Transgender teen who died of an apparent suicide: ‘Fix society. Please.’

[EIF5A]

No. Because society is not “supposed” to convert them to straight in an overpopulated planet where more straightness means more population growth. Agnostic progressives want more homosexuals, not less. The worldwide Human Genome Project was completed in 2003. The mainstream media didn’t report it, so you probably won’t believe it if you trust the media to report the news. But, the results found no gene for sexuality: no straight gene, no gay gene, no bisexual gene, no transsexual gene, no transgendered gene, no questioning gene. It was a huge victory for homosexual activists, because this means that homosexuality is developed. The phenomenon of Mirror Neurons basically says that people can become what they experience. So, add pro-homosexual themes in all the media in addition to gay marriage, the belief that the world is overpopulated with carbon burners who are causing global warming, and the belief that God doesn’t exist, and, voila: we should accept more homosexuality as the way to save mother earth from overpopulation. Just look at the difference between old values versus young values if you want proof. There’s less evidence of sexuality genes now post-research than 30 years ago when a gay gene was first promoted in the media, yet people believe the opposite to be true. The media is king.

Even if you’re making things up, as long as it sounds plausible and “progressives” are branded as the enemy, it’s OK, right?

 

[TheSeeker2014]

Then why have some GLBTQ persons come out and said it’s worked for them?

If you want to take the time to research if it has actually worked for them,… I’d follow money trails.

No. Because society is not “supposed” to convert them to straight in an overpopulated planet where more straightness means more population growth. Agnostic progressives want more homosexuals, not less. The worldwide Human Genome Project was completed in 2003. The mainstream media didn’t report it, so you probably won’t believe it if you trust the media to report the news. But, the results found no gene for sexuality: no straight gene, no gay gene, no bisexual gene, no transsexual gene, no transgendered gene, no questioning gene. It was a huge victory for homosexual activists, because this means that homosexuality is developed. The phenomenon of Mirror Neurons basically says that people can become what they experience. So, add pro-homosexual themes in all the media in addition to gay marriage, the belief that the world is overpopulated with carbon burners who are causing global warming, and the belief that God doesn’t exist, and, voila: we should accept more homosexuality as the way to save mother earth from overpopulation. Just look at the difference between old values versus young values if you want proof. There’s less evidence of sexuality genes now post-research than 30 years ago when a gay gene was first promoted in the media, yet people believe the opposite to be true. The media is king.

Just because the human genome has been sequenced does not mean that scientists know what all the different segments of DNA actually do. So even if they have not identified a gene that influences sexuality yet, that does not mean that one will not be identified in the future.

Yet, if there is such a gene, it has not been proved to exist.

 

[Midwest88]

Even if you’re making things up, as long as it sounds plausible and “progressives” are branded as the enemy, it’s OK, right?

As someone who once labeled himself as a “very liberal” person, yea, so-called “progressives” are the “enemy.” Hate to break it to, ya.

 

[EIF5A]

As someone who once labeled himself as a “very liberal” person, yea, so-called “progressives” are the “enemy.” Hate to break it to, ya.

You’re missing the point. We can’t make things up, even if it sounds “righteous”.

For instance, we can’t keep repeating that “Conversion therapy works” [actual reversal of predominantly homosexual attraction, not stopping behavior] just because we want to believe it and it sounds plausible and good.

We can’t claim that progressives want more gays and spuriously tie that in with overpopulation. What progressives want is recognition of gays, socially and legally.

Lifelong chastity might sound crazy and religiously archaic to “progressives”, but it’s not non-sensical.

 

[Seamus_L]

I think we have some Evangelicals claiming that through the power of prayer, homosexuals can become happy heterosexuals. At the same time, we have a number of Catholics who seem to be saying that this can never ever happen. I believe both sides are wrong on this issue.

 

[EIF5A]

I think we have some Evangelicals claiming that through the power of prayer, homosexuals can become happy heterosexuals. At the same time, we have a number of Catholics who seem to be saying that this can never ever happen. I believe both sides are wrong on this issue.

No one has denied miracles. Or that winning the state lottery happens.

“Conversion” can mean a variety of things.

• A bisexual person who strives only for heterosexual marriage. Same-sex attraction might still be there, but depending on who you ask, s/he is still “bisexual” or now completely “heterosexual”.
• A person with strong same-sex attraction who chooses not to act on it.
• A person with strong same-sex attraction who marries the opposite sex but same-sex temptation still exists.

