The transgender con ? Many transgender regret switch

Why can't i post ?

originally posted by: Annee
More on Dr. Berger

But Dr. Berger, a prominent Toronto psychiatrist, former professor of psychiatry, and an examiner of those wishing admission to the profession, told LifeSiteNews “such statements by large major organizations are political statements. They are not scientific.” Because homosexuality and transgenderism have become such a political “bandwagon,” he added, “people are not listening to those of us who present the actual science,” nor to many clients who “have changed from identifying themselves as homosexual to becoming comfortably heterosexual.”

Berger noted that treating homosexuality is neither novel nor radical. “It is traditional psychodynamic psychotherapy. … Those aware of the actual scientific literature know that the success rates are really quite good.”www.lifesitenews.com...

Yeah, he's a heartless piece of # with no objectivity in his work but I tried to leave my personal feelings on him out since the OP will just say it's "biased".

originally posted by: Sheye
Why can't i post ?

Is that some sort of existential question?

Like saying out loud "why can't I speak"?

a reply to: Abysha

Just keeps on proving the true motive of posting this thread tbh.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Annee
More on Dr. Berger

But Dr. Berger, a prominent Toronto psychiatrist, former professor of psychiatry, and an examiner of those wishing admission to the profession, told LifeSiteNews “such statements by large major organizations are political statements. They are not scientific.” Because homosexuality and transgenderism have become such a political “bandwagon,” he added, “people are not listening to those of us who present the actual science,” nor to many clients who “have changed from identifying themselves as homosexual to becoming comfortably heterosexual.”

Berger noted that treating homosexuality is neither novel nor radical. “It is traditional psychodynamic psychotherapy. … Those aware of the actual scientific literature know that the success rates are really quite good.”www.lifesitenews.com...

Yeah, he's a heartless piece of # with no objectivity in his work but I tried to leave my personal feelings on him out since the OP will just say it's "biased".

I'm waiting for the data now that homosexuals can change their orientation to heterosexual.

originally posted by: Sheye
a reply to: Deaf Alien

I've never denied that trans kill themselves for varying reasons... and in todays world , I don't believe it's only because they are not accepted.

My OP's article was more about surgical regrets , and some of those lead to death. It was about self acceptance , not outside acceptance.

Then why does your article include Mike Penner/Christine Daniels as an example to help support the notion that Transgendered kill themselves because they're miserable after surgery? Because let's be honest, that is the narrative being put forth by the article in question. But Mike/Christine never had surgery. He did have regrets, but they were over how his transition to Christine affected his former wife and he had no surgeries at all. So citing his case to support the hit piece is beyond dishonest.

originally posted by: Sheye
a reply to: Abysha

He has a right to his professional opinions...

He has the right to his opinions, certainly. They aren't very professional though when he purposely ignores decades of research that proves him wrong. Claiming that there is absolutely zero biological basis and that it's all psychological is 100% a lie. And I won't even get into his extremely harmful conversion "therapy" which has been discredited by the entire field that he works within. Do you really think his opinion is a professional one if he refuses to even acknowledge that there is physical data demonstrating biological foundations for being Transgendered?

i wasn't going to come back into this thread again but i've had this thought nagging at me all afternoon and i can't help it;

if god is so dead set against trans people... why did he make us?
and i don't mean in the 'why did he make me want to be a girl' sense, i mean physically...
like surely if you're the ultimate architect of all things and you create these two discrete genders
with no crossover whatsoever, never the twain shall meet very serious business
you'd make it at least a little more difficult to actually change?
like for example
"male" bodies have milk ducts for crying out loud
all it takes is exposure to a simple compound you can get from HORSE PEE
and you get breast development indistinguishable from natal females.

why would you do that?

the way i see it, there's three options;

