|
mandatory lesbian posted:i don't see how it isn't a mental disorder, most of the effects are mental, except for the people who get literally sick cause of dysphoria This leads be to a question I've been wondering about for a while but wasn't sure where to ask/if it would be offensive. If it is, just tell me and I'll retract it, but, for those here who ate trans and are comfortable talking about it: If there was a safe, reliable chemical (meaning brain chemistry) treatment for gender dysphagia that would make you comfortable with the physical sex you were born with, would that be something you'd entertain using? Or is the condition one that you can only see being solved through physical reassignment?
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
Octatonic posted:This is the most cishet thing I've seen posted in this thread so far, congratulations! I can own that, but to clarify; the reason I asked is that people say that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder a lot, and I can see the reasons for that, but it never really felt right to me as a classification. The responses I've gotten so far confirm that; if it really is just a disorder, then like depression you'd expect to be able to alleviate it somewhat by treating an underlying cause. That people reject the idea of "antidysphoria" drugs implies to me that calling it a mental disorder is too shallow a reading of the problem, and that it probably gives people the wrong idea about trans issues as a whole.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Don't take this the wrong way but what exactly are you trying to say? Sorry, I was really just trying to get a better grasp on the issue beyond "some people are intentionally assholes to people who don't deserve it," and wound up unintentionally being one of those assholes. Octatonic posted:I'd say your on the right track about this, but I'd like to reemphasize that regardless of the "how" or "what" of transness and queerness, one of the more exhausting struggles is the constant demand that you validate and justify your own existence to those around you. Now that you've pointed it out, yeah I can see how that question just adds more poo poo to a person's day. If anyone wants me to remove it, I will; right now I'm just leaving it so the conversation isn't confusing for someone reading it after the fact.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Now I don't think you were doing that at all, it's just that well, that's often the implication so you can see how it's going to raise some eyebrows. Looking at how I phrased my question, even divorced from the baggage of those attitudes it still has a gross undertone of "justify yourselves to me, transpeople." If I was doing it over, I'd try to phrase it to be more "please help me understand what it's like to deal with these issues from your viewpoint." That said, I think I do have a better understanding now; I'd been thinking of it as a disparity between brain and body, rather than one between personality (or maybe soul, for lack of a word with a less religious tone?) and body. metalloid posted:Not trans, but as a bisexual, if you were able to get rid of any aspect of my sexuality I'd hate you forever. I suspect a similar response from trans* people when it comes to the stuff that's important to them. This goes back to me doing an utterly piss-poor job of articulating my question, but I absolutely did not want that to sound like me or anyone else making the decision for a trans (or gay, or bisexual) person. I'm cis, but my sexuality cleaves fairly close to asexual; for me the idea of a person being able to alter elements their personality and sexuality (albeit temporarily, now that I've got a better idea how fundamental it is to most peoples' identities) isn't any more horrifying than other means of altering consciousness. That's in the context of someone consenting for their own reasons, though. Government control of that sort of thing is the stuff of dystopian nightmares. Keeshhound fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Jun 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...no_longer_there Oh, is that why they wouldn't accept my donation last night? I was gonna ask if anyone else had that problem, but I guess that would explain it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I wished they'd change it to a Gofundme to hire people to burn that place to the ground. You don't need gofundme to buy $200 of gasoline and a matchbook.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If we're going to fix lgbt issues with a magic pill that changes your personality, how about a pill that makes straight people stop caring about whether anyone else is gay or trans. There's no money in it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Polaron posted:Local news is reporting his name was Omar Mateen so I don't think "evangelical Christian" is the direction we're going to have to worry about once the spin machine kicks in. Honestly, the fact that they were willing to call it terrorism made me suspect the perpetrator was already confirmed to not be a white christian.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:That would require self awareness This is all that really needed to be said.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:I know I'm probably just kneejerking, but... I'm not the only one who wants loving vengeance for this poo poo, right? It's human to want revenge. It's also never been a good idea, and if the gay community gets a reputation for violent activity even if it's only for reprisals, it'll loose most of its external support; like it or not, the majority is never comfortable with minorities advocating violence.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Kylra posted:Obviously ISIS is trying to deplete our vital gay stores in this new front of the war on terror. We must protect the gays. Our nation, and all straight peoples of the free world, depend on them. We cannot allow a Soddomy gap!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:I need something to do. What are some LGBT political groups to donate to that are good? Who are the people in Washington down the throats of people who do stuff? Can you donate blood?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Nope, I've had sex with someone with a penius. Figures. As much as both ABC and ARC whine about not having enough blood, you'd think they'd be more receptive to changing their guidelines to just asking people if they'd engaged in unsafe sex in the last year. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The tests are also not infallible. Unless you can't find alternative donors it makes sense to avoid using blood that is at elevated risk of being dangerous for the patient receiving it. Yeah, but the same standards to which straight people are held to work for gays too; "Have you had unprotected sex with a new partner in the last year?" "No." "Have you had sex with anyone who is HIV positive in the last year?" "No." "Ok, but was it anal sex with a man who isn't HIV positive?" "Yes." "I'm sorry, anal sex just spontaneously produces AIDS particles sometimes. We don't know how it happens, but we can't take your blood, sorry."  