The transgenderism debate

you are appealing to authority which is a logical fallacy.

No genius, appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy when one uses an expert of dubious credentials.

When conservatives use a scientist’s opinion to refute climate change but the scientist they use isn’t a climate scientist then they are committing an appeal to authority logical fallacy.

Get it? You’ve been mansplained.

Right. When a 5 year old says 2+2=4, you can't agree with them or else you're appealing to authority, because they are not a mathematician.

Right. When a 5 year old says 2+2=4, you can't agree with them or else you're appealing to authority, because they are not a mathematician.

Unbelievable. 

My study doesn't conclude that victimization is the reason transgender people commit suicide/have suicidal thoughts.

Firstly, "common sense" is a tautology that I've already called out in this discussion.

Secondly, you need to give reasons as to why we should respect their gender identity. That's the burden of proof you need to fulfil, elsewise you haven't proven there are good reasons to respect their gender identity

Your overcomplication is nonsense.

My study doesn't conclude that victimization is the reason transgender people commit suicide/have suicidal thoughts.

Of course not, because as I’ve pointed out now half a dozen times already, there is nothing that would qualify as “the reason”. Suicide amongst the population is a complex subject and there are multiple factors at play for any and every category of people. Why do you continue to pretend this is not a fact? 

Firstly, "common sense" is a tautology that I've already called out in this discussion.

It’s not a tautology because it’s not being offered as a logical argument. I refer to certain things like common sense as a way of saying that this conversation has been dumbed down to the point where I see no interest in arguing further.

If you can’t figure out how telling people that they are delusional and mentally ill to the point where their own wishes regarding how they are addressed should not be respected - is the opposite of treating them with dignity and respect… then you’re on your own. You can argue that we are not acting in their best interests to do so, which you have tried to even though you have provided no alternative, but that is a separate issue.

Secondly, you need to give reasons as to why we should respect their gender identity. That's the burden of proof you need to fulfil, elsewise you haven't proven there are good reasons to respect their gender identity

It doesn’t have to be proven, that’s the point. The default position in any civilized society is that we treat others the way they wish to be treated until it comes at a cost to others or to themselves. So the burden is on you, not anyone else, to demonstrate the harm. All you have come up with is a half baked case that they are mentally ill without even defining what qualifies one as mentally ill in the first place or why your definition of mental illness is one that anyone should care about.

Your overcomplication is nonsense.

This is a really basic principal of science. Your referring to it as overcomplication is quite hilarious and clearly demonstrates the problem here.

The correct neutral position is to not be sure if they're mentally ill. The non-neutral position would be to assume they are not mentally ill.

You have given yourself a burden by declaring that we should respect transgender wishes to become the opposite biological sex.

The question now becomes: does mental illness cause with transgender suicides to any degree?

You can keep making big sentences with big words, but that 24% will never get close to 100%.

The correct neutral position is to not be sure if they're mentally ill. The non-neutral position would be to assume they are not mentally ill.

You aren’t paying attention, at all.

You are now talking about the neutral position with regards to what we believe. My statement which you have yet to address is in regards to the default position on how we treat people.

Actions and beliefs are not the same thing. You can be neutral when it comes to whether you believe someone is worthy of your respect, you can’t be neutral when it comes to whether you treat them with respect.

You have given yourself a burden by declaring that we should respect transgender wishes to become the opposite biological sex.

No, I declared that we should respect people’s wishes until one can reasonably conclude that doing so would come at a cost to themselves or others. If you seriously want to argue that premise you are more than welcome to explain why we should not. I’d love to hear it.

Once that very basic premise is accepted and you claim we should not do so for the transgender community, you have necessarily given yourself that burden.

The question now becomes: does mental illness cause with transgender suicides to any degree?

No, the question we haven’t yet gotten to is: what is mental illness and what qualities about it make it worthy of concern in this context?

I’ve asked you half a dozen times already to define it and explain why it matters, curiously you continue to ignore it, I suspect because you have no idea how to define it in any way that aligns with your evidence and your point.

