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.

 

Autogynephilia: The Elephant in the Transgender Bathroom

page: 12
118
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


The OP author has no response for anything o write because it's pretty hard to refute he has completely mis used this diagnosis and is totally confused what it means in the actual science and study of psychology.


Actually, as I already told you (so you already know), you lost all credibility when you presumed to know what you cannot and therefore do not know... specifcally what you presume are my true motives. Since you already know everything about me -- better than I know myself according to you -- there's no point in responding. So I choose not to. But you go right ahead and presume what you will.

Oh! And by the way, that's Mrs OP author and "she." Do please use my preferred pronouns




posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Ahh using information overload to seem like its actually respected research. You know 99 percent will not do anything but read the headlines and immediatly agree with you if they have bias.

Same crap different thread. Just more of the same by trying to get them to legislate a non existent problem to make the right feel good.

Op good research but im willing to bet if traced back this info will be related to right wing groups with agendas.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier


Your child is much more likely to get abused in daycare or Sunday school by actual stats. Those positions attract pedaphiles.

Sexual repression thrown in with the very religious and it's a very bad recipee. Those are stats.




No kidding.

wate.com...

I don't think either of those fine fellas are transgender.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa


Op good research but im willing to bet if traced back this info will be related to right wing groups with agendas.


Thank you... I think


To the best of my knowledge, none of this can be traced back to rightwing groups/agendas. In fact, I was very surprised that few on the right have even touched on this. But if you should find such a link, I would be interested in checking it out.

What I did find again and again is that the the fundamental premise is supported by many in the transgender/transsexual community, but with various distinctions or exceptions so to speak. For example, many confirm the sexual arousal, but reject the characterization as a disorder or a fetish -- and the attendant negative connotations. I actually think that's fair enough. Personally speaking (not clinically speaking), if it's not hurting anyone, there's no problem and nothing to "fix."

What I consider the danger zone is the progressive nature of the condition, which means that what is harmless today may progress to what is dangerous tomorrow. I hesitate to address treatment and cures in any detail, because I did not find much at all in the way of research.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: luthier


The OP author has no response for anything o write because it's pretty hard to refute he has completely mis used this diagnosis and is totally confused what it means in the actual science and study of psychology.


Actually, as I already told you (so you already know), you lost all credibility when you presumed to know what you cannot and therefore do not know... specifcally what you presume are my true motives. Since you already know everything about me -- better than I know myself according to you -- there's no point in responding. So I choose not to. But you go right ahead and presume what you will.

Oh! And by the way, that's Mrs OP author and "she." Do please use my preferred pronouns


Your not responding because you can't refute the evidence.

Your using the genetic fallacy here to avoid trying to debunk the actual science you are getting wrong.

So yeah again I know what your doing.

Where is your concern for children in the actual areas where they get abused by adults. Like churches?

No this is about not wanting freaks in your bathroom.

Especially given you haven't even read through your own sources. Some of them damning your presentation.

If you were simply presenting information you might try and accept and talk about some of the things you have mistakenly wrote here. Bit instead just compliment the people who agree with everything you said.

Thay isnt about info that's either narcissism or agenda.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: yuppa


Op good research but im willing to bet if traced back this info will be related to right wing groups with agendas.


Thank you... I think


To the best of my knowledge, none of this can be traced back to rightwing groups/agendas. In fact, I was very surprised that few on the right have even touched on this. But if you should find such a link, I would be interested in checking it out.

What I did find again and again is that the the fundamental premise is supported by many in the transgender/transsexual community, but with various distinctions or exceptions so to speak. For example, many confirm the sexual arousal, but reject the characterization as a disorder or a fetish -- and the attendant negative connotations. I actually think that's fair enough. Personally speaking (not clinically speaking), if it's not hurting anyone, there's no problem and nothing to "fix."

What I consider the danger zone is the progressive nature of the condition, which means that what is harmless today may progress to what is dangerous tomorrow. I hesitate to address treatment and cures in any detail, because I did not find much at all in the way of research.


Well there will always be exceptions to the rule. Most transgenders have always been that way. Now ones who like to crossdress and get aroused are worrying,but Its not a problem for the most part.

This is a Spectrum. Its not one size fits all that so many get confused on.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Just curious. What washroom should Chaz Bono use?



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

That has nothing do with the facts Luthier presented that conflict with the premise in your OP.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I won't tell (wink wink!)...

As frustrating as it is, I believe it serves a valuable purpose, educating and informing us all... in direct proportion with our own nature and inclinations. Deny ignorance and all that!

I agree with you...I just find it very frustrating how some people decide that "your" opinion even when logical and based upon facts is "not allowed" and try to shut down the conversation. There is a lot of that on ATS and the mods don't seem to consider it an issue.

