Transgender awareness: Charlize Theoren's child born a boy identifies as a girl

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,747
40,188
136
Of course you think he's an ass. Because he is spot on and 100% correct and you're butt-hurt that it doesn't align with your irrational thoughts.

Reading comprehension fail. Shocking.

It is 100% virtue signaling and attention whoring to go around proclaiming shit and seeking media attention when your kid declares that he/she is the opposite sex at the age of 3. Do you go around bragging to your friends when your kid identifies as an attack helicopter? How about when they proclaim to be a princess? Or a pirate? Or a dragon?

Says a lot about your kind that this is how you view supporting your child no matter what out of love. Involving non gender titles and objects here shows you aren't even being serious about this, or are you one of those toaster fuckers I've heard about? Baffles me that you morons are still clinging to that line of attack, undermining your own credibility with nonsense, hahaha yeah that'll show'em.

But somehow they are completely serious and not at all irrational when they proclaim to be the opposite sex. You really are that stupid aren't you? You must be one shit parent if you actually have kids to be at that peak level of stupid. If you have kids I hope they can learn to be a sane adult on their own, because they sure aren't getting it from you.

Please, save your talk radio inspired advice for the other dumb shits who swallow it as gleefully. I told you before to ignore my posts and I meant it, I'm getting tired of having to address your devotion to ignorance. Only reason you're not on my Ignore list now is I actually saw you post a cogent, valid take on something months and months ago. Am I giving a red herring too much respect? Help me out here - is this the kind of response I can expect from you here on out? I'll make it easy for you, simple Yes or No will suffice.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,352
126
This is how far gone the left is today. You think it is "outrageous" to call a human being with an x and y chromosome in every cell in his body a boy.

I have to caution you that the dogmatic certainty you express here has been scientifically demonstrated to trace back to the emotion of fear including the fear of being fearful and having to therefore deny that fear actually is the cause as at root with this problem. I want to extend this caution to you because it is also known that fear of this kind, while it is more associated and therefore more typical of conservatives over liberals, it also creates conservative thinking in liberals the more fearful they become themselves. Tension and anxiety, increasing uncertainty in life, the presence of alcohol in the blood, and all manner of threats can turn liberals into conservatives. You will find liberals become just as irrational as conservatives with these things are operational in them. And of course when that happens liberals become just as irrational and frankly, as dangerous to themselves and others, as conservatives, if not on their best days.

You can see this with people who worry about vaccines, microwave or nuclear radiation, cell phones frying their brains, etc., and here in particular, a quite rational fear of how dangerous to society conservative thinking can be. In short, liberals exposed to the irrationality of conservatives especially when they fall under their rule, like now with our two year old as President, are inevitably doomed to act with the same simplistic low level thinking that conservatives are famous for. In short, conservatives, as a result of their irrational levels of fear, the enlarged amygdala thing, create what they fear more than anything, liberals who are as irrationally frightened of them as they are of liberals.

With that out of the way, we can look at the low level thinking you express in your words and why you generate contempt and hate when you speak it to liberals generally.

Conservatives, because they will not face realities that affect them in ways that generate conscious and or unconscious fear, remember, you don't want to know how fearful your reactions really are, makes you look like a girl, adopt low level black and white thinking to eliminate all the stress that can occur dealing with shades of gray. Thus, on the rational plane, you really can't compete with liberals owing to their larger brain part called the cingulate which is there to suppress the emotion of fear to allow a reasoned response. This is a much newer and more recent evolutionary brain function. It is there, just as fight or flight, to keep us from rushing at the sound of a broken twig, from rushing off in to the jaws of a lion.

In short, if some of us run and some of us wait for more data and plan an escape, if the danger is immediate those who flee will survive, and those who don't run to their deaths will survive depending of which was the best in the circumstance.

This means, of course, that your brain defect is only a defect now that humans basically are apex creatures, and control the environment to a high degree of safety. But all those most easily adapted to run make up things to run from.

Those of us capable of higher level thinking don't see sex and gender identification as simple as x or y genes. Human behaviors are much more genetically complicated than that and much more malleable according to nurture. One would think, at a low level of reasoning, and thus this kind of thinking is common, that if you are born xy, for example, you will grow up with a sexual interest in women, but we know that is not always the case and that even things like the birth order of siblings may play a part in which gender one finds sexual interest in.

But since the whole purpose of homophobia is to protect ones ego from threat, that fear thingi again, once indoctrinated with the notion that being gay is a sin, conservatives lose the capacity to think. The facts about sexual orientation will be beyond conservative ken. Makes you look profoundly stupid and dangerous to liberals, but that's not what it is. It's just that evolutionary proclivity for fear kicking in, when the boogie man gay person threatens your moral certainty that homosexuality isn't a sin.

