Transgender Bathroom/Locker Room Question

[BmorePat87]

If you ever want to understand why the religious debate is so frustrating, just look at the exchange above.

Person 1: This guy isn't reliable because he bases his beliefs on religion at the cost of ignoring science
Person 2: Oh, so we can't listen to him because he's religious?
Person 1: No, the fact that he is religious doesn't matter, it's the fact that he ignores actual science and just pushes his religion as fact.
Person 2: So we're dismissing his views because he's religious?
Person 1: No, we're dismissing them because they're not based on fact but rather belief.
Person 2: He went to Harvard.

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2016, 11:00 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If you ever want to understand why the religious debate is so frustrating, just look at the exchange above.

Person 1: This guy isn't reliable because he bases his beliefs on religion at the cost of ignoring science
Person 2: Oh, so we can't listen to him because he's religious?
Person 1: No, the fact that he is religious doesn't matter, it's the fact that he ignores actual science and just pushes his religion as fact.
Person 2: So we're dismissing his views because he's religious?
Person 1: No, we're dismissing them because they're not based on fact but rather belief.
Person 2: He went to Harvard.

Dang, Person 1 sounds awesome. I wonder what source he would you to base his "dismissal" on. Because I know you are huge on vetting sources; right?

It could also go something like:

Person 1: This guy is an expert in the field he graduated from Harvard medical school, has over 40 years experience, including 26 years as the Cheif of Psychiatry at one of the premiere institutions in the United States.

Person 2: We dismiss his facts because he is religious; here look at this website that advocates Transgenders if you want to know the true science.

I agree it is frustrating

[GMDino]

(05-10-2016, 11:00 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If you ever want to understand why the religious debate is so frustrating, just look at the exchange above.

Person 1: This guy isn't reliable because he bases his beliefs on religion at the cost of ignoring science
Person 2: Oh, so we can't listen to him because he's religious?
Person 1: No, the fact that he is religious doesn't matter, it's the fact that he ignores actual science and just pushes his religion as fact.
Person 2: So we're dismissing his views because he's religious?
Person 1: No, we're dismissing them because they're not based on fact but rather belief.
Person 2: He went to Harvard.

Person 1 should have just posted a funny picture with no substance since "folks" know that's all they do.  

[*Nately120*]

(05-10-2016, 12:53 AM)bfine32 Wrote: They cannot handle the magnitude of my penis in the ladies room, You most likely could get away with it. 

Pics or it didn't happen.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-10-2016, 03:34 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's not an echo chamber if it self-identifies as objective.

Gotta give credit where it's due.  This made me choke on my coffee.  

[BmorePat87]

(05-10-2016, 11:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Person 2: We dismiss his facts because he is religious

hahahahaha and you do the VERY THING I accused person 2 of doing multiple times...

It's clear Fred wasn't dismissing him BECAUSE he is religious but rather because he ignored science for religion. I'm not sure why your only response to him can be this straw man... well, that's not true. I know why this is your only argument. 

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2016, 10:13 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes silly us for rejecting something from TRANSADVOCATE as perhaps being biased. We should be more acceptable of various sources. Just look how open you were to McHugh's views. A Harvard educated doctor with over 40 years of experience in the feild becomes a "shill' and a "fraud" simply because you disagree with his findings.

You quote TRANSADVOCATE and dismiss the findings of an expert in the field and insist someone else is providing the "high comedy".

I will keep in mind your "the source doesn't matter" stance. Do you use that one in court much?

Yes.  All the time.  Courts do not look at the source.  They look at the substance of the argument.

If you went to a court and said.  "I don't know what this says, but it has to be wrong because it comes from the other side.  Any argument from the other side is automatically wrong because it comes from the other side."  They would laugh you out of the courtroom.

The link I posted is not an opinion piece.  it provides links to studies and shows how McHugh misrepresents and twists facts.

But what if I post another person fromHarvard who disagrees with McHugh?  How would you respond to that?

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2016, 12:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: hahahahaha and you do the VERY THING I accused person 2 of doing multiple times...

