Transhumanism And The Posthuman World

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Transhumanism And The Posthuman World

Post by Thinkforyourself on Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:07 pm

Posted by rickscabrousdotcom on 10/10/2015

Let's explore the terrifying future of our humanity if left to the ruling psychopaths who wish not only to control our minds and behavior but also our genes and their expression. 






Just saw this and it inspired this thread. DARPA wants to record our biomarkers, then diagnose and treat our ailments through "precise and intelligent modulation of nerve-organ circuits." 

If the NWO gets their way, I imagine this will eventually become mandatory--making an RFID chip look like child's play. Recent tests on both cockroaches and mice show that neural implants can not only influence but can control decision making. Though, it will all be to make us happier, right? It has been shown that too many choices increases most individual's levels of stress and dissatisfaction; so then I guess what's left of the nonthinking, uber-compliant cyborg herd will live their extended live in bliss. Am I just paranoid that the AI military wing of the most corrupt, ruthless, soulless people in the world want to sell us this technology first as a breakthrough in medicine...? I think not. This should terrify everyone, because it means the absolute end of freewill, and that's their goal. 

Here's six hours of Michael Tsarion's work on the subject in one vid. A lot to chew on but definitely worth your time! 





Last edited by Thinkforyourself on Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:10 pm; edited 1 time in total

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2079
Points : 5552
Reputation : 2777
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 26
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Transhumanism And The Posthuman World

Post by Thinkforyourself on Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:08 pm

Posted by Admin on 10/10/2015

Regarding "transgenderism," if you are born with a male body, male genetics, and a male anatomy, you are a male. You are not "a woman in a man's body," and if you adamantly think that, you are wrong. If I stopped moving, stopped eating and breathing because I claimed to be "a tree in a man's body," everyone would know I was wrong and insane. Likewise, if you surgically chop your dick off and claim to now be "a woman," you are not. You are simply an insane man with a mutilated penis. They call it a "sex change" operation to further delude these deluded people, but regardless of how many "sex change" operations you undergo, you will never and can never "change your sex." The gender you are born is the gender you are.

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2079
Points : 5552
Reputation : 2777
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 26
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Transhumanism And The Posthuman World

Post by Thinkforyourself on Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:10 pm

Posted by lizardking on 10/11/2015

The Plan To Replace Existing Humans With ”Transhuman” Hybrids

Transhumanists believe that the time has come for humans to take control of their own evolution. Many of them are fully convinced that we can use emerging technologies to “fix” the flaws in the human race and ultimately eradicate sickness, disease, poverty and war.

So would you like to have the eyesight of an eagle? Would you like to download an entire library of information directly into your brain in just minutes? Would you like to rid your family line of all genetic diseases? Would you like to extend your lifespan to 500 years or even longer?

Transhumanists promise that all of these things will soon be possible, if we are willing to embrace a new way of doing things. They foresee a future in which we will all have lots of little nanobots running around inside of us, in which we are all connected directly to the Internet, and in which we have all been genetically modified to at least some degree. In fact, one prominent transhumanist recently stated that he believes that “eventually every human will be designed on a computer.” In the end, the goal is to produce a vastly improved version of the human race which will usher in a golden new age for the planet. But as we merge ourselves with animals, machines and weird new technologies that scientists cook up, at what point do we cease to be human?

And when I say “weird new technologies”, I am not overstating things in the least. Just consider what one transhumanist says that they have planned for us

As with all radical social movements, there is bound to be resistance. After all, transhumanists are interested in some pretty bizarre things: mind uploading, living indefinitely through life extension science, biohacking themselves to install cyborg body parts, and creating artificial general intelligence. Each of these areas of research will radically change the lives of people—and some, such as cyborg body parts, are already doing so.

Once upon a time, the only people that talked about “cyborgs” were science fiction geeks.

But today, many transhumanists speak of us becoming “cyborgs” as if it was some sort of foregone conclusion. It is almost as if they are the Borg, and they are telling us that there is no choice but to assimilate.

And this assimilation is already happening to a certain degree. If the idea of humanity “merging with machines” sounds bizarre to you, just check out the following excerpt from a recent Vice article

Next up are brain implants, tiny computer chips inserted surgically directly into the brain itself. So far, they’ve been used mainly to help treat patients suffering from Parkinson’s disease and other neurological conditions such as Alzheimer’s and epilepsy. 