1) it was a mistake. which means god is fallible, which means maybe he's wrong and trans people are legit
2) it was intentional, because god doesn't hate trans people, which means trans people are legit
3) there is no god, things just happen, no one's book holds moral superiority over me and trans people are legit.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Is not the whole discussion about people having the surgery.
I would like to ask a question if i may.
Does your man made vagina work as well as your penis did?
Can a man made vagina ever work as well as a vagina made by nature?
Would it not be wise to keep your working genitalia rather than forfeit it for something that does not work as well as you had.
Is it annoying to have to constantly maintain your opening so that your "wound does not heal over?
Im sorry to be straight forward and i hope i dont offend but i honestly would like to know your response.
I want to also state that as a pre-pubescent child i too wanted to be a girl and didnt like my penis and everything else but once the testosterone started flowing, that idea was long gone. I am lucky that i didnt have a parent that supported this or else i would not be the very happy masculine man i am today. As soon as i knew what my penis was for there was no turning back. There for i would have to disagree with hormone blockers at a young age before the brain is fully matured which is around age 25
While on the subject of genital mutilation, This must stop happening to our young boys. Nobody should have the right to mutilate any childs bodies for cosmetic reasons. I would also extend this argument to puncturing girls ear lobes but alas this is for another thread which i may post soon

a reply to: Sheye

When I used that example a few pages ago about how if I was trying to make a thread about Donald Trump being an alien lizard king...I wouldn't grab an article from DTrumpTheLizrdKing.com...you know, for what I thought would be obvious reasons. And I thought..wow...this is a VERY extreme and on the nose example, the sheer blatancy of it is ridiculous but gets the point across for why it's crazy..never in a million years would I think someone would outright do something so silly...

Oh but Sheye....

Making a thread about sex change regret and now you're getting info from sexchangeregret.com

I...can't...even...

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Sheye
Why can't i post ?

Is that some sort of existential question?

Like saying out loud "why can't I speak"?

No ... I was having a difficult time posting..

Had 3 full posts made in response and more data but couldn't post 🤷🏻‍♀️

originally posted by: continuousThunder
i wasn't going to come back into this thread again but i've had this thought nagging at me all afternoon and i can't help it;

if god is so dead set against trans people... why did he make us?
and i don't mean in the 'why did he make me want to be a girl' sense, i mean physically...
like surely if you're the ultimate architect of all things and you create these two discrete genders
with no crossover whatsoever, never the twain shall meet very serious business
you'd make it at least a little more difficult to actually change?
like for example
"male" bodies have milk ducts for crying out loud
all it takes is exposure to a simple compound you can get from HORSE PEE
and you get breast development indistinguishable from natal females.

why would you do that?

the way i see it, there's three options;

1) it was a mistake. which means god is fallible, which means maybe he's wrong and trans people are legit
2) it was intentional, because god doesn't hate trans people, which means trans people are legit
3) there is no god, things just happen, no one's book holds moral superiority over me and trans people are legit.

I'm sure pedos ask the same thing .

originally posted by: Sheye
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

I never claimed to have what you demanded.. I had what I posted in the OP,and that is what I meant, as well as other links.. if that isn't good enough for you.. too bad.

You alluded that there were other peer reviewed studies that would back up your assertions. You made a remark about how 'your' peers and 'my' peers are different, which in itself is silliness.

See your quotes from earlier below:

Much like you ignore studies by other peer reviewed groups.

You said this earlier but never let us know what these other 'studies' were or who these 'other peer reviewed groups' were. Despite me asking plenty of times...

A whole thread was started about one ,but you and your posse basically puthem down as biased.

Again, you allude to a 'whole thread' that was started about a supposed peer-reviewed study that is in line with the assertions you're conveying. You were asked for where this supposed thread is...but you never specified.

You're alluding to apparent peer-reviewed studies that we supposedly would put down, or in your quote above..we apparently already have put it down. What study and thread are you talking about? Unless, like I'm assuming, you don't have an answer and were simply alluding to something nonexistent to make yourself and your assertions appear more valid.