Once again, you’re the one who is claiming the 76% gap here is filled with mental illness.

I’ve already provided reasons to help fill some of that gap which some of your studies agreed with. Your studies didn’t study them in any depth because that wasn’t the point of them, so your exclusion of them is entirely baseless.

I’ve also explained to you that we’re not trying to fill the entire gap as people do commit suicide regardless of their gender orientation. You continue to pretend otherwise.

You haven't given us a reason to respect people's wishes by default. It's just logically incorrect.

Mental illness is basically a neurological condition that causes a person to see a false distortion of the world/self.

Spouting random reasons doesn't make for valid argument. You need evidence to support your claims.

You haven't given us a reason to respect people's wishes by default. It's just logically incorrect.

This really is most of the most basic rules of living in a civilized society. Either we respect other people’s wishes as our default or we do not respect other people’s wishes until we are given a reason to do so. This means that every stranger you come across must demonstrate to you why you need to respect their wishes in order for you to do so. That’s an absurd ideal for a way by which society functions.

Mental illness is basically a neurological condition that causes a person to see a false distortion of the world/self.

Then not only have you failed to demonstrate this, you haven’t even argued it.

There is nothing about a man claiming that they see themselves as a woman in a man’s body and wanting the world to see them as a woman that stems from a distorted view of reality. Gender dysphoria is a feeling, not a claim about reality. Transgender people are not telling you that they meet your definition of the gender they want to be identified as, they’re telling you they meet theirs, which tends to have nothing to do with the genitals they were born with or whatever biological marker anti-trans activists want to appeal to.

Spouting random reasons doesn't make for valid argument. You need evidence to support your claims.

My claim is that you haven’t met your burden of proof. I don’t understand why this is so complicated for you. 

I did not come here claiming trans people are not mentally ill, my claim was that we should treat them with respect and also that your claim that they are mentally ill is unfounded. That’s what we’ve been arguing for the past few weeks.

In unsurprising fashion, you try to save face by taking my pushback against your claims and painting them as if I were claiming the opposite. That’s not how logic works.

So back to my point on this, spouting perfectly reasonable alternative explanations that may be contributing to the high suicide rate and pointing out that none of your studies go into any depth to rule them out absolutely does refute your case, because your case literally hinges on the notion that there are no other factors thereby leaving mental illness as the only thing that could fill the remaining gap.

We've spent a couple dozen posts each arguing about whether transgenderism is a mental illness.

We've spent a couple dozen posts each arguing about whether transgenderism is a mental illness.

white suPREEEEEmacist

hurr

hurr hurr

white suPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEmacist

white suPREEEEEmacist

hurrrrrrr

*drools over the keyboard*

You continue to argue that you are all for treating trans individuals with respect while also claiming that their wishes regarding how they are addressed should be disregarded on the basis that we consider them mentally ill. I've never heard such an obvious contradiction defended so vehemently.

You claim you are actually advocating for respectful treatment and that we just disagree on what that looks like, yet not only is treating others how they wish to be treated literally the most basic form of respect that there is, but you admittedly have not even a proposal for how we help them solve the problem you claim to have identified. Just ignore their wishes, that's literally all you got. That's by definition, the opposite of respect.

You continue to claim that trans people are mentally ill by citing studies that did not even attempt to ascertain the answer to that question.

You continue to pretend that victimization is the only alternative explanation I have offered for high suicide rates as well as the behaviors you have identified. (Here's your reminder...)

The suicide attempt rate among transgender persons ranges from 32% to 50% across the countries. Gender-based victimization, discrimination, bullying, violence, being rejected by the family, friends, and community; harassment by intimate partner, family members, police and public; discrimination and ill treatment at health-care system are the major risk factors that influence the suicidal behavior among transgender persons.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/

You continue to pretend you're not presenting one huge argument from ignorance by showing various behaviors you claim are indicative of mental illness, showing studies that fail to account for the full gap between cisgender and transgender behaviours, and claiming that since we don't know what else it could be it must be mental illness.