It's clear Fred wasn't dismissing him BECAUSE he is religious but rather because he ignored science for religion. I'm not sure why your only response to him can be this straw man... well, that's not true. I know why this is your only argument. 

Oh I was clear who you assigned as person 1 and person 2. The guy was the Cheif of Psychiatry for 26 years at one of the premiere medical institutions in the world. I wonder why they never dismissed him for ignoring science due to his religion. Maybe they failed to check with the experts at Transadvocate.

But you and others can talk out of both sides of your mouths if you want.

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2016, 02:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  All the time.  Courts do not look at the source.  They look at the substance of the argument.

If you went to a court and said.  "I don't know what this says, but it has to be wrong because it comes from the other side.  Any argument from the other side is automatically wrong because it comes from the other side."  They would laugh you out of the courtroom.

The link I posted is not an opinion piece.  it provides links to studies and shows how McHugh misrepresents and twists facts.

But what if I post another person fromHarvard who disagrees with McHugh?  How would you respond to that?

Well in courtrooms outside of Tennesse credibility of the source holds quite a bit of merit especially with testifying as a witness or expert:

Lawyer 1: "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury; I offer Dr McHugh as an expert authority on the matter of GID. He graduated for Harvard medical, has worked in the field of psychiatry for 40 years, including over a quarter century as the head of the Johns Hopkins University psychiatry program.he has studied abroad at the Institute of Psychiatry under its founder Sir Aubrey Lewis."

"He has authored andor co-aurthored numerous journals, papers, and books. he is the co-founder of Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) one of the mostly widely used tools in the psychiatric industry. He is widely recognized as an authority on the matter and currently holds the title of University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; a title recerved for only its most distingushed former faculty."

Lawyer 2: "He ignores science because of his religion."

[BmorePat87]

(05-10-2016, 02:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh I was clear who you assigned as person 1 and person 2. The guy was the Cheif of Psychiatry for 26 years at one of the premiere medical institutions in the world. I wonder why they never dismissed him for ignoring science due to his religion. Maybe they failed to check with the experts at Transadvocate.

But you and others can talk out of both sides of your mouths if you want.

Well, to be fair, the person writing that article for transadvocate was an expert on the field and cited multiple expert sources. The fact that she was writing for an online publication doesn't diminish that.

To address why he was never dismissed: because 1) gay and trans issues were probably not at the top of JH's concerns from 1975-2001, 2) society was pretty accepting of public demonization of gays and trans people during that time. 6 years ago, the dude was still referring to being gay as an "erroneous desire" in people and linking society's acceptance of it to our acceptance of porn and euthanasia. http://www.virtueonline.org/charleston-sc-dr-paul-mchugh-there-no-gay-gene

I'm sure his work on depression and suicide is spot on. However, if you read anything he writes or says on gay or trans issues, it is filled with his personal beliefs on society's degradation from biblical values as the reason why people "choose" to be gay. I'm sure some universities were filled with directors who spouted racial superiority rhetoric during the first half of the 20th century. Not sure that makes their baseless beliefs any more legitimate. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2016, 04:13 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Well, to be fair, the person writing that article for transadvocate was an expert on the field and cited multiple expert sources. The fact that she was writing for an online publication doesn't diminish that.

OK, let's be "fair". You list the acomplishments of the person that wrote the opinion piece for Transadvocate and I'll list all Dr McHugh's accomplishments and we'll see which one's views should be given more merit. Must admit; I'm at work and would prefer to not open then link to Transadvocate and I cannot remember her name to track her acolades for myself.

Matter of fact, nevermind. The aurthor of the Transadvocate article wins because she doesn't ignore science because of religion. Do you guys have T-Shirts that say that?

Did you at least tip the author?

Look forward to Lucie's next article that we can ignore the source of.

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2016, 03:34 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's not an echo chamber if it self-identifies as objective.

Well then I retract my assumption that the site might be biased or pay those who will provide biased materials.

