The moment the trans agenda goes off the rails thread

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

Yeah, we're old timey scientists.

We still have beakers and Bunsen burners.

We'd study empirical evidence, not emotional evidence.

Guilty as charged.

I posted too soon before looking up related studies and there are a lot of them which won't fit your narrative either.

www.sciencedirect.com...

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

Yeah, we're old timey scientists.

We still have beakers and Bunsen burners.

We'd study empirical evidence, not emotional evidence.

Guilty as charged.

I posted too soon before looking up related studies and there are a lot of them which won't fit your narrative either.

www.sciencedirect.com...

And I posted this

Nowhere this is a testimony your brain becomes the same as the brain of the opposite sex or that you have suddenly changed your sex. You need to learn how to interpret these findings. And this is just one finding btw not accepted wisdom.

In a few words, sex remains an immutable characteristic and can never change because it is dependent on chromosomes only.

Like I said above

"The study shows how the brain reacts in different ways when exposed to a specific pheromone. Nothing else. It nowhere shows the brain of transgender young people is the same as their identified gender"

Perhaps you need to read what's on the study you linked.

In reality there are no transgender humans. You can't transition between genders, it's just impossible. The study you have linked show how brains resound to a pheromone. This is taken out of context to argue the brain determines sex. Which is clearly nonsensical. Chromosomes determine sex and not your brain.

Quoting one of the psychologists

Again, from a developmental neuroscience perspective, her aim is to explore and explain the mismatch between one’s subjective experience of self and the physical reality of the own body.

Pay attention to what is studied.
The subjective experience of one self compared to the physical reality of their own body. Right there you have a mental health issue.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

Yeah, we're old timey scientists.

We still have beakers and Bunsen burners.

We'd study empirical evidence, not emotional evidence.

Guilty as charged.

I posted too soon before looking up related studies and there are a lot of them which won't fit your narrative either.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Maybe.

But are you smart enough to look up and read studies that don't fit your narrative?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ABlackCat

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: ABlackCat

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: Annee

Okay Annee.

Can't speak on my source, but they cite their sources. And that stuff is happening in schools. You can do the research yourself I guess.

I think you're a predator apologist at this point.

I'm really disappointed to have to come to that conclusion.

I am disappointed that you would come to that false conclusion.

It's not a false conclusion.

Every conversation ends the same way. Ignorant support of the harm of children.

It's disgusting.

I can say the same of you. You want them to force the transgender children to be who they are not, risking depression, self harm and suicide.

But I won't because I know you are too ignorant to comprehend what you are advocating for.

telling a child they can "become" the other sex, when that isn't possible, is the lie here. A Girl who is a tom boy doesn't need drugs, they just need to be who they are. A boy who plays with dolls and girl stuff needs to be allowed to play and do what he would normally do. No drugs. If that boy, or that girl feels they need to look like the opposite sex, then telling them they can dress differently is fine. But telling them they can "transition" is a lie, and would do irreparable damage to a child's mind.

If adults want to play dress up, fine. Let the kids be kids and leave them out of this psyop. It would be best for all involved.

In this study they gave children steroids and observed brain functions. They claim that the pretend girls responded similarly to real girls, and pretend boys similar to real boys.
You can certainly search for substances and try again and again to get this random correlation.
What does this odd steroid have to do with real life ? Does anyone ever encounter this steroid in normal everyday life ?
The whole subject group is defined by their confusion with competing fantasies
Feels like they defined an outcome that they would like to create, then looked for substances, methods, and a highly suggestible group of kids to coax it into being.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

Yeah, we're old timey scientists.

We still have beakers and Bunsen burners.

We'd study empirical evidence, not emotional evidence.

Guilty as charged.

I posted too soon before looking up related studies and there are a lot of them which won't fit your narrative either.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Maybe.

But are you smart enough to look up and read studies that don't fit your narrative?

Why would I dismiss actual neuroscience with other disciplines studies in place of old biology narratives?

But I will keep posting new and repeated studies when they become available.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

Yeah, we're old timey scientists.

We still have beakers and Bunsen burners.

We'd study empirical evidence, not emotional evidence.

Guilty as charged.

I posted too soon before looking up related studies and there are a lot of them which won't fit your narrative either.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Maybe.

But are you smart enough to look up and read studies that don't fit your narrative?

Why would I dismiss actual neuroscience with other disciplines studies in place of old biology narratives?

So the answer is no.

You only read things that agree with your ideology.

At least you're honest in your ignorance.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

Yeah, we're old timey scientists.

We still have beakers and Bunsen burners.

We'd study empirical evidence, not emotional evidence.

Guilty as charged.

I posted too soon before looking up related studies and there are a lot of them which won't fit your narrative either.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Maybe.

But are you smart enough to look up and read studies that don't fit your narrative?

Why would I dismiss actual neuroscience with other disciplines studies in place of old biology narratives?

So the answer is no.

You only read things that agree with your ideology.

At least you're honest in your ignorance.

My ideology is finding the truth through empirical evidence, as I said above, I do and will continue to look at both sides, but both sides keep refuting each other, so I am waiting for repeatable and peer reviewed studies. What are you doing to find the truth?

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: ABlackCat

Big shocker.

So how do you feel about children being taught to touch themselves and each other?