It is one thing to disagree...it is quite another to...well...be ignorant and derail logical conversation.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Okay. Gotcha.

However, I cannot help be wonder if your efforts are wasted here... throwing pearls before swine and all that... and perhaps we would all be better served by you starting your own thread about autogynephilia and what it "really" is and is not, and how it does or does affect the transgender bathroom debate.

Show us all how it's done and dazzle us with your brilliance



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Exactly now try practising what you preach and read up on some facts.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

I was just thinking what if trans-genders did get their own bathroom would there have to be two? One for males identifying as female and one vice-versa?
edit on 23-5-2016 by imsoconfused because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: imsoconfused

Exactly. Chaz(born Chastity) is a dude now. It goes the other way too. People seem to be missing that though.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Luthier...that was very polite, thank you. Here is my issue and it doesn't involve so much of this particular discussion as some others. I am a parent of two daughters. We moved 10 years ago to a different state and by chance, I happened upon the Megan's Law website and found out how many sex offenders live in the area. Then I discovered how many sex offenders live in every area.

My point is this. When you have any group...I'll use Islam or Muslims as an example. Yes...the majority may be fine, upstanding people but when you discover that a percentage are dangerous....why do some people try to shut you up, call you names and shut you down? It is important to know what level of danger there is with as much as you can learn. I would like to know if kids get injured 50% of the time on swings made of metal compared to those made of wood. I would like to know that 3 out of every 100 Muslims they encounter could be dangerous, or that 30% of black people they meet have committed a crime.

NOT REAL NUMBERS...JUST EXAMPLES!

But some people wish to hide these things. The only purpose I can think of is not wanting the truth to be known...which typically makes me more suspect. Knowledge is a good thing. It is what helps you make decisions, especially immediate decisions. I believe in judging a book by it's cover...when you don't have the time to read the book. Later, if you can read the book and change your initial opinion...fine. You've learned. But what us humans and animals do is see a "thing" and make an initial judgement. How dangerous is this thing?

Denying people of that information is...criminal.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I intend to!



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE


I just find it very frustrating how some people decide that "your" opinion even when logical and based upon facts is "not allowed" and try to shut down the conversation. There is a lot of that on ATS and the mods don't seem to consider it an issue.


Yeah, it does present quite a challenge. But it is what it is. And it's not just here on ATS -- it's everywhere. I suppose for all our lofty ideals, there have always and will always be those who would rather silence the conversation than discuss it.

At the same time, we have to appreciate the dissenters in any situation or issue, because they keep everyone honest... or perhaps I should say more honest than they would otherwise be... and, in their own way, they also keep others informed.

My biggest personal challenge is figuring out how to respond sometimes, in a proactive way -- not simply reactive. I'm not always up to the challenge. So I say nothing, figuring that's better than becoming part of the problem and making things worse. Until I learn better, that's my challenge!



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Having researched this..."Autogynephilia" appears to be a mental illness made up by Ray Blanchard with virtually no supporting evidence.

Hats off to inventing a fancy word and all..but thescience around this seems to be a lot of gibbly-gook BS.

Movin on here...


edit on 23-5-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Here is the thing, this presentation is about making people scared over bathrooms and transpeople.

If I authored a piece about religion and pedaphilia and linked all kinds of stats presenting it exactly as the op (which I can do because the stats of child abuse and religious childcare is significant) would the purpose be to educate or to warn about being religious?

If I provide stats for sexually repressive cultures and religious people leading to sexual violence am I really just providing facts? No. I am providing an arguement against religion.

I don't feel the need to do this because it's a much more complex situation than allowing the conversation to be just about whether or not we should allow Sunday school or religious day care.

If I did do this I would provide critiques of this as well knowing my arguement was strong enough to withstand the critiques.

In this case the OP failed to mention how controversial and unscientific classifying this fetish is amongst the trans community as well as using stats from a very flawed (opinion of peer review of the Toronto study) study.

The fetish is real.

The conclusions by the OP are either misunderstanding or intentional agenda

PS hetero dad of three kids two girls. I know all about the molester stats. Thats partly what makes roll my eyes over this issue. Not only does it not fit the profile it's very unlikely compaired to other areas we could pay attention to with much higher risks to kids without infringing on people's right to a decent life.
edit on 23-5-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Shouldn't that be goobly-gook?



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Yes...and everything should be taken with a grain of salt and explored in its entirety before making a "final" decision. But at the same time, if someone yells "HES GOT A GUN", I'm grabbing my child and shielding them long before I bother to see of the person yelling is correct. I'll worry about that later.

But you know where I'm coming from.



new topics

top topics



 
118
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join