So there you are.......lead around by the ring in your nose, your overactive amydala, imagining the world is out to destroy everything you hold sacred. And the reason I find you amusing is because the boogy man go his claws into me, and pulled me so far under that I gave up and died. So Happy Easter from those of us who have died to all we held sacred and been resurrected. Hope you take your shot at it. Everything you fear has already happened.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,213
671
136
It was a quip to wrap up the actual points from the rest of the argument. Censored in that post, and not censored in the follow up after I saw how far down the rabbit hole this topic had gone.

Mine are questions of identity and of existential beliefs. Not to be taken lightly, and if anyone is questioning themselves they probably shouldn't be lead down that thought process. The consequences to the psyche could be quite... severe for someone who has struggled with accepting themselves their entire life. I wouldn't want to do that to anyone, even though there is quite a discussion to be had on the subject.

In short, Gender is a social construct. Gender Dysphoria is a mental misalignment with social expectations. No society, no expectation, no Dysphoria. Therefore, the concept of "transition" is itself just another bow to social expectations. But one that cannot actually be fulfilled. So my conclusion is that people should love themselves, as they were born, and tell society to !@#$ off sans drugs, sans knife.

But again, that's just me.

Isn't Gender also a biological classification? If gender is a spectrum how does the classification work now?

As for Theron's kid, while I don't personally think 3 is an age where a child has a clue what gender even means (even as a social construct), and I'm still very undecided on the gender spectrum to begin with, the truth here is; it's honestly not my business nor my concern how she raises her kid. I'd be pissed if someone tried to tell me how to do it, so I struggle to see how it's anyone else's if it doesn't hurt anyone else. At least this kid has a parent on it's side as it makes choices that might be a massive mistake down the road. There are much worse fates.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Ah, the standard Atreus21 response where thinks he knows science, but has utterly no clue and wrongfully chastises others because of his ignorance.

What gender is a person with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome? That person can have female external genitalia but the chromosomes are XY.What about 5alpha reductase deficiency, De la Chapelle syndrome, or Swyer Syndrome?

There are many examples of "biological facts" that it is far from the black and white world you want to live in.

How many transgendered people have any such condition? Has that been the source of the debate, that we should treat unhealthy people with respect and dignity? Or is it rather about the objection over normal men suddenly claiming to truly be women, or vice versa, with heavy pressure from the left to propagate the delusion?

Furthermore, you shouldn't adopt the bigoted terminology of the medical and scientific community. By using words like "deficiency" and "syndrome", aren't you suggesting as they do that such conditions are disordered and abnormal?
 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
902
136
How many transgendered people have any such condition? Has that been the source of the debate, that we should treat unhealthy people with respect and dignity? Or is it rather about the objection over normal men suddenly claiming to truly be women, or vice versa, with heavy pressure from the left to propagate the delusion?

Furthermore, you shouldn't adopt the bigoted terminology of the medical and scientific community. By using words like "deficiency" and "syndrome", aren't you suggesting as they do that such conditions are disordered and abnormal?

Hilarious.

I thought, per your words, "biological facts are acknowledged." Why aren't you acknowledging your lack of understanding of human biology? The world is not black and white. Just because you have XX, XY, or any other combination of sex chromosomes, it doesn't mean you will have a penis or a vagina. So your argument is misinformed, misguided, and isn't based on science. Don't go around chastising those for not understanding science when you do not.

And now you want to turn your ignorance to definition of common terms like "deficiency" and "syndrome?" You realize that 5alpha reductase deficiency means, quite literally these patients have a deficiency in production of their 5alpha reductase enzyme? Clearly, this must be the first time you've ever heard of that medical condition. Why don't you look up the scientific meaning of syndrome before posting next time? What's next, you're going to say how evolution is just a "theory" and should be discarded?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
How many transgendered people have any such condition? Has that been the source of the debate, that we should treat unhealthy people with respect and dignity? Or is it rather about the objection over normal men suddenly claiming to truly be women, or vice versa, with heavy pressure from the left to propagate the delusion?

Furthermore, you shouldn't adopt the bigoted terminology of the medical and scientific community. By using words like "deficiency" and "syndrome", aren't you suggesting as they do that such conditions are disordered and abnormal?

I'd say that it's rather about your delusion of playing the gender police. You might disapprove of what these 'normal men' are doing (and that's perfectly fine), but they're not hurting you or anyone, and that makes it none of your business.

