youreavinalaff

It would appear I have a better grasp of the facts regarding Transgenderism than you do.

How do you know? It wasn't that long ago only a few people suffered from dementia. Or so it seemed. The fact is, many people were suffering but due to the limits of medical science at the time, many went undiagnosed. It's really that simple. Transgenderism cannot be promoted. It us not a life choice.

Not opinions. Knowlwdge and information gained from training in advancements in medical science, years of working in care and support of transgender people,study, experience of dealing with mental health, illness and condition.

Transgenderism is not a mental illness. As I pointed out in a previous post, there is a clear difference between mental health, mental illness and a mental condition. Mental health can be treated and sufferers can often recover fully and lead normal lives. Mental illnesses can be treated and managed but recovery is not always possible. Alzheimers and other forms of dementia being two example. Transgenderism is a condition. It's a condition that sufferers are born with. It is generally agreed by medical experts that it results from a mutation of the genotype for the CYP17 gene. The difference between this and mental health and illness is that it cannot be treated with drugs aimed at the brain and mental disorders, even though it is the brain recognising the difference. That's because it's not an issue with how the brain is working but more what the brain is seeing in the physical sense. Many people first sense the differences in their bodies as early a 6 years old. They can receive treatment for the mental health issues caused by this condition, not the condition itself, such as feeling isolated, not being able to talk to anyone about their feelings or not knowing any others that feel the same. Confusion. Those who decide to transition are not trying to become the opposite sex. They just want to look and be viewed how they feel. It's still a lonely existence as difficulties in forming relationships creates barriers in romance. Also, those who don't understand the condition still mock and make life a misery for them. It's great that in Thailand the condition is generally accepted for what it is. A condition that affects a small minority of people. It's not a life choice. The only defining treatment is physical. Hormone treatment and surgery. Hormones can be used at young ages. I actually know of a male to female that started horemone therapy in grade 8. She has since had full transitioning surgery and is living a happy life. In her case she is also in a happy relationship with her male partner. The debate about how early in life surgery should take place will rage on for a long time. However, terms like "chopping off" and " mutilation" are crass and wide of the mark.

Funny.

On forums like this, people seem to have lost the art of reading between the lines. This skill is required as, because forums are non vocal, one has to use other ways to ascertain tone of voice. The poster to whom I replied had been using derogatory language towards posters disagreeing with him for some time. Thus, tone of voice ascertained and comment taken for what it was. Maybe insult was the incorrect word as I didn't feel insulted but felt sympathy towards the person needing to resort to such comments.

There is a difference between mental illness, mental health and a mental condition. That seems to be the issue. Posters are confusing the 3.

The Yom joins the Nan in Nakhon Sawan. The Nan is a tributary of Chao Praya.

So, you can read minds and see into the future. That's quite impressive. Well done.

I am doing no such thing. Stop the trash talking. You don't agree with my view that someone must be innocent until proven guilty. That's fine. No need for the derogatory language.

To tell someone to "shut up" is an insult. It's not the first time his language has been derogatory either.

I don't recall ever suggesting he refuted her claim. Let me know where you saw that.

Insults now. How obtuse.

That's funny. You ask me to show the accuser and accused said different things about the incident, I don't recall lumping them all together, but then accuse me of something I haven't done as apposed to accepting the obvious. As for back peddaling, look at all my posts. I have been constant in my views.

If the accuser said the same as the accused regarding the incident in question, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Think about it.

I am not deflecting. If you read the conversation between myself and another poster, you will see I was seeking clarification that the accused threatened rape. It appears, despite that poster originally saying he did, he didn't. It is my understanding indecent exposure is indeed a criminal offence. I don't recall ever doubting that. What is currently in doubt, as can be confirmed by lack of charge, arrest or conviction, is the part played by the accuser. The accused says one thing, the accuser says another. I'm quite sure the truth will come out in the end. If the accused is found guilty, he needs to be punished according to the law. Until that point, according to the same law, he is innocent until proven guilty. As has been my stance all along. I'm not condoning any of the offences he has been accused of, neither am I defending a sex offender. I'm waiting to see the evidence and what law enforcement do, based on that evidence. Just as happens with similar situations all the time, out of the glare of the media as those involved are not famous.

Allegedly.

The post to which I replied said he threatened rape. I simply asked for clarification of that. The accusation now appears to be withdrawn. That was the only incident in our discussion so no deflection, other than from the truth, by said poster, in what Brand actually, allegedly, said.

So he didn't threaten rape? You made that bit up.

OK. So he asked for sex. I don't recall that being the same as rape. She didn't consent. They didn't have sex. Good to clear that up.

Could you post the link where Brand is quoted as saying " I'm going to rape you with this". I've not see anywhere where he said that. If he did, it's clearly something the police would be interested in. I'm surprised they haven't seen it and arrested him already.

Indeed you don't. However, that is not the subject of my comments. My comments are in regards to labeling people incorrectly. If you wish to comment on hatred, quote a comment that mentions it.

No. You are arguing about something totally different to what I wrote in my comments. If you wish to discuss haters, please quote a different comment.

You missed the point. Indeed, the two phobias might be linked. However, I'm sure those living with the two conditions wouldn't link them and therefore would not want to be confused as being one or the other when they aren't.

It's not about who hates who. It's,about calling someone something they are not. Would a homosexual like to be called transgender? I doubt it. Would someone who is transgender like to be called homosexual? I doubt it