Bruce Jenner's Début as "Caitlyn"

[InSearchofGrace]

From this post:

Thanks for that, but your quote does not answer the question I posed.
,

 

[gracepoole]

Thanks for that, but your quote does not answer the question I posed.
,

You asked, “Just curious, since I have not gone on any thread on circumcision, how would adult males circumcised as babies know about the levels of sexual satisfaction, since babies do not have sex?” The quote I provided does indeed answer this question. We don’t need babies to have intercourse in order to know the differences between sexual experiences for those who are circumcised and those who aren’t circumcised. We have adult males of both varieties.

All of this is, of course, off topic…

 

[InSearchofGrace]

You asked, “Just curious, since I have not gone on any thread on circumcision, how would adult males circumcised as babies know about the levels of sexual satisfaction, since babies do not have sex?” The quote I provided does indeed answer this question. We don’t need babies to have intercourse in order to know the differences between sexual experiences for those who are circumcised and those who aren’t circumcised. We have adult males of both varieties.

All of this is, of course, off topic…

In reply to your preceding post saying

This is actually far more messy than it might appear at first. There’s a growing body of medical literature challenging the “benefits” of male circumcision and if you do a search here on CAF, you’ll find threads in which men who were circumcised as babies and are irate that their level of sexual satisfaction was so significantly and permanently curbed by this procedure. Claiming that “circumcision in males is not considered wrong” is far too general, then – it may be by some but by others, it’s considered unnecessary mutilation.

So how can men circumcised as babies know the different level of sexual satisfaction, unless the circumcision is done in adulthood.

Yes, off topic, I agree.

 

[gracepoole]

So how can men circumcised as babies know the different level of sexual satisfaction, unless the circumcision is done in adulthood.

Yes, off topic, I agree.

Last post from me on this lest the thread get derailed. Presumably circumcised men can read and process what science and uncircumcised men have to say about sexual experience for those who are uncircumcised. Things like “loss of at least 10,000–20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings, loss of reciprocal stimulation of foreskin and glans, and loss of the natural coital gliding mechanism” can be understood by anyone, circumcised or not.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Last post from me on this lest the thread get derailed. Presumably circumcised men can read and process what science and uncircumcised men have to say about sexual experience for those who are uncircumcised. Things like “loss of at least 10,000–20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings, loss of reciprocal stimulation of foreskin and glans, and loss of the natural coital gliding mechanism” can be understood by anyone, circumcised or not.

Likewise, my last on this, er, side discussion.

True, what you say above, for the circumcised who might have read and processed “loss of at least 10,000–20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings, loss of reciprocal stimulation of foreskin and glans, and loss of the natural coital gliding mechanism.” Experientially, absent such reading and processing, it is highly doubtful that men circumcised as babies would know or suspect they are having less sexual satisfaction, as a result.

Of course, I was not implying that babies have sex or babies need to have sex …

To bring the discussion back,

One can reasonably consider that removal of penile foreskin is not much more invasive than removal of a pesky in-the-way skin tag. But SRS? Penile resection and removal of testes are not non-invasive, which permanently eliminate a biological function. No meaningful analogy or comparison can be made with circumcision.
,

 

[JimG]

“Sexual differentiation is not just a matter of “identity,” still less of “feeling” or “belief.” God created the difference between the sexes. Now, Genesis is not a science textbook but science corroborates that basic insight, because sexual identity is inscribed in every cell of our bodies. One is male or female down to the chromosomal structure of every cell: XX females or XY males. That is scientific fact.”

Source

The only way that one might, even hypothetically, change a man into a woman is to make a continuing genetic change in every single cell of his body.

 

[billcu1]

This is actually far more messy than it might appear at first. There’s a growing body of medical literature challenging the “benefits” of male circumcision and if you do a search here on CAF, you’ll find threads in which men who were circumcised as babies and are irate that their level of sexual satisfaction was so significantly and permanently curbed by this procedure. Claiming that “circumcision in males is not considered wrong” is far too general, then – it may be by some but by others, it’s considered unnecessary mutilation.

Yes I was just going to mention that. They used to think about getting infections and things like that were very common among men with a foreskin. And as you say, it’s not really necessary. As for mutilation idk.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

“Male and female made he man”

You say you are a catholic and you think our reproductive organs and their capacities are not essential to our nature? Do you think they were an after-thought of God? Or do you accept with the church that our sexuality and the power to co-create with God other humans is something essential to human nature? That the bdily expression of this complemantarity is not a useless appendage? What philosophy are you using to treat our sexual organs as some kind of property we own and can discard at will like our handbags? All our organs and capacities are essential to our nature. You cannot just decide to pull your eyes out because you have a different idea of yourself.

