It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Prof: Transgenderism Not Scientific, 'Superstitious Belief'

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on May, 18 2016 @ 02:44 PM
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I'll take a shot at it.

A schizophrenic cannot function normally without anti-psych meds (unless you are the amazing John Nash). They can't hold down a job, properly communicate with anyone, or have a normal relationship with anyone.

A transgender person can function quite well, especially if they are accepted in society. They work at jobs, participate in the military, even have families. They are teachers, managers, firefighters, entertainers, etc. You can have an intelligent conversation with a transgender person. No anti-psych meds needed just for being transgender. As a matter of fact, anti-psych meds would work about as well on a transgender person as they would work on you. Why is that? Maybe because they aren't psychotic?

The medical field has been researching gender dysphoria. They don't have a complete answer as to what causes it, but there are some clues in physical brain matter, which hints that it's neurological/biological and not psychological.

posted on May, 18 2016 @ 02:54 PM

originally posted by: neveroddoreven99
a reply to: MystikMushroom

whether it not something is genetic in nature has little to do with conscious choice. Plenty happens before a human is capable of making substantial conscious decisions. But, you're right, there's no scientific proof that homosexuality is or isn't a choice either. Next time you decide to participate in an argument you should know that anecdotes immediately disqualify your point. Well, unless you've know hundreds of thousands and have bothered to collect data. Otherwise, you might as well be Dr. Funke yelling, "There are dozens of us! Dozens!!!" To those that shrug it off as a conscious choice, what would you have them do? Ascribe to the same pseudo science as you?

I wasn't arguing a "side". Your assertion related to anecdotal "evidence" is only applicable if I was trying to disprove someone's evidence. Simply sharing personal experience doesn't automatically qualify as a logical fallacy.

I guess all personal experiences are worthless. We might as well structure our lives to resemble scientific experiments, and only speak when we are referencing a scientific study.

Oh joy, what a wonderful world that would be...
edit on 18-5-2016 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 18 2016 @ 04:22 PM

originally posted by: RedEyes619
a reply to: chr0naut

Gotta disagree with you chr0naut.

If you want to believe in religion you are believing in something that is "unsubstantiated by any definitive proof", you are choosing to decide that something without proof exists.

If, however, you do not have religious beliefs, you are not automatically harboring beliefs which may be "unsubstantiated by any definitive proof".

You are instead looking at the evidence available in the world and making (in fact) a substantiated decision that indeed no god exists (that there is no credible evidence for God's existence).

To believe in religion requires faith/ belief in the unsubstantiated.
To be non-religious, however, does not require faith and can be based in logic and observable truths.

There are many things in nature that indicate a creative intelligence is behind it, and this far more than any other factor that may be theorized to explain the variety and complexity we see.

Firstly, the implication that extreme order arises from randomness, that some would propose, is absurd and contrary to all science and mathematics.

The Astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle FRS, famously said: "Would you not say to yourself, 'Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question'."

The Mathematician, Leonhard Euler, produced an equation which he suggested proves the existence of God. Euler's identity is: e^(pi*i) + 1 = 0

e = The base of the natural logarithm
pi = The ratio of circumference of a circle to its diameter
i = The imaginary number, sqrt(-1)
1 = The multiplicative identity (x*1 = x)
0 = The additive identity (x+0 = x)

This equations numbers come from far-ranging parts of mathematics: e is from calculus, pi is from geometry, i is imaginary, and 1 and 0 are arithmetic. Euler believed that such a simple relation between the arguably the five most important numbers in math was too unlikely to be a coincidence.

The Mathematician, Kurt Gödel, proposed a theory based on principles of modal logic, a type of formal logic that, narrowly defined, involves the use of the expressions “necessarily” and “possibly”. So the theorem says that God, or a supreme being, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.

In October 2013, two scientists, Christoph Benzmüller of Berlin's Free University and his colleague, Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo of the Technical University in Vienna, formalized Gödel's theorem regarding the existence of God, showing that his proof was correct.

In a purely mechanistic and logically driven reality, why would there be anything like abstract beauty? Why do human beings see patterns in lava flows, or sunset clouds, or the sweep of stars, or sun-lit ice as beautiful? Many of us also see beauty in mathematics and geometry.

And why do most of us have a desire to 'find God'? Why do we even have neural pathways in our brains with which to feel religious ecstasy? Why would it be a requirement of nature and what function would it serve? We are most definitely built to search for God.

Belief in a creator God is not unsubstantiated in nature. Belief in one's own ignorance, or avoidance of the evidence, is.

Sorry it is a bit off-topic but I am responding to a baseless 'truism' often espoused but poorly considered.

edit on 18/5/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 18 2016 @ 06:57 PM
a reply to: chr0naut

I mean seriously, I can't help but see glaring assumptions and exceptions to what are otherwise intelligent individuals who are attempting to critically explain that which needs no explanation. First off, how the hell are you going to universally qualify a concept such as "God", that's just stupid. Go talk to a hundred people, ask them what God means to them... heck ask them what "stupid" means to them. Let's see if these mathematicians can objectively qualify or find the existence for "stupidity" before going after a far grander abstraction.

