Comments for Is the APA Playing Politics With Sexual Disorder Definition? at http://thenewamerican.com , comment 1 to 39 out of 20 comments http://thenewamerican.com Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:34:06 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-10236 @Elmer: Did you examine more than the first headline? If that were the only evidence, I'd agree with you ... unfortunately for your argument, there's a lot more papers which show transsexuals having atypical physiology in a number of areas. These are independent works from different researchers, in different domains. Sorry, but you don't get to dismiss all on the basis your interpretation of the headline of one. - Michelle Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:34:26 +0100 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-10231 Elmer wrote: [i]It's not depression, it's GUILT caused by SIN. (Negative votes won't alter the truth)[/i] Let us suppose for the sake of argument Elmer is correct on this. The DSM expressly excludes such things from being mental disorders (DSM-IV-TR page xxxi, near end of first full paragraph). So we at least agree it should not be called a mental disorder any more. Now as to what is SIN, that depends on one's religion. Perhaps Elmer believes the Old Testament is the literal truth. Conversely a Christian would rely on the writings of the Apostles - [u]Galatians 3:23[/u] [i]... there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.[/i] There we have it, in the words of a man literally anointed by Christ's very own living hands - For Christians being male and/or female it makes no difference. That is the Christian view even as it may not be the Pope's view. - HenryHall Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:22:35 +0100 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-10186 The studies are flawed. They confuse cause and effect. I can use the same logic to conclude that some people are genetically predisposed to being chicken farmers because tests show chicken farmers react differently (more favorably) to odors commonly found on chicken farms than life long city dwellers. Don't take Alan (a.k.a. "Zoe") too seriously. He has an agenda to fulfill. - Elmer Mon, 08 Mar 2010 05:22:55 +0100 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-10149 [quote]No. I am arguing that the absence of ANY evidence to the contrary, when weighed against the overwhelming evidence in the Bible supporting my position makes your position untenable. Your refusal to accept Scriptural evidence at face value does nothing to refute that evidence. [/quote] Absence of evidence to the contrary? I'll borrow from Zoe's references to respond to that: [quote]Male-to-female transsexuals show sex-atypical hypothalamus activation when smelling odorous steroids by Berglund et al Cerebral Cortex 2008 18(8):1900-1908; Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041 Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation. Swaab Gynecol Endocrinol (2004) 19:301–312. A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70. A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity by Garcia-Falgueras et al Brain. 2008 Dec;131(Pt 12):3132-46.[/quote] ... and there's a lot more than that. There is evidence - and quite a bit of it - that links transsexuality to biological underpinnings. In other words, your claim that there is "no evidence" is false - there is evidence, and further that evidence links the condition to some pretty fundamental aspects of our biological beings. I think given such evidence that claiming that transsexuality is "purely a 'Moral Problem'" is pretty unrealistic. - Michelle Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:56:44 +0100 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-10139 [quote]There are a great many different interpretations of scripture that are nominally 'christian'...[/quote] To be nominal means to resemble or to exist in name only. I will agree that there are a great number of "nominally christian" interpretations of Holy Scripture. My position is not "nominally christian", but totally Christian. In that respect there is only ONE correct interpretation. I am not going to claim I have it "all figured out". I don't, but the basics are pretty clear. If we were talking math, I'd be saying that I'd be struggling to integrate an inverse trigonometric function, and totally lost when it came to approximating the Newtonian gravitational potential of a bounded cosmos, but I have addition and subtraction nailed. The topic of sexuality is addition and subtraction. [quote]As for talking about proof, you have been so emphatic ... that constitutes an attempt at arguing that the absence of absolute proof to the contrary is somehow equivalent to refutation.[/quote] No. I am arguing that the absence of ANY evidence to the contrary, when weighed against the overwhelming evidence in the Bible supporting my position makes your position untenable. Your refusal to accept Scriptural evidence at face value does nothing to refute that evidence. Even NARTH (an organization which I do not hold in particularly high esteem) differs with the APA and states "Contrary to the wishful thinking of feminists, bisexuals, and transsexuals, there are profound differences between males and females--and those differences are programmed within the DNA from the moment of conception." They also say "The Problem Is Psychological, Not Organic". I take it further. The problem is Moral, Not Psychological or Organic. - Elmer Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:04:21 +0100 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-10132 @Elmer: There is more than one way to read scripture ... that is my point. There are a great many different interpretations of scripture that are nominally 'christian' - and they seldom if ever converge where there are disagreements. