Hey, look at that. Kor actually tries to post an argument. Let's see how or if he succeeds.
HERE IS MY POST FROM BEFORE JMS RESTARTED THINGS SO IL JUST POST IT AGAIN AS NOTHING HAS CHANGED APART FROM THE FACT WE HAVE LEARNED JUST HOW LOW SERAFINA WILL SINK:
In other words, he is just repeating himself. Not an encouraging start.
THE FEMALE BRAIN IN A MALE BODY DESIRE.
The evidence AGAINST MTF transgenders having a female brain from or prior to birth is overwhelming, a unfortunate fact for those who wish it to be otherwise so much that they make claims saying so over and over as seen below.
He is right in regard to the brain being completely like that of a ciswoman.
He is NOT right that there is overwhelming evidence that transwomen do not start out with a female-gender brain. There is evidence that they are, but the responsible part has not yet been found. He tries to use lack of knowledge as evidence, which is an enormous distortion of the scientific method.
Not only do we know from MRI brain scans how female brains are structured differantly from male brains and that MTF do not have female structured brains but male ones, but we also know that prolonged use of hormone treatment does cause changes in MTF transgender brains TOWARDS a more female structure.
This is his own admission i was talking about earlier. He claims that a transwomen does not have a female brain - but with hormones, she has! He uses that as evidence if it is convenient for him, but if it isn't he denies it.
These two facts cleary show that they were not female brains in the first place, firstly by the scan showing so and secondly by the fact that the drugs could not change the structure towards female if they were female in the first place rather than male.
Again, he is attacking a strawman (or a straw brain?). My argument does not rely on an initial completely female brain. Instead, it relies on a brain with female gender identity. We know that most differences between male and female brain are nor responsible for gender identity - and we do not yet know what exactly is responsible for it. Again, he tries to use lack of knowledge as evidence.
We do have indications that a small area of the transgender brain may have a anomoly that may effect it early in development, but given the way and amount the brain develops afterwards there is no way it could be interpreted as a female brain or even close to one.
Here he admits that there is a difference, which he calls derogatorily an anomaly.
But that very "anomaly" might very well be responsible for the gender identity. That is all my argument relies upon, yet when i mention it he denies the relevance of that anomaly.
I shall not go into the addictive qualities of the drugs taken by transgenders at this time or the possible repercussions of such effects on the opinions/desires of those taking them over a short or long term.
Here he introduces a complete strawman to the rest of his argument as a red herring. I shall bite and debunk it regardless.
As with everything else about psychology, Kor does not understand the basics about addiciton.
But let's see. There are basically two types of addiction:
One towards an addictive substance such as alcohol which has a physical addictive component, and one on a certain behavior.
The first is defined as: "When an individual persists in use of alcohol or other drugs despite problems related to use of the substance, substance dependence may be diagnosed. Compulsive and repetitive use
may result in tolerance to the effect
of the drug and withdrawal symptoms when use is reduced or stopped. This, along with Substance Abuse are considered Substance Use Disorders...."
Well, his argument fails at the bolded parts.
First of all, hormonal treatment is neither compulsive nor particularly repetitive. There is no compulsion to take them other than the common sense to take ones medication, and there is no repetition other than the medical necessity.
One could compare it to a diabetic taking his medicaments when necessary - he doesn't feel a particular psychological compulsion to take them, and he only does so out of medical necessity.
Second of all, the body does not build up a tolerance to the effect. Generally, hormonal treatment stays at a steady level once the optimal dose is found. This is a huge difference to an addiction, where the dose has by definition to be increased constantly.
He already fails at two critical points. He might further argue with the withdrawal symptoms, but keep the analogy to a diabetic in mind - he will also suffer from consequences if he does not take his medication. But these are entirely physical and not psychological - the body just lacks a substance it needs, and a natural substance in both cases.
Behavioral addictions do not actually have a good definition like drug addictions.
But generally, he still fails at two basic things:
Lack of compulsion and lack of tolerance buildup.
A transwoman has no particular compulsion to wear female clothing etc. She wants to do it, but wanting something is not the same as an addictive compulsion.
Second of all, there is no tolerance buildup. He might argue that transwomen start out on a "low level" of femininity and go higher and higher - but he fails to see that this is not a process in perpetuity, like it is with behavioral addictions. A gambling addict will spend more and more time obsessing about gambling - but a transwomen won't spent more and more time obsessing about being a woman. She will be a woman all the time, but neither does she attempt to increase the intensity of that.