But some scientists are now tinkering with brain implants that enable more physical pursuits, from controlling people’s prosthetic limbs to ​restoring movement in paralyzed rats. Scientists say that the capabilities of brain implants are only in their infancy, and some of them envision a near-future where brain implants can even be installed in healthy people to connect them directly to the internet and improve memory a la Black Mirror. The US military agency DARPA is already building such memory chips, and wants to develop implants that could be installed throughout a soldier’s nervous system to provide advanced, on-the-spot healing of conditions from mental illness to arthritis.


Of course most of those developing these new technologies believe that they are doing something wonderful for humanity.

And in many cases they are.

But at what point do we enter a danger zone?

In a previous article, I noted that one recent survey discovered that approximately one-fourth of all professionals in the 18- to 50-year-old age bracket would like to connect their brains directly to the Internet.

I don’t know about you, but that is something that I will never be doing.

Meanwhile, scientists continue to push the envelope when it comes to merging humans with animals.

Most people don’t realize this, but today we are creating genetically modified cattle with human DNA, we are growing human kidneys in rats, and we are experimenting on human-mouse hybrids with freakishly large brains.

Once again, those involved in this kind of research believe that they are finding “cures for diseases” or that they are working to make life better for all of us somehow.

But when we combine animals and humans, what exactly are we creating?

Are they animals?

Are they humans?

And where do we draw the line? Will we someday have creatures that are 50 percent human and 50 percent animal walking around our cities?

For much, much more on this, please see my previous article entitled “The Era Of Chimeras: Scientists Fearlessly Create Bizarre Human/Animal Hybrids“.

Another area that transhumanists are extremely excited about is the ability to use technology to genetically edit our children.

At Harvard, researchers now believe that it will soon be possible to completely remove genetic diseases from our family lines

As I listened to Yang, I waited for a chance to ask my real questions: Can any of this be done to human beings? Can we improve the human gene pool? The position of much of mainstream science has been that such meddling would be unsafe, irresponsible, and even impossible. But Yang didn’t hesitate. Yes, of course, she said. In fact, the Harvard laboratory had a project to determine how it could be achieved. She flipped open her laptop to a PowerPoint slide titled “Germline Editing Meeting.” 

Here it was: a technical proposal to alter human heredity. 

“Germ line” is biologists’ jargon for the egg and sperm, which combine to form an embryo. By editing the DNA of these cells or the embryo itself, it could be possible to correct disease genes and to pass those genetic fixes on to future generations. Such a technology could be used to rid families of scourges like cystic fibrosis. It might also be possible to install genes that offer lifelong protection against infection, Alzheimer’s, and, Yang told me, maybe the effects of aging.


And “maybe the effects of aging”?

Life extension technologies are something that many transhumanists are particularly obsessed with.

For example, Bloomberg recently did an interview with one technology executive that believes that it will eventually be possible for all of us to live to the ripe old age of 500…

“If you ask me today, is it possible to live to be 500? The answer is yes,” Bill Maris says one January afternoon in Mountain View, California. The president and managing partner of Google Ventures just turned 40, but he looks more like a 19-year-old college kid at midterm. He’s wearing sneakers and a gray denim shirt over a T-shirt; it looks like he hasn’t shaved in a few days.

Maris is using his position to pour millions upon millions of dollars into companies that are developing radical life extension technologies that they hope will enable people to live for hundreds of years. Maris just hopes that he can stay alive long enough to take advantage of them…

“We actually have the tools in the life sciences to achieve anything that you have the audacity to envision,” he says. “I just hope to live long enough not to die.”

And of course Maris is far from alone. The most famous transhumanist on the entire planet, Ray Kurzweil, is absolutely obsessed with immortality. He takes 150 vitamin supplements a day in a desperate attempt to extend his life until more advanced life extension technologies can be developed. In chapter 7 of The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, he expressed his thoughts on where the future is taking all of us…

Evolution moves toward greater complexity, greater elegance, greater knowledge, greater intelligence, greater beauty, greater creativity, and greater levels of subtle attributes such as love. In every monotheistic tradition God is likewise described as all of these qualities, only without any limitation: infinite knowledge, infinite intelligence, infinite beauty, infinite creativity, infinite love, and so on. Of course, even the accelerating growth of evolution never achieves an infinite level, but as it explodes exponentially it certainly moves rapidly in that direction. So evolution moves inexorably toward this conception of God, although never quite reaching this ideal. We can regard, therefore, the freeing of our thinking from the severe limitations of its biological form to be an essentially spiritual undertaking.

But what about those of us that do not want to be a part of this future?

Is there any room for people that do not want to be genetically modified and that do not want to merge with animals and technology?

