Are Transexuals emotionally Stable?

[LaCosa]

Someone here uses the word science without even knowing what is the definition. Science is a method that consists in the possibility to reproduce the experiment proving a theory. Therefore the fact you nevr saw atoms doesn't mean they are an act of faith...

I'm not going to rehash the transsexual thing again - so long as I don't get obnoxious responses - because I said I was bowing out of it. Actually, I think I might have said I was bowing out the thread (I haven't reread what I previously wrote).

Nonetheless, I want to respond to this portion of yours above.

Why is it I run into people online that do this? With rare exception I usually have people far more educated in the sciences than myself respond to posts of mine related to scientific opinion or subject a lot more respectfully. And believe me... I'm not all that educated in the sciences.

But you are not quite right in your depiction of the scientific method - the scientific process - or what science "proves."

What's worse is you had to respond condescendingly to me - indirectly to me - stating I don't know what the definition of science is.

You've gotten your impression of science from media. Theories are not necessarily proven. Hence, why one theory goes out the window and another comes in. Although I believe in the theory of evolution (because it is the best explanation for the unity and diversity of life that I know of) it is in no way proven. When has someone in a controlled laboratory setting produced a Homo sapien (human) from a lower primate? They never have. Fossil records with stories and pictures are fine - the Catholic Church does similar with skeletal relics from saints - but that is not tantamount to conducting an experiment to prove an hypothesis, publishing your results in a peer reviewed journal, and then other scientists repeating the experiment and deriving the same results.

In the scientific method "repeatability" of experimental results is as important as the original experiment itself.

If an hypothesis is proved a theory (scientific theory) is usually developed to explain it. Bearing in mind scientific theories actually derive and are backed up with evidence. Proof? No.

In the 19th century in U.S. courts scientists specialized in deciphering personality traits and proclivity to various types of crimes, merely from studying the shape of a defendant's skull, were called to provide expert testimony of behalf the state and prosecution. They helped sentence men to prisons (draconian at the time) for life. Today we look upon such scientific "theories" as buffoonery.

The virtue in the scientific process - unlike religious dogmas (not doctrines per se, because religious doctrines evolve as new information and knowledge is acquired, not so dissimilar to the scientific process) - is that it is supposed to be self correcting.

But scientific theories are supposed to be falsifiable. It's not the theory of evolutions strength that it's been proven, it's strength lies in that every challenge to it has failed to disprove it, in fact only more evidence comes about suggesting it's true.

And yes... it requires some faith on my part to believe in atoms. It's difficult enough for me to imagine them - through Lewis Structures - in my head as it is.

By the way... math departments look down on the physics, the physicists look down on the chemists, and the chemists look down on the biologists. It's even questionable how much of a "science" biology is given it seems to have no concrete fixed laws like physics and chemistry given evolution can change things. Biology - as a study of life - also suffers from the statistical error of having a sample size of one. That sample size of one being only life on planet earth. Needless to say... it makes "astrobiology" something of an oxymoron.



Peace.

[runningdownthatdream]

Well because there are a lot of people out there that want to prove us wrong because they cant understand, and very often because they dont want to understand,most people rather lie to themselves or others to escape facing the truth. Especially tgirls and their lovers are often extremely good at this......

Good for you that you were able to take in all that La Cosa wrote - when he started pulling in Muslims, India, Nazis, Jesus, etc I didn't know whether to laugh or cry and instead chose to sleep! If I were 20 or maybe even 30 I'd probably be curious as to the root causes for transsexualism but at this stage in life I don't really care - anymore so than I care about why people in the north have fair skin and what gene is responsible for brown eyes or why we share 97% of our genes with chimpanzees. We are here on this earth so let's just try to get along and make the most of it. Too many questions about things we don't really need the answers to just leads to dissension.

[LaCosa]

Good for you that you were able to take in all that La Cosa wrote - when he started pulling in Muslims, India, Nazis, Jesus, etc I didn't know whether to laugh or cry and instead chose to sleep! If I were 20 or maybe even 30 I'd probably be curious as to the root causes for transsexualism but at this stage in life I don't really care - anymore so than I care about why people in the north have fair skin and what gene is responsible for brown eyes or why we share 97% of our genes with chimpanzees. We are here on this earth so let's just try to get along and make the most of it. Too many questions about things we don't really need the answers to just leads to dissension.

You know... I've run into people like you over the internet. You can't admit you misunderstood someone.

And you do care what the root causes of transsexualism is - more than myself - because it's evident in your hostility and antagonisms towards me.

There are only a few options as to what can cause it. Why do you care if it is psychological rooted in environmental causes? Could it because you are more bothered than myself that you find yourself attracted to persons of the female gender that have testicles and a penis? Yes, I suspect that's what it is.

