Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Rotation Advertisements



We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.


If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.


Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk


If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Transgender children
Topic Started: Mar 9 2018, 02:19 AM (3,404 Views)
Tinny
Member Avatar


Mitas
Mar 15 2018, 08:13 AM
Tinny
Mar 14 2018, 11:27 PM
Mitas
Mar 14 2018, 05:36 PM
Because there is some argument and evidence that it is physiological, in which case calling it a mental disorder would be inaccurate. Although you are right, it is a disorder of some kind. Also, regarding intersex being a deformity, there's no argument. It is one, in the same way that being born with an extra toe, finger, or any other body part is a deformity. There doesn't have to be a negative connotation attached to it, unless it negatively impacts a person's life. Even then, the connotation is 'oh, it's unfortunate for that to happen to a person'.
There are almost as many intersex people as there are people with red hair, but somehow I doubt anyone would appreciate it if you started going around calling red hair a deformity. You say it's the same as having another tone, overall in the industry there is a large tendency to view this as some awful thing that you have to fix and parents will be often pushed into this with fear inducing statements about it, rather than simply telling them as it is, that their genitals are different, and that there is a specific term, against calling these things deformities because people's bodies are modified without their consent by parents who are being fear mongered into doing so.
Red hair is caused by a genetic mutation and is accompanied by increased health risks in certain areas (skin cancer being one of them). It is also a defect/deformity and one that, like others, people are often bullied and ridiculed for having. Like I said, whether these things are defects or not is not up for debate.

Edit: But again, like I said, I don't believe it has to be a bad thing or that people should be treated differently because of it. It just is what it is. I think it's more helpful to have people accept things as they are, rather than try to avoid it and dress it up. If you teach people to avoid terminology then you're teaching them to fear it. The same way that nobody is ever ugly and everyone is beautiful. If looks truly don't matter, then saying 'everybody is beautiful' is backwards because you're still placing value on appearance and the people who are ugly still feel bad because they know it's not true. Teach them that it's OK if they aren't attractive.
And yet, I doubt anyone would take to it kindly, or seriously believe you, if you called red hair a deformity.

If you can convince everyone else to hold your views, and to stop applying negative connotations to deformity, you and I both know that people don't think of Mary Jane when they think of deformity. No one uses that language, at best medical experts, but as I said it's not common vernacular to refer to people like Rupert Grint as deformed, and if you need to ask, then I encourage you to and ask some random people perhaps starting with your family if Rupert Grint (he played Ron Wesley) is deformed. The very idea is ridiculous and ignores reality.

You say that as if people don't already fear the term deformity, by all means if you wish to change the use of the English language so that deformity lack and all negative connotation (the kind that causes operations were baby's penis is burned off and the genitals are remade to look like a vagina) you can make the attempt, and if it starts going places I'll probably join but until then I'd rather we use a reasonable and realistic strategy than changing the hearts and minds of even half of 330 to 360 million people. There are far less medical professionals in the English world than there are English speakers. The fact is that deformity has negative connotations that suggest no one can live a normal life.

And to be perfectly honest, I'm rather suspicious of your implication that medical professionals are going to find red headed baby, and ever describe them as "deformed." Could you show me a few examples of this?

Posted Image
Posted Image
Just a show of hands... Or whatever, how many people think either of these images of Rupert Grint or Isla Fisher are of deformed people? Just out of the blue, if someone ask you if they were deformed, what would you answer?

Again, I'm returning to that point, but I trust you can see how this argument is ridiculous. People don't call redheads deformed, if anything I'd say more have a fetish for them. Medical terminology is not how normal people speak, I don't say types to refer to a class of archaeological artifacts defined by a consistent clustering of attributes. The language of a professional is not that of a layman, and we both know that deformity, does not simply mean any old difference in the body. It is the ugly, the hideous mark is to be feared, the deformity prevents a normal life, a deformity makes you look inhuman or like some spoof of a human. That is deformity in common vernacular, not simply pterodactyly, ginger hair or being black in Sweeden, even though they all provide risks to the person.
Edited by Tinny, Mar 16 2018, 01:13 AM.
Posted Image
Above signature created by Graffiti

Posted Image
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Mitas
Member Avatar
It truly was a Shawshank redemption

Quote:
 
then I encourage you to and ask some random people perhaps starting with your family if Rupert Grint (he played Ron Wesley) is deformed.

