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

[carbuncle]

If you are ripping out your teeth because you think they are awful or evil, then yes, I would include it. If you are change your teeth to help you eat, then no.

Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.

It is all about your justifications.

I'm curious, then, about your haircut....

[EricBarbour]

[Vigilant]

Poor Jeffrey Peters,

Someone takes the time to research what he's blathering on about, nails him to the fucking wall and all he can do is yammer on like Rick Perry.

Hilarious.

Jeff,
You are so similar to another Jeff (Merkey) that I begin to wonder if the mere acting of being named Jeff isn't a precursor to mental retardation.

Have you been screened?

[dogbiscuit]

If you are ripping out your teeth because you think they are awful or evil, then yes, I would include it. If you are change your teeth to help you eat, then no.

Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.

It is all about your justifications.

I'm curious, then, about your haircut....

Doesn't seem much point in going to confession. Cross the line once and you're out. Must be a quiet place up there. On that basis, Jeff won't be there either, as he has also committed the sin of vanity in his beliefs. Damn, he'll be joining us.

[lonza leggiera]

....
lonza leggiera

If you read the complete article—which Ottava seems to have been curiously reluctant to provide a direct link to—you will find that your interpretation isn't possible. The original article isn't a "Johns Hopkins report" as Ottava apparently wants to classify it, but an article McHugh wrote for the conservative religious magazine First Things

Except no. I reported the Johns Hopkins stopping sex change operations. I linked to Johns Hopkins too which had an article on their site.

The trouble is you did not supply that link until some three hours and three intervening posts after you had instructed Eric Barbour to "read the Johns Hopkins report". In neither the post where you issued that instruction, nor in any other preceding post of yours in this thread was there anything except this link to the NARTH news item that could conceivably contain any clue as to what the "Johns Hopkins report" you were referring to might be. The NARTH news item was clearly not a Johns Hopkins report by any stretch of the imagination, but it did contain two links to articles which might possibly have qualified. The first was a (broken) link to McHugh's article in First Things, and the second was a link to an article in The New England Journal of Medicine. The latter could conceivably qualify as a "Johns Hopkins report" since its authors belonged to that institution, but it had nothing whatever to say about the termination of sex reassignment surgery at Johns Hopkins, let alone the reasons why it was terminated. I therefore presumed that your "Johns Hopkins report" could only be meant to refer to McHugh's article. I'm glad to hear that I was apparently mistaken, and have accordingly amended my previous post to reflect this. However, I'm blowed if I know how you expected anyone to know what on Earth you were referring to when you didn't provide the appropriate link until some three hours and three posts later.

....

It is funny how you claim I misread yet you blatantly ignored the John Hopkins piece. ...

No I didn't ignore it at all. In fact, I specifically wrote:

You're apparently right, however, that Ottava has misread something into these articles which neither of them say. In neither of them can I find any justification for Ottava's assertion that "Johns Hopkins stopped sex changes because they determined that it was a mental disease" .... [emphasis added]

The "articles" (plural) being referred to here are McHugh's First Things article, and the the one in Hopkins Medical News which you are accusing me of having "blatantly ignored".

I do love how you say that McHugh is informed my religion (as if it was a bad thing) by using examples after he made the changes at Johns Hopkins. ...

Glad you liked it, but I'm afraid you seem to have misunderstood what I wrote (although I have to admit I'm having some trouble working out precisely what the above-quoted sentence means). I had no intention of making any comment whatsoever about your religious beliefs. When I wrote:

There are couple of interesting items available on-line which indicate that McHugh's religious convictions might have had more influence on some of his supposedly scientific conclusions than Ottava is willing to admit.

the "his supposedly scientific conclusions" in that sentence was intended (pretty clearly I thought) to refer to McHugh's scientific conclusions, not yours. I'm guessing you might have been confused by my gratuitous speculation here about what you might be willing to admit about how much McHugh's scientific conclusions might have been influenced by his religious convictions. This was definitely out of line, and I apogise for having made it.

[Ottava]

If you are ripping out your teeth because you think they are awful or evil, then yes, I would include it. If you are change your teeth to help you eat, then no.

Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.

It is all about your justifications.

I'm curious, then, about your haircut....

Doesn't seem much point in going to confession. Cross the line once and you're out.

No one has said that. I said it is about mindset. If your mindset changes, you seek forgiveness, etc., then there is no problem.

If you are destroying your body because you hate yourself, then that is a mindset that probably wont ever change.




Carbuncle

I'm curious, then, about your haircut....

My haircut is for utilitarian reasons. Most are. Monks would shave part of their head to defy vanity.

Now, if you are wasting thousands of dollars on rogain or other things, then that is a problem.




Ionza Leggiera

The trouble is you did not supply that link until some three hours and three intervening posts after you had instructed Eric Barbour to "read the Johns Hopkins report".

Bull.

It doesn't matter when I supplied the link, you responded far, far after and you should have referred it especially when you noticed things after the initial post.

Instead, you were making up things and I caught you in a lie. Now bug off.

[Vigilant]

It doesn't matter when I supplied the link, you responded far, far after and you should have referred it especially when you noticed things after the initial post.

Instead, you were making up things and I caught you in a lie. Now bug off.

Translation to Ottovan provided as a free service, "I am losing this argument. I no longer wish to participate."

[powercorrupts]

Scanning Abd through my fingers continuing to advocate for Poetlister I'm beginning to wonder if he doesn't see women as naturally deceptive. Clearly, when a man impersonates a woman (photo's and emails of random women included) he can deceive, mislead, back-stab and generally wind-up whoever he wants. After all, that's what women do.