Your 2nd paragraph is just nonsense.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,037
2,615
136
How many transgendered people have any such condition? Has that been the source of the debate, that we should treat unhealthy people with respect and dignity? Or is it rather about the objection over normal men suddenly claiming to truly be women, or vice versa, with heavy pressure from the left to propagate the delusion?

Furthermore, you shouldn't adopt the bigoted terminology of the medical and scientific community. By using words like "deficiency" and "syndrome", aren't you suggesting as they do that such conditions are disordered and abnormal?
I remember the time when people thought Irish and Italian people where somehow dirty and would ruin white America. It's not too long ago people thought interracial marriage was somehow unethical and a perversion of nature.

Give it 100 years and people will look back and how horribly we treat transgender people and be utterly utterly ashamed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeymikec

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Hilarious.

I thought, per your words, "biological facts are acknowledged." Why aren't you acknowledging your lack of understanding of human biology? The world is not black and white. Just because you have XX, XY, or any other combination of sex chromosomes, it doesn't mean you will have a penis or a vagina. So your argument is misinformed, misguided, and isn't based on science. Don't go around chastising those for not understanding science when you do not.

Again, are the people claiming to be transgender suffering from extremely rare biological abnormalities? Is that what Charlize Theron is claiming, that her son has a hormonal condition that blurs the lines between male and female?

And now you want to turn your ignorance to definition of common terms like "deficiency" and "syndrome?" You realize that 5alpha reductase deficiency means, quite literally these patients have a deficiency in production of their 5alpha reductase enzyme? Clearly, this must be the first time you've ever heard of that medical condition. Why don't you look up the scientific meaning of syndrome before posting next time? What's next, you're going to say how evolution is just a "theory" and should be discarded?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/syndrome

Pathology, Psychiatry: a group of symptoms that together are characteristic of a specific disorder, disease, or the like.

What I objected to was the notion that biological sex is "assigned" at birth, like a name is assigned. Biological sex, and biology in general, exists apart from our preference, just as age does, or how many limbs we are born with.
 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
902
136
Again, are the people claiming to be transgender suffering from extremely rare biological abnormalities? Is that what Charlize Theron is claiming, that her son has a hormonal condition that blurs the lines between male and female?

What I objected to was the notion that biological sex is "assigned" at birth, like a name is assigned. Biological sex, and biology in general, exists apart from our preference, just as age does, or how many limbs we are born with.

As already explained, what sex is a person with androgen insensitivity syndrome at birth? That person has XY chromosomes but external genitalia with a vagina. What sex is a person with 5alpha reductase deficiency when you cannot even tell what genitalia they have at birth? I asked these questions in my first post to you, which directly addresses your false presumptions about biology and you have purposely refused to answer.

Don't go around chastising people about biology when you don't even understand biology. Given the full determinants of what defines gender identify is completely unknown, how do you know what the frequency of the genetic determinants are in the human population? You can't. Stop assuming with your words of "extremely rare biological abnormalities."

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/syndrome

Pathology, Psychiatry: a group of symptoms that together are characteristic of a specific disorder, disease, or the like.

Wow, you can search for a word on Dictionary.com. How does this help your inane point? Why didn't you bother even posting the Dictionary.com definition of deficiency too?
 
Last edited:

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
As already explained, what sex is a person with androgen insensitivity syndrome at birth?

That's an explanation? It looks suspiciously like a diversion posing as a question.

That person has XY chromosomes but external genitalia with a vagina. What sex is a person with 5alpha reductase deficiency when you cannot even tell what chromosomes they have at birth? I asked these questions in my first post to you, which directly addresses your false presumptions about biology and you have purposely refused to answer.

No one denies that there are some exceptions and, among those you cited, extremely rare exceptions. But for the third time, is that what this whole debate is about? How to treat people with extremely rare hormonal abnormalities?

Don't go around chastising people about biology when you don't even understand biology. Given the full determinants of what defines gender identify is completely unknown, how do you know what the frequency of the genetic determinants are in the human population? You can't. Stop assuming with your words of "extremely rare biological abnormalities."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5α-Reductase_deficiency#Epidemiology
Epidemiology: The condition is extremely rare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome#Epidemiology
Epidemiology: Incidence somewhere between 1 in 24,500 and 1 in 100,000. By comparison, Down Syndrome is about 1 in 700. Polydactyly is around 1 in 500.

Wow, you can search for a word on Dictionary.com. How does this help your inane point?

You asked for the scientific definition of syndrome. That one particularly pertains to pathology, so I thought it was pretty close.