Quote:
 
I'm rather suspicious of your implication that medical professionals are going to find red headed baby, and ever describe them as "deformed."

I don't need to ask anybody if they have a deformity because they do. Like I said before, red hair is caused by a genetic mutation which is by definition a deformity. And it doesn't matter whether they would describe them as deformed because red hair is caused by a genetic mutation which is by definition a deformity. A medical professional would be aware of that. However, they may not describe them as deformed, but like I said, red headed people are often victims of bullying and ridicule because of their hair colour. The terminology may not be exact, but they are still treated differently.

Quote:
 
The fact is that deformity has negative connotations that suggest no one can live a normal life.

OK, but I imagine most people would be aware of the fact that a sixth toe is a deformity, yet I don't imagine many people believe that a person with that particular deformity can't live a normal life. There are different severities of deformation. The issue you are highlighting is not that intersex is a deformity (which it is), but people's reactions to that particular deformity, but society goes through this with a lot of things. There are a lot of disabilities out there that society would have once decreed as 'unable to live a normal life'. That's changed, but they are still disabilities.

You seem to be the one that is hung up on deformed meaning OH THE HORROR WHAT AN ABSOLUTE MONSTER. It doesn't. It can, but it is a spectrum ranging from minor deformities to major ones.
Posted Image
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time."
"Next time?"
"Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tinny
Member Avatar


Mitas
Mar 16 2018, 09:32 AM
Quote:
 
then I encourage you to and ask some random people perhaps starting with your family if Rupert Grint (he played Ron Wesley) is deformed.

Quote:
 
I'm rather suspicious of your implication that medical professionals are going to find red headed baby, and ever describe them as "deformed."

I don't need to ask anybody if they have a deformity because they do. Like I said before, red hair is caused by a genetic mutation which is by definition a deformity. And it doesn't matter whether they would describe them as deformed because red hair is caused by a genetic mutation which is by definition a deformity. A medical professional would be aware of that. However, they may not describe them as deformed, but like I said, red headed people are often victims of bullying and ridicule because of their hair colour. The terminology may not be exact, but they are still treated differently.
Are they professionally described as deformed or not Mitas? No offense, but I didn't and still don't believe you when you said that, thus I want examples. I get the feeling that you are incorrect in your assertion and as such I want evidence to the contrary. I certainly couldn't find any upon a search, but perhaps you better know what to look for, thus the question. I'm asking for evidence of doctors using the term deformity to refer to red-haired children, can you provide that to me or not?

And no you don't need to ask people if those two look deformed or if red haired people are deformed, but it will show you what more people think of.

And no you switch from them being deformed to them being treated differently, I take being black in Norway (or America if you want to be topical) or tall in Japan is also a deformity is the argument here? Of course not, being bullied isn't evidence of having a deformity, and while I"m at it neither is being homosexual or socially awkward, all of which are also things you get bullied for. Don't use people being bullied as evidence of a deformity, bullies, especially in school can target anyone for any reason, specifying it to deformity blatantly ignores the reality of bullying.

Quote:
 
OK, but I imagine most people would be aware of the fact that a sixth toe is a deformity, yet I don't imagine many people believe that a person with that particular deformity can't live a normal life. There are different severities of deformation. The issue you are highlighting is not that intersex is a deformity (which it is), but people's reactions to that particular deformity, but society goes through this with a lot of things. There are a lot of disabilities out there that society would have once decreed as 'unable to live a normal life'. That's changed, but they are still disabilities.

You seem to be the one that is hung up on deformed meaning OH THE HORROR WHAT AN ABSOLUTE MONSTER. It doesn't. It can, but it is a spectrum ranging from minor deformities to major ones.

I have to question what exactly would make intersex genitals a disability considering you can do all the same things with them as normal people with few exceptions, however aside from that...