Because at this point you do that a lot. Outside of what biased information you DO provide, a lot of your 'evidence' is purely anecdotal and is hearsay. Which you, yourself admitted, in this quote from you below:

I don't have a citation about the suicide , just heresay from someone who knew the family,

So again, if you weren't alluding to something that does not actually exist, please point out these other studies by other peer-reviewed groups that we supposedly ignore...and also...if you could please point out this entire thread wherein we put down the peer-reviewed study that was referenced.

That would be great, thanks.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Sheye
a reply to: Abysha

He has a right to his professional opinions...

He has the right to his opinions, certainly. They aren't very professional though when he purposely ignores decades of research that proves him wrong. Claiming that there is absolutely zero biological basis and that it's all psychological is 100% a lie. And I won't even get into his extremely harmful conversion "therapy" which has been discredited by the entire field that he works within. Do you really think his opinion is a professional one if he refuses to even acknowledge that there is physical data demonstrating biological foundations for being Transgendered?

There is also physical data demonstrating biological foundations for being a paedophile .

originally posted by: Sheye

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Sheye
Why can't i post ?

Is that some sort of existential question?

Like saying out loud "why can't I speak"?

No ... I was having a difficult time posting..

Had 3 full posts made in response and more data but couldn't post 🤷🏻‍♀️

That sucks, I'm sorry. I just had to giggle because of what your successful attempt to post actually said.

FYI, on ATS, if I'm posting something long-winded, I'll sometimes copy the whole thing before I hit the post button. I had way too many frustrating moments like yours.

originally posted by: ReyaPhemhurth

originally posted by: Sheye
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

I never claimed to have what you demanded.. I had what I posted in the OP,and that is what I meant, as well as other links.. if that isn't good enough for you.. too bad.

You alluded that there were other peer reviewed studies that would back up your assertions. You made a remark about how 'your' peers and 'my' peers are different, which in itself is silliness.

See your quotes from earlier below:

Much like you ignore studies by other peer reviewed groups.

You said this earlier but never let us know what these other 'studies' were or who these 'other peer reviewed groups' were. Despite me asking plenty of times...

A whole thread was started about one ,but you and your posse basically puthem down as biased.

Again, you allude to a 'whole thread' that was started about a supposed peer-reviewed study that is in line with the assertions you're conveying. You were asked for where this supposed thread is...but you never specified.

You're alluding to apparent peer-reviewed studies that we supposedly would put down, or in your quote above..we apparently already have put it down. What study and thread are you talking about? Unless, like I'm assuming, you don't have an answer and were simply alluding to something nonexistent to make yourself and your assertions appear more valid.

Because at this point you do that a lot. Outside of what biased information you DO provide, a lot of your 'evidence' is purely anecdotal and is hearsay. Which you, yourself admitted, in this quote from you below:

I don't have a citation about the suicide , just heresay from someone who knew the family,

So again, if you weren't alluding to something that does not actually exist, please point out these other studies by other peer-reviewed groups that we supposedly ignore...and also...if you could please point out this entire thread wherein we put down the peer-reviewed study that was referenced.

That would be great, thanks.

Those who know the threads , know what I'm talking about as well as their sources .

It's always biased to you if it doesn't fit in with your mindset.

Not going to go dig around , and I don't even know how to link thst great. Still learning how to do lots on this phone.

Not going to get into a pissing match with you again Reya , and succumb to your incessant demands to bring peer reviewed proof. As far as I'm concerned the articles I have presented have included peer reviewed work from doctors within the field.

Done with you and your demands, if you don't like what I have posted , too bad.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Sheye

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Sheye
Why can't i post ?

Is that some sort of existential question?

Like saying out loud "why can't I speak"?

No ... I was having a difficult time posting..

Had 3 full posts made in response and more data but couldn't post 🤷🏻‍♀️

That sucks, I'm sorry. I just had to giggle because of what your successful attempt to post actually said.