It's a blatant double standard, and a dumb one that is actively hurting people because bloodbanks are constantly dealing with blood shortages, but they're forced (in normal circumstances) to turn away prospective donors because of the type of sex they're having, rather than whether or not both partners are clean, or they're practicing safe sex. Keeshhound fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:It looks like more evidence that anti-LGBT rhetoric and social discrimination/bigotry/the pressures of being LGBT in America are what contributed to this, IMO. Yeah, but that's not the narrative being pushed; no one wants to talk about anti-gay hatred, it's all "how was he radicalized? Which terrorist organization was he actually working for? Is it radical Islam or radical islamism?"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:People may conceivably lie about any of the screening questions but that doesn't mean we should do away with the screening altogether. That people want it to be changed suggests that it is, in part, self enforcing. Which is better than nothing. Deterring at-risk donations and screening all donations are both facets of ensuring the supply is safe for use. You're kind of conflating correlation with causation here. Yes, gay men and some other groups are at greater risk to be infected with HIV, but that's not a direct result of being gay, because again, being gay doesn't cause HIV to spotaneously appear in your blood. Being gay does tend to correlate with behaviors and life conditions that do cause someone to be at risk for infection; i.e., being homeless which in turn correlates to needle sharing, or engaging in unprotected sex. That's why the pre-donation questionaire asks about those behaviors, too. If you control for those risk factors, there's no reason to think that gay blood is any more at risk to be contaminated with HIV than straight.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I still see little reason to change it unless having gay men donate is going to make a significant difference to the blood supply's availability. It will though? As I pointed out earlier, ARC and ABC are both constantly calling for donations, and pretty much every blood bank in the country reports being chronically understocked. In light of that, what we have is a donor ban that everyone here seems to agree is of negligible benefit, and clearly harms collection efforts either by discouraging otherwise willing donors or by encouraging donors to lie about their sexuality, which then calls into question the truth of all the other answers they provide. OwlFancier posted:I have no aversion to excessive caution where it can be afforded. The state of US blood collection efforts are such that it really can't be afforded right now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't really think that lying about one thing makes people lie about other things, otherwise I would presumably have to think that LGBT people are inherently untrustworthy because they have probably not been out to everyone all the time, which is obviously stupid. People may lie for what they believe is a good reason and it doesn't necessarily indicate that they would be dishonest arbitrarily. There's a whole body of research already that shows that someone who's lied once will have significantly decreased inhibitions about doing it again in the same context. The entire pre-donation survey is wholly reliant on the donor being 100% honest. Putting a gay donor in a position were they need to breach that presumption of honesty to do what they believe is the right thing weakens the integrity of the entire survey. If they're going to lie about that to do the right thing, why shouldn't they also lie about having practiced unsafe sex, or sharing needles if they've recently tested negative? It's the same for anyone, regardless of orientation, but the survey is written such that gay men are forced to lie once already. Edit: I'd like to clarify that I in now way mean to accuse anyone here of lying on a blood donation form on their answers to the legitimately useful questions. I trust that all of you fine people are well informed enough to recognize which questions are important and which are blatantly obsolete. I am, however concerned that the broader population of the US is not always so well informed. Keeshhound fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:This week has been pretty awful for me. I go to school in Orlando, and while I was lucky enough to be in Texas visiting family during the shooting, I still got to wake up to texts from friends telling me my community was being massacred. Discussion about it in the household ended up with a shouting argument between me and pretty much everyone else that ended with me outed and told by my grandfather that people gays and liberals aren't part of the family's values, and if I didn't hold their values I wasn't part of the family. Feels bad man That sucks, dude. I hope things get better for you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Reik posted:DADT feels very "separate but equal" to me. I don't think progress and compromise mesh well, but I wanted to get thoughts from people who actually lived through it before passing judgment on it. Progress is almost always a series of compromises moving from supression to equality. A few hundred years ago, gays were sinful abominations to be purged. Then they were criminals to be punished nonlethally. Then they were just mentally sick. Now they're people who are a little different, but deserve equality in most everything, and hopefully soon that'll just be "gays are people."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
tezcat posted:Meanwhile just a few miles outside of Tampa if you commute to and from Brandon and Tampa... 50' X 30'? That's.... pretty small, honestly. You'd think a group so dedicated to giving progress a middle finger could at least spring for a football-field sized one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...essure_from_nba Their commitment to being as lovely as possible is almost inspiring in it's wretchedness.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Hermetic posted:(Not to shame those who enjoy a quick bathroom hookup, as long as you're being safe...And aren't a senator legislating actively against my rights.) I contest your premise that it is possible to have safe sex in a public bathroom, those places are filthy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:Separate incident, just commenting on an earlier thing I said about my borough Try hydrogen peroxide.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Do It Once Right posted:It's just so foreign to me that this man is desperately asking people for more money in such a way. It shouldn't be; the end of his gravy train is in sight and he doesn't have a backup plan yet.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:So... presumably you also have to have a better reason for granting a right or freedom than "becuase freedom good"? As I understand the legal principles, the rights which are recognized are supposed to be inherent to all humans, so the law can never actually "grant" a right or freedom, only constrain what already exists.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:gently caress Wikileaks Jesus, they're not even loving trying to pretend to have standards. quote:Embattled WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, who has spent years hiding in London’s Ecuadorian Embassy, said previously: “The Saudi Cables lift the lid on an increasingly erratic and secretive dictatorship that has not only celebrated its 100th beheading this year, but which has also become a menace to its neighbours and itself.”
