The transgenderism debate

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 673
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
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.
LOL xD

That's the first time I've laughed at your comment.

Sidewalker is still far in front, but this helps your cause for being the funniest troll.

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.
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.

Hahahaha

Get it? You’ve been mansplained.
It must suck being laughed at by women in and out of the bedroom. I guess that's why you troll.
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,056
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
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. 

Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
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. 
Yeah. That's how dumb you sound to me.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,102
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Kaitlyn
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.

Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
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? 
So, my study doesn't actually support your argument much at all (seeing that you cited my study to make your point). Hence, you don't have evidence to support to claim it's "the reason" (as you seem to agree with). 

The question now becomes: does mental illness cause with transgender suicides to any degree? You think we should bypass this question and just listen to what transgender people tell us. I think we need an answer to it. The complexity of the subject has nothing to do with whether this question should be asked.

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.
Yes, you're not offering a logical argument. You're offering a 'listen and believe' argument, in regards to transgender identity.

Refusing to offer anything more to bolster your argument than 'we need to respect their wishes' won't win in the logical realm.

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.
Do you think mental illness doesn't distort reality at all for the mentally ill? 

Their wishes are clearly affected by the mental illness, if they are mentally ill. 

You just can't keep skipping this premise as if it's already proven. We shouldn't automatically respect people's wishes, especially in this case wherein I think they have a mental illness which distorts their reality.

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.
This is begging the question.

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. You then refuse to fulfill this burden and make arguments based on this unfulfilled BoP argument.

That is textbook begging the question.

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.
24% is not even close to 100%. 

That's what my argument was. 

None of what you wrote changed that fact: "Numerical data is only as useful as the controls and methods used to obtain it. Once again, not one of your studies were even set up to explore the question of whether transgenderism is a mental illness, so no controls were put in place capture any data that would confirm or deny that hypothesis."

You can keep making big sentences with big words, but that 24% will never get close to 100%.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,102
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Kaitlyn
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.

You can keep making big sentences with big words, but that 24% will never get close to 100%.
I’m sorry if those big words are too complex for you, but they’re a part of having discussions around complex topics. If you don’t have the bandwidth to engage in it that’s not my problem.

Once again, you’re the one who is claiming the 76% gap here is filled with mental illness. But “I don’t see what else it could be…” is a logical fallacy. You don’t prove your case with logical fallacies. For someone who pretends to be so superior in logic this is really basic stuff.

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.

The more I interact with you the more I believe you just are getting all these studies from some anti trans website providing you with all the arguments and sources that you are just regurgitating. There’s no way that someone who has done all this work to amass and comb through all of this information could be so ignorant of the basics of scientific study.
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
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.
We've discussed this before and I've already stated my position. Again, I'm fine with respecting transgender people as people. I think basic human decency is fine to give transgender people, and that to me is treating them with respect. I am not fine with respecting their claimed gender. You're still trying to lump those two things together and it's just not going to work with me because it begs the question.

I don't think by default we should respect people's claimed genders. Furthermore, I think it's harmful to respect gender roles, in the case of transgender people, because I believe their claimed gender extends from mental illness.

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.
You haven't given us a reason to respect people's wishes by default. It's just logically incorrect. I don't want to engage in your negative proof fallacy because it doesn't make sense.

In any case, I've already argued the harms to transgender people, if you decide to indulge their "wishes" by default. You've already heard it plenty of times. We are we rehashing this again?

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.
I don't know why you've now decided to rehash all these old talking points that we've covered.

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

I've routinely argued that transgender people's perception of their gender is a mental illness. I have the brain analysis evidence, the post-op evidence etc. Do you need me to rehash those, too?

Once again, you’re the one who is claiming the 76% gap here is filled with mental illness.
No.

I claimed it wasn't a result of victimization. That statistic was used to counteract your claim that victimization was the reason (later a reason) for transgender suicides.

This was part of a counter-argument.

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.
Spouting random reasons doesn't make for valid argument. You need evidence to support your claims. Waiting for me to post more studies, so that you can attempt to use those as proof for your argument, isn't logically valid -- you should have the proof beforehand.

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.
I've already acknowledged that you've changed your argument to this.

Again, this is another rehash.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,102
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Kaitlyn
You haven't given us a reason to respect people's wishes by default. It's just logically incorrect.
Then this is where a great deal of the issue lies.

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.

You are however entitled to your own opinions. If that’s the society you think we should live in that’s up to you.

