Quote:Not at all.


In my opinion BIID does bare relevance to the conversation. Why? Becuase it is an example of a disorder that is another expression of a "crisis of self." The person exhibiting this behavior developed an archetype that they thought would be a better expression of their "INNER SELF," not based on their biology (the absence of the physical ailment that becomes central to the delusion). The patients often talk about being trapped in a body that is not disabled. This speaks to the idea that it is at least possible to have a disorder of self that creates the intrinsic desire, compulsion, or addiction to be a part of an archetype that may be antithetical to the birth of the patient.


Going back to the biological explanations themselves, for me they fit into two categories: 1.) the fundamental ambiguation of the sex of the child, 2.) Malformations in the brain or hormonal imbalances through development of the child. It is my OPPINION that someone suffering from an ambiguation of their sex: Hermaphroditism, malformation of the genitals, or chromosomal error on the 23rd pair doesn't fit into the larger conversation of TRANS. To borrow from the blind lady, this is actually someone who has a physical problem with their eyes. The second group that may have brain or hormonal abnormalities, these are biological causes that lend themselves to a greater likelihood of a psychological disorder (like a gene that causes schizophrenia, or the chemical imbalance that leads to bipolar disorder.)


Now let's talk about the concept of "biological explination." I don't fully reject out of hand the idea that transgenderism may have a myriad of biological factors, precursors, or even direct causes. What i do reject is the idea that a biological explanation makes a set of behaviors, compulsions, or addictions healthy or inherently moral. In other words, if it was proven tomorrow that there was a direct genetic mutation or specific brain malformation in utero that caused the disorder i would not then believe that transgenderism was inherently a good and healthy thing.


Another topic of conversation is the idea of CHOICE. First off, let me clarify that when i refer to choice in our conversations (especially in the more global sense of same sex attraction) I don't mean that someone just walked into their bedroom one day and decided to be LGBT because of the weather. The basic Impulse, by birth, psychological disorder, physical disorder, subconscious environmental conditioning, whatever is intrinsic and sincere. When I say choice I am describing the difference between a sincere intrinsic desire, or even addiction to a piece of chocolate cake and actually going out to buy and eat said cake.


You asked me when I chose to be straight. That's a big word. You known me long time, you know that i am a part time bible thumper by trade. While this board doesn't allow me to go into great detail about that, the way that it shapes my global opinion on morality and certain constructs will probably be a bit shocking but you asked so we'll try to get through it together. The simple answer is that I'm not STRAIGHT. Take a second... walk back to the keyboard. It all depends on how you define the term, and how that plays into a larger construct of what's healthy for heterosexual relationships (to be straight.)


You mentioned girly magazines. I found those when I was a kid too, I liked them too, a LOT!!! But those magazines were in large part written, photographed, and assembled by MEN. They depict a male view of sexuality that is antithetical to the way that most women view the idea of intimacy. In essence, it's a homo-erotic act. Why does this matter? Because to be STRAIGHT a man has to be attracted to women and seek out what a woman desires and work to achieve those needs. That's at odds with the idea of taking alone time with a playboy depicting the fantasies of other men. In reality, there are a lot of men who exhibit an inability to relate to and become intimate with REAL WOMEN. The internet has only every increased this particular issue. There are also large groups of men who are biologically attracted to women but find it incapable to relate to them on any meaningful emotional level and instead seek out other men to form intimacy with. I personally coined the phrase homo-emotionalism.


What about fantasizing about two girls together. What does it say about a man views his own sense of maleness? Is it possible that on some level he may view his masculinity as too authoritative or intrusive to warrant female attention? What about guys who fantasize about seeing their significant other with another man? This is an expression of a masochistic desire based on the idea that we as men are not enough for our partners and that someone better should, in reality, be appointed to please them.


So from my perspective, no one is BORN straight. Just because you may not have intrinsic same sex attraction doesn't mean that your sense of self or your sexual desires inherently line up with the concept of healthy heterosexual interaction (being straight.) So to answer your question, i CHOSE to be straight when I was about 14 my mom left and my father and I spent way too much time talking about all this stuff as you can see. I developed a higher definition of who i was, who i wanted to be, and the role that would play in the way i conducted myself interacting with the rest of the world. That's why when my GF crawled into bed naked with me when i was in college i was able to say "no thank you, not ready for that yet, call me if we get married."