For the most part, God fits into great unknowns within our self and our understanding of natural forces. As for trying to quantify the probability of seemingly simplistic order arising out of nature, it's all circular and incomplete. I can't believe such smart people fool their selves into attempting such a feat. What hubris!

Think of the very small problem people in court face, when someone presents "facts" and then creates a probability of truthful outcomes in the situation at hand. They shape the context, and then try to convince people with their statistics. Later on, sometimes, after a retrial, a new set of facts can be presented and the probability of outcomes can shift quite dramatically to point elsewhere. The objective nature didn't change, but our awareness of the variables did.

To think we are anywhere near understanding the infinite, with our finite minds, is laughable at best.
edit on 18-5-2016 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 19 2016 @ 10:08 AM
a reply to: Profusion

Sorry but you want to educate a little on basic science that it seems even some professors cannot seem to remember to detail.

Klinefelter syndrome is where males inherit one or more extra X chromosomes--their genotype is XXY or more rarely XXXY or XY/XXY mosaic. In severe cases, they have relatively high-pitched voices, asexual to feminine body contours as well as breast enlargement, and comparatively little facial and body hair.

Sex Chromosome Abnormalities

Female Genotype: XX XO XXX
Syndrome : Normal, Turner, Triple-X

Male Genotype: XY, XXY, XY
Syndrome: Normal, Klinefelter, XXY

The above SCIENTIFIC evidence of the human chromosomes do depict how humans will behave when older.

Where in earth did that scientific finding add this to their explanation?

posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:07 PM

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.

We can actually prove a whole lot of most religious beliefs as nonsense. The problem is you are over simplifying things. carry on!

posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:20 PM
Prof: Transgenderism Not Scientific, 'Superstitious Belief'

I agree.

And the WHOLE transgender issue shooting 'born that way' the hell out of the water.

Since artificial means are used.

Out of ALL political issues in the US.

Transgenders is the most asinine.

No one saying they can't be gay.

Be gay and PROUD.

Ironic considering the source of that slogan.

edit on 19-5-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 19 2016 @ 07:11 PM
a reply to: neo96

Read my above post, it is scientific how people can be effected by their DNA.

No need to ignore basic science.

posted on May, 19 2016 @ 07:12 PM
Will be demolished in gender studies courses. Can't let facts get in the way of their bizarre and self-harming ideology.

posted on May, 19 2016 @ 08:51 PM
a reply to: chr0naut

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

This is incorrect. That is not how logic works. The absence of a thing is not a thing.

You can't provide evidence for a negative, it's literally impossible. Brushing something off as false isn't a belief, and doesn't require evidence. Evidence is required for positive claims.

Prove that unicorns don't exist.

posted on May, 19 2016 @ 10:42 PM

originally posted by: CharlestonChew
a reply to: chr0naut

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

This is incorrect. That is not how logic works. The absence of a thing is not a thing.

You can't provide evidence for a negative, it's literally impossible. Brushing something off as false isn't a belief, and doesn't require evidence. Evidence is required for positive claims.

Prove that unicorns don't exist.

I cannot.

But your argument that assumes that because I cannot prove that Unicorns do NOT exist means that I also cannot prove that Unicorns did exist, is obviously invalid. Linky thing.

Replace "Unicorns" with "God" and the reasoning still holds.

posted on May, 20 2016 @ 02:27 AM
For a man to identify as a woman, and "feel" like a woman mentally, he would first need to experience what it feels like to be a real woman to make that comparison. Since he was born male, and has never been a real woman, he has no idea what being a real woman feels like. So he then must be comparing how he feels to his own imagination of what a woman feels like.

He is making a huge assumption that women feel like (A), and men feel like (B), and then deciding he feels more like (A). But he doesn't know what (A) feels like in reality because he has been a (B) all his life. He only knows what he made up. What he made up was most likely influenced by society, or some other external source. That is mental...

He then must do the mental act of "identifying". Are we born to identify ourselves? I don't think so. I was born male, but I never needed to identify myself as a man, I was a man from the beginning. Why does anyone need to identify themselves? That is where it all starts.

It seems like a decision was made at some point in their life that they should "identify" themselves. During the act of identifying themselves they made a very silly assumption that they understood what the opposite sex feels like mentally, so they identify with their own erroneous assumption.

So it was a choice combined with a bad assumption that got them to this mental problem.
edit on 20-5-2016 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 23 2016 @ 03:43 PM

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

What medical issue?

The medical issue of "transgenderism" which would be classified as a mental health issue...therefore it is a medical issue, not a law issue.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in