FYI, on ATS, if I'm posting something long-winded, I'll sometimes copy the whole thing before I hit the post button. I had way too many frustrating moments like yours.

That's just it.. they weren't long winded, not all of them , even tried to edit that post that did make it through , but it wouldn't take. Odd indeed.

originally posted by: Sheye

originally posted by: ReyaPhemhurth

originally posted by: Sheye
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

I never claimed to have what you demanded.. I had what I posted in the OP,and that is what I meant, as well as other links.. if that isn't good enough for you.. too bad.

You alluded that there were other peer reviewed studies that would back up your assertions. You made a remark about how 'your' peers and 'my' peers are different, which in itself is silliness.

See your quotes from earlier below:

Much like you ignore studies by other peer reviewed groups.

You said this earlier but never let us know what these other 'studies' were or who these 'other peer reviewed groups' were. Despite me asking plenty of times...

A whole thread was started about one ,but you and your posse basically puthem down as biased.

Again, you allude to a 'whole thread' that was started about a supposed peer-reviewed study that is in line with the assertions you're conveying. You were asked for where this supposed thread is...but you never specified.

You're alluding to apparent peer-reviewed studies that we supposedly would put down, or in your quote above..we apparently already have put it down. What study and thread are you talking about? Unless, like I'm assuming, you don't have an answer and were simply alluding to something nonexistent to make yourself and your assertions appear more valid.

Because at this point you do that a lot. Outside of what biased information you DO provide, a lot of your 'evidence' is purely anecdotal and is hearsay. Which you, yourself admitted, in this quote from you below:

I don't have a citation about the suicide , just heresay from someone who knew the family,

So again, if you weren't alluding to something that does not actually exist, please point out these other studies by other peer-reviewed groups that we supposedly ignore...and also...if you could please point out this entire thread wherein we put down the peer-reviewed study that was referenced.

That would be great, thanks.

Those who know the threads , know what I'm talking about as well as their sources .

It's always biased to you if it doesn't fit in with your mindset.

Not going to go dig around , and I don't even know how to link thst great. Still learning how to do lots on this phone.

Not going to get into a pissing match with you again Reya , and succumb to your incessant demands to bring peer reviewed proof. As far as I'm concerned the articles I have presented have included peer reviewed work from doctors within the field.

Done with you and your demands, if you don't like what I have posted , too bad.

It's not a pissing match. If you don't have access to the information, you shouldn't allude to it. And if no such information exists, you shouldn't allude to it either. Either way,it's dishonest. Anyone with half a brain can see that as dishonest. If you knew you couldn't provide the link, then why even mention it? It's not okay to make yourself appear more valid or legitimate by referencing something that you cannot provide to those you're posting to just as much as it is not right to push an agenda and lie about sources and studies that do not exist.

You dug yourself into a hole and by saying :

Those who know the threads , know what I'm talking about as well as their sources

you're not taking responsibility. You're copping out and thinking that it's okay to be dishonest.

Again, not a pissing match. If you actually wish to be taken seriously AT ALL, I would STRONGLY suggest that going forward, if you want to make your argument appear more legitimate in the way of alluding to sources...make sure you:

A. Make the claim and provide the sources in which you alluded to within the very same post in which you're referencing them.

B. Have the links on hand, so if someone asks to see these other studies in which you're referencing, you'll have a way to show them for review.

C. If you know they exist but don't have access to them to prove they exist upon request, don't bring them up or allude to them at all.

or

D. Don't lie to make yourself and your argument/stance appear more valid.

comparing us to paedophiles is your go-to for the day?
that's...
that's tacky
even for you.

originally posted by: continuousThunder
comparing us to paedophiles is your go-to for the day?
that's...
that's tacky
even for you.

They claim to be wired different as well 🤷🏻‍♀️ Supposedly it's not their fault.. much like transgender claim.
Link to info
www.google.ca...