The Problem with Christians

[Angrboda]

Notwithstanding the several significant limitations of the NTDS data that we noted at the outset of this report, our analysis suggests some tentative findings related to risk and protective factors for suicide attempts among transgender and gender non-conforming adults. Two interrelated risk factors appear to be most strongly related to suicidal behavior among transgender and gender non-conforming adults: rejection, discrimination, victimization, and violence related to anti-transgender bias and serious mental health conditions. In this study, we found a markedly high prevalence of lifetime suicide attempts among respondents who reported experiencing stressors related to anti-transgender bias, and among those who reported having a mental health condition that substantially affects a major life activity. In addition, our analyses suggest that these two sets of risk factors are closely related.

[Angrboda]

As has been noted, the NTDS instrument did not include questions about the timing of suicide attempts relative to transition, and thus we were unable to determine whether suicidal behavior is significantly reduced following transition-related surgeries, as some clinical studies have suggested (Dixen et al., 1984; De Cuypere et al., 2006).

[Cyberman]

Then why was homosexuality listed as a mental health disorder by the American Psychiatry Association all the way up to 1973?

Perhaps for similar reasons to why Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder used to be called 'shell shock' - and before that, 'cowardice in the face of the enemy'. In other words, ignorance and bigotry.

[Cyberman]

Addendum to above: a far more useful question would be "Why is homosexuality no longer listed as a mental health disorder?"

[robvalue]

We have a winner!

I can't believe this parade of ignorance and messed up arguments we're getting lately.

[Esquilax]

This comparison of suicide attempt rates is also faulty in another way.  The proper comparison group for transexuals is the mentally ill, not the general population.  They have a difficult and stressful life long condition.  A comparison to people with a chronic illness would be more appropriate.  Does your study differentiate between pre-transitioning rates and post-transition rates?  That's another aspect that needs to be considered.

Oh well, see, let me tell you how this goes, because this isn't the first time that AWJ has posted (a few sentences of) a citation, where actually reading the thing shows a markedly different conclusion than what he had presented. What happened when that was pointed out was amazing.

So, the parts of the citation that agree with what AWJ already believes were perfectly acceptable evidence, and should be treated seriously. The parts that don't agree with what AWJ already believes- and in this past case that was the conclusions of the scientists that wrote the study, unambiguously and unequivocally stated- well, those parts "don't make sense" and should be disregarded immediately and without thought. The end result was that what makes a good study for citation is how much it aligns with what AWJ believes, not methodology or the quality of the evidence. Even within the same study, those parts that can be twisted to fit AWJ's beliefs should be treated with respect, and those parts that do not, or that a proper understanding of the concepts involved would suggest otherwise, "don't make sense." What really matters, the only thing that matters, is whether it makes sense to AWJ.

So I don't think questions of methodology or a full understanding of the results of the citation will matter much, here, because they don't make sense within AWJ's presupposed worldview, which is reason enough, in the self-serving prism through which he sees the world, to disregard them. To AWJ, the study he cited is short snippets of text, surrounded by vast black swathes of redaction, editing out all those things that are not what he already believes.

[robvalue]

That tends to happen when all your conclusions are already drawn before you even consider the evidence.

[GUBU]

"The prevalence of suicide attempts among respondents to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS), conducted by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and National Center for Transgender Equality, is 41 percent, which vastly exceeds the 4.6 percent of the overall U.S. population who report a lifetime" UCLA School of Law.

With a suicide rate 10 times higher than average, the "treatment" is clearly an abject failure.

No wonder you're not giving a citation for this one. Fuck off with your bullshit and lies.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

"The prevalence of suicide attempts among respondents to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS), conducted by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and National Center for Transgender Equality, is 41 percent, which vastly exceeds the 4.6 percent of the overall U.S. population who report a lifetime" UCLA School of Law.

With a suicide rate 10 times higher than average, the "treatment" is clearly an abject failure.

No wonder you're not giving a citation for this one. Fuck off with your bullshit and lies.

Lying for Jesus is still lying.

[AJW333]

I'm not in favour of child or adolescent sex or marriage, but I would be interested to know from an evolutionary point of view, why it is wrong for biologically able people to engage in sexual activity before the government-approved age. If you have sexual maturity, why is it "wrong" to use it? Doesn't natural selection indicate that sex at 12 or 13 is normal?

What we do biologically because we can does not make it something we should condone as a society. Yes, in a time when disease and other privations made it hard to survive past 30 (and often, to full adulthood), it would be beneficial to allow for reproduction at a young age like 12-13. That does not mean that, given our understanding of the development of the brain and of child psychology, that we must therefore ignore the damage that can be done to children by the actions of adults-- damage they may not realize is occurring, at the time, because of the lack of brain development (and thus decision-making ability) that they have available when young.

Agreed.

You are the only person in this entire conversation who genuinely thinks that because something was Naturally Selected for the human race, in the past hundreds of thousands of years of our evolutionary development, that it's a good thing for our society. 

I didn't say it was a good thing, I was suggesting that for those who follow evolution and natural selection, that it logically follows that a species should reproduce as when it was physically able to.  

Xenophobia (tribalism) and hatred of "The Other" is wired into our genes, for the same reason--we developed as a tribal species--but it does not mean we should be trying to harm one another on the basis of their differences. We play sports like football, instead.

But xenophobia keeps the earth's population down to manageable levels. All those wars and starvation has to be good for the overall survival of the planet right? I mean, if the earth's population levels keep rising, there will be nothing left for anyone.