Why didn't you bother even posting the Dictionary.com definition of deficiency too?

Because unlike syndrome, deficiency is word commonly used outside of a scientific or medical context.
 
Last edited:

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
902
136
That's an explanation? It looks suspiciously like a diversion posing as a question.

No one denies that there are some exceptions and, among those you cited, extremely rare exceptions. But for the third time, is that what this whole debate is about? How to treat people with extremely rare hormonal abnormalities?

Wow are you being purposely oblivious. You claim that through biology, sex can be determined objectively at birth, with your snide "(b)iological facts are acknowledged, not assigned." I've offered you specific counter-examples to how your assumptions are incorrect, and the best you can do is either dodge the question multiple times and claim they don't matter? Not only do you want to conveniently dehumanize people born with these conditions acting as if they don't exist, you utterly refuse to recognize how full of crap your argument is.

If "(b)iological facts are acknowledged, not assigned," then what sex is a person with XY chromosomes but a vagina at birth? According to you, this is an easy answer. This should have been answered posts ago if it was so easy, but you refuse to answer because your argument is full of crap.

Defining one's sex is not as black and white as you think or hoped it would be. Next time accept some humility instead of chastising people over something you don't even understand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5α-Reductase_deficiency#Epidemiology
Epidemiology: The condition is extremely rare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome#Epidemiology
Epidemiology: Incidence somewhere between 1 in 24,500 and 1 in 100,000. By comparison, Down Syndrome is about 1 in 700.

As already posted, given the full determinants of what defines gender identify is completely unknown, how do you know what the frequency of the genetic determinants are in the human population?

You asked for the scientific definition of syndrome. That one particularly pertains to pathology, so I thought it was pretty close.

Here's a hint, Dictionary.com also supplies medical and biological definitions. Maybe you should read your link next time.

Because unlike syndrome, deficiency is word commonly used outside of a scientific or medical context.

So what is your point? We shouldn't use medical language to define medical terms with precise language? You are simply rewrapping the entire evolution is just a "theory" argument, because people want to define theory in non-scientific terms, into something even more idiotic.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
Side story I post in an LSU forum also and one of the posters named geauxjudge was the judge when Theron adopted a kid (not sure if the same one that we are talking about but I’d presume so) and the posted about it along with some pretty bad commentary and got into hot water and removed from the bench. He’s currently in jail I believe for corruption go figure, not sure of the whole story there.

https://jonathanturley.org/2014/09/17/maggio/
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,229
10,878
136
Her politics is gender fluidity and clelebrating all things not cis male and straight. To be the talk of the town she pushes it on her kid. Like a little toy teacup dog in a purse, this is child abuse and look at me virtue signaling.
Links? Do go on.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
How many transgendered people have any such condition? Has that been the source of the debate, that we should treat unhealthy people with respect and dignity? Or is it rather about the objection over normal men suddenly claiming to truly be women, or vice versa, with heavy pressure from the left to propagate the delusion?

Furthermore, you shouldn't adopt the bigoted terminology of the medical and scientific community. By using words like "deficiency" and "syndrome", aren't you suggesting as they do that such conditions are disordered and abnormal?
The point was to demonstrate the finesse required even defining something as straightforward as sex. The science of gender is certainly still emerging. However, the claim that transgender individuals are simply men or women that suddenly change their mind is ignorant at best. The right loves to cling to science when it comes to gender, right up until the science disagrees with them, at which point schools like Harvard are denounced as pawns of the liberal agenda. But if you really are interested in the Science, feel free to read up.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,213
671
136
The point was to demonstrate the finesse required even defining something as straightforward as sex. The science of gender is certainly still emerging. However, the claim that transgender individuals are simply men or women that suddenly change their mind is ignorant at best. The right loves to cling to science when it comes to gender, right up until the science disagrees with them, at which point schools like Harvard are denounced as pawns of the liberal agenda. But if you really are interested in the Science, feel free to read up.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/

While from a group within Harvard, the link you provided is a blog post. Is that really a good source to use for claiming science? It's someone's opinion that's not peer reviewed... unless I missed something.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
While from a group within Harvard, the link you provided is a blog post. Is that really a good source to use for claiming science? It's someone's opinion that's not peer reviewed... unless I missed something.
Certainly, peer reviewed articles would be preferable and would trump a blog post if there were contradictions, but peer reviewed papers also present a barrier to critical evaluation that is beyond most casual readers due to their technical natures. As a result, for communication with the general public, I don't consider there to be anything wrong with blog posts so long as they are written by experts in the field communicating the current scientific consensus, particularly when the author links directly to peer reviewed articles supporting her claims.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,213
671
136
Certainly, peer reviewed articles would be preferable and would trump a blog post if there were contradictions, but peer reviewed papers also present a barrier to critical evaluation that is beyond most casual readers due to their technical natures. As a result, for communication with the general public, I don't consider there to be anything wrong with blog posts so long as they are written by experts in the field communicating the current scientific consensus, particularly when the author links directly to peer reviewed articles supporting her claims.