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. As for talking about proof, you have been so emphatic that being transsexual cannot possibly be related to how someone is born, that constitutes an attempt at arguing that the absence of absolute proof to the contrary is somehow equivalent to refutation. It is not - and if you have any serious background in philosophy and logic, you will understand that this is the case. As for names, Elmer, if someone uses a particular name reciprocate by using it in reference to them. It is not yours to pin a different name on someone. That is beyond rude, it is disrespectful and insulting. I don't really care who you've known with what names - that is utterly irrelevant. However, you've proven beyond any doubt in my mind that you have no clue about the concepts of debate and discussion - much less something as simple as common courtesy. - Michelle Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:52:39 +0100 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-10125 Michael - "My point regarding biblical interpretation is that not everybody reads the scripture the same way you do." - Very true. Some people take it for what it says, others try to twist it around to make it say what is convenient for them. I prefer the straight forward method, myself. I never said anything about "proof" --- I said "evidence". You claim evidence. More of your Rainbow Coalition hearsay? I thought you said "I bid you adieu"? Apparently you were as sincere in that as you are about "being born that way". "use my name - it is Michelle" - Is it? Michelle is just a feminine form of Michael, and according to you, transgender is normal so it really shouldn't matter. Besides, I know a girl (real girl) named Michael. I also knew a (real) guy named Cheryl. You need to be thicker skinned or you never will be happy. Give it up. You expect to go through life without every being offended, but think nothing about how you offend other people. A world in which there is never any offense given or received is a world in which everything has been reduced to the LOWEST common denominator. That is definitely not the kind of world God has meant for us. Funny how a little thing like sin can really throw a monkey wrench into the works. - Elmer Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:00:29 +0100 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-10124 @Elmer: (1) My point regarding biblical interpretation is that not everybody reads the scripture the same way you do. Deal with it. (2) You argue that there's "no proof" for the "Born That Way" claim. I'm sorry to say that there's a difference between an absence of conclusive proof and disproval. Where transsexualism is concerned there is a surprising amount of evidence that has been uncovered in the last ten years showing physiological differentiation between trans and non-trans populations. (far more than most people realize) Further, there is a great deal that we do not fully understand about human development in utero, especially where the brain is concerned. The human being is a surprisingly complex series of systems - I wouldn't go so far as to argue that what we haven't proven cannot be proven. Lastly, I would appreciate it if you would use my name - it is Michelle. Your use of apparently masculine names with me is disrespectful and rude. - Michelle Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:24:00 +0100 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-10088 Michael (or Frank or Peter or whatever) - You accuse me of "parroting", yet all of your lame arguments are standard fare in the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender fantasy world. You demonstrate your ignorance of God, His workings, the Bible, and the effect of sin on the human race. I repeat: God does NOT make mistakes. Man DOES make "mistakes", and mistakes have consequences. You were NOT "born that way". There is absolutely no scientific evidence, no gene mutations, no added or missing parts which even remotely buy into such an absurd claim. People CHOOSE! Sometimes people choose wrong. Like any other "mistake", there will be consequences. The evidence of the truth of what I say is available. You have made another choice... the choice to ignore or disregard the evidence. This is another mistake for which there WILL be consequences. I guarantee the day will come when you recognize that what I say is true. If that realization comes in time, it will be a giant burden lifted from your heart. If that realization comes too late, that burden will become eternally unbearable. - Elmer Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:35:41 +0100 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-9915 @Elmer: Don't presume you know anything about me, my past or my present that I haven't stated explicitly. To presume that my name was ever "Michael" is deeply offensive - not only because it's wrong. Lastly, you are in no position to gainsay the validity of my past or present ... or future for that matter. You know nothing of my experiences in this world, and even less about me as a person. What you have written about my experiences is pure supposition, and I find that deeply offensive. As for the "god doesn't make mistakes" line, I will