Is being Transgender a choice?

[AgnosticBoy]

I'm of the opinion that gender expression is a result of social conditioning. I know I used the word "choice" in the title, but that's only because people tend to associate behavior that can be changed or conditioned as being a "choice" (borrowing from the debate on born this way vs. choice).

In this thread, I want to focus on being transgender. Based on my above opinion, I also believe that being transgender is also a result of social conditioning (i.e. childhood experiences, what they learn from society, etc). If I'm right then I think that the recent focus on transgenderism in the media, in Hollywood, in schools, could lead some children to become transgender. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I also bring these points up because when some parents complain about their kids learning about transgenderism in school, the reaction is that it won't impact (some say "groom" ) the child into becoming transgender. If my view is correct, I think the pro-trans crowd should acknowledge that it can potentially influence children AND there's nothing wrong with that.

For Debate
1. Is being transgender a result of social conditioning?
2. Edit: Removed. Teaching kids about gender identity can be a separate thread.

[AgnosticBoy]

People who believe that they were born with the wrong gender may have existed through all time, only today they are able to seek to change gender through surgery.

I don't think that transgenders are influenced by the societies they live in, and I do not think that to undertake such a huge journey of many surgeries and surrounded by so much bigotry could possibly be a choice. It's a drive........

We have a mixed bag in American society. There is a segment of society that is extremely bigotted towards transgender. But then there is a segment that is not. The latter segment is actively pushing it, and has almost popularized it (we see it on social media, in Hollywood, the movies, etc). There are plenty of children being raised by trans-friendly parents. There are school districts and/or states that are actively pushing for kids to learn about transgenderism. So as far as determining if the environment is good or bad really depends on the parents, the school, and where you live.

I've summed up the science in several posts on this thread. Scientists say that people are transgender for different reasons and it does not always involve gender dysphoria. Also, transgenderism is a product of multiple factors, including nature and nurture. Keep in mind, that we now have a new wave of parents that are raising kids in a gender neutral way. Articles that I've read on this say that there has not been much studies on how kids will turn out when raised that way.

Keep in mind, even if being transgender is a choice or environment, that does not make it wrong. The reason that I accept that transgenderism is not wrong or harmful to the individual is because the research says that it isn't.

[brunumb]

The clue to this is 'where are Trans activists showing such aggression...and cancellation'.
Where.....

They are loudest and angriest where they feel threatened, it's the same with other groups of people who feel threatened.

OK, please elaborate on where that is before I offer my response.

[brunumb]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #30]

Listen to this transgender woman speak openly and freely about her experiences. The clip is long but the entire conversation is well worth listening to. The issue as it relates to children is raised about half way through.

"Trans Women Are Men … Including Me" - Debbie Hayton

[AgnosticBoy]

One homophobic psychiatrist's opinion, riding on a wave of homophobia.........

I doubt that you really watched/listened to the discussion with an open mind. Miriam Grossman is just one of many trying to enlighten us on the truth of this flawed ideology. Ask questions and you will get answers. Try that with activists or the ideologically captured and you will just get abuse.

Society has gone overboard with the worship of sexuality.

I watched the video. I can see why some would perceive the psychiatrist to be a bigot since spent 99% of the time being critical of transgenderism, and even brought up the dark side of the doctor that coined the terms "gender" and "gender identity". I wouldn't say that she is a bigot just because she disagrees with transgenderism for the most part. I'd want to see evidence or clear signs of bias or prejudice and hatred.

Some of the psychiatrist's conclusions are unreasonable. One example she uses to argue against transgenderism is a male child (who is also a twin) that committed suicide after being raised female. She blamed the suicide on the child being raised as a gender different than their biological sex, but it turns out that the twins were also sexually abused. I think that the sexual abuse issue alone could drive someone to commit suicide. Not to mention, this is only one case. She also suggests that gender ideology is wrong because the people that coined the concept, like Dr. John Money, were sexual deviants. I don't buy that because that thinking commits the 'genetic fallacy'.

In general, I don't have a problem with people like the psychiatrist being able to question and explore anything. As an agnostic, I wouldn't want any idea or group having a status of being unquestionable. We need to see if everything that is part of the transgender narrative is rooted in science or non-scientific reasons (e.g. politics, societal reasons). Even if it's based on the latter, then that is not always wrong.

[Purple Knight]

She also suggests that gender ideology is wrong because the people that coined the concept, like Dr. John Money, were sexual deviants. I don't buy that because that thinking commits the 'genetic fallacy'.

This is one of the criticisms of the con-transgender side that I had to think a lot about. Ultimately if there is hard science, then no, it doesn't matter what kind of a person John Money is. It's 100% genetic fallacy.

However, and this is where the criticism might hold weight, I do not believe the genetic fallacy should apply to those who make claims about right and wrong. I think their claims about morality can be dismissed if they're rapists or murderers or child abusers.

The reason? Moral claims are inherently baseless and simultaneously treated by all of society as gospel. The only way to rebut a moral claim is with an ad hominem because as a claim with no basis in fact, the person making the claim is the only thing you possibly could attack.

There's also a certain poetic justice in him wanting to prove that gender is essentially invented, and that a kid raised as the "wrong" one would be fine if they never knew, but he couldn't stop himself from abusing the child, so the proof not only didn't manifest, but it certainly looks very bad for his case. (Especially when he supposedly abused both children so the fact that only one of them committed suicide is still very telling in a twin study.)