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.
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
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.
I agree with your rewording of my argument, but I don't see how your conclusion follows.

How can you respect something you don't yet know (i.e. people's wishes)?

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.
We've spent a couple dozen posts each arguing about whether transgenderism is a mental illness. I've argued it in most if not all of those posts.

I argued it to debates levels in this post: The transgenderism debate (debateart.com) 

I don't believe for a second you've forgotten what I've argued. You're just lying on this point.

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.
Transgenderism is about claiming you were born in the wrong biological body, hence the compulsion to transition into the opposite biological sex. Transgender people believing that transitioning into their 'correct' body will fix their feelings is wrong, and the feelings themselves are a mental illness because it isn't based on reality at all.

It is possible to have incorrect feelings, by the way. You could have a gut feeling about someone lying when they're not. You could have a premonition that it's a good idea to buy a stock, and the next day the stock's company goes bankrupt. Feelings are subject to scrutiny, and your incessant implication that they are beyond scrutiny continues to beg the question.

And again (we've already discussed this at length), if you can just make anything up with regards to gender, gender can mean anything and thus doesn't have a coherent definition. That's when people start claiming they're attack helicopters, 57 million genders at once, otherkin furies etc. That's why gender should be grounded in biological markers: it gives gender a consistent, coherent definition that makes biological sense.

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 think transgenderism is a mental illness because it has many indications of mental illness (excessive violence, unexplained higher suicide rates, correlates highly with other mental illnesses, 40% incaration rates etc.), and none of the left-wing explanations fully explain (or really come close to) explaining why transgender people are the way they are.

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.
Yes, you don't have anything to claim that they are not mentally ill.

Again, I am fine with treating transgender people with basic human respect -- I agree with you on that. I don't think that this basic human respect extends to placating what I see as mental illness. 

Out of interest, hypothetically, if transgenderism was confirmed as a mental illness to you, would you still respect transgender people's wishes?

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.
You claimed to have "provided reasons to help fill some of that gap which some of your studies agreed with". 

Again, victimization just simply doesn't explain the higher suicide rates of transgender people. You already agreed with this in posts before you made that comment. Why are you reverting back to your original stance that you agreed was wrong?

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.
Again, just spouting "perfectly reasonable alternative explanations", without reference to a single shred of evidence, doesn't cut it.

We're already addressed your counterclaim that victimization explains transgender suicides. 24% of transgender people claimed that victimization was a factor in their suicidal thoughts/suicide attempt. That isn't a majority and it's not even close. So, in this instance, your "perfectly reasonable alternative" failed to explain a quarter of the reason, let alone all of it.

It's also perfectly possible that transgender people attempt suicide/think about suicide for both mental illness and other reasons. Many reasons aren't going to be mutually exclusive. 

Again, I haven't argued that 'there is no other explanation for higher suicide rates, therefore it must be mental illness'. The fact that your "perfectly reasonable alternative explanations" fail to fully explain the highly erratic, mentally unsound behavior of transgender people is only part of my argument. I've made other, independent arguments showing things like transgender people having way more other mental illnesses than the general population (additional mental illnesses become more likely the more you have), transgender people having greatly elevated rates of anti-social personality disorder, transgender people more likely to be bullies than bullied, more likely to resort to violence over speech, more likely to be jailed (40% incarceration rate) etc.
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,056
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Kaitlyn
We've spent a couple dozen posts each arguing about whether transgenderism is a mental illness.
If your mind is defective enough to declare you are a female white supremacist, anything else you may think is going to be tainted by that fact.

You’re a dummy.

Being a white supremacist is an indication of mental illness.

Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
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*
Yep good point.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,102
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Kaitlyn
Let's review the basics here.

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.

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. For some it works, for others it doesn't. That alone disqualifies your argument. You cannot judge one individual by the mistaken judgement of another. Not only are you trying to do this but you are applying you're judgement with one large brush to paint the entire community all at the same time. That is absurd.

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.

If you have anything new or think I'm running away from a point you've made I'll be happy to address, but other than that we're going in circles here.
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
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.
4 year old children "wish" for ice-cream all the time. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to appease their wish (hello diabetes), nor does it mean we don't respect their basic human rights.

Schizophrenics hear voices in their heads giving them directions all the time. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to appease the wishes of the voices in their heads, nor does it mean we don't respect their basic human rights.

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.

There is no contradiction.

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.

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.
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 also possible that studies reach conclusions that weren't specifically tested for.