What does that have to do with the topic of this thread? What a weird question.

Some in this thread should probably be on a registry.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: quintessentone

You have tried all avenues and you have failed each single time. But before you can make any claims and engage in discussions you have to be able to answer if transition is possible between sexes. Someone else said is impossible, which is honest, but it makes transition and transgenderism physically impossible.

Can one change one's name?

a reply to: ABlackCat

Read my discourse with Annee.

It has everything to do with the topic.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Some in this thread should probably be on a registry.

For what? There's nothing sexual about transgenderism.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

Yeah, we're old timey scientists.

We still have beakers and Bunsen burners.

We'd study empirical evidence, not emotional evidence.

Guilty as charged.

I posted too soon before looking up related studies and there are a lot of them which won't fit your narrative either.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Maybe.

But are you smart enough to look up and read studies that don't fit your narrative?

Why would I dismiss actual neuroscience with other disciplines studies in place of old biology narratives?

So the answer is no.

You only read things that agree with your ideology.

At least you're honest in your ignorance.

My ideology is finding the truth through empirical evidence, as I said above, I do and will continue to look at both sides, but both sides keep refuting each other, so I am waiting for repeatable and peer reviewed studies. What are you doing to find the truth?

Oh that's easy.

Since I actually have a degree in developmental neurobiology, I can read and form my own educated opinions.

Since you do not, it is difficult to discuss with someone who doesn't have the requisite educational background.

This thread has demonstrated how dangerous the anti-trans movement is. Just like how dangerous anti-abortion and gay movements are.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

Yeah, we're old timey scientists.

We still have beakers and Bunsen burners.

We'd study empirical evidence, not emotional evidence.

Guilty as charged.

I posted too soon before looking up related studies and there are a lot of them which won't fit your narrative either.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Maybe.

But are you smart enough to look up and read studies that don't fit your narrative?

Why would I dismiss actual neuroscience with other disciplines studies in place of old biology narratives?

So the answer is no.

You only read things that agree with your ideology.

At least you're honest in your ignorance.

My ideology is finding the truth through empirical evidence, as I said above, I do and will continue to look at both sides, but both sides keep refuting each other, so I am waiting for repeatable and peer reviewed studies. What are you doing to find the truth?

Oh that's easy.

Since I actually have a degree in developmental neurobiology, I can read and form my own educated opinions.

Since you do not, it is difficult to discuss with someone who doesn't have the requisite educational background.

I can say I am an amateur neuroscientist so I can certainly understand more than you think I can't. Anyway, it appears your narrative is preventing you from searching for the truth, so I'll keep that in mind next time you challenge actual neuroscientists and others that are actually working in the field and doing the studies.

a reply to: quintessentone

lol

By all means, please go on ahead.

lol

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: ABlackCat

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: ABlackCat

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: Annee

Okay Annee.

Can't speak on my source, but they cite their sources. And that stuff is happening in schools. You can do the research yourself I guess.

I think you're a predator apologist at this point.

I'm really disappointed to have to come to that conclusion.

I am disappointed that you would come to that false conclusion.

It's not a false conclusion.

Every conversation ends the same way. Ignorant support of the harm of children.

It's disgusting.

I can say the same of you. You want them to force the transgender children to be who they are not, risking depression, self harm and suicide.

But I won't because I know you are too ignorant to comprehend what you are advocating for.

There are no transgender children. In fact there is no human who can transition between the two genders as it's physically impossible. And remember gender = sex

The trans lobby wants gender to be something else completely but they haven't succeeded as the movement is empty and based on nothing more than linguistics.

Why are you like a broken record?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

Yeah, we're old timey scientists.

We still have beakers and Bunsen burners.

We'd study empirical evidence, not emotional evidence.

Guilty as charged.

I posted too soon before looking up related studies and there are a lot of them which won't fit your narrative either.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Maybe.

But are you smart enough to look up and read studies that don't fit your narrative?

We wouldn't be here if we weren't questioning the narratives, hmm? Think about it for a minute. Don't hurt yourself.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

lol

By all means, please go on ahead.

lol

And in the future because of your chosen narrative, when I do post the new and/or repeated studies you just go on ahead and pass it by because I'm tired of these same 'ole tired back and forths.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

Yeah, we're old timey scientists.

We still have beakers and Bunsen burners.

We'd study empirical evidence, not emotional evidence.

Guilty as charged.

I posted too soon before looking up related studies and there are a lot of them which won't fit your narrative either.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Maybe.

But are you smart enough to look up and read studies that don't fit your narrative?

Why would I dismiss actual neuroscience with other disciplines studies in place of old biology narratives?

So the answer is no.

You only read things that agree with your ideology.

At least you're honest in your ignorance.

My ideology is finding the truth through empirical evidence, as I said above, I do and will continue to look at both sides, but both sides keep refuting each other, so I am waiting for repeatable and peer reviewed studies. What are you doing to find the truth?

An experiment that gives odd chemicals to highly suggestible children in search of a desired result, doesn’t really count as empirical evidence.
Empirical evidence should be things that happen independently in nature, in normal settings, that can be observed repeatedly enough to suggest a reasonable theory.
What you’re falling in love with here is convoluted customised science theater. More propaganda than science.