Non TS/TV males who post as women on WP, testimonials wanted, enquire within Options

[carbuncle]

Ottava, you may be conflating the sexual reassignment of infants born with ambiguous or malformed genitalia with the sexual reassignment of adults. This is part of the Johns Hopkins case you present, and the subject of one of the studies cited.

In any case, that wasn't my point. I was simply curious about your views on gender. I am not at all surprised by your answers here. (Nor am I surprised to see your fingerprints all over Paul R. McHugh's BLP...)

This post has been edited by carbuncle: Tue 8th November 2011, 3:54am

[Somey]

Ottava, you're reading what you want the articles to say, not what they actually say. It's the classic modern-conservative problem.

As for what's clear and what isn't, the first article says, in paragraph 2, "The prevailing theory at the time was that while sex was genetically determined at birth, the concept of gender was culturally shaped and malleable and that being female or male were interchangeable." It seems more likely to me that by "madness," he's referring to the fact that this was the prevailing theory, and not necessarily a specific reference to the mental states of SRS patients.

I haven't really met a lot of people who were considering gender-reassignment (in fact, I'd say the total is exactly 1). But you don't hear a lot of stories about such people running around frothing at the mouth and shooting up high schools, do you? No, because the vast majority of them are perfectly sane, even if in many cases they're depressed or anxiety-ridden over their self-perception issues. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a decent psychiatrist might have said they were "collaborating with depression" or (more likely) "confusion" if he was talking about the patients... but certainly not "madness."

[that one guy]

There's one thing I've come to understand from my interaction with transgender people: it's impossible to grasp what they're going through unless you're transgender yourself. Keep that in mind.

[Alison]

LOL - it's Ottava, folks! Didn't we have a very similar Ottavian conversation already? Yes, I believe we did, yet here he is, back hijacking threads and spouting the same old nonsense

Bear in mind that this is a guy who doesn't know what a vagina is. Yet here he is, pontificating on matters sexual, all the while he's yanking everyone's chain ... again

This thread should be inscribed in bronze and put on a pedestal in a marble-lined alcove with tasteful indirect lighting, so that everyone Ottava picks on in the future (or attempts to date, god forbid) can see who they're dealing with.

Just sayin'.

[EricBarbour]

Yes, we did. And I'm going elsewhere.

[the fieryangel]

Yes, we did. And I'm going elsewhere.

Well, I didn't need to know anything about people who identify as TS/TV. That's outside what I was asking about.

What I was asking about is "guys who post as girls in order to work the system on WP". I've gotten a few bites from people who have my email address. If anybody else wants to give me their stories (I'm only interested in case studies, so I'm not going to out you....Unless you're a well-known female WP cabal member such as Slim Virgin and really a guy...Wouldn't that be funny?).

My email is oscarlechien AT gmial dot com.

As far as the rest of it, been there, done that...Thanks in advance.

[Ottava]

Ottava, you may be conflating the sexual reassignment of infants born with ambiguous or malformed genitalia with the sexual reassignment of adults. This is part of the Johns Hopkins case you present, and the subject of one of the studies cited.

What I quoted

"As for the adults who came to us claiming to have discovered their 'true' sexual identity and to have heard about sex-change operations, we psychiatrists have been distracted from studying the causes and natures of their mental misdirections by preparing them for surgery and for a life in the other sex. We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it." p. 228 Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the few world experts on Sex Reassignment Surgery and has a background that few can compare.


It has nothing to do with children.

It is shameful that the people who believe that such things are anything but an illness are blatantly making things up.

Dr McHugh makes it clear that 1. they are adults and 2. they are all mad. There is no way to argue against that. You can say that Dr. McHugh is wrong, but you cannot say that he doesn't think all TG is a mental illness. He is one of the biggest opponents of transgender operations in the world because of years of studying and realizing that it is nothing more than an illness.