say only this - bullfeathers. Tell that to every child born with spina bifida, tell that to every intersex person or anybody else who is born "different" in this world - down to those who are left-handed come to that. I haven't made any claims about the causal origins of being transsexual in this thread. I don't believe that was the subject - last I checked, we were discussing why you insist that it is "wicked" and "sinful", and so far everything I've seen you present seems firmly rooted in your insistence on confusing gender related issues with sexuality. On that note, I bid you adieu - it's clear that you and I are unlikely to agree on anything substantive, and all you are going to do is continue parroting whatever you've been told to believe. - Michelle Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:31:29 +0100 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-9905 Michael - 1. God does not make mistakes. If He created you a male, you are a male. If He created you a female, you are a female. No amount of wishful thinking, surgery, or hormones is going to change that fact. 2. God does not lie. In fact, God CAN'T lie. 3. Man does lie. Man lies particularly to himself. It is the nature of man to lie. 4. You think God made a mistake and created you male on the outside and female on the inside. See #1, then see #3. 5. Your notion that you were "made that way" is as valid as the notion that the black race was inferior to the white race (dis-proven), the the yellow race was superior to the white race (dis-proven), that the Aryan "race" was superior to other races (dis-proven), that men with an extra 'Y' chromosome were predicated to violence (dis-proven), that people with sloping foreheads were intellectually inferior to people with higher foreheads (dis-proven), and that "redskins" were by nature savages (dis-proven). You are totally lacking in any scientific justification for your wild claims. Psycho-babble is NOT science. I won't dispute that you "feel" out of place, but that is not because of being "born that way", but being raised that way. That is, it is "learned" behavior. You can learn a new behavior, one that is consistent with what God wants (even demands) for you. Just because you don't want to isn't going to hold water when you are called to account. You will be without excuse. Your interpretation of 1 Sam 16:7 is so ludicrous, so far off the wall, as to make me wonder just what it is you're smoking. - Elmer Mon, 01 Mar 2010 10:36:55 +0100 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-9883 Then you start into citing 1 Samuel: [i]1 Sam 16:7; 1 Sam 18:1; 1 Sam 19:1; 1 Sam 20:3, 1 Sam 20;41; [/i] It's unclear to me the relevance of all but [i]1 Sam 16:7[/i]. For the most part, it appears to describe a homosexual love affair to some extent, but since Gender Incongruity (or transsexualism if you prefer) is not about sexual identity or activity, it seems quite irrelevant to the point. [i]1 Sam 16:7[/i] reads: [quote]16:7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.[/quote] Ironically, I think you would find that most transgender folk would argue that this passage is very much license for them to actively pursue their gender related needs since the majority of transfolk, and transsexuals in particular, seem to claim that their cross-gender identity exists at the core of their being. Would not God himself, in light of [i]1 Sam 16:7[/i] demand that a person of feminine soul and male body take steps to reconcile body and soul? - Michelle Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:00:57 +0100 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-9882 Deuteronomy: [i]Deut 22:5; Deut 23:17-18; Deut 32:4-5[/i] At best, Deuteronomy 22:5 is the only thing you cite that arguably talks about cross-gender activity. However, Deuteronomy 22:5 falls apart when we start considering naturally occuring intersex conditions and other variations in humanity. While the notion of 'man and woman' might have been pretty cut and dried when this scripture was written, when we have chromosomal XY people who develop as normal physiological females because of various medical conditions. Is that person a 'man' or are they a 'woman'? Further, the concept of 'man' and 'woman' pertain more to social roles, and for someone who is truly transsexual, are they in fact cross-dressing when they adopt the garb of the opposite gender? Deuteronomy 23:17-18 is talking about prostitution, and that is quite irrelevant. Moving along to Judges, you cite: [i]Judges 19:22-26[/i]: I fail to see how a story describing gang rape and sexual abuse of someone has anything to do with someone being transsexual. - Michelle Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:58:00 +0100 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-9880 I'll go through what you cite a piece at a time. In this entry, I'll take up your citations of Genesis and a few other parts. You cite the following: [i]Gen 1:26-28; Gen 3:4-5; Gen 5:2; Gen 13:13; Gen 19:4-9[/i] Mostly you seem to be citing the "male and female he made them" line, and then toss in the "wickedness of Sodom's men" for a bit of spice. If "male and female" is all that god made, then I'm afraid you have a significant logical problem - that is the existence of Intersex conditions which are turning out to be quite diverse in their expression. There is a cold, factual reality that there are a lot of people who are to some degree or another [i]both[/i] male and female in the same body. To associate transsexualism with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (assuming