That is a bit misleading. A cursory look into Dr. Money turned up no accusations of him being a "paedophile".
Gender Explanation For Dummys
- Thread starter DeeAnnaMontana
- Start date
-
- Tags
- female gender male not confusion
I think it is based on his treatment with David Reimer
That really had nothing to do with the accusation here. Dr. Money did take a position where he seemed to suggest that there could be legitimate loving relationships between adults and "younger than adults" but I didn't look to deeply into it to get a solid understanding of it.
I dont think it has anything to do with how other people live there life. If it was then the people that identify as something other than they are wouldnt make such a big fucking deal about it. Its about reality. You may not wanna have a dick but thats what you have.
I dont care how anyone lives or what they identify with but dont ******* me to agree with you. Just go about your life.....and dont ******* it on people.
How is it being ****** on you, exactly?
jamesriske
Male
Just one example:
New York City has warned landlords, employers and businesses they could be running afoul of the law by purposely calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” when she prefers a female title and pronoun, or by barring her from using a women’s restroom.
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/14731-2/
******* opinions[edit]
John Money was critical in debates on chronophilias, especially *******. He stated that both sexual researchers and the public do not make distinctions between affectional ******* and sadistic*******. Money asserted that affectional ******* was about love and not sex.
If I were to see the case of a boy aged ten or eleven who's intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual ... then I would not call it pathological in any way.[24][25]
Money held the view that affectional ******* is caused by a surplus of parental love that became erotic, and is not a behavioral disorder. Rather, he took the position that heterosexuality is another example of a societal and therefore superficial, ideological concept.[24][25]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money#Pedophilia_opinions
jamesriske
Male
Good post, Carl.
Good post, Carl.
Nailed it right there.
I doubt you'll get a retraction or an admission that you are correct, just as I did not get one by debunking the 1.7% claim.
They just disappear when confronted with verifiable facts.
Good post, Carl.
Nailed it right there.
I doubt you'll get a retraction or an admission that you are correct, just as I did not get one by debunking the 1.7% claim.
They just disappear when confronted with verifiable facts.
Exactly. No evidence of him being accused of being a *******.
That isn't forsing you to agree.
jamesriske
Male
Ever watch the old cartoons when the anvil falls on the coyote's head?
This is one of those instances.
Right - it doesn't ******* you personally to "agree" however, laws like this ******* a person to "comply" with something they don't agree with. I personally don't have an issue if people want to be addressed in a specific way. What I have an issue with is laws/rules being made to ******* me to comply to their own whims. These types of law have nothing to do with security, personal safety, liabilities, or anything of that nature. They are simply devised to appease the very loud minority in an effort to spare ones feelings and possibly gain favor and votes, not to mention revenue from fines and jail fees.
This would be just another nail the in the free speech coffin. It won't be long that there will be hundreds of pro-nouns everyone will be expected to learn for every individual group. Maybe we should all go back to speaking like they did in the 1800s. Can you imagine a law requiring you to address all male boys of economic stature as "Master <insert name>"?
D
Deleted125623
Guest
Still doesn't take the point away that its on the increase.. Or that it exists. So whats you point other than proving It exists as I mentioned????? Ohh wait you're another assumptionist! I also said MIGHT be as high. So no you haven't debunked anything.
But you wanted a reply...here it is
Your so called debunking is in fact from a paper by Dr Leonard Sax which is internationally considered to be a 'A distinct narrow approach' and published in your link. Unfortunately for you and others its considered to be an understatement of figures, facts and research.
In reply to his paper:
Qoute We have seen estimates range from 1 in 1,500 or 2,000 births to 4%, and we recommend an upper bound figure of 1.7%, despite its flaws. This was published by Blackless and others in the American Journal of Human Biology, and also by Anne Fausto-Sterling, Professor of Biology and Gender Studies at Brown University in the US.
And
This statement actually contains two distinct definitions (separated by the word “or”) relating to phenotypes and chromosomes. It is an arbitrary and ideological analysis that requires individuals who have come to the attention of medicine due to their innate physical characteristics to be investigated as to the cause. Depending on that cause, they may or may not fall within Sax’s definitions.
I will take the work of the American journal of human biology to which many US and international experts use for their research and education over a paper in which the majority of experts disagree with because it is 'A distinct narrow approach' . As I doubt they don't have an axe to grind.
So once again YOU ARE WRONG!
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted125623
Guest
[QUOTEI doubt you'll get a retraction or an admission that you are correct, just as I did not get one by debunking the 1.7% claim.
They just disappear when confronted with verifiable facts.[/QUOTE]
ROFLMAO @ your rather childish asinine comment. No one disappeared. And your verifiable fact has turned out to be outdated, and disagreed with by most experts who have stated as such in the American Journal of Human Biology.
Pity you and the bubble heads didn't actually do the research...So no, you won't be getting anything like a retraction or an admission as you are NEITHER correct or factual!
After a bit of digging into Sax, the general assessment of him, his works and conclusions boils down to something like this.
An extract:
In fact, Sax’s main premise—that the parent-baby relationship has eroded over the past several decades—is backed by no research whatsoever. And ironically, some of his parenting recommendations are considered potentially harmful by psychologists. 'the collapse of parenting'.
They just disappear when confronted with verifiable facts.[/QUOTE]
ROFLMAO @ your rather childish asinine comment. No one disappeared. And your verifiable fact has turned out to be outdated, and disagreed with by most experts who have stated as such in the American Journal of Human Biology.
Pity you and the bubble heads didn't actually do the research...So no, you won't be getting anything like a retraction or an admission as you are NEITHER correct or factual!
After a bit of digging into Sax, the general assessment of him, his works and conclusions boils down to something like this.
An extract:
In fact, Sax’s main premise—that the parent-baby relationship has eroded over the past several decades—is backed by no research whatsoever. And ironically, some of his parenting recommendations are considered potentially harmful by psychologists. 'the collapse of parenting'.
Last edited by a moderator:
So you think freedom of speech is more important than an individual's liberty?
Apple to Oranges. You are at liberty to claim to be whatever you want to be. But you are NOT at liberty to ******* that belief onto others. Do you see the difference? There is no law or rule saying you can't be transgender and request other call you by a certain pronoun - there is no law or rule that establishes that, so NOT making a law requiring me to call you a certain pronoun does not trample on anyone's liberty. You are still free to be a transgender and request people address you as Zen - if they refuse, so what?
What makes one persons individual liberty more important than anothers?
So in your mind, the freedom of speech is unlimited. You can say whatever you want, when ever you want without repercussion?
Never said that. You should have the freedom to say what you will - however that does not exonerate you from the effect of what is said. If I tell my wife she looks fat in that dress, I better be prepared for a very cold night, but at least it is my freedom to say so. Being ****** by law to speak a specific way is not freedom of speech, it's censorship. If refusing to call a person by their preferred pronoun causes that person to dislike me, then so be it. It might hurt their feelings, but at least I am free to disagree. We have the right to speak our mind, but we don't have the right NOT to be offended by what people say.
And you didn't answer my question.
I didn't say you said that. I was asking for clarification. To further clarify, you believe there should be repercussions for what is said. So does that mean to you that if one were to yell fire in a crowded theater, where there was no fire, and someone was trampled to death in the rush to exit, then that person should be held responsible for that death?