I didn’t say they were unessential to out nature however in our day to day life there are not very important.

Id like to add how self-contradictry this is. How can reproductive organs be simulateneously useless and essential depending on how one wants to justify his cause? They are so essential to the transgendered’s identities, apparently, that they have to aquire the opposite organs albeit artificial ones? If they are so unessential, why cant these people be happy with who they are right now without mutilating themselves just to get rid of supposedly unimportant organs? If you believe this, how can you claim that treatment is radical surgery rather than teaching them how unessential these organs are to who they are, supposedly?

That they are not important in day to day life does not mean they are not important to a person’s heart and mind.

Yes the church considers things such as castration mutilation. And removing the penis too I am sure.

Bill

Castration has historically been forced upon people not as voluntary; do you think that the Church would oppose castration if the case was to cure testicular cancer?

With that line of reasoning, demanding surgical removal of one’s normal disease-free appendix would be reasonable, since the organ has no apparent use for an individual.

We can live with one lung, as our current Pope does (an unresolving infection in his younger years indicated removal of a lung). Without pathology, it would be sane to have one of two healthy lungs surgically removed.

Our sexual organs are normally under street clothes, not visible to the world. Yet, transwomen and transmen accordingly find them very offensive. In an account by a natal female I came across, she regarded her vagina as a wound, and seeing it as a part of her person caused her much anguish.

For an unambiguous male or female having such detestation for the body, what explanation can be reached except that it is a mental illness? Mental illness carries a social stigma. This outlook has to be changed, which I believe all can agree on. (Physically disfiguring medical conditions are stigmatizing as well.)

The transgender condition remains in the DSM as gender identity disorder (replaced as gender dysphoria as accommodation to transgender activists who feel that “disorder” is stigmatizing). The reason is the DSM provides a billing mechanism for mental health professionals to charge and get paid for their services.

There is unmistakable agenda to have transgenderism classified as a medical, and not a mental illness. It is the reason said population is pushing the concept of a biological cause, e.g., white matter in the brain, neural pathways to the brain, a female brain in a man’s body and vice versa, etc. It is how financial coverage for SRS, the gold standard of treatment in the transgender mind, can be inserted under a health plan or government subsidy for the financially strapped.

It may be that there is a biological cause, like that involving hormones during gestation. There is much floated on the Internet of claims, that there is professional consensus already, etc., etc., which activists grab and tout as proven when so called studies are only theorized or suggested, but have not been rendered objectively conclusive.

For findings to be legitimately established, scientific research need to be conducted without bias, without an eye for a targeted result, dependent on the politics and motivation of the group or groups funding the study.

1. We used to remove the appendix as a routine surgery
2. Lungs are important, there is a reason we have two and there is no point in removing one unless is poses a threat to health.
3. For a man not having a penis to engage in dick waving contests is very vulnerable and for a woman to have a penis makes clothing uncomfortable as well as her and women in space they go.
4. It is in the head, it is however quite ingrained and in some transmen they experience phantom penises even. It really does appear to be a case of the brain being wired wrong, a terrible fate to have you body and mind forever out of sync.
5. I think we can both agree they need psychological help.
6. It does look likely to be a disorder that is biological in nature and one that is quite resistant to drugs or therapy to fix it.
7. Few things are shown to be conclusive in science.
8. there is no one who will provide funding that is wholly disinterested.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Blanchard has more than one supporter. To repeat, Blanchard’s autogynephilia theory has its critics, yes, but it also has its supporters among whom are Anne Lawrence, Michael Bailey and John Cantor. Accordingly, Dr. Lawrence is a physician who is an MrF transsexual and a recognized expert on transsexualism.

That said, neither you or I are experts who can claim that we know all about or fully understand the transgender / transsexual condition.

Whether BJ is an autogynephiliac or not, and if autogynephiliacs can justify hormone treatment and SRS or not, are unanswered at this time.
,

Or if AGP is a meaningful term.

Male circumcision is certainly a controversial issue, and we have had threads on CAF about whether or not it should be completely banned. The health benefits of the procedure are open to debate. For those of us who practice circumcision because it is an important part of our religion, we are obligated to defend the ritual on religious principles. It is surely not regarded as child abuse under these circumstances. However, how then can we protest female circumcision based on religious principles? I am not sure.

Perhaps the scale of harm done

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

1. We used to remove the appendix as a routine surgery

AFAIK, past and current standard of care is the appendix gets a doctor’s attention for removal when the patient complains of signs and symptoms of inflammation. Perhaps when the abdomen has to be opened for some other problem, the surgeon would remove the appendix. But it is discretionary and as long as the patient is informed and agrees to it.

1. Lungs are important, there is a reason we have two and there is no point in removing one unless is poses a threat to health.