Environmental causes, by the way, can be as simple and nuanced as noticing differences and taking cue.

Now, if you've sucked on your transsexual girlfriend's balls, or chugged down her cum when she's ejaculated, or let sodomize you till you've exploded in orgasm, then that is fine. But don't get angry at me because I don't go along in your little mind delusion that the penis put in your watering mouth was no more than an extra long clitoris.

And frankly, I stated that transsexuals (boys become girls) are of the female gender, but biologically of the male sex. Essentially all that says is that said transsexuals (pre-op) have testicles, penises, likely produce semen, bit are behaviorally - if not mentally - effeminate or what we might term "female" in the mind. Furthermore, I stated I refuse to treat said transsexuals as men.




This attractive young lady below has a nice female ass, is very effeminate, and has balls clearly hanging down. Now, for me that is part of the attraction. Does that make me evil? Should I some how deny she has balls, would that make me more of a man, secure my "fragile heterosexuality"? I feel I'm heterosexual whether she has balls hanging down or not. If she looked like Brad Pitt with a beard then I'd probably say I was gay. And frankly, I'm all for denoting said transsexuals as a "third gender" even if that term might be a little fuzzy.

So, if you like transsexuals balls... then you can please raise up off mine. I thank ya kindly.




(P.S. The Nazi's persecuted many and killed many... such as the disabled and homosexuals)

(P.P.S. At root the major differences in views come to a disagreement whether the psychological state of feeling like a girl comes from genes or other biological process or whether its first cause was environmental - ultimately, as it pertains to this board and not some university financed study, it's a trite difference in views. Jeez. )

[LaCosa]

^^By the way... as I've stated in the past on this board (I've not posted in months, and have rarely lurked during that time period) I find myself very sexually attracted to Ashely George.

And I'm fully aware she's a full person - meaning she's more than just her pictorials or her occupation. I'm sure she's loved by her family and friends or at least those she regards as family. And for all I know she's a rocket scientist in her spare time.

But it would probably be dangerous for me dating a girl as attractive as her - assuming our personalities complimented one another - because I desire children at some point, biologically she can't do that, and she might make me so weak at my knees that I can't help marrying her, due the addictive nature (love, desire, want) I'd be in for her.


That's not me trying to slyly court her indirectly in public here. I'm just explaining that I'm not hateful of transsexuals. Much the opposite. Plus, I'm quite sure Ashley is up to her neck in men courting her or already madly in love with some man, so, its all moot.

But there exist biological girls in this world. That means no balls and penis hanging. I like them too. But if I like seeing balls hang under a sexy girls short skirt chances the fuck are I have a fetish for that kind of thing.

[Birgitta]

T girls that have a normal female hormone balance do noooot produce semen,
Furthermore thank you for proving once again how much of an idiot men can be that like tgirls...

Try find out the root causes of that, pervert

[Birgitta]

Good for you that you were able to take in all that La Cosa wrote - when he started pulling in Muslims, India, Nazis, Jesus, etc I didn't know whether to laugh or cry and instead chose to sleep! If I were 20 or maybe even 30 I'd probably be curious as to the root causes for transsexualism but at this stage in life I don't really care - anymore so than I care about why people in the north have fair skin and what gene is responsible for brown eyes or why we share 97% of our genes with chimpanzees. We are here on this earth so let's just try to get along and make the most of it. Too many questions about things we don't really need the answers to just leads to dissension.

frankly i am convinced that there probably are different causes for being and becoming a ts, there is too much diversity in the tworld to say we are all the same...i think a lot of ts arent even ts, and are not girls born in the wrong body but i am convinced they are out there. But tlovers dont care for the soul and heart of their girl anyway so why bother discussing it...

[NatashaLover]

I know that a lot of them are are harmonal threapy and some more than others, but over the years I come to beleive that a lot of them are actually emotianally unstable..

I come to beleive that they're just very emotionally unstable beings, and most don't even have a clue about what they really want out of life, or it changes every day!

Some talk about chopping their dycks off on day and enjoying being a top the next?

What are your thoughts in reguards to this subject?

I will stand in the fifth amendment, but you do have a point.

[LaCosa]

T girls that have a normal female hormone balance do noooot produce semen,
Furthermore thank you for proving once again how much of an idiot men can be that like tgirls...

Try find out the root causes of that, pervert

Look... I'd appreciate if you did not fling around personal attacks. I'm not attempting to find out the root cause of anything. You were born in a male body. Period. I neither called you an idiot nor referred to you as a pervert. I've been very respectful towards you.

You, however, evidence my point that one reads the posts of transsexuals with emotional or psychological problems on this board.

