Random Politics & Religion #27

The Trevor Project lists that 40% in a national survey had attempted suicide and of those 92% of those were before the age of 25. It never goes into detail as to WHY they suddenly drop after the age of 25 but it could be a number of reasons, including the Chris Crocker logic being thrown around here. ...I mean realizing that he's just gay rather than trans, not the leave Britney alone thing.

[Source]

Another site lists the suicide attempt rate between 32% and 50% across "the countries" which, I'm not sure what they mean by that, either way there's a list of reasons as to why they may attempt suicide.

[Source]

You're really trying here, aren't you?

Where did your post-op numbers come from? Your pre-op numbers were accurate for "attempts" up to the age of 25 but I saw nothing for after the surgery.

Read the link posted.

They did a review of patient data for over 300 transgenders and compared them both to a group of non-trans people and a then divided based on operation or no-operation. They were focusing on mental illness rates and one of those is being suicidal. They actually found the rates of being suicidal post-op were significantly higher then no-op and that overall transgender had a suicidal rate several times higher then the control population.

That's just one study, there are many more and your going to have to dig because people feel very uneasy mentioning the post vs pre operation rates as the LGBT crowd supported by your religious cult attacks them for it.

I'm not actually religious due to seeing my aunt flopping around in the floor and "talkin' ta Jesus" when I was three, so you can drop that line. Also, it's more often the right who are more religious than the left and it's usually the right who are against gays and whatnot...though I am glad to see you can accept that people on both sides can have similarities. *shrug*

I don't really have time to sit and read a study that long, one thing I suppose I could mention is that in the US you have to go through psychiatric screening to be able to move forward with sex reassignment. If there is regret after the operation, that tells me that 1. people are losing orgasmic function after operation and 2. clearly we need better mental health professionals if those who aren't really trans are getting through to have surgery.

Lastly I'd have to wonder if this is including Female-to-Male (Again, I skimmed) and if so, there's a lot of your issues there. As we all know, being a man obviously means being hung like a horse and hard as a rock and the FTM lower surgeries are much more complex and much less functional usually. So if you include transmen, you are kinda screwing up the results because the two surgeries are very, very different.

either or he/she/it was a traitor. Plain and simple.

Also, this is a two-way street.

Abortions are abhorrent, the religious right wing is correct. I would only say abortions are necessary in extremely difficult circumstances, like pregnancy harming the mother's life or if a woman has been raped. One cannot take the fringe cases like these and apply them to argue for an entire practice which is effectively infanticide. If a couple did not bother getting contraceptives, got a woman pregnant and then sought state-funded abortion then that is wrong no matter how you slice it.

I do not see eye-to-eye with the religious right wing about women and homosexuals joining no being allowed to join the military. My sister serves in the air force proudly, and I am proud of her for doing so.

Christian Conservatives have actually been on the right side more than they have been on the wrong side throughout history. America did not take to Negative Eugenics (Euthanasia, Mass-Killings of the Unfit/Homosexual/Other Races) as much as Nazi Germany did because there was a big anti-eugenics movement from the religious right-wing which effectively killed popular support. Christians rallied against it because man-led intervention in human nature was deemed blasphemy and Conservatives rallied against it because they felt that the State should not undertake social engineering and that such actions violated the 14th Amendment.
Point-of-case, Skinner v. Oklahoma in 1942.

You can actually pinpoint the exact year in which this resistance really began. It began in 1927 following the Buck v. Bell case in the Supreme Court. Buck v. Bell authorised the mass sterilisation of the mentally unfit, criminals, delinquents and other 'degenerates' within Virginia. This was a step-too-far for the Christian right and they gathered public support to challenge this brand of Negative Eugenics, which in hindsight was really *** good considering what Nazi Germany (you know, national socialists) did with the same doctrine.

Oh, and you can thank Evangelical Christians for the abolition of slavery. Also for contributing to the success of the Civil Rights Movement.

Hello?

I was there for the civil rights movement, freedom rides and all. There were many wonderful Christians who were part of it. None of them were what we call evangelicals in this 21st century.

The courts opinion in Skinner v Oklahoma was that it found Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act of 1935 unconstitutional due to the lack of it's application to white collar crimes. That does not follow the narrative you are trying to perpetuate. Especially given that sterilization laws are still active in the states.


You're rewriting history by looking backwards to fit your opinions and narrative. Instead of forward from the event itself. The opinion at the time differs vastly from what you are attributing.

The law in question was supported by both Conservatives and Progressives, Democrats and Republicans, Christians and Jews. Which is why there's a certain comedic irony that the Nazis used the courts opinion in Buck v Bell to defend the eugenics program/crimes against humanity.

With regard to social opinion it should be noted that it was the Catholic Church (not Evangelicals in US) that was vocal against eugenics, specifically sterilization laws due to it's opinion that it violated Canon-law.

See:
DANIEL J. KEVLES, IN THE NAME OF EUGENICS: GENETICS AND THE USES OF HUMAN HEREDITY 57−69 (1985) (discussing scientific and popular support for eugenics); EDWARD J. LARSON, SEX, RACE, AND SCIENCE: EUGENICS IN THE DEEP SOUTH 30−32 (1995) [hereinafter SEX, RACE, AND SCIENCE] (discussing support for eugenics by persons of different political parties and ideological groups); CHRISTINE ROSEN, PREACHING EUGENICS: RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND THE AMERICAN EUGENICS MOVEMENT 85−109 (2004) (discussing Christian and Jewish support for eugenics).

That Scientific American I mentioned on the last page:

Your link had no such causal link to hormone therapy and suicide. You're making ***up.

Um, it's a survey. Of course there isn't causality.

A brief pause to recognize how amazing Game of Thrones was tonight.

Mexico was inspired.

I asked for something that linked the therapy to suicide in the causal way he's inferring. There was nothing like that.

Causality is very hard to prove in cases of psychology, so what you're asking for to either to prove or disprove his statement likely doesn't exist. At best you guys would be arguing over inconclusive data augmented with preconceived notions based on personal biases.

I know this. We're not disagreeing. Why is this suddenly on me?

Given past arguments in here on the topic, I thought you were on the team of people who think there is no relationship whatsoever, and bullying alone contributes to the suicide rates. Given that the extremes on both sides of the argument are ridiculous and the truth is likely to be a combination of factors, I figured it would be good to tamp that down since everyone is just arguing what they think and not what they can even remotely begin to prove.

It's fairly civil atm, so.. I don't know why the name calling. Don't be the guy slinging the first hand full in a shitstorm. >_>

Bullying, family being unsupportive, feeling inadequate, etc. Various reasons.

Can you get a bachelor's degree in women's gender studies?

Its official. Game of Thrones is a religion.

Women's studies, yes. Women's gender studies? No idea.

But as the current Scientific American illustrates, gender studies is a legitimate field of study.

He may come off as belligerent, but he's correct.

You come off as someone who just can't handle reality when you essentially whine about him being correct.