The point being that removal is not medically indicated.

1. For a man not having a penis to engage in dick waving contests is very vulnerable and for a woman to have a penis makes clothing uncomfortable as well as her and women in space they go.

Whatever are you talking about?

1. It is in the head, it is however quite ingrained and in some transmen they experience phantom penises even. It really does appear to be a case of the brain being wired wrong, a terrible fate to have you body and mind forever out of sync.

Says the avid believers of a transgender mind or brain sex. Google “brain sex does not exist”.

1. I think we can both agree they need psychological help.

Yes!

1. It does look likely to be a disorder that is biological in nature and one that is quite resistant to drugs or therapy to fix it.

Looks likely, but not there yet, are we.

1. Few things are shown to be conclusive in science.

Except when it suits the desired finding for the writer.

1. there is no one who will provide funding that is wholly disinterested.

Oh, I believe, it’s doable. All interested parties put in equal share to funding a study,
,

 

[JesusPeaceLove]

I didn’t say they were unessential to out nature however in our day to day life there are not very important.

Nonsense. Our reproductive organs are important in our day to day life. What ever are you talking about? Could you show me a trans who simply had them removed completely rather than refashioned to look/behave like the opposite-sex organ? You know, to make your claims at least consistent?

That they are not important in day to day life does not mean they are not important to a person’s heart and mind.

Sure. They are not important when this is convenient to your claims and very important when again this is convenient to your claims. If you believed they were not all that important in day-to-day life you would not insist they were all-important to a trans. Special pleading nakes for false arguments.

Castration has historically been forced upon people not as voluntary; do you think that the Church would oppose castration if the case was to cure testicular cancer?

Strawman. Unless you have skipped over all the pages of this thread, you know very well that everyone here supports mutilation for medical reasons. Just not for psychological, touchy-feely reasons that need work on the mind and self-acceptance rather than an adult game of playing little gods.

For a man not having a penis to engage in dick waving contests is very vulnerable and for a woman to have a penis makes clothing uncomfortable as well as her and women in space they go.

Poor language. I assumed such would be banned from a board like this but perhaps I am wrong.

The problem with clothing is a self-imposed one and not in any way a need. If the individual remembered that clothes are there for the purpose of dressing his body and not his feelings, he would find a tone of comfortable clothing designed for his body in hundreds of stores. Of course, this “problem” is all about pretending to belong to the opposite group and finding that things designed for that group whose membership you desperately seek simply do not sit comfortably with your actual body. I imagine if a very fat man pretended to be a skinny one, he would similarly have great difficulty finding comfortable dressing for his body.

 

[JesusPeaceLove]

1. For a man not having a penis to engage in dick waving contests is very vulnerable and for a woman to have a penis makes clothing uncomfortable as well as her and women in space they go.

The problem with clothing is a self-imposed one and not in any way a need. If the individual remembered that clothes are there for the purpose of dressing his body and not his feelings, he would find a tone of comfortable clothing designed for his body in hundreds of stores. Of course, this “problem” is all about pretending to belong to the opposite group and finding that things designed for that group whose membership you desperately seek simply do not sit comfortably with your actual body. I imagine if a very fat man pretended to be a skinny one, he would similarly have great difficulty finding comfortable dressing for his body.

 

[JesusPeaceLove]

Yes I was just going to mention that. They used to think about getting infections and things like that were very common among men with a foreskin. And as you say, it’s not really necessary. As for mutilation idk.

I think for a Catholic, that should not be ambiguous. The simple reason that the same God who commanded male circumcisin also forbade castration should be enough to show you which one of those two God considers mutilation. It seems pretty clear to me that removal of foreskin is closer to the edge consisting cutting off nails and hair than it is the edge of chopping off penis/vagina etc

The simple fact is a circumcised man still exercises all his biological functions very comfortably. A castrated one has been denied or has denied himself, an essential attribute of human nature.

 

[didymus]

Getting some parts removed and others implanted does not a make you a woman.
I can’t post links cuz I’m on my tablet but I saw an article that Fallon Fox, an MMA fighter who “used to be a man” beat the **** out of the now former female MMA champ who said she never received such a beating. Maybe because she wasn’t fighting a woman but a eunuch with male body structure and muscle strength? Maybe there’s more to gender than genetalia?

 

[billcu1]

With that line of reasoning, demanding surgical removal of one’s normal disease-free appendix would be reasonable, since the organ has no apparent use for an individual.

We can live with one lung, as our current Pope does (an unresolving infection in his younger years indicated removal of a lung). Without pathology, it would be sane to have one of two healthy lungs surgically removed.

Our sexual organs are normally under street clothes, not visible to the world. Yet, transwomen and transmen accordingly find them very offensive. In an account by a natal female I came across, she regarded her vagina as a wound, and seeing it as a part of her person caused her much anguish.