I know you love to read abstracts and only abstracts, but you'd advance your understanding by making these cross-study references and reading tables to observe data-driven conclusions not specifically tested for.

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.
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)

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.
No, I'm first debunking typical leftist claims first, then I'm building a positive case myself. I'm not merely debunking typical leftist claims and then saying, 'we don't know, therefore 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.
We know surgery doesn't help because the suicide attempts and suicidal ideation rates remain the same post operation. We've already been through this.

There are mixed findings on whether surgery is a legitimate solution because there are mixed results.
Lol you haven't posted any. 

FYI I literally found a study conducted in one of the most tolerant places of transgender people on Earth (San Fransisco) and transgender people are still killing themselves at basically the same rate post operation.

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.
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.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,102
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Kaitlyn
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.
You don't know what respect means. Every single one of your examples are things to not do. Treating someone with respect is a description of positive actions, you don't treat someone respectfully by not doing certain things. Again, the most basic element of respect is to have regard for their wishes. What you're advocating for is the literal opposite of that.

It is amazing that despite repeating this to you numerous times, you still don't get how brazenly disrespectful your entire argument is towards the trans community. To make your case you are actually comparing them to 4 year olds and schizophrenics while claiming you are all for treating them with respect. That's absurd.

Once again, we treat children and the mentally ill with compassion, that is a very different thing than respect. This is basic human English. Please learn the difference, you have Google right at your finger tips.


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'. 
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. I've been explaining that they don't account for it because they weren't set up to address mental illness.

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

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.
I've addressed this multiple times already.

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. 
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
 Again, the most basic element of respect is to have regard for their wishes. 
No:

1) I don't agree that your definition of respect is axiomatic, so you keep begging the question. 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).

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

3) Not all feelings are based on reality. For example, lucid dreams, which are squarely based in non-reality, can still make people feel certain things.

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.
No, it's not my entire argument. 

I've already addressed this multiple times, so I'll just copy-paste my response from before: 

Again, I haven't argued that 'there is no other explanation for higher suicide rates, therefore it must be mental illness'. The fact that your "perfectly reasonable alternative explanations" fail to fully explain the highly erratic, mentally unsound behavior of transgender people is only part of my argument. I've made other, independent arguments showing things like transgender people having way more other mental illnesses than the general population (additional mental illnesses become more likely the more you have), transgender people having greatly elevated rates of anti-social personality disorder, transgender people more likely to be bullies than bullied, more likely to resort to violence over speech, more likely to be jailed (40% incarceration rate) etc.

 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. That's why I have to use other data points to make my case.

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.

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. 
It's not meaningless because transgender people are wild, erratic, unstable people who have all the hallmarks of mental illness: a boatload of other mental illnesses, far higher rates of anti-social personality disorder, far higher violent intolerance of speech they don't agree with, 40% incarceration rate (!), they're more likely to bully people than be bullied, have biological sex conceptions of themselves that don't align with reality, and have a mostly unexplained pronounced suicide rate.

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]
This is an important point that shouldn't be dropped because we have transgender people, of whom are potentially getting body-altering surgery in gender-reassignment surgery, who aren't even being fixed by it.

Equally problematic is that you've claimed it does fix transgender people sometimes, but you haven't posted a single study showing that, despite asserting it: "There are mixed findings on whether surgery is a legitimate solution because there are mixed results."

And again, I literally found a study conducted in one of the most tolerant places of transgender people on Earth (San Fransisco) and transgender people are still killing themselves at basically the same rate **post operation**.

Your appeasement of people's "wish" is enabling irreversible self-harm -- that's a massive cost to your stance.

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.
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]
I have to assume you agree that my study accounted for all your variables that can be rolled into my study's term of "victimization".

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.
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,056
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Kaitlyn
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.

IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,056
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe this wack job, racist chick?
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
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 doesn't have to include wishes -- that's the point.

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

If it said 'feelings, wishes and rights', then it would require "wishes", but it says "or".

IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,056
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Kaitlyn
It also doesn't have to include specifically rights or feelings either, but it must include one of rights, feelings or wishes.
That is ridiculous logic.  Must be those awesome schools  you went to. So if I said women shouldn’t have the right to vote I’m still being respectful to women as long as I respect their wishes.

Maybe the definition meant you needed to respect all three but not all at the same time but each one as they become known.

Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So if I said women shouldn’t have the right to vote I’m still being respectful to women as long as I respect their wishes.
Yes, you are respecting women. You could say that, specifically, you are not respecting women in regards to voting, but you'd still be respecting women because you fulfilled one of the "or" conditions (i.e. rights). That's consistent with the definition of "respect" that I gave.