Some transhumanists believe that those that do not adapt will eventually be wiped out because they simply will not be able to survive in the new world that is emerging.

Other transhumanists believe that in order to truly have a world where there is no sickness, disease, poverty and war, all of the “inferior” humans will ultimately have to be “removed”.

But what almost all of them agree on is the fact that the future belongs to them and not to us.

So what do you think? Is humanity on the verge of a great leap forward, or are these new technologies actually opening up a door for great darkness? Feel free to tell us what you think by posting a comment below…




~~~~~~~

North Carolina State University researchers control cyborg cockroaches with Microsoft Kinect

Researchers at North Carolina State University have not only demonstrated the ability to remotely control cockroaches with an electronic implant but have now shown the ability to control the roaches with a Microsoft Kinect.

“Our goal is to be able to guide these roaches as efficiently as possible, and our work with Kinect is helping us do that,” said Dr. Alper Bozkurt of NCSU in a news release today.

I guess the Kinect isn’t only good for playing video games after all.

The Kinect is also being used by the researchers to collect data and detect how effectively the remotely controlled cockroaches respond to the electrical impulses that are used as the control system.

The end goal, according to the researchers, is to use the cockroaches to “explore and map disaster sites.”





Currently, the insects are following a simple path via autopilot thanks to the Kinect placed overhead.

The technology that allows the Kinect to scan a room could be leveraged in order to help roaches map the interior of a collapsed building, according to the researchers.

“Roaches could also be equipped with microphones to detect survivors, or even small speakers to allow two-way communication between remote rescue crews and people who are trapped,” LiveScience reports.

“We want to build on this program, incorporating mapping and radio frequency techniques that will allow us to use a small group of cockroaches to explore and map disaster sites,” Bozkurt said.

“The autopilot program would control the roaches, sending them on the most efficient routes to provide rescuers with a comprehensive view of the situation,” he added.

Bozkurt and his NCSU team will present their research on July 4 at the annual IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society conference in Osaka, Japan.

Surprisingly, the researchers at North Carolina State University aren’t the only ones looking into creating cockroaches enhanced by technology.

Case Western Reserve University researchers demonstrated the ability to implant biofuel cells into insects which convert sugar into electricity, which is then used power sensors on the insect or manipulate the creature remotely.

There is even a Kickstarter project called RoboRoach aimed at creating cockroaches which could be remote controlled via smartphone.

~~~~~~

Obviously a lot of this is most likely fear porn, but still worth posting.

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2079
Points : 5552
Reputation : 2777
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 26
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Transhumanism And The Posthuman World

Post by Thinkforyourself on Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:12 pm

Posted by lizardking on 10/11/2015

Transgenderism does not exist. Gender itself is a social construct that varies from culture to culture, some having up to four. It has been proven that the sex hormones of transgender youth matches the sex they were assigned at birth. “We’ve now put to rest the residual belief that transgender experience is a result of a hormone imbalance,” says Dr. Johanna Olson, medical director of the Center for Transyouth Health at the hospital. “It’s not.” 

You cannot put on a dress and makeup and start identifying as a woman, because womanhood is not a set of prescribed interests or a personality type, it is simply the reality and experience of having female biology. Biological sex is not an identity, it is a state of being.

Transgender people either;



  • suffer from something called body dysphoria which also effects people in terms of eating disorders
  • classify as autogynephilic, "a man's paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman"
  • mistakenly believe that they need to transition into a member of the opposite sex because they do not identify with stereotypical gender expectations
  • are encouraged by attention seeking parents and/or doctors
  • grow up to be gay

A 2013 WHO report states that 80% of children diagnosed with GID do not continue to have GID of adolescence or adulthood. Another report carried out by GATE stated 'gender variance in childhood does not require any medical interventions such as hormone therapy or surgical procedures'. From the Report of the APA Task Force on Treatment of Gender Identity Disorder, "The outcome of childhood GID without treatment is that only a minority will identify as transsexual or transgender in adulthood (a phenomenon termed persistence), while the majority will become comfortable with their natal gender over time". 

The Transgender Con? Many “Transgender” People Regret Switch 
www.thenewamerican.com/

Writing about how the scope of “transgender” de-transition desires is hidden, Morabito writes, “The transgender lobby actively polices and suppresses discussion of sex-change regret, and claims it’s rare (no more than “5 percent.”) However, if you do decide to ‘de-transition’ to once again identify with the sex in your DNA, talking about it will get you targeted by trans activists.” 