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2016, 05:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: OK, let's be "fair". You list the acomplishments of the person that wrote the opinion piece for Transadvocate and I'll list all Dr McHugh's accomplishments and we'll see which one's views should be given more merit.

How about we ignore the source and look at the scientific studies that are cited?

McHugh's opinion is among the minority among psychologist.  He is not the only psychologist who ever graduated from Harvard or work for a big name hospital.  He is not considered the greatest psychologiat who ever lived.  So instead of just looking at his opinion lets look at the peer reviewed studies that each side cites to present their arguments.

I am not the greatest lawyer ever, but that does not mean I am wrong when I properly cite a Supreme Court Decision.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2016, 05:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: OK, let's be "fair". You list the acomplishments of the person that wrote the opinion piece for Transadvocate and I'll list all Dr McHugh's accomplishments and we'll see which one's views should be given more merit. Must admit; I'm at work and would prefer to not open then link to Transadvocate and I cannot remember her name to track her acolades for myself.

Matter of fact, nevermind. The aurthor of the Transadvocate article wins because she doesn't ignore science because of religion. Do you guys have T-Shirts that say that?

Did you at least tip the author?

Look forward to Lucie's next article that we can ignore the source of.

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2016, 05:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How about we ignore the source and look at the scientific studies that are cited?

McHugh's opinion is among the minority among psychologist.  He is not the only psychologist who ever graduated from Harvard or work for a big name hospital.  He is not considered the greatest psychologiat who ever lived.  So instead of just looking at his opinion lets look at the peer reviewed studies that each side cites to present their arguments.

I am not the greatest lawyer ever, but that does not mean I am wrong when I properly cite a Supreme Court Decision.

Sure. Please list the studies cited and we will determine the credibility of them. Outside of that all I we is an opinion piece written by an expert for Transadvocate. However, I suppose we cannot judge it on merit.

Do you happen to have the creditential on the expert that wrote the opinion piece for Transdvocate? If not I've also asked Pat to provide them so we can be "fair". And if neither of you have the time; I'll look them up and provide them when I get home

EDIT: I just noticed I told Pat not to worry about looking up the aurthors cedentials, so if you don't wish to take her expert credentials i will.

I will list doesn't ignore science because of religion as here #1 asset. Cause reall that pretty much trumps all else; but we want to be fair.

[BmorePat87]

(05-10-2016, 05:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: OK, let's be "fair". You list the acomplishments of the person that wrote the opinion piece for Transadvocate and I'll list all Dr McHugh's accomplishments and we'll see which one's views should be given more merit. Must admit; I'm at work and would prefer to not open then link to Transadvocate and I cannot remember her name to track her acolades for myself.

Matter of fact, nevermind. The aurthor of the Transadvocate article wins because she doesn't ignore science because of religion. Do you guys have T-Shirts that say that?

Did you at least tip the author?

Look forward to Lucie's next article that we can ignore the source of.

Yes, the person who focuses on SCIENCE in a science debate wins over the person who cites RELIGION in a science debate.

It's not a hard concept to grasp... i think. No one is dismissing his qualifications, but when your argument is your religion and has nothing to do with science, it shouldn't be given any consideration. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2016, 05:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yes, the person who focuses on SCIENCE in a science debate wins over the person who cites RELIGION in a science debate.

It's not a hard concept to grasp... i think. No one is dismissing his qualifications, but when your argument is your religion and has nothing to do with science, it shouldn't be given any consideration. 

So your position is that Dr McHugh doesn't cite any science in his studies? I want to be fair.

Did you tip the aurthor?

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2016, 05:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So your position is that Dr McHugh doesn't cite any science in his studies? I want to be fair.

No.  I never said that.  Unlike you I actually read opposing opinions.  I know exactly what he claimed.

But the article I cited addresses the information he cites.

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2016, 06:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  I never said that.  

Most likely why I was responding to Pat, unless........

No, it can't be. 

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2016, 05:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure. Please list the studies cited and we will determine the credibility of them. Outside of that all I we is an opinion piece written by an expert for Transadvocate. However, I suppose we cannot judge it on merit.