Somey

As for what's clear and what isn't, the first article says, in paragraph 2, "The prevailing theory at the time was that while sex was genetically determined at birth, the concept of gender was culturally shaped and malleable and that being female or male were interchangeable." It seems more likely to me that by "madness," he's referring to the fact that this was the prevailing theory, and not necessarily a specific reference to the mental states of SRS patients.

You bash me over sources, but you are taking one source and saying it refers to another when it is clear that it does not.

" by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it" from Dr McHugh clearly means "we need to make these people realize that their gender is the right one and that they were not born with the wrong gender". That means the whole gender confusion is a mental illness. There is no other way to interpret it.



Alison

"Bear in mind that this is a guy who doesn't know what a vagina is. Yet here he is, pontificating on matters sexual, all the while he's yanking everyone's chain ... again"

You know very well that vagina is used as short hand for vaginal area and that all nicknames refer to the crotch as a whole. You are quibbling over my using a colloquial and non-specific phrase by substituting a medical definition in order to make an outrageous claim, then you state that -I- am the one trying to go off topic. Odd, I put up actual, credible experts who make it clear that TG is an illness and cannot be anything but, and the opposition has to stoop to outright fantasies or crazy attacks.

If you had a case, you would have put up evidence. You validate that there is no way to justify these people.

[A Horse With No Name]

Hell, bring Horsey... even he might no more about girls than you.

Sarcasm is always more effective when it is spelled correctly.

.Unless you're a well-known female WP cabal member such as Slim Virgin and really a guy...Wouldn't that be funny?).

It was funny with Jaye Davidson in the movies...not so funny in real life!

[Alison]

Alison

"Bear in mind that this is a guy who doesn't know what a vagina is. Yet here he is, pontificating on matters sexual, all the while he's yanking everyone's chain ... again"

You know very well that vagina is used as short hand for vaginal area and that all nicknames refer to the crotch as a whole. You are quibbling over my using a colloquial and non-specific phrase by substituting a medical definition in order to make an outrageous claim, then you state that -I- am the one trying to go off topic. Odd, I put up actual, credible experts who make it clear that TG is an illness and cannot be anything but, and the opposition has to stoop to outright fantasies or crazy attacks.

If you had a case, you would have put up evidence. You validate that there is no way to justify these people.

LOL - I'm not here to debate with you, Ottava. You've clearly and repeatedly shown me that you're utterly impervious to reason. Being ignorant of what a vagina is (and lemme tell ya: if you have one, these things matter ) is just one indicator as to how pig-ignorant you are. I have plenty to say on these matters and have posted at length on related issues, so can stand up to proper, scientific criticism. But when someone's "rebuttal" consists of "f'off with your pc hippie bs", then I know we're done and there's truly no point in continuing. Cleaning out my cat's litter box would be a far better use of my time and arguably more intellectually stimulating.

tldr; There's no point in attempting to discuss anything here as you're just here to troll others and stroke your own ego.

[Malleus]

There's one thing I've come to understand from my interaction with transgender people: it's impossible to grasp what they're going through unless you're transgender yourself. Keep that in mind.

Er, yes, but? It's equally impossible for a transgender person to know what it's like not to be transgender, or what it's like to be unfortunate enough to be a Californian.

[that one guy]

There's one thing I've come to understand from my interaction with transgender people: it's impossible to grasp what they're going through unless you're transgender yourself. Keep that in mind.

Er, yes, but? It's equally impossible for a transgender person to know what it's like not to be transgender, or what it's like to be unfortunate enough to be a Californian.

Good point. But I'd rather be Californian than someone from Illinois.

[Malleus]

Good point. But I'd rather be Californian than someone from Illinois.

I suppose California has a more congenial climate, but there's a heavy price to pay for it.

[Ottava]

LOL - I'm not here to debate with you, Ottava. You've clearly and repeatedly shown me that you're utterly impervious to reason. Being ignorant of what a vagina is (and lemme tell ya: if you have one, these things matter ) is just one indicator as to how pig-ignorant you are.