But the “working definition” that people think of is: “I’m a wo/man who used to be attracted to wo/men but now, I have no physical desire for wo/men and have almost exclusive desire for the opposite sex.”

 

[ucfengr]

I think we have some Evangelicals claiming that through the power of prayer, homosexuals can become happy heterosexuals. At the same time, we have a number of Catholics who seem to be saying that this can never ever happen. I believe both sides are wrong on this issue.

How can both be wrong? Assuming you binary choice is valid, one group says something is possible, the other says that thing is impossible. Both can’t be wrong.

 

[Darryl1958]

How can both be wrong? Assuming you binary choice is valid, one group says something is possible, the other says that thing is impossible. Both can’t be wrong.

Good point. It is either possible, or it isn’t.

 

[Seamus_L]

The Evangelical can be wrong if the homosexual person cannot change there orientation through prayer. The Catholic I’m referring to, would be wrong if the homosexual person can change. Both groups seem to have people who make very definite statements.

 

[ucfengr]

The Evangelical can be wrong if the homosexual person cannot change there orientation through prayer. The Catholic I’m referring to, would be wrong if the homosexual person can change. Both groups seem to have people who make very definite statements.

Still not seeing how both can be wrong. One person says homosexuals can change their orientation, one person says they can’t. One of those people will be right.

 

[Seamus_L]

Some can change, some can’t. If one person says they can all change and another claims none of them can change, both people making those claims can be wrong.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

Some can change, some can’t. If one person says they can all change and another claims none of them can change, both people making those claims can be wrong.

Still not seeing how both can be wrong. One person says homosexuals can change their orientation, one person says they can’t. One of those people will be right.

Perhaps like Alcholism? Or addiction?
However there is a gene that runs in familys that make them more proned to Alcholism.

 

[MarcoPolo]

This page describes the underlying basis for NARTH. Any psychologist associated with NARTH believes this.

This does not qualify - I asked for a psychologist who believes they can change someone’s actual sexual orientation. NARTH purports to administer to persons seeking to arrive at their actual orientation. They do not claim to change someone’s actual orientation by anything I’ve read.

Furthermore, NARTH explicitly does not practice the kind of scary tactics underlying the Obama Administration’s call for control of the psych industry:
*The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has become aware of recent reports of **abusive sexual orientation change efforts **(SOCE) alleged to be occurring in China and other international contexts. These accounts have highlighted the use of electric shock or pornography exposure interventions to change sexual orientation.

NARTH is on the record and repeats again here that aversive therapies such as those utilizing electric shock as well as the introduction of pornography are not effective and have no place in the professional care of clients with unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviors. NARTH reminds professional mental health practitioners in these contexts that assistance can be offered to those with unwanted same-sex attractions through conventional talk therapy. These professionals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with NARTH’s practice guidelines and much other available information on NARTH’s web site that may assist them in providing beneficial psychological care with a low risk of harm. *While we’re at it, would you say that sex change operations are not harmful, but “talk therapy” methods by NARTH are? Because I don’t see the Obama Administration decrying sex-change operations, just a nebulous idea of conversion “therapy.”

 

[SMGS127]

This does not qualify - I asked for a psychologist who believes they can change someone’s actual sexual orientation. NARTH purports to administer to persons seeking to arrive at their actual orientation. They do not claim to change someone’s actual orientation by anything I’ve read.

Semantics. If someone claims (incorrectly) that everyone is heterosexual, then one can claim that ALL conversion therapy is merely causing someone to realize their “true” orientation . It is still trying to change someone from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation, regardless if you try to name a dog a cat.

While we’re at it, would you say that sex change operations are not harmful, but “talk therapy” methods by NARTH are? Because I don’t see the Obama Administration decrying sex-change operations, just a nebulous idea of conversion “therapy.”

Yes, absolutely. Gender reassignment surgeries (derisively called so-called “sex change” surgeries by opponents) are only performed on patients who demonstrate 0 underlying mental illnesses that could influence their self-awareness, who have spent years living in accordance with their gender identity, and who have shown demonstrable improvement doing so. There is a clear protocol to differentiate only those who clearly had an incorrect bodily development in-utero, and the “regret” risk is near-nonexistent as a result. There is also significant scientific evidence to support a biological basis to transgenderism.