But nothing, of course I'm highlight people's reactions to it, people's reactions to it are what created the need for intersex rights in the first place, and are the whole reason the idea of intesex genitals being a deformity needs to be jettisoned. If deformity didn't mean "OH THE HORROR WHAT AN ABSOLUTE MONSTER" as you put it, this wouldn't be an issue. Nothing you said regarding there being a spectrum matters, because that's not how real people talk about deformities, nor is it what they think when they hear the words "Your child is deformed." Medical terminology is not relevant, people are.
Edited by Tinny, Mar 16 2018, 01:19 PM.
Posted Image
Above signature created by Graffiti

Posted Image
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Mitas
Member Avatar
It truly was a Shawshank redemption

Quote:
 
Are they professionally described as deformed or not Mitas? No offense, but I didn't and still don't believe you when you said that, thus I want examples. I get the feeling that you are incorrect in your assertion and as such I want evidence to the contrary. I certainly couldn't find any upon a search, but perhaps you better know what to look for, thus the question. I'm asking for evidence of doctors using the term deformity to refer to red-haired children, can you provide that to me or not?

I've never actually said that a medical professional would describe a person with red hair as deformed. I said they would be aware of the fact that red hair is caused by a genetic mutation, which is by definition a deformity. Or defect. Or abnormality. Or malformation. Whichever word is more digestible, they're all the same. Regarding a Google search, just search 'red hair genetic mutation'. The information is widely available.

Quote:
 
And no you switch from them being deformed to them being treated differently, I take being black in Norway (or America if you want to be topical) or tall in Japan is also a deformity is the argument here? Of course not, being bullied isn't evidence of having a deformity, and while I"m at it neither is being homosexual or socially awkward, all of which are also things you get bullied for. Don't use people being bullied as evidence of a deformity, bullies, especially in school can target anyone for any reason, specifying it to deformity blatantly ignores the reality of bullying.

I didn't 'switch from them being deformed to them being treated differently'. I said people may not describe them as being deformed (not that they don't have a deformity, just that it isn't described as one), but they are abused and ridiculed LIKE other deformities (which infers that I am still saying that red hair is a deformity, like any other abnormality/malformation/defect). At no point did I say that being bullied about something makes it a deformity.

Quote:
 
I have to question what exactly would make intersex genitals a disability considering you can do all the same things with them as normal people with few exceptions, however aside from that...

Didn't call it a disability. Pretty clearly stated that it's a deformity. I said that people's reactions change, evidenced by changing views on how normal a life people can live with disabilities, which can, and most likely will, happen with intersex and other deformities.

Quote:
 
But nothing, of course I'm highlight people's reactions to it, people's reactions to it are what created the need for intersex rights in the first place, and are the whole reason the idea of intesex genitals being a deformity needs to be jettisoned. If deformity didn't mean "OH THE HORROR WHAT AN ABSOLUTE MONSTER" as you put it, this wouldn't be an issue. Nothing you said regarding there being a spectrum matters, because that's not how real people talk about deformities, nor is it what they think when they hear the words "Your child is deformed." Medical terminology is not relevant, people are.

I think the trouble you are having is there is a difference between having a deformity, and being called deformed. Notice how in my posts I'm careful to say that a person has a deformity, not that they are deformed. That would be the difference between 'softer' deformations and 'harder' ones on the spectrum (although I would still be hesitant to label somebody 'deformed'). I think people would describe a sixth toe or eleventh finger as a deformity because, you know, it is one, but they would not generally have the reaction that you seem to think they would have.

But this is getting off topic and I'm tired of having to make the argument for a fact, constantly repeat myself, and rebuke accusations of saying things when I didn't.
Posted Image
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time."
"Next time?"
"Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tinny
Member Avatar


Quote:
 
I've never actually said that a medical professional would describe a person with red hair as deformed. I said they would be aware of the fact that red hair is caused by a genetic mutation, which is by definition a deformity. Or defect. Or abnormality. Or malformation. Whichever word is more digestible, they're all the same. Regarding a Google search, just search 'red hair genetic mutation'. The information is widely available.
All changes in a human, everything that has created the species known as homo sapiens, as well as every other animal on the planet, every plant, every fungi, are at some point caused by genetic mutation, genetic mutation is part of how the process of evolution even gets started. Simply being the result of genetic mutation is far too vague a definition to use, otherwise the existence of lungs would count as a deformity. While I was waiting actually, I asked my friend Daemon Keido about this, his mother works in medicine and he's read medical textbooks.

