No, he claims to identify as a girl and has taken on a girl's name while the news reporters suck his **** and refer to him as a her.
More properly, it is a neurological disorder.
It is a neurological condition in which the physiological responses tied to attraction are triggered by individuals of the same ***. At the very least, it would be considered a "condition" in medical terminology. Whether or not it is a disorder is whether or not it interferes with the way in which an individual wishes to live his or her life.
It is a neurological condition. Since few people take issue with that condition, it is not considered undesired or a disorder. Since it is also conducive to reproducing and survival as a species, it is generally considered 'the way things should be.'
Again, this is a neurological condition. An adaptive one, at that.
For example, when I was much younger, I was quite the fan of the petite female figure. However, as I got older and after being smitten with a girl who had a more full figure - I realized I was drawn more toward hips and thighs. While there is a natural tendency to prefer the 'hourglass' - the fact that I placed emphasis on it was purely a result of my relationship with that girl at the time.
This is perfectly within the realm of scientific research into the function of neural networks and how various preferences are formed.
Similarly, preference for a sports team or another is usually a product of both environmental factors that are beyond individual control, as well as various cognitive functions that feed back into our subconscious routines.
An easy example of this at play is how people can go years without seeing "the arrow in the FedEx logo" and then, after it is mentioned to them, they see it on instinct every time afterward.
Similarly, sexual preference develops from the self-evolution of a neurological network. Most people who are homosexual, transgender, etc, have a history of sexual abuse, and thus the circumstances of their neurological development is considerably atypical and results in atypical development of that neurological system.
People have been killed over the outcome of sports games. Particularly in the sport Americans call "Soccer." Again, for most people, it isn't what we would classify as a disorder. However, there are some who take it to the level of some disorder or another.
Spare for the fact that it's almost a guarantee that people of the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ1234569 crowd were victims of abuse at some point in their life. The rate of incidence among those of 'queer' identifications is orders of magnitude greater than the rest of the population.
As are rates of depression and suicide, as well as numerous other psychological conditions - OCD, Bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, etc.
No, they have a Y chromosome. They are by objective measure of biology, male.
No, they do not. The vaginal muscles cannot be constructed in surgery, much less the neurological systems that tie into the woman's organs. Women differ, further, in how their anatomy is neurologically linked. Without getting into details - touching certain places on men produces a radically different response than it does when a woman is touched in the corresponding area (usually a lack of response in the case of men by compared to women).
Surgery is also incapable of recreating the womb or the ovaries that would be necessary to facilitate a proper estrogen cycle and the menstruation that progressives seem so fascinated about, lately (you know - the whole desire to wipe period blood on people, the treatment of the runner who bled all over herself as some kind of international heroine and the whole thing where women are wearing white pants while on their periods to let it all bleed down their legs while talking about what it means to be a woman... I'm sure they're going to be all-aboard with the droves of men chopping off their dicks and claiming to be women with that limp flesh pocket they call a vagina).
And let's not even get into the horrors that would occur if somehow all of the above could be reproduced in some kind of battery of surgical procedures and eggs could be produced by the individual. Some amount of genetic engineering would be required just to produce eggs that could produce living offspring - and then it's hit or miss as to whether or not those would, themselves, be 'viable' offspring (the character, Miranda, in Mass Effect suffers from a condition where she cannot reproduce because her DNA is essentially a copy of her father's DNA made without a Y-chromosome - while not necessarily a known condition, it is an interesting hypothetical scenario that borrows from what little experience we do have in genetic manipulation).
How is it that women think differently from men?
Do I need to reconsider my staffing guidelines at work to make sure I am not placing women or men in jobs where their thought processes are unsuited to the job demands?
Do you want to have your cake to look at, or do you want to eat it? You can't do both.
The individual in question is not female.
I am a male. I have one set of X chromosomes and one set of chromosomes with the Y chromosome appended. The scientific definition of *** is any group within a species that is biologically incapable of producing offspring when mated together. I cannot produce offspring with the individual in question, and is allegedly of the same species. Therefor, the individual is of the same *** as I am - which is male.
In order for this individual to be female, my cells would need to be able to do the prehistoric tango and merge together to form a viable offspring that can, itself, reproduce within the population.
It is theoretically possible for a third *** to develop, and in some species (particularly among plants), there exist several dozen sexes (there is a moss that has over a hundred known sexes). Animals have just usually sided on having two sexes and this has diverged to form two separate anatomies. ***, from a biological standpoint, is far more fundamental than whether or not you have an innie or an outie.
Right.
So I think they have a disorder.
From the progressive hell-hole that is The Atlantic:
You must be registered for see links
" Sitting in a small restaurant near Madison Square Garden, Chris mulled over his past. "I know gay couples in the Bronx who beat the shit out of each other," he said. "The weird thing is, it's like fighting with your brother. You're going at each other, and you're not taking it seriously, and you don't think of it as a problem, it's just the fabric of your relationship. But you don't realize it's a piece of fabric you can cut out."
Raised in a conservative, military family, with a history of sexual abuse running on both sides, Chris said he always felt like the odd one out growing up. "I was raised to tolerate what was dished out," he remembered. "It was just dysfunctional. I grew up with a closeted uncle who died of AIDS and a mother who hit my father, who would then turn around and hit us."