For an unambiguous male or female having such detestation for the body, what explanation can be reached except that it is a mental illness? Mental illness carries a social stigma. This outlook has to be changed, which I believe all can agree on. (Physically disfiguring medical conditions are stigmatizing as well.)

The transgender condition remains in the DSM as gender identity disorder (replaced as gender dysphoria as accommodation to transgender activists who feel that “disorder” is stigmatizing). The reason is the DSM provides a billing mechanism for mental health professionals to charge and get paid for their services.

There is unmistakable agenda to have transgenderism classified as a medical, and not a mental illness. It is the reason said population is pushing the concept of a biological cause, e.g., white matter in the brain, neural pathways to the brain, a female brain in a man’s body and vice versa, etc. It is how financial coverage for SRS, the gold standard of treatment in the transgender mind, can be inserted under a health plan or government subsidy for the financially strapped.

It may be that there is a biological cause, like that involving hormones during gestation. There is much floated on the Internet of claims, that there is professional consensus already, etc., etc., which activists grab and tout as proven when so called studies are only theorized or suggested, but have not been rendered objectively conclusive.

For findings to be legitimately established, scientific research need to be conducted without bias, without an eye for a targeted result, dependent on the politics and motivation of the group or groups funding the study.

Blanchard has more than one supporter. To repeat, Blanchard’s autogynephilia theory has its critics, yes, but it also has its supporters among whom are Anne Lawrence, Michael Bailey and John Cantor. Accordingly, Dr. Lawrence is a physician who is an MrF transsexual and a recognized expert on transsexualism.

That said, neither you or I are experts who can claim that we know all about or fully understand the transgender / transsexual condition.

Whether BJ is an autogynephiliac or not, and if autogynephiliacs can justify hormone treatment and SRS or not, are unanswered at this time.
,

I think the DSM-V has just come out. It seems like forever the APA has had the DSM-IV-TR out. ICD-10 codes are for insurance and they diagnose too. But the thing is the DSM is very highly politically motivated. At one time homosexuality was considered abnormal. Now no. Hummmm I wonder why.

 

[didymus]

I think the DSM-V has just come out. It seems like forever the APA has had the DSM-IV-TR out. ICD-10 codes are for insurance and they diagnose too. But the thing is the DSM is very highly politically motivated. At one time homosexuality was considered abnormal. Now no. Hummmm I wonder why.

That was determined by a vote by the American Psychiatric Association and as you say very political. Does any other scientific body work like this? Do doctors vote as to whether a virus is a disease?

 

[Cherry5]

I think the DSM-V has just come out. It seems like forever the APA has had the DSM-IV-TR out. ICD-10 codes are for insurance and they diagnose too. But the thing is the DSM is very highly politically motivated. At one time homosexuality was considered abnormal. Now no. Hummmm I wonder why.

At one time this is how leprosy was viewed:
“The leprous person who has the disease shall wear torn clothes and let the hair of his head hang loose, and he shall cover his upper lip and cry out, ‘Unclean, unclean.’

I can see the parallel how when a cure for leprosy was found people had similar reactions as yours.

You can afford to be judgmental as long as you are not suffering.

 

[Thorolfr]

That was determined by a vote by the American Psychiatric Association and as you say very political. Does any other scientific body work like this? Do doctors vote as to whether a virus is a disease?

It’s true that the AMA does vote on things and as a result, the DSM does change based on new evidence. For example, in the new DSM V, Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) have all been reclassified as Autism Spectrum Disorder. Narcissistic Personality Disorder has been eliminated from the DSM V, etc. The decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM was not just political, it was also based on new empirical evidence.

 

[billcu1]

At one time this is how leprosy was viewed:
“The leprous person who has the disease shall wear torn clothes and let the hair of his head hang loose, and he shall cover his upper lip and cry out, ‘Unclean, unclean.’

I can see the parallel how when a cure for leprosy was found people had similar reactions as yours.

You can afford to be judgmental as long as you are not suffering.

How does being homosexual cause suffering? How did I judge? Good or bad? Did I say removing homosexuality was good or bad? Pain is inevitable. Suffering is not. I am confused as to your judgment.

 

[billcu1]

It’s true that the AMA does vote on things and as a result, the DSM does change based on new evidence. For example, in the new DSM V, Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) have all been reclassified as Autism Spectrum Disorder. Narcissistic Personality Disorder has been eliminated from the DSM V, etc. The decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM was not just political, it was also based on new empirical evidence.

New evidence of what? That previous things thought to exist do not exist anymore? That sounds a little like quack science IMO. Psychology to me is a kind of valid philosophy. Not exactly obtained from “scientific method” though.