that story is really about homosexual sexual activity) is stretching things to say the least. First of all, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, transsexuality isn't about sexual activity at all; second, I see nothing at all in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah that can even be remotely associated with cross-gender behaviour of any sort. You then go on to cite Leviticus: [i]Lev 18:22; Lev 20:13[/i] Both of these are generally understood to be reflecting upon homosexual (particularly male homosexual) sexual activity. Again, these are irrelevant to the topic of gender identity in general. Gender Identity is not necessarily directly associated with sexuality. Additionally, given the highly selective application of Leviticus in the modern world, I'm reluctant to consider it terribly relevant. Too many aspects of Leviticus are widely ignored even by those who cite it the most vociferously to make it terribly credible. - Michelle Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:30:53 +0100 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-9879 Gen 1:26-28; Gen 3:4-5; Gen 5:2; Gen 13:13; Gen 19:4-9; Lev 18:22; Lev 20:13; Deut 22:5; Deut 23:17-18; Deut 32:4-5; Judges 19:22-26; 1 Sam 16:7; 1 Sam 18:1; 1 Sam 19:1; 1 Sam 20:3, 1 Sam 20;41; 2 Sam 1:26; Psalm 14:1-3; Psalm 72:14; Psalm 139:13-16; Prov 12:20; Prov 18:2; Prov 20:17; Eccl 7:29; Eccl 11:5; Jer 1:5; Jer 9:6; Jer 9:8; Jer 17:9; Amos 2:4; Matt 5:17-18; Matt 19:4-6; Matt 23:25-28; Mark 7:22; Mark 10:6; Rom 1:21-32; Rom 3:4; Rom 3:13; Rom 3:23; Rom 8:5-8; Gal 5:3-7; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:3-7; Eph 5:31-32; Col 2:8; Col 3:5; 1 Cor 11:3; 1 Cor 11:14-15; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 2 Cor 7:1; 2 Tim 3:2-5; Titus 1:16; Heb 6:18; James 1:13-15; 2 Peter 2:10-14, 17-19; 1 John 1:10; 1 John 2:4; 1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:20; 1 John 5:10; Rev 22:15 - Elmer Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:24:28 +0100 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-9858 @Elmer: (1) I'm not one of your students, and the intellectually sloppy "the proof is left as an exercise to the reader" approach to making your point is not what I'm looking for. (2) I've said it before, and I'll repeat myself one last time: I'm asking you to substantiate your claims with specifics. Telling me to go sift through 66 books (I presume the scripture) guessing what particular sections you believe are specifically related to transsexuality suggests isn't an adequate response. If you are a teacher of some kind, I'm sure you wouldn't accept a paper from a student that told you to go read the textbook for the evidence that substantiates their point. I think it is quite reasonable to insist that you substantiate your position with specific references to scripture. Your refusal to do so leaves me and others with the impression that you are doing little more than parroting something that you've heard elsewhere. - Michelle Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:51:58 +0100 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-9814 "badly written pseudo-code" You obviously don't even know what pseudo-code looks like. Had you taken my class, you would have learned that. "Unfortunately there is no information provided that substantiates that derivation" There are 66 books that substantiate it. - Elmer Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:30:32 +0100 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-9610 @Elmer: You continue to assert things without providing relevant supporting material to substantiate your claim. Putting badly written pseudo-code into your posts doesn't make your position substantiated. I've asked you twice to provide substantiating material for your argument, and all we get in reply are vague exhortations to "go read the bible". I'm asking you to provide references to material that substantiates your claim that being transsexual is 'sin'. ... oh yes the logic of your 'program' above is flawed. It is an improperly formed syllogism. From the assertion "God is True" you derive "Man is a liar". Unfortunately there is no information provided that substantiates that derivation, nor have you derived a logical contradiction. - Michelle Mon, 22 Feb 2010 02:40:30 +0100 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-9600 You knowledge of scripture is superficial. Do research into the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts. Also research the traditional customs of the Hebrew and other cultures of the day. Find out just what was meant by the term "eunuch". You will find several applications. Also notice the contexts in which the references are made. Your understanding will change. - Elmer Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:11:10 +0100 http://thenewamerican.com/culture/education/2975-is-the-apa-playing-politics-with-sexual-disorder-definition#comment-9598 You confuse the terms "hermaphrodite" (or intersex) with "transsexual" (also referred to as "transgender"). A hermaphrodite is a rare (less than 1%) genetic condition. A transsexual (or sodomite) is a moral condition. Trying to redefine (or create new) terms in accordance with your "modern (in)sensibilities" does nothing to support your case. #ifndef TRUE #define TRUE 1 #endif #ifndef LIAR #define LIAR 0 #endif main(void) { int God TRUE; int man; if (God == TRUE) { man = LIAR; } else man = God; if (man == God) { exit(1); } exit(0); } - Elmer Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:56:09 +0100