Have your period when you're not a woman

[kgcayenne]

Just once, I'd like a real man to experience what women go through.

Is that too much to ask?

What are you talking about? Women tell me about it all day, everyday

You have no idea what it's like until you have actually felt the sensation of dull, serated, rusty knives tearing slowly at your insides all while having sufficient rage within you to anihilate your family without remorse. You have no idea the self control required to deal with hiding all that to go on with our regular day.

Picture this too: a root canal, without anaesthetic that goes on for a few days, every month, for thirty years... that should be somewhat relatable?

On topic and a serious note: I would have thought that trans gender people go through hormone therapy to effectively cease menstruation.

[Queen K]

It will never be relatable to men, even trans men claiming they have their "period."

They are the Great Pretenders of womanhood. Sure throw on the dress, earrings, make up, heck, add accessories. But don't go on tell people ridicuolous things which we all know you haven't got a clue about.

[Verum]

It will never be relatable to men, even trans men claiming they have their "period."

Trans men actually have periods, assuming that they have their full and functional organs of the sex they were assigned at birth.

They are the Great Pretenders of womanhood. Sure throw on the dress, earrings, make up, heck, add accessories. But don't go on tell people ridicuolous things which we all know you haven't got a clue about.

You're thinking of trans women.

Also, technically every period is different and every woman is different, so even among women the level of relatability isn't perfect. Add in the likes of severe endometriosis and things get even more complicated. But I find it a somewhat strange phenomenon in that I've noticed plenty of female bonding and comradery over it as a sort of shared burden, pain and indication of being a woman.

Anyway, just be glad you've never suffered from blue balls.

[Verum]

Can you provide evidence that the field of psychology has made "conclusions on gender made to placate the masses that aren't ground in facts"? It seems to be borderline conspiracy theory level stuff. Psychologists don't define their science around what placates the masses.


I am neither.", but I'm more interested in having a frank and honest discussion. I do find your opinion fascinating, especially in light of your claims to having some significant formal training in this area.

Many, if not most people define everything they do around placating the masses.

Even if that is true, and I don't for one minute think that it applies to most people, that would not be good evidence that psychologists or scientists do this. In fact, most scientists of any ambition are much more interested in stirring things up. You don't get a Nobel prize for showing that what everyone thinks is true might be true. It's much better to revolutionise science.

Anyway, from my own perspective, as a scientist I don't have to. When I do research and come up with conclusions with adequate evidence to support the conclusions, I don't really care who it placates or not and because the conclusions are evidence based to a high degree of certainty, it's not even really an expression of my opinion, it's an expression of the research. That's basically true of all the scientists I know. Thankfully though, I have been out of pure research for a few years because it really doesn't pay very well and can get rather staid.

Some do find that getting grants for certain research is harder than other, but it would be unreasonable to claim that such is due to liberal bias, since lots of the funding groups are actually conservative. For instance, if you think your research might show that abortion is killing a fully sentient person, you'll be tripping over offers to fund it. Conservative groups often have very deep pockets.

People can't even admit they're republican anymore without being harassed and shamed.

That's true of any political affiliation. Some people will harass and shame you no matter what political views you have. Just look at the name calling on this site.

If you want border security and immigration control, you're a racist.

We pretty much all believe in these things. Very few are against any form of border security or immigration control. I guess the libertarians among us might, but otherwise, it is the norm.
If one wants reduced immigration, and in particular, if one wants reduced immigration from specific groups of people on the basis of country of origin, race, religion, etc. then I can understand why some would see that as racist, not least because it is a view widely held by racists, or other bigots.
Of course, I'm sure you are aware of the insults one gets if one wants increased immigration and diversity, even if that is on the basis of increased economic activity and long term financial benefit to our country.

Do you honestly think that if a group of psychiatrists, psychologists or even a Psych faculty board from a major US university published a paper or came out on record stating that transgender people were mentally unwell, that they wouldn't be shamed, ostracized and perhaps fired?

If they can provide the evidence to back it up, I am quite certain that they wouldn't be fired, not least because many studies do come out with links between being transgender and having mental health issues. If on the other hand, you are asking would they be fired for publishing research claiming that being transgender is a mental illness itself? That's unlikely too, but if it could be shown that such research was a simple reflection of personal values and interpretation of what mental illness is, then yes they could be fired, not least because it's shoddy work. But, if using the accepted definitions of mental illness and rigorous study a group of scientists were to show that being transgender is a mental illness, then I have little doubt that any decent university would not fire them. Some might shame them, and some might try to ostracise them, but in fairness that happens now when one claims that being transgender is normal and natural. To be clear, if they came to that conclusion with adequate evidence, I would fully support them, especially if such research was to pass adequate peer review.
Interestingly, even if it is seen as a mental illness, the treatment might well remain the same, and in fact, it may well be much more acceptable than it is today. Much of the problem today is that people consider it a choice and sadly many consider being trangender to be unnatural and even offensive.