Do you happen to have the creditential on the expert that wrote the opinion piece for Transdvocate? If not I've also asked Pat to provide them so we can be "fair". And if neither of you have the time; I'll look them up and provide them when I get home

EDIT: I just noticed I told Pat not to worry about looking up the aurthors cedentials, so if you don't wish to take her expert credentials i will.

I will list doesn't ignore science because of religion as here #1 asset. Cause reall that pretty much trumps all else; but we want to be fair.

So when are you ggoing to actually discuss soem of the scientific claims instead of crying ab out how anyone who is from the other side can not be believed because he is biased?

Here is a peer reviewed study by Charles Moser PhD, MD

• Outstanding Primary Care Physician of 2014, Sutter Pacific Medical Foundation
• Controversies Section, co-editor, Current Sexual Health Reports (2013-present)
• Fellow of the European Committee of Sexual Medicine (FECSM), December 2012
• Recipient of the 2009 SSSS-WR “Outstanding Contributions to Sexual Science” Award
• Member of the Board of Directors (2006-2008), St. James Infirmary, San Francisco
  
• Member of the Board of Directors (2001-2003), The Foundation for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
  
• Editorial Board (1999-2005), San Francisco Medicine
  
• National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, Advisor to the Board (1998-1999)
• Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, Board of Consulting Editors
• The Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality [http://www.ejhs.org/], Editorial Board (1999-2006)
• Member Society of Scientific Study of Sexuality (inactive)
  Western Regional Representative (11/85-7/87)
  President of the Western Region (11/96-11/97)
• Member of the Academy of Certified Social Workers – inactive
• Member of the Board of Directors (1/1/03-12/31/05), San Francisco Medical Society
  
• Fellow of the American College of Physicians (FACP), elected 4/1/06 – inactive
  
• Member of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health
• Member of the International Academy of Sex Research
• Board Certified in Internal Medicine by the American Board of Internal Medicine (1994-present)
• Board Certified as an HIV Specialist by the American Academy of HIV Medicine (2002-present)
• Board Certified Sexologist by the American College of Sexologists
• Diplomate of the American College of Sexology
• Certified as a Sex Therapist and Sex Educator by AASECT
  (American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists) – inactive
• Full Clinical Member of the Society for Sex Therapy and Research
• Member of the Nominating Committee and listed in Who’s Who in Sexology (1st edition)
• Jane Stuart Prize for Excellence in Clinical Oncology and Radiation Therapy, Awarded 5/31/91
• Certified Social Worker (NY), #018351 – inactive
• Licensed Clinical Social Worker (CA), #LT-6915
• Licensed Physician and Surgeon (CA), #G075487
  
  

It is a critique of the methodology used to develop Blanchard's Autogynephilia Theory (BAT) that McHugh relies on.  It shows that the research done by Blanchard was seriously flawed.


The arguments presented in this article are, for the most part, reinterpretations of the data collected by BAT proponents and used by them to support the theory. Contrary to the conclusions of BAT proponents, many of the tenets of the theory are not supported by the existing data, or both supporting and contradictory data exist. The rejection of the data contrary to BAT by its proponents raises questions about the validity of the other data on which BAT is based.



his article questions the following tenets and predictions of BAT. Reviewing the same data as the BAT proponents, it is not clear that autogynephilia is always present in non-homosexual MTFs and always absent in homosexual MTFs; the practice of discounting statements by non-homosexual MTFs “denying” and homosexual MTFs reporting autogynephilia appears flawed; autogynephilia seems to differ from other paraphilias in significant ways; natal women score as autogynephilic on similar inventories used to categorize MTFs as autogynephilic; according to Blanchard's (1993a) definition of orientation, autogynephilia does not seem to be an orientation overshadowing other traditional orientations; there is little reason to suggest that autogynephilia is the motivation of non-homosexual MTFs to SRS; and there are no data to suggest that non-homosexual MTFs have difficulty with pair bonding. Further empirical studies are needed to confirm any of these assertions