...
In 2013, the CDC released the results of a 2010 study on victimization by sexual orientation, and admitted that “little is known about the national prevalence of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking among lesbian, gay, and bisexual women and men in the United States.” The report found that bisexual women had an overwhelming prevalence of violent partners in their lives: 75 percent had been with a violent partner, as opposed to 46 percent of lesbian women and 43 percent of straight women. For bisexual men, that number was 47 percent. For gay men, it was 40 percent, and 21 percent for straight men.
The most recent statistics available on same-*** intimate partner violence from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, which focuses on LGBT relationships, reported 21 incidents of intimate partner homicides in the LGBT community, the highest ever. Nearly half of them were gay men and, for the second year in a row, the majority of survivors were people of color—62 percent. "
Rates of abuse are very high among the homosexual community.
A girl I know is also in an abusive relationship with another girl. She was raped as a girl and finds it almost impossible to be comfortable with a guy, and has taken comfort in a long-time friend and room mate. The thing is that the two are really not compatible as domestic partners. Neither of them are bad people, per se, but the girl I was closer to being friends with is not especially assertive and is treated as being property (even prey) by the other girl. My presence in the area was enough to trigger a display of dominance from this girl to assert that my friend was, indeed, her property.
The two would, normally, be able to be good friends, so long as their lives are separate. But the two break down into screaming fits and into emotionally manipulative nonsense that is just not healthy.
Of course - it seems easier to deal with than learning to see men in a romantic light, as well.
Her and I got along just fine and she was notably more relaxed around me than when she was around this other girl. She trusted me as a person - but couldn't actually see men in a sexual way. In many cases - I don't think she can really see people in a sexual way, though our conversations never really drifted into that territory.
You must be registered for see links
There's more stuff there worthy of this conversation than I can properly or reasonably quote, it deserves a visit:
" The authors in Unequal Opportunity are reluctant to say that childhood sexual abuse is one of the factors that leads to or contributes to the development of homosexuality, but they do speculate,
The fact that most childhood abusers of MSM were males suggests either an etiological link between CSA and adult sexual orientation, or the existence of childhood characteristics that are related to adult sexual orientation in men that increase vulnerability, or both.” (23)
And later, they say that these early sexual experiences “can be considered a form of sexual learning, even if that learning is involuntary and the results dysfunctional.” (24) They continue, “Sexual orientation and gender identity can be particularly confusing for men who experienced arousal during the abuse, and MSM who experienced abuse may continue to be aroused by circumstances that mirror the abusive situation. (25)
Dr. Byrd is adamant that there is no “one thing” that “causes” homosexuality. Humans are never as simple as “cause and effect” – we interact with the environment and are impacted by it, but we also make choices and decisions. He instead employs a model in which humans are born male or female, ready to grow into healthy masculinity or femininity, and ready to grow into healthy heterosexual relating.
Different events – and the individual’s responses to those events – might be contributing factors that “derail” the normal developmental process toward heterosexuality:
Sexual abuse contributes to the derailing of biological priming which is the process definition for homosexuality. Boys who are targeted for sexual abuse are NOT targeted because they are gay. They are targeted because they are vulnerable. Gender non-conformity – which is the only characteristic that is predictive for later homosexuality – is often characteristic of these vulnerable boys. (26) "
You must be registered for see links
" But with 17-24 percent of boys being abused by age 18, nearly as many as the 25 percent of girls, there is cause for concern, she said.
Since heterosexuals outnumber the homosexual population about 44 to 1, as a group the incidence of homosexuals molesting children is up to 40 times greater than heterosexuals, she said.
"You're looking at a much higher rate of abuse," said Reisman, a former university research professor who recently completed a study titled, "Crafting Gay Children." "The Department of Justice just released data and the rate of abuse are off the charts."
...
But Reisman points to figures from a 1991 population study by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
It showed that 8 million girls were abused by age 18 by heterosexual men, a ratio of 1 victim to 11 adult men. However, 6-8 million boys were abused by age 18 by 1-2 million adult homosexuals, a ratio of 3-5 victims for every gay adult.
...
However, Reisman also cites a past study by Able to bolster her contention that BSA has reason to fear admitting homosexuals to the scoutmaster ranks. It found that 150 boys are abused by one male homosexual offender, compared to 19.8 girls by heterosexual offenders.
In a study published in 1987 in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Able said homosexuals sexually molest young boys with an incidence five times greater than the molestation of girls. (Calls to Able seeking further comment were not returned.)
"We looked at the leading gay travel guide," Reisman said of her research. "Forty-seven percent of the 139 nations they talked about identified places to find boys. The average heterosexual travel guide is not concerned with finding children."
Crime statistics also pose concerns. Figures released last summer by the Justice Department reveal that adults are not the primary victims of sexual assault, she said.
They showed that 67 percent of all reported *** abuse victims are children and 64 percent of forcible sodomy victims are boys under 12. "
Emphasis, my own.
I would argue that there is substantial evidence for the claim that homosexuality and 'gender non-conforming' represent disorders pertaining to neurology and mentality that can produce significant pathology in affected individuals that can, also, result in an increased risk of participating in abusive and even criminal behavior.
This is not the politically correct line, but this is what is actually supported by scientific medical research.