You define mentally ill as being disconnected from reality and defend this characterization towards the trans community by arguing that they believe something untrue - that surgery will help them feel better about themselves. In order for this to qualify as a legitimate argument you need to argue not only that this conclusion is untrue, but that it is so obviously untrue that believing it indicates a severe disconnect from reality. You haven't even demonstrated the first part.

There are mixed findings on whether surgery is a legitimate solution because there are mixed results.

And let me repeat again... You spent all these weeks arguing your position without so much as even a suggestion as to what we do to solve the problem you pretend to be so concerned about for their sake.

We can respect transgender people by: not cutting the line in front of them, not touching them inappropriately, not taking their belongings without their permission etc. whilst also not appeasing their mental illness.

When we read multiple studies and compile facts, we can start to cross-reference them in meaningful ways in order to build an argument (which is what I've done). Yes, that sometimes means the study doesn't literally say, 'this is what the study tested for and concluded'. 

It's called begging the question because you don't yet agree with me that transgenderism is a mental illness. It would be logical first to get you to agree with me that transgenderism is a mental illness, and then go from there.

 Again, the most basic element of respect is to have regard for their wishes. 

The studies are looking at why trans people commit suicide. Your entire argument on this point is that we don't know why because the conventional explanations don't account for it.

 Here's a question for you; if you don't know why someone attempted suicide, wouldn't you just ask them?

You are entirely hung up on a word. There are all kinds of mental illnesses out there, so telling me someone is mentally ill is meaningless. If you want to assess how someone should be treated you need to know the type, extent, severity, safety risks, etc. of said illness and treat them accordingly. You don't treat them based on the connotations of a word. 

The solution to the issue of transgenderism is to treat their mental illness. To analogize your solution, you're attempting to give someone who wishes to self-harm themselves the knife in which to do it, in order to appease their "wish". That is HARMFUL. That is not how we should treat people with mental illnesses. We need to treat them with basic human respect whilst NOT appeasing the wishes generated by their mental illness.

[dropped by Double_R]

You continue to pretend that victimization is the only alternative explanation I have offered for high suicide rates as well as the behaviors you have identified. (Here's your reminder...)

The suicide attempt rate among transgender persons ranges from 32% to 50% across the countries. Gender-based victimization, discrimination, bullying, violence, being rejected by the family, friends, and community; harassment by intimate partner, family members, police and public; discrimination and ill treatment at health-care system are the major risk factors that influence the suicidal behavior among transgender persons.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/

These are actually all variables that are rolled into the term 'victimization' (wherein transgender people are victim of various harms).

I've already addressed your study here: The transgenderism debate (debateart.com)

[dropped by Double_R]

The "or" is all important because it means respecting wishes isn't necessary to respect someone, and thus you can respect someone by at least respecting their feelings or rights (which is what I've given many examples of).

The "or" is all important because it means respecting wishes isn't necessary to respect someone, and thus you can respect someone by at least respecting their feelings or rights (which is what I've given many examples of).

It doesn’t exclude wishes.

So is respecting someone’s rights necessary to being a respected person? By your “logic” the answer can only be no.

It also doesn't have to include specifically rights or feelings either, but it must include one of rights, feelings or wishes.

All that an argument requires is two organic units that process data marginally differently.

Slight variations of electro-chemical brain activity, relative to the same stimulus but from a more or less dissimilar data base.

We *can* respect someone by respecting their wishes, but we don't *have to*.

Here's a simple definition of respect that took me 5 seconds to Google: "due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others"

The "or" is all important because it means respecting wishes isn't necessary to respect someone, and thus you can respect someone by at least respecting their feelings or rights (which is what I've given many examples of).

It makes no sense to have respect for things you don't even know.

Here's a question for you; if you don't know why someone attempted suicide, wouldn't you just ask them?

