various dysphoric conditions we all have.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   
-
edit on 17-5-2016 by breakingbs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
There are too many personal accounts for us to disregard it. We have to have faith in what they are telling us.

I experienced this with a friend from early childhood all the way to adulthood, and witnessed first hand the pain, confusion, frustration and fear, and the relief of the aftermath. I place my confidence with my friend, and what I have observed to be true, rather than people with other agendas.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I have always thought it was more akin to how does someone in a male body know what a female feels like. They cannot as they are not in a female body.

They can think/guess/believe they know what it feels like but that is about it.

But, to each their own.
edit on 5/17/2016 by Azdraik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Profusion

Even a belief that religions are false is a belief, unsubstantiated by any definitive proof.

So religious belief, of one sort or another, IS pretty much, the whole data-set. The few that admit they don't know and don't have any opinion at all would be the only exceptions.

To assume that religious belief is insanity presumes that no religious belief is true, something that cannot be proven.


I haven't found a religion that doesn't contradict itself. If a religion contradicts itself; you can eliminate any possibility that it's true.


I have found that what we know of reality contradicts itself. That's just physics. It also indicates not that reality contradicts itself, but our interpretations of it are at fault.

Might I therefore suggest that it may be your interpretation of a religion which is the problem.

Definitely, in the case of Christianity, and despite years of study and questioning, I have found NO inconsistency in core facts which are held as factual and not poetic/metaphoric language. I have seen many issues with interpretation, usually by those who take small segments out of cultural and literary context.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
There are too many personal accounts for us to disregard it. We have to have faith in what they are telling us.

I experienced this with a friend from early childhood all the way to adulthood, and witnessed first hand the pain, confusion, frustration and fear, and the relief of the aftermath. I place my confidence with my friend, and what I have observed to be true, rather than people with other agendas.


my only issue with that is that you describe emotions. while those emotions have value, the long term value is in the logical application of scientific study of those emotions, in combinations with other disciplines of science. Helping someone in pain today is a noble cause. Making that help extend over generations would be world changing for many people. That sort of thing.

At the moment, there are no medical diagnostics described for transgenderism. The diagnostics are psychological. if one day a medical diagnostic is isolated, then we will have quite an interesting breakthrough. Its not an agenda to state this, unless it is wrong. If it is wrong, please correct the assertion as i would be interested in seeing it.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: chr0naut

So you're basically saying since its faith-based, it's a choice? It's a willing decision these people ponder over and go, "Yep, I think being a woman sounds better than being a guy. From now on, I'm going to be a woman!"

That same line of thinking then could also apply to homosexuals.

I've known many, and even before they knew they were homosexual it was obvious to others they were different. Personalities and psychological traits are something we know very little about -- and I find it a bit callous to just shrug and assume its a conscious choice.


I am not suggesting that sexual preference is faith based.

In my little metaphoric description of a MacBook running Windows, the MacBook itself has little determination of the OS it runs.

In the realm of human psychology, though, we are far more complex and influences are far more subtle and varied than a computer. Certainly, there is a choice element in gender role preference. It is after all, a preference, not mandatory.

Nor do human beings die of, or even appear particularly negatively afflicted by, abstinence, so sexual orientation for ANY preference is plainly NOT mandatory.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
There are too many personal accounts for us to disregard it. We have to have faith in what they are telling us.

I experienced this with a friend from early childhood all the way to adulthood, and witnessed first hand the pain, confusion, frustration and fear, and the relief of the aftermath. I place my confidence with my friend, and what I have observed to be true, rather than people with other agendas.


my only issue with that is that you describe emotions. while those emotions have value, the long term value is in the logical application of scientific study of those emotions, in combinations with other disciplines of science. Helping someone in pain today is a noble cause. Making that help extend over generations would be world changing for many people. That sort of thing.

At the moment, there are no medical diagnostics described for transgenderism. The diagnostics are psychological. if one day a medical diagnostic is isolated, then we will have quite an interesting breakthrough. Its not an agenda to state this, unless it is wrong. If it is wrong, please correct the assertion as i would be interested in seeing it.


I think some people, already under duress, don't want to be told they have a condition or medical anomoly. Until such time as we quantify the brain as existential and not purely biological, then we have an obligation to treat it as a biological/chemical/hormonal anomaly and look for a corrective measure.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




Medically, there has been nothing to define a transgender person from a nontransgender person. Psychologically there are diagnostic criteria described. Medically....zilch


That's because you just refuse to look at studies.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join