[AgnosticBoy]

She also suggests that gender ideology is wrong because the people that coined the concept, like Dr. John Money, were sexual deviants. I don't buy that because that thinking commits the 'genetic fallacy'.

This is one of the criticisms of the con-transgender side that I had to think a lot about. Ultimately if there is hard science, then no, it doesn't matter what kind of a person John Money is. It's 100% genetic fallacy.

However, and this is where the criticism might hold weight, I do not believe the genetic fallacy should apply to those who make claims about right and wrong. I think their claims about morality can be dismissed if they're rapists or murderers or child abusers.

The reason? Moral claims are inherently baseless and simultaneously treated by all of society as gospel. The only way to rebut a moral claim is with an ad hominem because as a claim with no basis in fact, the person making the claim is the only thing you possibly could attack.

Yes, I agree. I can also think of times when the source of information, as opposed to the information itself, could affect the validity of the conclusions or views. For instance, if John Money did a study involving a subject that is relevant to his upbringing, then I think it's reasonable to consider how the results could be swayed by him. A lot of academic sources already consider conflicts of interests and biases (political, religious, philosophical) after all. That consideration should especially be in place for the soft sciences because they are not as concrete (in terms of subject matter, methods/design, etc.) as the hard sciences, and it's easier for biases to slip in. While such things should be considered, I still wouldn't say that considering the source alone proves a study or view wrong because it is possible for good/true information to come from bad/questionable sources.

There's also a certain poetic justice in him wanting to prove that gender is essentially invented, and that a kid raised as the "wrong" one would be fine if they never knew, but he couldn't stop himself from abusing the child, so the proof not only didn't manifest, but it certainly looks very bad for his case. (Especially when he supposedly abused both children so the fact that only one of them committed suicide is still very telling in a twin study.)

Yes, the other twin supposedly died of a drug overdose. I think they both suffered from the effects of their abuse.

By the way, I appreciate that a lot of your posts show open-mindedness (outside the box, not always black-and-white, nuanced) and intelligence. Such a combination is hard to find, and it's very agnostic-like.

[oldbadger]

We have a mixed bag in American society. There is a segment of society that is extremely bigotted towards transgender. But then there is a segment that is not. The latter segment is actively pushing it, and has almost popularized it (we see it on social media, in Hollywood, the movies, etc). There are plenty of children being raised by trans-friendly parents. There are school districts and/or states that are actively pushing for kids to learn about transgenderism. So as far as determining if the environment is good or bad really depends on the parents, the school, and where you live.

I've summed up the science in several posts on this thread. Scientists say that people are transgender for different reasons and it does not always involve gender dysphoria. Also, transgenderism is a product of multiple factors, including nature and nurture. Keep in mind, that we now have a new wave of parents that are raising kids in a gender neutral way. Articles that I've read on this say that there has not been much studies on how kids will turn out when raised that way.

Keep in mind, even if being transgender is a choice or environment, that does not make it wrong. The reason that I accept that transgenderism is not wrong or harmful to the individual is because the research says that it isn't.

Hate, prejudice and bigotry are just very sad and nasty mindsets, and the fact that so much of this is extended to LGBT people by some Christians is quite shocking, I think.

When we can see demonstrators against LGBT folks waving banners such as 'God sent the shooter' ..... then decent communities have a good idea of dangers.

There have always been asexual, transgender, transsexual, transvestite, homosexual and bisexual people....... always. In some cultures such as the Roman people this was classed as quite normal.

I don't mind any religious views and drives at all, but I cannot stand bullies and those who would control and dominate other people's lives.

[oldbadger]

The clue to this is 'where are Trans activists showing such aggression...and cancellation'.
Where.....

They are loudest and angriest where they feel threatened, it's the same with other groups of people who feel threatened.

OK, please elaborate on where that is before I offer my response.

Which part of what I wrote do you have any difficulty with?

That's such a simple premise........ that demonstrations are more heated in areas where the demonstrators are most threatened, opposed, put down.

You won't find aggressive demonstrations in areas where there is no opposition....... you'll find peace. Even where a foreign community walks out in support of a similar community far away, then it will be more peaceful. That's a relative condition.

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #30]

Listen to this transgender woman speak openly and freely about her experiences. The clip is long but the entire conversation is well worth listening to. The issue as it relates to children is raised about half way through.

"Trans Women Are Men … Including Me" - Debbie Hayton

I listened to this 65 minute video for 14 minutes and switched off at their first advert to sell the services of 'babbel'.

Debbie Hayton told that she felt female as early as 3yrs old........ so you heard that.
Fortunately she lives in a society where a Science Teacher can trans-gender without losing her job, home or lifestyle.
But she couldn't bring herself to undertake the surgery until mid life.

Now it really doesn't look as if your idea of a society would simply let her do that. If you would then what are you arguing about?

Sports? Debbie knows that because she did not change gender early enough then she developed male strengths and male physique, and so she would never attempt to take part in a sporting competition against women........ that's sensible.

Debbie Hayton certainly wishes that she had been able to speak out much earlier in life.

[Clownboat]

I don't mind any religious views and drives at all, but I cannot stand bullies and those who would control and dominate other people's lives.

Would support humans that would use the pronouns that 'they' see fit when addressing others, or would you seek to control them by mandating their speech? Just curious where you fall on this.