By contrast, most people who are forced into conversion therapy as children have detrimental effects on their lives as a result, the therapy has been shown to be ineffective at best, extremely harmful at worst to the patient’s psyche, and there is no evidence whatsoever that sexual orientation is even mutable by any form of controlled environment (as opposed to gradual changes in one’s life in preference, such as a bisexual shifting from a male preference to a female preference over time). There is no real evidence of any such mutability occurring at all in monosexuals (heterosexuals + homosexuals), and in fact, current scientific evidence suggests that one’s sexual orientation (as defined as asexual, bisexual, homosexual, or heterosexual, preferences notwithstanding) is permanent once early childhood is achieved.

You can’t compare a surgical remedy proven to improve the life in patients with a “therapy” proven to destroy the psyche of children. You’re comparing a therapeutic surgery with child abuse.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Semantics.

I disagree - I don’t think it’s semantics. We are talking about 2 different things. In order to chastise NARTH for their claim to only minister to those who are seeking their true orientation, you must enter the arena with the predetermined doctrine that no one can have sexual identity confusion. I was very careful earlier in this thread to ask for examples of doctor’s who think they can change actual orientation because that’s the claim that was made.

those who clearly had an incorrect bodily development in-utero, and the “regret” risk is near-nonexistent as a result.

It’s not hard to find many cases of sex change regret. Although, even if we were to assume you were correct that regret is almost “non-existent” because of the lengthy discernment process involved, you have merely given us a reason to allow for conversion therapy if a similar discernment process was involved. But all I see is a total ban on one “treatment” and full acceptance of the other.

people who are forced into conversion therapy

Straw man as far as I’m concerned. I don’t think forced therapy is much more effective than forcing someone into a religion, so I have no major grievance with all that part of you post.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I don’t know that “love someone” is quite the proper way to put it because if, in a truly Christian sense, one loved one of the same sex one would not only not engage in sex with him/her, but would try to at least encourage celibacy in that person.

Now, if we say what it really is, which is to engage in sex with that person, I don’t believe, in our present time, that it’s possible to know where it comes from. At one time, psychologists were free to speak, research, and write openly about how they accounted for homosexuality. But now they can’t because departing from fiated APA formulations is forbidden and sanctioned within that profession.

So it’s really a 100% political issue now, and the big question is whether those who want homosexual relations to be regarded as “normal” and to be celebrated, are sufficiently powerful politically to suppress all dissent by religious people and their teachers who teach that it’s an evil. I would say we’re very close to that coercive outcome.

There is a clear connection for LGB people between loving someone of the same sex and desiring to engage in coitus.

I believe it was the liberal-secular world that encourages people like this young man to be “who you really are”, that are most responsible for his tragic death.

As opposed to psychologically traumatic “therapy” and isolation of a depressed person. You do not forcefully isolate a depressed person because a depressed person’s brain will get trapped in a downward spiral until they very likely kill themself.

Well, of course, it was the people who accepted her and used her proper pronouns and are trying to get rid of conversion therapy for minors who really hurt her.

Not the people who refused to let her be herself and kept calling her a ‘young man’, and encouraged the use of a harmful therapy on a minor. They are totally innocent.

Obviously the parents should have worked harder to literally beat the gender dysphoria out of their child.

Yes, those people did hurt him, by feeding into and supporting his delusion. They’re no different from people telling a paranoid schizophrenic that there really are “black helicopters” tracking him.

And what happens if it turns out the brain in a transwoman is actually female?

He was a young man who was suffering from a delusion. Psychiatric therapy is as appropriate to try to treat a young man who identifies as a young woman as it would be for a normally abled person who identifies as a paraplegic.

Wonderful, you just implied that being a woman is equivalent to being a paraplegic, how lovely.

Then why have some GLBTQ persons come out and said it’s worked for them?

When you go back and talk to them 10-20 years latter they are often engaged in gay relationships.