Generally, once a transwomen has succeeded in her passing, no increase of intensity happens in her behavior. For addicts, no such "final level" can exist by definition. This is completely dissimilar to addictive behavior.
If Kor knew anything about psychology, he would know that. No scientific body in the world treats transsexuality as an addiction.
While the treatment of older individuals claiming to be transgender is problematic in and of itself due to what is known to the psychological community as the "Feminine Essence Narrative", a construct of imaginative stories created by transgenders in order to fit the criteria for SRS surgery once the medical community published its guidelines.
Again he claims that a large amount of transwomen lies about their feelings and history. This is completely false. In fact what he mentions as "feminine essence narrative"
was originally brought up as a criticism on harsh, sexist criterias that were employed by psychologists. For example, this included that a transwomen had to have a desire to be the typical "submissive housewife" (like in the 50s). Lesbian transwomen were often outright rejected as being transsexual.
The criticism concluded that this narrative is inaccurate because the criteria are inaccurate.
It did not do so because all transwomen lief about it. While in fact many did, this was only because the criteria were too strict. Nowadays, it is generally not necessary to construct any lies at all, and psychologists are actually attentive if one's history matches the outdated narrative too closely. Generally, a person is just too dynamic to fit into this outdated scheme.
However in 2008, the Canadian sexologist Ray Blanchard presented the idea in the form of a theory in a commentary entitled "Deconstructing the Feminine Essence Narrative" wherein he lists what he considers to be "the central tenets of the feminine essence theory", and then refutes each of his tenets:
Again, Kor is appealing to something that is mostly only accepted in North America.
1. Male-to-female transsexuals are, in some literal sense and not just in a figurative sense, women inside men’s bodies.
2. There is only one type of woman, therefore there can be only one type of (true) male-to-female transsexual.
3. Apparent differences among male-to-female transsexuals are relatively superficial and irrelevant to the basic unity of the transsexual syndrome.
4. Male-to-female transsexuals have no unique, behavioral or psychological characteristics that are absent in typical men and women.
You will note that these are just claims that he supposedly disproved. As always, Kor provides no evidence.
In essence, these criteria still apply - and are not what is generally called the "essence narrative".
Criteria one is true because essentially, identity is what matters.
Two is true because that "type of woman" is diverse enough to encompass every sub-type of woman. A butch-lesbian is a woman exactly like a hetereo-housewife is - both are woman. Being part of a sub-category doesn't remove you from the main category.
Three is true for the same reason - regardless of whether a transwoman is hetero or homosexual or any other differences, she is still a woman - just like ciswomen with those differences are still women.
No unique behavior is presented. Autogynophilia is also present in ciswomen and therefore not unique to transwomen.
Ray Blanchard immediatly became the target for hate mail and abuse by individuals within the transgender community for pointing these facts out, however his qualifications speak for themselves:
This is a fallacious appeal to authority - somewhat in reverse, but still the same thing.
You will note that Kor does not present any model of transsexuality at all, nor would such a model support his prejudice that transwomen are not women in any way.
Highly successful cures for GID children have been recorded by some of the worlds most renowned sexologists and psycologists.
As i pointed out earlier, the basic failure here is that GID encompasses more than transsexuality. It is basically any deviation in sexual or gender behavior that is considered normal - most of it is due to homosexuality.
The DSM IV itself states that most children with GID (over 80%) turn out to be actually homosexual. Zucker achieves similar rates - which means that he achieves no change at all.
The quote is just another appeal to authority. No work of Zucker is presented.
Dr. Kenneth Zucker has reported success rates of 80-90% in GID children and has treated over 500 preadolescent gender-variant children over the last 30 years.
As i said above, this rate is near-identical to that that just happens naturally. Kor likes to claim that Zucker only selects the "most severe cases" and that he therefore achieves actual success, but there is no actual link between being homo- or transsexual and the severity of GID. Homosexual children can be as severe as transsexual children in their GID and vice versa. Severity is therefore not a way to differ between the two.
However again instead of being met by happy inquiry by the transgender community he has met only abuse and even accusations of child abuse and harm.
This is again an appeal to authority.
As can be personally testified to on this very board some even go so far as to accuse the APA and other governing bodies of the psycological community of ignoring Dr. Kenneth Zucker's alledged child abuse or even supporting it because of personal friendships.........mainly in order to discredit his qualifications and promotions gained BECAUSE of his fine work helping GID children and others in that area of study.