It should be apparent to any sane person - transsexual or not - that for a transsexual person to call guys attracted to pre-op transsexuals "perverts" is not only irony but dumb ass all fucking hell to boot. You are not biologically female and any guy that claims so is delusional - or simply dishonest with himself. You yourself stated in so many words that you are female in your mind (I bet a die-hard female feminist would have a field day with that proposition), and therefore you are admitting to be of the female gender irrespective of the male biological sex you were born with.

I have a woman online friend on another board that hates all gender distinctions period - and she regards herself as a woman and not a man (she's born female with XX chromosomes). She chops wood, wears work boots, and fits none of the "psychological qualities" most people associate with female. She accepts herself as female not because of the way she thinks or feels but because she's biologically a female. I state that because she gets annoyed whenever men on the board suggest there is a distinct way to feel or think as a woman.

And frankly I think my position in the long term best protects homosexuals and transsexuals. The Nazi's killed homosexuals not wanting them to pass on their genes (with punnet squares you can pretty much predict the odds of a child inheriting certain traits like eye color or sickle cell disease), and the educated in India today are all to often aborting unborn children with XX chromosomes.

So, let me for a moment assume transsexualism is genetically heritable. My prediction is as medical technology advances the educated will begin, in significant numbers, to abort unborn children detected with the genes that code for transsexualism. The educated know - or some of them at least know - that you don't have to wait for natural selection "in nature" per se to occur, you can artificially select for traits. People in agriculture have done it for eons. People that breed animals have been doing it for I don't know how long. For humans, we can abort children that carry genes and traits we don't like and give birth to those whose genes and traits we favor.

In terms of abortion, transsexuals are looked down upon more than XX chromosome girls. So, before you think I'm some evil monster, you ought come to terms with a man no less esteemed than the almighty Richard Dawkins himself, who claims its not we that matter but our genes. And he's a humanist atheist, imagine what the atheists that aren't humanist think? Dawkins wouldn't promote culling you transsexuals from the gene pool within a "population," but I damn sure suspect some other atheist scientist would. You all would be right up there with sickle cell anemia. And since it's likely many parents would not want to bring into this world a child that carries genes that code for transsexualism, many of them likely would be all for aborting said child too.

[LaCosa]

[dderek123]

Look... I'd appreciate if you did not fling around personal attacks. I'm not attempting to find out the root cause of anything. You were born in a male body. Period. I neither called you an idiot nor referred to you as a pervert. I've been very respectful towards you.

You, however, evidence my point that one reads the posts of transsexuals with emotional or psychological problems on this board.

It should be apparent to any sane person - transsexual or not - that for a transsexual person to call guys attracted to pre-op transsexuals "perverts" is not only irony but dumb ass all fucking hell to boot. You are not biologically female and any guy that claims so is delusional - or simply dishonest with himself. You yourself stated in so many words that you are female in your mind (I bet a die-hard female feminist would have a field day with that proposition), and therefore you are admitting to be of the female gender irrespective of the male biological sex you were born with.

Hey this guy is smart. I think I'll keep reading!

I have a woman online friend on another board that hates all gender distinctions period - and she regards herself as a woman and not a man (she's born female with XX chromosomes). She chops wood, wears work boots, and fits none of the "psychological qualities" most people associate with female. She accepts herself as female not because of the way she thinks or feels but because she's biologically a female. I state that because she gets annoyed whenever men on the board suggest there is a distinct way to feel or think as a woman.

Cool story, bro.

And frankly I think my position in the long term best protects homosexuals and transsexuals. The Nazi's killed homosexuals not wanting them to pass on their genes (with punnet squares you can pretty much predict the odds of a child inheriting certain traits like eye color or sickle cell disease), and the educated in India today are all to often aborting unborn children with XX chromosomes.

Huh?

So, let me for a moment assume transsexualism is genetically heritable. My prediction is as medical technology advances the educated will begin, in significant numbers, to abort unborn children detected with the genes that code for transsexualism. The educated know - or some of them at least know - that you don't have to wait for natural selection "in nature" per se to occur, you can artificially select for traits. People in agriculture have done it for eons. People that breed animals have been doing it for I don't know how long. For humans, we can abort children that carry genes and traits we don't like and give birth to those whose genes and traits we favor.

In terms of abortion, transsexuals are looked down upon more than XX chromosome girls. So, before you think I'm some evil monster, you ought come to terms with a man no less esteemed than the almighty Richard Dawkins himself, who claims its not we that matter but our genes. And he's a humanist atheist, imagine what the atheists that aren't humanist think? Dawkins wouldn't promote culling you transsexuals from the gene pool within a "population," but I damn sure suspect some other atheist scientist would. You all would be right up there with sickle cell anemia. And since it's likely many parents would not want to bring into this world a child that carries genes that code for transsexualism, many of them likely would be all for aborting said child too.

WTF?