No. Because society is not “supposed” to convert them to straight in an overpopulated planet where more straightness means more population growth. Agnostic progressives want more homosexuals, not less. The worldwide Human Genome Project was completed in 2003. The mainstream media didn’t report it, so you probably won’t believe it if you trust the media to report the news. But, the results found no gene for sexuality: no straight gene, no gay gene, no bisexual gene, no transsexual gene, no transgendered gene, no questioning gene. It was a huge victory for homosexual activists, because this means that homosexuality is developed. The phenomenon of Mirror Neurons basically says that people can become what they experience. So, add pro-homosexual themes in all the media in addition to gay marriage, the belief that the world is overpopulated with carbon burners who are causing global warming, and the belief that God doesn’t exist, and, voila: we should accept more homosexuality as the way to save mother earth from overpopulation. Just look at the difference between old values versus young values if you want proof. There’s less evidence of sexuality genes now post-research than 30 years ago when a gay gene was first promoted in the media, yet people believe the opposite to be true. The media is king.

We don’t know what the vast majority of genes do.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

As someone who once labeled himself as a “very liberal” person, yea, so-called “progressives” are the “enemy.” Hate to break it to, ya.

I am not surprised an ex “very liberal” person hates them.

This does not qualify - I asked for a psychologist who believes they can change someone’s actual sexual orientation. NARTH purports to administer to persons seeking to arrive at their actual orientation. They do not claim to change someone’s actual orientation by anything I’ve read.

Furthermore, NARTH explicitly does not practice the kind of scary tactics underlying the Obama Administration’s call for control of the psych industry:
*The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has become aware of recent reports of **abusive sexual orientation change efforts ***(SOCE) alleged to be occurring in China and other international contexts. These accounts have highlighted the use of electric shock or pornography exposure interventions to change sexual orientation.

NARTH is on the record and repeats again here that aversive therapies such as those utilizing electric shock as well as the introduction of pornography are not effective and have no place in the professional care of clients with unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviors. NARTH reminds professional mental health practitioners in these contexts that assistance can be offered to those with unwanted same-sex attractions through conventional talk therapy. These professionals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with NARTH’s practice guidelines and much other available information on NARTH’s web site that may assist them in providing beneficial psychological care with a low risk of harm. While we’re at it, would you say that sex change operations are not harmful, but “talk therapy” methods by NARTH are? Because I don’t see the Obama Administration decrying sex-change operations, just a nebulous idea of conversion “therapy.”

They don’t believe in gay people.

I disagree - I don’t think it’s semantics. We are talking about 2 different things. In order to chastise NARTH for their claim to only minister to those who are seeking their true orientation, you must enter the arena with the predetermined doctrine that no one can have sexual identity confusion. I was very careful earlier in this thread to ask for examples of doctor’s who think they can change actual orientation because that’s the claim that was made.It’s not hard to find many cases of sex change regret. Although, even if we were to assume you were correct that regret is almost “non-existent” because of the lengthy discernment process involved, you have merely given us a reason to allow for conversion therapy if a similar discernment process was involved. But all I see is a total ban on one “treatment” and full acceptance of the other. :shrug:Straw man as far as I’m concerned. I don’t think forced therapy is much more effective than forcing someone into a religion, so I have no major grievance with all that part of you post.

NARTH’s doctors think they can change people who profess a homosexual orientation because to NARTH every non-heterosexual is confused.

 

[ucfengr]

Yes, those people did hurt him, by feeding into and supporting his delusion. They’re no different from people telling a paranoid schizophrenic that there really are “black helicopters” tracking him.

And what happens if it turns out the brain in a transwoman is actually female?.

If I handed you a male brain and a female brain, how would you tell me which is which?

He was a young man who was suffering from a delusion. Psychiatric therapy is as appropriate to try to treat a young man who identifies as a young woman as it would be for a normally abled person who identifies as a paraplegic.

Wonderful, you just implied that being a woman is equivalent to being a paraplegic, how lovely.

I’m not seeing how I did, but I do appreciate that when you’ve got a rant rolling, reading comprehension sometimes takes a backseat.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

If I handed you a male brain and a female brain, how would you tell me which is which?

psychologytoday.com/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

and

webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ

Is what I found, I got curious if there are differences.
In the first link structure is mentioned as one difference.

First link

A number of structural elements in the human brain differ between males and females. “Structural” refers to actual parts of the brain and the way they are built, including their size and/or mass.

Females often have a larger hippocampus, our human memory center. Females also often have a higher density of neural connections into the hippocampus

and

Male brains utilize nearly seven times more gray matter for activity while female brains utilize nearly ten times more white matter.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There is a clear connection for LGB people between loving someone of the same sex and desiring to engage in coitus.

.

Again, if one truly loves someone of the same sex, he/she will NOT have sex with that person.