And also an ad hominem attack.
Kor constantly ignored the fact that Zuckers results are not confirmed by any independent study.
Given that he has worked for decades now, this is extremely odd - normally, every single study will over time be confirmed if it's results are correct. Only if it's results are incorrect no such confirmation will happen.
Despite being constantly challenged to do so, Kor never showed any independent verification of Zuckers work. Personally, i was not capable of finding such a study.
Note that peer review merely looks for obvious errors in the application of the scientific method and does not contain independent research-
Without such verification, a hypothesis can not possibly be called a theory or even reliable.
Studies also show influence of the environment ver much supporting the Dr. Kenneth Zucker and Blanchard position.
The work of neither has been independently confirmed.
Furthermore, an environmental influences neither supports Kors prejudice nor does it change anything about the main theory about transsexuality. A cis-persons identity is also influenced by environmental factors, which will change the exact expression of their gender identity. Yet it has been shown that no amount of environmental influence can change a cis-persons gender identity. Yet their hypothesis demands just that - that a childs gender identity can be changed by "wrong" influences.
Generally their theory fails to explain how transsexual people can exist who were not subject to such "wrong" environmental influences in childhood. In fact, a majority of transsexual people were not subject to them - those of older age certainly not, due to the strict standing towards children back then. And even those of younger age (20+) are generally not subject to such influence.
And not all transsexual people display GID in childhood as well, yet another descriptive failure.
They propose an additional cause that is related to "extreme homosexuality". But that does not explain transsexual people who were not subject to environmental influences and are not attracted to their own sex (e.g. non-GID lesbian transwomen such as myself).
The model "born with an unchangeable gender identity" has no problems to explain any of those. Since it is currently the model with the higher descriptive value and is supported by more, independent studies it is the superior model.
I started this discussion with the opinion that if you wanna be a woman then chop it off and hasve done with it as long as you are not hurting anybody. However while my personal code regarding that philosophy in all things has not changed my opinion of it doing harm has.
This already displays ignorance or prejudice - "chopping off" is an entirely inccurate term and often used in a derogatory way.
I have seen that the traditional science, the psychology and other issues show clearly that supporting it could be and likely is perpetuating the sufferng of those who could be treated at a early age.
In other words, you do not want to help people, you want to supress them - for their "own good".
That ignores that Zucker&co epxress their full support for adult transsexuals such as myself.
By supporting it i am also supporting those who think that doctors at the highest levels of their profession AND the governing boards are perposfully harming children in some sort of cover up, either because of severe paranoia or because of sheer loathing that their "WISH" to be "essentially female" is clearly refuted.
This is yet another appeal to authority.
This thread and the vast amount of research i have done has opened my eyes to a real concern regarding it and some of the individuals trying to gain support for hate campaigns against the medical community that is trying to help them.
You have only displayed that you did research on transsexual brain structure. You did not show that you did any research on psychology or Zuckers/Blanchardsd work. You did not present any studies by them and you demonstrated that you were ignorant of basic psychology such as behavioral reinforcement and the mechanics of addiction.
Generally, your argument is very poor. You are constantly appealing to Zuckers and Blanchards authority and attack their critics - instead of displaying the quality of their own work and the supportive evidence of independent scientists (the latter apparently does not exist). That would be the proper way to present an argument, yet you have not done it since we were debating brain structure, where you already displayed your desire to dismiss evidence that contradicted yours.
Generally, you display a lot of negativity towards transsexuality. You constantly focus on the apparent harm it does (that harm solely comes from intolerance such yours) and use derogatory words towards transsexual people. You have claimed that they are incapable of making their own decisions and that they are addicts. You have also focused on the small differences of transitioned transwomen towards ciswomen in order to deny them their identity and rights.
You have displayed, over multiple pages now, that you prefer personal insults to presenting evidence. You have a clear pattern of starting these insults once you are challenged to present evidence.
Regardless, i shall challenge you again.
Of utmost importance, you shall bring forth independent verificating evidence for both Blanchards and Zuckers work. Any position they hold or peer review they passed does not replace this requirement, do not try to escape that way.
Furthermore, you shall actually disprove their critics instead of dismissing them with ad-hominem attacks.
And last but not least, you shall present scientific evidence that transwomen are not women. Neither Blanchard nor Zucker claim this, hence you will have to look elsewhere.
This is your duty if you want to engage in honest debate. Dirty fighting with insults and personal attacks do nothing to honor your argument and diminish any impact it might have.