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Pussy Cartel posted:No, but you see, it's the fault of vigilantes and dictators if people get hurt, you can't hold someone accountable for what they leak. Honestly, you could almost make a legitimate argument out of that. It'd be weak as hell, but it would at least be logically consistent if this leak actually produced anything good, but it's Saudi Arabia. Everyone already knows it's a repressive hellhole. This isn't news, Julian, you just outed a bunch of people for no loving benefit except to stroke your own ego. gently caress. I remember NPR did an interview with him where they asked him "No, seriously, did you get the DNC emails from the Russians?" and you could just hear the satisfaction in his voice as he simpered "We're not going to just give up our sources, we adhere to strict standards." Christ, what an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:Tempting, but I'd rather just kidnap him from the embassy and deliver him to the authorities' door so he can be tried as a rapist. Back when wikileaks was really news I thought there might be something to the claims that those charges were invented or inflated to silence him, but christ does he make it easy to believe them. If he doesn't see the problem outing thousands of sexual and political minorities in repressive regimes or releasing the credit cards of dnc donors, why shouldn't I believe he's capable of violating someone's autonomy on the individual scale, too?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, if that's cyber feudalism I'm totally on board. "You don't, like, understand, man. Information and speech want to be freeeeeeee..."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Do It Once Right posted:The second point is pretty lovely. They should replace it with his 17 year old live-in boyfriend/current student he dated while he was abusing other children as executive director of that school. Honestly, the simplest thing to me is to just replace the masculine elements with feminine elements and see if it still feels skeevey. "Threatened his Mexican immigrant ex-girlfriend with deportation" - Yeah, pretty still hosed up. "Sent naked photos of himself to a woman he met online soliciting sex" - I guess it depends on when the solicitation happened; the language is vague enough that I can't tell if it's saying he just out of the blue sent the photos with a solicitation, or if he met the person when they solicited him for sex online.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not sure it's the devious gays who are holding back the revolution, comrade. Yours is a subtle and insidious power. Keeshhound fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Reminder that voting for Hillary Clinton this fall is more important than ~*~ideological purity~*~. Wasn't Trump supposed to draw conservative LGBT voters to the GOP or some other bullshit?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Artificer posted:The people used their power to vote in Trump which no corporation or expert or what have you wanted. According to the current vote counts, the people voted in Clinton by about 200k. The Elector College is explicitly antidemocratic in nature.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Vulpes Vvardenfell posted:"gently caress queers?" I had no idea their platform was so pro-LGBT. Good on the Republicans, for finally coming out of the closet. Whatever keeps your spirits up.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:100% Usually I can follow whatever stupid and twisted logic these idiots use to build these suits, but that link said she was claiming her 14th amendment rights were being violated. What?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
there wolf posted:And this is all being backed by an anti-abortion group, because the law gives cover to minors seeking abortions without parental consent. Looking forward to so Minnesota judge smacking this poo poo sandwich down with the fury of an angry god. Ah, now I see their angle. I was trying to figure out how getting automatic emancipation struck down (best case scenario for the plaintiff) gets them what they want, since it still wouldn't affect the legality of transitioning.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Eimi posted:This is an idle thought conjured up by my armchair historians fear that America is now approaching the bloody part of the Roman Republic, but why haven't alt right groups tried to adopt the "manly" homosexuality of the Greeks/Romans? If they were willing to acknowledge the basic human dignity of people who were like them, but deviated in even relatively minor ways, they wouldn't be such abhorrent shitheads in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Eimi posted:gently caress them. I'm assuming that's going to just pass through right? It's still November, so I think we're still in the phase where the legislators (of all parties) throw out their dumbest, can't pass ideas so that they can show their voters that they're representing their interests. So mostly posturing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
I just think it's really hypocritical for someone to complain about white people being racist and then in the same breath admit to making character judgements about people based on nothing more than their skin color.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 00:22
|
|