I'd like to but I don't have that data.

I don't know why you think a study has to be literally titled 'Why Do Transgender People Commit Suicide?' in order to take any data or points regarding transgender suicide from it.

The solution to the issue of transgenderism is to treat their mental illness. To analogize your solution, you're attempting to give someone who wishes to self-harm themselves the knife in which to do it, in order to appease their "wish". That is HARMFUL. That is not how we should treat people with mental illnesses. We need to treat them with basic human respect whilst NOT appeasing the wishes generated by their mental illness.

Equally problematic is that you've claimed it does fix transgender people sometimes, but you haven't posted a single study showing that

It's funny because you complained earlier my study doesn't specifically test for reason as to why transgender people commit suicide, I show you a study that partially answers that question (i.e. my study addresses victimization and its affects on transgender people), and you totally ignore it.

We *can* respect someone by respecting their wishes, but we don't *have to*.

Here's a simple definition of respect that took me 5 seconds to Google: "due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others"

The "or" is all important because it means respecting wishes isn't necessary to respect someone, and thus you can respect someone by at least respecting their feelings or rights (which is what I've given many examples of).

The "or" in this sentence denotes that there are different ways you can respect someone. In certain contexts we have limited interactions with each other. A police officer for example who pulls someone over for speeding respects them by respecting their rights. Their wishes and/or feelings are irrelevant in that context.

You are trying to cherry pick which part of the definition you're going to regard, and then pretend that meets the definition. That's ridiculous. Respect unlike many other things is all encompassing. You can't respect me in one sense and disrespect me in another, the say you treated me with respect. That's not how the word works.

You don't respect their rights by claiming that their mentally ill status warrants them being treated like children or schizophrenics,

and you don't respect their feelings arguing over and over again that their feelings are out of touch with reality.

And not for nothing, find a trans person to read your arguments in this thread and ask them whether you are being respectful to them. You know damn well they would laugh at the idea of they weren't infuriated at the stuff you have to say about them. You would no doubt dismiss their response and then explain why their point of view is illigitimate - right before telling us that you're respecting them.

It makes no sense to have respect for things you don't even know.

You know what the trans community is asking you for.

The solution to the issue of transgenderism is to treat their mental illness. To analogize your solution, you're attempting to give someone who wishes to self-harm themselves the knife in which to do it, in order to appease their "wish". That is HARMFUL. That is not how we should treat people with mental illnesses. We need to treat them with basic human respect whilst NOT appeasing the wishes generated by their mental illness.

I never addressed this because you didn't say anything.

"We should treat their mental illness" is a not a solution to anything. That's like me saying the solution to California wild fires is to put them out. The only thing you have put forward is to not give these people what they are asking for, which in most cases is just basic respect and human decency by acknowledging them for who they see themselves to be. But you want to tell them that's too much for you and they don't get that because according to you their feelings are the product of mental illness.

Equally problematic is that you've claimed it does fix transgender people sometimes, but you haven't posted a single study showing that

Because I've spent enough time arguing with you as it is. The studies are very easy to find so if you claim they're not out there I know you're full of shit. I'm just not about to waste hours upon hours going through them line by line with you.

It's funny because you complained earlier my study doesn't specifically test for reason as to why transgender people commit suicide, I show you a study that partially answers that question (i.e. my study addresses victimization and its affects on transgender people), and you totally ignore it.

Partially answers the question is not answering the question, especially when your argument there hinges on the lack of an answer. Same point I've been making for weeks now.

Humans can agree intersubjectively on things, even if no one is the same.

Which I think that I agree with.

Humans can agree intersubjectively on things, even if no one is the same.

An interestingly worded statement, which I think that I agree with.

Which I think that I agree with.

Actually, does this statement concur with your interestingly worded statement?

Your insistence on "respect" being solely about "wishes" got blown out by the word "or".

appealing to authority.

@Kaitlyn it continues to make my day when I see people resisting the intellectual cancer that is appealing to authority.