THIS is what we are warning you all about!!

[mossrose]

What does that have to do with transgendered people, mossrose?

A sick freak in a bathroom who happens to be a child psychologist, one of Tassman's well-liked professionals on issues such as transgendered people.

Just trying to make a point about how you can't trust even so-called scientific mental-health professionals.

[Cow Poke]

The American College of Pediatrics is a remnant of the days when psychologists were honest and did not swoon to political correctness when it flew in the face of reality.

It's almost like they're more interested in proving they're "free thinkers" than they are "right thinkers".

[Cow Poke]

I don't know much about psychology near to the extent that Jamie (tassman) does but I will say this.

In science you always will have little gangs that are behind the times....

I remember when I took psychology (yeah, back in the dark ages) and the psych professor was trying so hard to stress that psychology and sociology are "real sciences". It actually had almost a comical "methinks the professor doth protest too much" quality.

[rogue06]

I remember when I took psychology (yeah, back in the dark ages) and the psych professor was trying so hard to stress that psychology and sociology are "real sciences". It actually had almost a comical "methinks the professor doth protest too much" quality.

Used to know someone with a PhD in both psychology and psychiatry. He was the one who said that you learn everything you need to know in your first quarter. Then the next quarter you discover that what you had learned before is all wrong and now you learned everything you needed to now. Likewise with the next quarter and the same with everyone after that. When you're done you end up selecting out what makes sense to you and what works for you.

IIRC, he was also the one who said that there are five sciences that are more art than science. Psychology, psychiatry, sociology, political science and economics. As he explained you could gather a dozen experts in any one of these fields, ask them the same question and you're likely to get a dozen very different answers.

[Adam]

My main published paper basically says that. I wrote it in 1969 and have seen no reason (less, actually) to raise my opinion of the "social sciences".

[arnoldo]

Commies use psychiatry for political purposes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...e_Soviet_Union

[Tassman]

A sick freak in a bathroom who happens to be a child psychologist, one of Tassman's well-liked professionals on issues such as transgendered people.

Just trying to make a point about how you can't trust even so-called scientific mental-health professionals.

You feel that you're in a position to categorise people you disprove of as "sick freaks" do you? REALLY!!! What gives you the right to make these hateful judgements against a minority group of citizens?

[Sea of red]

You feel that you're in a position to categorise people you disprove of as "sick freaks" do you? REALLY!!! What gives you the right to make these hateful judgements against a minority group of citizens?

She wasn't saying transgendered people were 'sick' - just the bathroom rapist.

[Tassman]

And since when do Mental health professionals set policy? And How do they know the long or short term effect of allowing anatomical males in the girl's shower? And I still don't see how requiring an anatomical male to use the men's facilities is actually discrimination. I don't see why we need to accommodate their delusion in law any more that the other delusions I spoke of. Ones I might add that you probably would not accommodate in law.

In a secular society like the USA "policy" should be set on the basis of professional expertise, NOT on the prejudices of religious groups.

No, I asked how these rights could be inalienable, or how dignity can be inherent? And who says that equal rights is a logical corollary of our innate instincts? Is that the case for all primates? Communists? Various other totalitarian systems?

ALL social species live in community with rules of behaviour which are enforced, it's instinctive and has been so since the earliest days of primate society. Modern societies, with their recognition of the Declaration of Human Rights, are a logical extension of that.

With God Tass, you could logically have a source or grounding for inalienable rights or inherent dignity, apart from God - no.

If deities exist, there's no credible evidence that they do.

The founders of this country understood that.

The founding fathers were grounded in the values of the Age of Reason otherwise known as The Enlightenment.

[mossrose]

She wasn't saying transgendered people were 'sick' - just the bathroom rapist.

Actually he's a child pornographer. But thank you all the same.

[Tassman]

If that's all it was, then I wouldn't have much to object to. However it goes beyond this, since 'discrimination' is taken so widely that you can get in trouble in some places for not using the new alternative third-person pronouns, even if you believe that are only two sexes. Thankfully this has yet to be codified as unlawful.

I have to be hones, seeing your posts, you haven't gotten further than this. It appears like arm-waving, as I've said before and you haven't really elaborated on it, or answered any of the problems I gave you about it. Social cohesion just somehow produces just exactly the kind of political values and ideologies that you happen to support? I'm highly skeptical of the logic of it.

Social cohesion is merely the logical consequence of the natural instincts of bonding, altruism, social awareness and response to the rules of the group, which are common to all social species such as us. The precursors of such behaviour can be seen among our primate cousins.

Woaw, transgenders would flip if you likened what they are as merely a 'sexual orientation'. That makes it sound like its only a matter of what turns them on.

Rather this is something about dysmorphia and gender identity, which is a much more complex question.

The issue is whether or not such behavior is pathological and the APA, and virtually ALL similar bodies worldwide, say it is not.

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

I don't see anything here that counters seers remark. While its nice that the UN recognizes some of the rights of man, this is in the end just something that's been arrived at by the democratic process.

You repeated this more than once, but I don't think its as strong a point as you think it is. First of all, the correlation you posit is only that a correlation. It would be causitive, if you could show that the low crime rates and their peace, could be attributed to their low levels of religion. It could be that its the other way around, or more likely that there's a third cause.