Fair enough.. It's not that I disagree with you, I'm just not sure I would personally trust them enough. There is a question to me that the author cherry picked studies, and ignored others that didn't fit the conclusion they going for. I've read blog posts that make a compelling argument for the world being flat, and they also linked to studies that were published. Of course they completely ignored anything that didn't fall within their ideas, including reality as it were.

From what you linked, I don't disagree with the direction they're going. I would just prefer a lot more info, including dissenting thoughts. This blog does hold stuff I could agree with. I could see that some people's brains are different than expected and would explain why they identify with other genders. It's something that should be looked further into, but in regards to a child I have doubts. The author of the blog post you linked states in it that hormones "can vastly affect the structure and composition of the brain". I read that as what is true today may change when puberty hits. At that point they may change their minds. I just don't think we can say that a child knows from birth, which is at the heart of this thread...though I might be blurring things together. I've read too much stuff today and my posts might be wandering..
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
The point was to demonstrate the finesse required even defining something as straightforward as sex. The science of gender is certainly still emerging. However, the claim that transgender individuals are simply men or women that suddenly change their mind is ignorant at best.

But if someone were to do that, is there any basis for contesting their claim?

The right loves to cling to science when it comes to gender, right up until the science disagrees with them, at which point schools like Harvard are denounced as pawns of the liberal agenda. But if you really are interested in the Science, feel free to read up.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/

Thank you. I will read that.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
Again, are the people claiming to be transgender suffering from extremely rare biological abnormalities?

The answer to this question is that we simply don't know. This is not a straightforward question. Genetics are more than just simple data encoding, they express differently under different conditions. It could very well be that a somewhat common genetic expression can be flipped by a extremely rare environmental condition and it will takes us a century to figure out that link.

What we can know right now is what they tell us of their experience of their gender and sex. What they tell us is that their internal experience is that their gender and sex do not match up, and they find this extremely upsetting.

You are trying to tell them that they are wrong about their internal experience. Something that you have literally no way to know, all you can do is compare it to your internal experience, and since they are not like you, you are labeling them as insane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
But if someone were to do that, is there any basis for contesting their claim?
No, there isn't, but in general why does it matter?

There are a couple of areas where I'm in agreement that trans individuals would have to be treated differently. The two that come to mind are women's athletic competitions and the other would be locker rooms with non-private shower facilities. I can't see any solution to the first problem beyond allowing anyone to compete in men's athletics. For the second, I'd propose moving all public locker rooms toward individual stalls so that everyone can just have their privacy. This would solve a lot of problems for all individuals.
Thank you. I will read that.
Thanks for your open mindedness.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
Fair enough.. It's not that I disagree with you, I'm just not sure I would personally trust them enough. There is a question to me that the author cherry picked studies, and ignored others that didn't fit the conclusion they going for. I've read blog posts that make a compelling argument for the world being flat, and they also linked to studies that were published. Of course they completely ignored anything that didn't fall within their ideas, including reality as it were.

From what you linked, I don't disagree with the direction they're going. I would just prefer a lot more info, including dissenting thoughts. This blog does hold stuff I could agree with. I could see that some people's brains are different than expected and would explain why they identify with other genders. It's something that should be looked further into, but in regards to a child I have doubts. The author of the blog post you linked states in it that hormones "can vastly affect the structure and composition of the brain". I read that as what is true today may change when puberty hits. At that point they may change their minds. I just don't think we can say that a child knows from birth, which is at the heart of this thread...though I might be blurring things together. I've read too much stuff today and my posts might be wandering..
I should also clarify, I don't think this blog presents a scientific consensus on the subject, but rather illustrates simply that there is most likely a scientific component to transgenderism, and that understanding the science of transgenderism is a new and emerging field. If it were more settled, then certainly a better source would be official statements made by professional organizations communicating consensus. I'm not aware of any at the moment. There is certainly going to be a significant amount of debate regarding the science, however, I definitely think it is safe to say the argument that transgenderism doesn't have a scientific component is inaccurate. That is the main takeaway I would propose from my post. That and it is one perspective (granted, one from a PhD from Harvard in a relevant field) on the scientific side of the issue.