Maybe the definition meant you needed to respect all three but not all at the same time but each one as they become known.
1) Show us a definition of "or" consistent with your implication

2) Show us that definition of "respect" was meant with your usage of "or"

If you can't do both, then you don't have an argument.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Kaitlyn
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.
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
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.
Humans can agree intersubjectively on things, even if no one is the same.

Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,102
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Kaitlyn
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.

Moreover, you aren't even meeting the definition in *any* of the three senses your own definition lists. You clearly don't respect the trans community's wishes. 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.

While I think your arguments are wrong they're at least mostly not ridiculous. This one absolutely is. I suggest you drop it.

It makes no sense to have respect for things you don't even know.
You know what the trans community is asking you for.

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.
My point exactly.

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.
You can take all the data points you want out of it, what you can't do is pretend that you have an answer to the question because other studies that looked at other things did not fill in the gaps to this one.

Setting that aside, in all seriousness, what is your profession? Do you work in the medical field? Do you have a background in any of this? I'm really curious as to why you think you know more about this stuff than the actual mental health experts (who conducted your own studies) who are all telling you you're wrong.

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.

And then you wonder why they act out...

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.

Sometimes I don't respond because there's nothing of value to respond to. Responding to every single point every single time just dilutes the conversation.
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
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.
I gave the full definition (no cherry picking), showed how it's consistent with what I've been saying (showed how the word "respect" works with my argument), and that's that.

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

You are dead lost on this point and it's very obvious.

You don't respect their rights by claiming that their mentally ill status warrants them being treated like children or schizophrenics,
Transgender people should be allowed to vote. Transgender people should be allowed to defend themselves before a court of law, if prosecuted for a crime. 

That's respect for their rights.

and you don't respect their feelings arguing over and over again that their feelings are out of touch with reality.
I've already demonstrated that their feelings of 'being in the wrong biological sex body' doesn't fit the science, so this is an established fact that you didn't push back against at all (wisely so, imo).

I respect the fact that transgender people are feeling those feelings. But similar to how people have lucid dreams and have feelings in them, those feelings aren't based on 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.
Don't start with this virtue-signaling nonsense.

You're quite a toxic person for enabling mentally ill people to harm themselves with irreversible gender reassignment surgery and self-described gender identities that don't fit reality at all.

You're the type of person to hand a suicidal person a gun as you say, 'I respect your wish for you to kill yourself', without even considering if they're mentally ill, if they've thought it through, if they're having a panic attack etc.

This stance you have on enabling mental illness doesn't make you a good person at all.

It makes no sense to have respect for things you don't even know.
You know what the trans community is asking you for.
No, no. That's not what you argued.

You argued that we should respect people's wishes.

That argument isn't limited to transgender people who we already know we want to transition. That argument extends to *all* people and *all* wishes.

So, again, it makes no sense to have respect for things you don't even know. So, your universal principle of 'respect other people's wishes' fails to make sense.

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.
I said you were enabling transgender people to self-harm themselves.

It's staggering that you don't think this is an important point. Do you actually care about transgender people, or are you here to virtue-signal about them?

"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.
Oh, you're right.

The solution to the California wild fires is not to put them out. The solution is to respect their wishes to burn.

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.
The fact is that you haven't posted the studies to support your claim. Thus, your argument is unsupported. 

Meanwhile, I have provided studies to support the idea that gender reassignment surgery has virtually no impact on lowering transgender suicide rates.

My argument should be preferred. 

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.
Again, my argument is built upon multiple studies, not just one.

That particular study partially answers that question, and some of the other studies I posted partially answer it, too.

It's like you think it's illegal to cross-reference studies to build a case xD
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Kaitlyn
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?
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
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?
Yes lol :)
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,692
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
@Kaitlyn it continues to make my day when I see people resisting the intellectual cancer that is appealing to authority.
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,056
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Kaitlyn
Your insistence on "respect" being solely about "wishes" got blown out by the word "or".
Unbelievable. Did they teach you that in  “highschool” ? Lol

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,546
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
appealing to authority.
Weak minds are dependent on trusting authority. Such as children.
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
@Kaitlyn it continues to make my day when I see people resisting the intellectual cancer that is appealing to authority.
Yes, intellectual cancer is the way to describe them.

Why even bother discussing anything if the "experts" have already decided what you are to think?

Absolute brainrot.