They'd be risking career suicide in today's climate.

I think you underestimate the scientific community. In the past plenty of people have expressed views contrary to the orthodoxy and while it can be difficult for them for a while, if shown to be more correct than the orthodoxy, they and their research is ultimately are accepted as more complete and it replaces the older, less accurate understanding.

Hell, medical doctors get harassed and attacked for supporting abortion and even circumcision.

True, though some also get attacked for the opposite. The divisions in our society are terrible and some people take it awfully personally when their morality is ignored.

People from all professions and walks of life "play along to get along," even scientists.

To a point, but I suspect that you come from a public facing role, where you deal with individual members of such, so the general need for politeness and following shared lies is somewhat more pressing than it is for scientists. Most of them don't have that kind of pressure from the public and frankly most are more interested in making a name for themselves than being liked by a few people. Simply put, if a group of psychologists and psychiatrists could show with massive support that being transgender is a mental illness, with current understanding of what that means, there would be huge pressure to publish, if for no other reason than such a breakthrough would massively increase their fame.

Grants, school funding, elite positions, etc... can all get cut if you rock the boat. In today's climate, saying transgender people have a mental disorder could put them at risk professionally.

Maybe it could, though I doubt it, but if adequately supported by evidence, I suspect that such would be inundated with offers of grants from conservative think tanks and funding groups. They exist and if you publish research they want to see, they are willing to pay quite handsomely.

I don't think you ARE interested in frank and honest discussion. Look at the thread where I said universities are no longer think tanks that encourage free thought and differing opinions. You said they are, but as someone who appears to be currently involved in that area... you're flat out telling me I'm wrong.

It is not my experience that "universities are no longer think tanks that encourage free thought and differing opinions" and I stand by that. More than that, my experience is actually quite the opposite as many areas where the the orthodoxy has gone largely unchallenged for a long time are finding the basic assumptions being challenged. That said, this is my experience and to date I have seen no empirical evidence that universities are broadly less welcoming of free thought, rather the opposite as the diversity of subjects increases. We now have universities teaching courses ranging from theology to women's studies, physics to literature studies, and computer game design to philosophy. Universities have diverse groups, and it would be terribly naive to paint them all with the same brush. To be clear, many universities do sometimes actively discourage certain attitudes and types of thinking in the interest of the general student body, such as sexism, bullying, etc. The problem is that some people see some examples of behaviour they dislike and then assume that all universities are behaving in the exact same manner and there are many who do their best to highlight any liberal bias in universities, even where such is atypical, and they do their best to draw attention to it. Focusing on individual incidents or a few headlines is a really bad way to form an opinion of what is happening. Interestingly, often it is actually the leftists on campus who ultimately get shutdown:
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/645/my-effing-first-amendment

However, many people know the debate we are having isn't so simple and there is no right or wrong answer....

True to a point. We cannot know the right or wrong answer with absolute certainty, but an argument based on false understanding or claims about what science or psychology is is incorrect and it is rare for a view formed on fallacies to result in a valid and well supported conclusion.

Do some psychologists and psychiatrists believe that being transgender is a mental illness, yes, but some climatologists don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, some biologists don't believe in evolution, some doctors don't believe in vaccinations, etc. A few outliers don't really matter.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Moving past psychology, there is plenty of biological evidence that the traditional, simplified view of humans as being either male or female is no longer supported by the science and that while most people can be grouped into one or the other, the usefulness of the division is limited and any working definition for general use has been found useless when applied in some specific cases. If you have such a definition which can be applied without exceptions and give completely accurate results there are some organisations such as the IOC and IAAF who would love to talk to you. In the mean time, it is clear that the socially derived and applied concept of male and female is at best a rough guideline based somewhat on biological traits and as such, applying it rigorously is a social straitjacket likely to result in significant harm for those who don't fit quite with the extremely simple view we apply socially. It is extremely authoritarian to impose a bad definition on others to their detriment.

[Catsumi]

Verum

Every day that passes I want, need, aspire, to learn new things I never knew before.

So, dearie, tell me about "blue balls" if you would be so kind.

Short version, please.

[Verum]

Verum

Every day that passes I want, need, aspire, to learn new things I never knew before.

So, dearie, tell me about "blue balls" if you would be so kind.

Short version, please.

It's more a joke than real. Basically, some men sometimes get pain in there testes if they get an erection but don't orgasm. Most men use it to mean that they haven't had release for a long period of time.

[Catsumi]

Dearie me, we have a lineup of male posters who have been "holding back" here.

Thanks so much for keeping it in check, (explanation-wise, of course).

[Mark1111]

I must be having one of my unusual reflective moments...but I feel sorry for this kid. It must be crazy to be so confused about one's sexuality. I say, with out sarcasm or criticism, that I am just not equipped to be able to relate to this. But what I do understand is that you can't get into someone's head without walking in their shoes.

[forum]

Quite the novel being written in here.

[normaM]

Quite the attack of Transgender people too