Gender Bending and psychosis...

[puppychow]

your inital question was: I just read this article about an 18 year old girl who thinks she's a boy trapped in a mans body. Today's "solution" for this is to cut her up and give her male genitalia and hormones.

What if she felt like she was a dog trapped in a human body? Why don't we do everything we can to turn her into a dog?

What are the differences between these two psychosis?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

the debate has since moved on, but the answer to THIS question is its the same species. no more no less.

[MikeQuist]

In the end, this debate will be solved by a brain scientist in a lab. And nobody will believe him anyways.

[YomMamasHouse]

Scuzzy, the way you talked about homosexuality makes it seem as though it is something that needs to be cured. At the rate humans are breeding we could use a few homosexuals here and there anyway. Keep em coming.

[there's nothing here]

Originally Posted by squeek.

I laughed at it. I just don't think its necessary to post "ha" after every funny post without having anything else to add.

Aw, okay then. ^_^

I love you too.

[Zencheetah]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Well, how about people who are born deaf? There are those in the deaf culture that are against cochlear implants (which allow the deaf to hear) because they say there is "nothing wrong" with people being deaf. Are they right or are they wrong? Would you say the same about the blind community? What about the cancer community?

Hearing is an ability that all humans have that was denied at the creation of their sensory and hearing organs, resulting in them being death, or from a trauma in life. Where as being gay doesn't harm anything or impair anything, being deaf does. This goes the same for blind people. I personally don't believe that homosexuality is a disease by any means. Deaf people who deny the ability to hear are at fault, because hearing is a significant part of life that plays major roles in the humans ability to function.

Being gay does not impair anything.. think about it. If you think that the gay people are gonna destroy the world from creating no kids, then you are a sad individual... Lots of people still create kids and will always untill the end of time. Other then that, gay people act the same as a straight person, unless they are the type that wants to flaunt it... which I believe their mind to be at fault in this case, for being a complete jackass. But then again, thats personality.

Now, even compairing it to cancer is stupid. That truly is a disease/condition that is created from faulty cells.

Scuzzy, you are really homophobic, but ask yourself... why do you think it's a big deal? Are you afraid, or threatened? Do you feel "them damn homo's" are gonna corrupt children? Get over yourself. That past needs to go away so we can concentrate on human advancement. Your crotchspawns are fine, just raise them correctly is the only concern parents need.

[Innoc]

Like any group it's the militants and radicals that are the most irritating and end up forming the components of the stereotype. Sadly, the vast majority of the group would just as soon live their lives but for the negative attention that the radicals bring to the group as a whole that makes that desire, frequently, difficult to achieve.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by puppychow

Scuzzy hates fags.

No. And I won't address this at length cause I think you're joking.

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

Scuzzy, the way you talked about homosexuality makes it seem as though it is something that needs to be cured. At the rate humans are breeding we could use a few homosexuals here and there anyway. Keep em coming.

Are you saying that homosexuality is natures way of telling a human they shouldn't reproduce?

Originally Posted by Zencheetah

Scuzzy, you are really homophobic, but ask yourself... why do you think it's a big deal?

I'm not, I don't think it's a big deal.

Originally Posted by Zencheetah

Are you afraid, or threatened?

Are you saying that homosexuals are dangerous people? Why do you think that?

Originally Posted by Zencheetah

Do you feel "them damn homo's" are gonna corrupt children?

Why would you call them "damn homo's" and in what way do you think they're going to corrupt children?

Originally Posted by Zencheetah

That past needs to go away so we can concentrate on human advancement. Your crotchspawns are fine, just raise them correctly is the only concern parents need.

I'm not really sure where your last paragraph came from, nor why you think I *must* believe them because I brought up this topic up. I can discuss homosexuality without hating homosexuals. Please don't jump to such conclusions.

Originally Posted by Zencheetah

Being gay does not impair anything.. think about it.

I disagree, it impairs the natural ability of a man to be attracted to a women (or a woman to a man).





--------

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Are you saying that homosexuality is natures way of telling a human they shouldn't reproduce?

No, being invited as a guest on the Jerry Springer show is though.

[Etzell]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I disagree, it impairs the natural ability of a man to be attracted to a women (or a woman to a man).

HARDLY an impairment. Attraction across genders is there to propagate the species. If someone's not interested in that, it's not a disease, there's not something WRONG with them, they just don't want to procreate. Or, they want to raise a child with someone they love (in the case of surrogate mothers or sperm donations), instead of having sex with someone they don't love at all to get the same effect.