Because I don't use words with a technical specificity of someone who is trying to be a douche?

Both "vag" (444k hits) and "vagina" (3.37 million hits) are quite common when talking about "shaving".

In common usage, it is done quite often. You aren't right, just a snob.

[Abd]

Because I don't use words with a technical specificity of someone who is trying to be a douche?

The really sad thing is that Ottava imagines he can win arguments. He is current involved in many threads (particularly at Wikiversity and meta) where he's completely out to lunch, yet he attacks everyone else as obviously wrong, and worse than wrong, with evil intentions to boot. Almost everything he sticks his fingers in becomes Ottava's Right, You are Wrong. When someone comes back with a cogent answer, he then says, "See! Look how Wrong you are! You shouldn't be allowed to say anything, you are so wrong. You should be banned."

And then when he's banned, he's so amazed. Why is he being banned? After all, he was Right, and they are the ones who should be banned!

I understand the problem with being Right, it's one of my afflictions. But I don't try to ban people who disagree with me. I actually try to listen and respond. It takes all kinds. If everyone agreed with me, it would be totally boring, not to mention agreement on an error, at least sometimes!

[Abd]

Case in point: Ottava's latest on meta. Ottava's on a bender about XML import, has no clue, fails to understand that XML import is far more powerful when it comes to handling massive imports, as with some new wikis. Yeah, it's a very dangerous tool, it could make a huge mess. But it's really only being proposed as a transient user right for new wikis, as part of the set-up.

The user group that Ruslik has created will only be assigned temporarily, to those setting up a new wiki. As matters are now, I believe it takes a developer to handle that type of import. This is not a tool to be allowed for an operating wiki, because it can imitate edits by named users, merging them with existing contributions, probably not at all easy to distinguish. It can also create thousands of edits in a single import, if I'm correct, on hundreds of pages. This tool should only be assigned for a narrow time, and local 'crats should not be able to do this.

In any case, Ottava thinks he can tell a steward what he can and cannot do. Ottava has always been totally clueless as to how wikis really operate. He thinks that The Rules are The Rules. And he interprets the rules, always, in his own unique way. Rules, however, usually don't consider all the cases, which is why executives have discretion. Ruslik is being pretty patient, given how completely off-the-wall Ottava is.

I was blocked on meta for far, far less. How long will it be before Ottava's return to form is noticed?

[SB_Johnny]

Cleaning out my cat's litter box would be a far better use of my time and arguably more intellectually stimulating.

...?

[Wikicrusher2]

LOL - I'm not here to debate with you, Ottava. You've clearly and repeatedly shown me that you're utterly impervious to reason. Being ignorant of what a vagina is (and lemme tell ya: if you have one, these things matter ) is just one indicator as to how pig-ignorant you are.

Because I don't use words with a technical specificity of someone who is trying to be a douche?

Both "vag" (444k hits) and "vagina" (3.37 million hits) are quite common when talking about "shaving".

In common usage, it is done quite often. You aren't right, just a snob.

Fuck off, snob.

[Kelly Martin]

Could a mod please split off Ottava's trans-bashing to somewhere else (preferably a nice dark room filled with grues) as it is entirely off-topic? Thanks.

[The Adversary]

Wr is the only place I have encountered males (above the age of 10) who does not know, or care, what a vagina is (Ottava is not the only one, Sigh.)

Ok, for the ignorant; here is an educational video:

[Ottava]

Wr is the only place I have encountered males (above the age of 10) who does not know, or care, what a vagina is (Ottava is not the only one, Sigh.)

Ok, for the ignorant; here is an educational video:

You should really know better than to continue Alison's trolling. She made the comment because I used "vagina" instead of a more cruder word. She then tried to be technical, even though common usage especially by -females- as shown in the links, verifies my usage because there is really no polite word of describing the area people would shave there.