So in summation, I don't believe that the way you are born means that your natural inclinations are inherently right. That's not to belittle or diminish the challenge that is presented to people who are afflicted with same sex attraction or gender identity issues in the classical sense. I can empathize that the choices I am forced to make are a lot easier than the choice that I would ask of them. As it relates to this discussion, I do not, nor do i condone throwing rocks in anyone's direction. I don't really care if someone who is sincerely trans uses a particular restroom. I'm naturally inclined to just leave the system the way it is. At the same time as you have said time and time again there are dudes out there with bad intentions. I don't want any policy to lead to someone being hurt of having their privacy violated by someone falsely claiming transgender status to enter a restroom that doesn't correspond to their birth sex. And to your point, that's mostly focused on predators who aren't TRANS at all.


So what's my idea? I think that if an adult is legitimately TRANS then they should be able to change their legal designation. That way if someone raises concern in a public place about their presence in a restroom then they can simply present their ID and the problem will be resolved. I would also make sure that if someone raises concern about someone in a bathroom that they aren't going to be faced with a bunch of silly lawsuits or called out in the media. Even you pointed out that someone just buying a wig at 2:00 doesn't mean that they are a TRANS PERSON that doesn't feel comfortable in the mens room. I don't think that these kind of common sense approaches are too much to ask.


As for schools and kids locker rooms, I just can't do it. I was reading the other day about a school in Illinois and you have girls wearing their gym clothes under their normal clothes so they don't have to change. Kids aren't ready to deal with this stuff. If you want to increase penalties for violence against trans kids, i wouldn't have a problem. ZERO TOLERANCE i hate violence etc. You want to have a gender neutral area like a specific restroom or something i can even deal with that. I can't support the idea of having teenagers put in that situation.


I hope that was helpful.

Very helpful. Not framed as an attack, but it reveals you are sexually repressed. There is no other excuse for trying to link biological makeup to morality except someone told you your biology is something to be ashamed of.


Of the thousands of species that exhibit homosexual or bisexual behavior, humans are the only ones who persecute other humans for it and it always goes back to morality and sin.


Of the myriad of studies I have read on the subject, yours is the ONLY one trying to equate gay or trans with BIID. You are referencing a biological explanation, but are pretty much explaining you feel being gay or trans being is a mental disorder. You equate gay or trans with self harm. Are those with mutated genes giving them red hair harming themselves for being gingers? No. That's just their biological makeup. But when biological makeup has to do with self identity or sexual attraction, your logic goes straight to the morality of it.


When I was 3 and realized I liked the naked girls in my dad's Playboy mags, it wasn't a crisis of self that created the intrinsic desire. It was a natural reaction to my biological makeup. I didn't know anything about sex. But I liked bare breasts and lady parts.


While I appreciate you claiming NOT to be straight, it was not a trick question. The implication is strictly based on sexual attraction. Straight males like women. If you are implying you are not straight, that means you either ALSO find men sexually desirable or you EXCLUSIVELY find men sexually desirable. If the thought of physical intimacy with another man repulses you or is just not something you can see yourself doing, you are straight.


You say you do not believe the way people are born is intrinsicly right. So again, I imagine when you see two male lizards in your back yard humping, you do not care. But because people have ingrained in you this idea that premarital sex is bad and any non-heterosexual sex is immoral, you are comfortable taking this position (as it relates to humans). To believe that we are born as we should be may contradict some other belief system you have reinforced in your brain. So you call these people "afflicted" for having same sex attraction because TO YOU it may be natural, but it is not right. You don't subscribe to the idea of "ex-gay" conversion therapy, but you still feel that these people, though biologically disposed to certain tendencies are not right or afflicted somehow. You would be much more comfortable if they would just choose to be straight (though you could no easier choose to be gay).


Your post tells me no matter how much you can read or try to rationalize why people are gay or trans, you will always have some degree of cognitive dissonance (it's as if I have been saying this all along) when it comes to fully accepting any argument I pose as your perception of what is logical requires "permission" or "agreement" with your interpretation of a book whose meaning is so contested there are tens of thousands of denominations claiming to know its TRUE interpretation. You can dispute this if you like, but you're the one incapable of separating morality from discussions of biology, choice or psychology.

---