[Hawk Eye]

Being straight has impaired my ability to be attracted to other males since I was a wee babe.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Etzell

HARDLY an impairment. Attraction across genders is there to propagate the species. If someone's not interested in that, it's not a disease, there's not something WRONG with them, they just don't want to procreate. Or, they want to raise a child with someone they love (in the case of surrogate mothers or sperm donations), instead of having sex with someone they don't love at all to get the same effect.

It sounds like your arguing that being gay is a choice, like "not procreating" is a choice. I'm also not considering what man can do to procreate artificially, we're strictly talking about natural attraction. We're leaving "nurture" out of this equation completely. I know that people can "choose" not to have kids, that's their choice, not something ingrained in them from birth like being gay. Again, I am not saying that being gay is "bad".

Here's another way to ask my question Etzell, and maybe this will help make my thought process more clear. If a male body with male genitalia which is created to produce sperm meant to propagate the genetic makeup of that man, but some other part of his body from birth prevents him from being attracted to a female, then isn't that an impediment to the design of the male?

[Nuk3m]

people who believe in a Creator, not creation,
(god/jesus/mohammad/etc vs. something beyond our capabilities of understanding that was the true cause of our existance)

and who think homosexuality is a sin/wrong,

you sir/ma'am are naive and a flock of sheep.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Nuk3m

people who believe in a Creator, not creation,
(god/jesus/mohammad/etc vs. something beyond our capabilities of understanding that was the true cause of our existance)

and who think homosexuality is a sin/wrong,

you sir/ma'am are naive and a flock of sheep.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that Nuk3m.

[there's nothing here]

Fuck..

I rolled over on my glasses.

[Etzell]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

If a male body with male genitalia which is created to produce sperm meant to propagate the genetic makeup of that man, but some other part of his body from birth prevents him from being attracted to a female, then isn't that an impediment to the design of the male?

So the homosexual community isn't propagating the species... so what? We can agree on that. If that's all people were born to do, yeah, there'd be a problem. The issue is that there's more to being a human than propagating the species, there's also the issue of improving the species, which the gay community can still take part in.

[YomMamasHouse]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Here's another way to ask my question Etzell, and maybe this will help make my thought process more clear. If a male body with male genitalia which is created to produce sperm meant to propagate the genetic makeup of that man, but some other part of his body from birth prevents him from being attracted to a female, then isn't that an impediment to the design of the male?

It is an impediment to the reproductive organs but not to the person as a whole and that is the only thing that is important. There is more to human life than procreation and a person who does not wish to procreate is not impaired in any way.

And, as for your comment about homosexuality being nature's birth control; I don't think it is, but I certainly wish it was because obviously humans as a collective group are incapable of it so I would like to see nature taking it into it's own hands. If I was not born with an innate bias towards my own species I would see us as a verminous plague, the most destructive living creatures to curse this beautiful planet. Fuck us all.

[there's nothing here]

Geez..

Who cares, anyway?

[Circuitous]

Scuzzy did you seriously start this thread thinking it wouldn't degrade to this?

[zSilver_Fox]

I think he expected it... but everyone enjoys a good debate. Even if it lasts five posts.

Anyway, regarding your question about the dog thing: For one thing, the anatomy and taxonomy between the two is entirely different. There's too much of a difference. What was suggested regarding making her look like a dog would not make her look like a true canine, but an anthropomorphic one (which isn't one). But that's getting down into the details.

I'm bisexual, as many of you know, and I do have a boyfriend. [/attentionwhoringandtrolling] And I'll share my opinion on homosexuality: It's both a physical and psychological issue. It does vary from person to person, the reason why they experience an attraction to the same gender, but it's commonly a mixture of those two. I won't get into details right now, as it does delve into personal things. If someone wants to discuss it with me, please PM me and I can explain.

In the end, homosexuality is against nature under the ideology that nature intended opposite genders to sexually interact to reproduce. That's very basic and doesn't delve into the psychology of the situation. If we wish to delve into the psychological part of it all, there are many different views. For example, homosexuality or homosexual tendencies can be considered normal given hormonal reasons.

There may also be other psychological reasons, such as abuse in the past which has changed a person's mindset regarding sexual relationships, or lack of figures.

There are many reasons why a person has homosexual tendencies or behaviours. There's no blanket diagnosis.

[Innoc]

I agree Silver Fox. You cannot compare the issues of Gender confusion with someone that believes that they are confused about what species they are. I don't believe that anyone could effectively argue that they are part of the same "slippery slope".