My guess would be that the most peaceful and libertine countries, also happen to be the same countries who enjoy the strongest militaries and borders, and who have amassed an enormous wealth and a healthy populace. People living calmly, safely, with money to do things, who don't have to worry excessively for their lives, usually find a lot of other things to fill their attention with. Such as questions like "What gender am I?" "Does God exist?" "Perhaps we should put out the grill and invite Toby and his wife over." etc... rather than "Oh Lord, let my son survive, and I beg of you, that we have something to eat tonight."

Though in general I don't think as complex a field of sociology (to say nothing of history!), as religions relationship with a society's prosperity, should be some up in one cause, or one simple correlation.

There are many stable, peaceful societies I can imagine.

However a peaceful and happy society, isn't really what you can argue for if all you care about is social cohesion and cooporation. Take North Korea. They're a perfectly stable country, who only have to avoid getting attacked by the US (though China still protects them). There's nothing to suggest that this society couldn't keep going like it is for generations to come. The main reason the soviet union collapsed wasn't due to lack of cohesion internally. It was due to an economical collapse.

Obviously not, cohesion and cooperation is merely the baseline. Social cohesion is a component of overall development taking into account life expectancy and overall health levels, educational levels, and per capita income indicators. These are measurable and the stats have been amassed by the UN Human Development Index. By these indices North Korea would not rank high despite its stability and low crime rates. The countries that tend to rank highest are the more secular ones with the greatest levels of democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y-adjusted_HDI

She wasn't saying transgendered people were 'sick' - just the bathroom rapist.

Ah, my mistake. Well I think we could all agree that child pornographers (as she later amended) are highly undesirable in ANY context. I'm glad Mossrose doesn't see transgendered people as "sick".

[Adam]

You feel that you're in a position to categorise people you disprove of as "sick freaks" do you? REALLY!!! What gives you the right to make these hateful judgements against a minority group of citizens?

Now it's Tass playing the outrage card! Join the club, Tass! Friends forever!

[seer]

In a secular society like the USA "policy" should be set on the basis of professional expertise, NOT on the prejudices of religious groups.

Are you saying the the "experts" are never wrong? And how are Mental health professionals experts on public policy?

ALL social species live in community with rules of behaviour which are enforced, it's instinctive and has been so since the earliest days of primate society. Modern societies, with their recognition of the Declaration of Human Rights, are a logical extension of that.

That doesn't get you to inalienable rights or inherent dignity. Without a grounding in God these are just made up concepts. With no objective validity. And how many countries haven't signed the DoHR? Why is their opinion any less valid that yours?

Let's listen to your scientists:

American Anthropological Association:

The American Anthropological Association criticized the UDHR while it was in its drafting process. The AAA warned that the document would be defining universal rights from a Western paradigm which would be unfair to countries outside of that scope. They further argued that the West's history of colonialism and Evangelicalism made them a problematic moral representative for the rest of the world. They proposed three notes for consideration with underlying themes of cultural relativism: "1. The individual realizes his personality through his culture, hence respect for individual differences entails a respect for cultural differences", "2. Respect for differences between cultures is validated by the scientific fact that no technique of qualitatively evaluating cultures has been discovered", and "3. Standards and values are relative to the culture from which they derive so that any attempt to formulate postulates that grow out of the beliefs or moral codes of one culture must to that extent detract from the applicability of any Declaration of Human Rights to mankind as a whole."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univer...al_Association

So according to the American Anthropological Association the DoHR should not and can not be applied to mankind as a whole because of cultural relativism. Hence they can not be universal.

If deities exist, there's no credible evidence that they do.

Again Homer, not the point, which is apart from God there is no basis for your imaginary inalienable rights or inherent dignity.

The founding fathers were grounded in the values of the Age of Reason otherwise known as The Enlightenment.

Yes that is why they grounded our rights in God. They knew better.

[Sparko]

Transgender is not a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is about who you are attracted to sexually, not which sex you want to be. A transgender man or woman can be either attracted to other men or other women, or vice versa.

[Tassman]

Are you saying the the "experts" are never wrong?

And how are Mental health professionals experts on public policy?

Public policy needs to be based upon facts not the hateful rhetoric of the religious right seeking to impose its values against LGBT folk.

That doesn't get you to inalienable rights or inherent dignity. Without a grounding in God these are just made up concepts. With no objective validity. And how many countries haven't signed the DoHR? Why is their opinion any less valid that yours?

Let's listen to your scientists:

American Anthropological Association:



So according to the American Anthropological Association the DoHR should not and can not be applied to mankind as a whole because of cultural relativism. Hence they can not be universal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univer...f_Human_Rights

Note those that abstained, do you support theiryour religious presuppositions for which there's NO substantive evidence?

Again Homer, not the point, which is apart from God there is no basis for your imaginary inalienable rights or inherent dignity.

Yes that is why they grounded our rights in God. They knew better.

The founding fathers were grounded in the values of The Enlightenment, otherwise known as The Age of Reason, not a deity.