He tells me the professional term for a deformity is dymorphism, and only applies if it negatively effects life expectancy or value, otherwise it's simply an abnormality. Abnormality is not the same as deformation, or defect, or malformation, it is entirely separate, he used his thumb as an example.
Posted Image
It has not particularly influenced his life in any way I am aware of or that he has stated, nor has it reduced the quality or expectancy of his life.
Quote:
 
I didn't 'switch from them being deformed to them being treated differently'. I said people may not describe them as being deformed (not that they don't have a deformity, just that it isn't described as one), but they are abused and ridiculed LIKE other deformities (which infers that I am still saying that red hair is a deformity, like any other abnormality/malformation/defect). At no point did I say that being bullied about something makes it a deformity.
I was under the impression you were using the fact that children may/would get bullied over it as evidence of it being dymorphism.

Also if you admit other people would not describe them as being deformed, then what exactly are you trying to accomplish by saying Red hair is a deformity when you know that people don't refer to red hair as a deformity? Just as people don't refer to red hair as a deformity, people should not refer to intersex as a deformity. As I've said repeatedly, the issue is with common folk using the term, not academia.
Quote:
 
I think the trouble you are having is there is a difference between having a deformity, and being called deformed. Notice how in my posts I'm careful to say that a person has a deformity, not that they are deformed. That would be the difference between 'softer' deformations and 'harder' ones on the spectrum (although I would still be hesitant to label somebody 'deformed'). I think people would describe a sixth toe or eleventh finger as a deformity because, you know, it is one, but they would not generally have the reaction that you seem to think they would have.

All of which are completely irrelevant when talking how people in general talk about and treat them. And keep in mind that the umbrella of intersex does in fact include males who penises are too small, at which point the penis is removed in surgery and the genitals operated on to appear as a female's vagina. Medicine already has it's terms, very specific terms, "complete" suicide instead of "committing" suicide, etc. We're not discussing the medical term, I was not at any rate, I was discussing common vernacular as I've said multiple times.

As I've said and hopefully made clear, my issue is how it is, in public discourse (not academia), it's treated as a deformity, and often used and the impetus for performing sex change surgery on babies who cannot make any kind of decision for themselves, for either have ambiguous genitals, or even simply a vulva too large, or a penis too small, and yes those last two are actually operated on, and certainly were in the USA for a long time.

I have to ask what exactly you are trying to argue, are you saying people should refer to it as a deformity because medical science might consider it so in their own specific term? Or... What exactly? It doesn't help that now you're using a ton of different words which wile they are synonyms, have differing meanings and especially different connotations. I have sincerely no idea what you're trying to say at this point and to be honest I was growing less sure of what precisely your argument is aside from it "being a fact."
Edited by Tinny, Mar 16 2018, 08:39 PM.
Posted Image
Above signature created by Graffiti

Posted Image
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Mitas
Member Avatar
It truly was a Shawshank redemption

OK, I'm wrong.
Edited by Mitas, Mar 16 2018, 08:47 PM.
Posted Image
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time."
"Next time?"
"Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Mitas
Member Avatar
It truly was a Shawshank redemption

Right, I first want to apologise for my general attitude in the posts. I got frustrated because I didn't feel like I was getting my point across the way I wanted and because the debate ended up spinning off in a different direction where I was arguing things I didn't initially intend to argue.

I admit that I was wrong in the terminology I was arguing for. My initial point was that like transgender, intersex is a defect or deformity of some kind. I was going by the general definitions of the words rather than the specific medical use, so I apologise if I was using them wrong, but what I meant by it is that they are medical conditions that need medical input and can need medical intervention. It frustrates me that people often get offended by classifying them as such and can take it as almost a personal attack, when it's not. It's just recognising them for what they are and ensuring that people do get the right help.

Again, I apologise for how the debate went, and sorry for the double post.
Posted Image
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time."
"Next time?"
"Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
0 users reading this topic
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3

Theme Designed by McKee91