Some de-transitioning “transsexuals” are speaking out, however. Starting with Finch, he told The Guardian in 2004:

Transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists.… You fundamentally can’t change sex.... The surgery doesn’t alter you genetically. It’s genital mutilation. My "vagina" was just the bag of my scrotum. It’s like a pouch, like a kangaroo. What’s scary is you still feel like you have a penis when you’re sexually aroused. It’s like phantom limb syndrome. It’s all been a terrible misadventure. I’ve never been a woman, just Alan.


In fact, there even is a website entitled SexChangeRegret.com, which features the stories of people such as Finch. Another such individual is Matthew Attonley, 30, who underwent genital mutilation seven years ago and had since been living under the name “Chelsea” Attonley, but now wants to de-transition. 

Are these people outliers, as “transgender” activists would say? Not according to research. As The Guardian also wrote in 2004:

There is no conclusive evidence that sex change operations improve the lives of transsexuals, with many people remaining severely distressed and even suicidal after the operation, according to a medical review conducted exclusively for Guardian Weekend tomorrow.

The review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham's aggressive research intelligence facility (Arif) found no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective.

… Chris Hyde, the director of Arif, said: … "There's still a large number of people who have the surgery but remain traumatized — often to the point of committing suicide."


Morabito cites as a good example of this late Los Angeles Times sportswriter Mike Penner. After announcing in 2007 that he would return from a vacation as “Christine Daniels” and then becoming a “transgender” activist, he decided to de-transition the next year and reclaim his old Penner byline. But he could not reclaim his sanity.

He committed suicide in 2009.

Interestingly, Morabito reports that all “blog posts and bylines by Christine Daniels were mysteriously scrubbed from the LA Times website,” and his funeral “was strictly private to keep out media.” But even in death, he wasn’t allowed to leave the “transgender” fold.


An even sadder story is that of Belgian Nancy Verhelst, who was distraught after genital-mutilation surgery, saying she felt more a “monster” than a man. But her government had a solution for her cheaper and quicker than de-transitioning. At her request, they murdered her under Belgium’s euthanasia laws.

“Gender dysphoria” (GD), we're told, is a condition in which a person’s body doesn’t match his true “gender.” But there is no blood test for it. There is no identifiable genetic marker. There is no medical exam at all. Rather, the diagnosis is made based on, as PsychCentral.com puts it, “strong and persistent cross-gender identification”; in other words, strong and persistent feelings that you actually are a member of the opposite sex.

Yet such a diagnostic standard would constitute malpractice in any other branch of medicine. Could you imagine a patient telling a cardiologist that he has a strong and persistent feeling he has heart disease and the doctor, on that basis alone, performing bypass surgery? The point is that whatever one thinks of the soundness of the “gender dysphoria” diagnosis, the basis on which it’s made certainly is not medically sound.

No one has to tell this to Alan Finch. He said in no uncertain terms, “The analogy I use about giving surgery to someone desperate to change sex is it’s a bit like offering liposuction to an anorexic.” The phenomenon also could be analogized to “Body Integrity Identity Disorder” (BIID), the sense that a body part — an arm, leg, etc. — doesn’t belong on your body. As with GD sufferers, those with BIID have strong and persistent feelings that their body doesn’t match their mind, and they likewise desire surgical alteration (amputation). Yet while virtually everyone reflexively assumes that BIID is a psychological problem and that the solution is to change the mind, it’s politically correct with GD to insist that the remedy is to change the body. Is this double standard really driven by medical imperatives — or political ones?


Yet “transgender” dogma is so unquestioned today that even very young children are allowed to choose their “gender.” An example is six-year-old girl Ryland, who Parent 24’s Tamar Cloete bills as the “world's youngest transgender child.” Calling her parents’ decision to allow her to live as a boy “brave,” Cloete writes that this “may be a phase or it might not, but that is all up to the kid to decide.”

Cloete says that Ryland’s parents “learnt about a higher suicide/suicide attempt rate among transgender people” and don’t want to lose their child, indicating they’re unaware that “the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people,” as CNS News reported in August. They also are unlikely to know that 70 to 80 percent of children with their daughter’s feelings spontaneously lose them.

Repost from the Big Pharma thread:

Pink blankets and salivating doctors: A look at the transgender children phenomenon

Pay attention to stories about children who are transgender. Without fail, they are filled to the brim with gender stereotypes. Kids are being diagnosed for playing with the “wrong” toys and liking the “wrong” things. In many of the stories, it is clear that either the parents, or the community, has put great importance in dividing things and interests into “for boys” and “for girls”. Children have a limited understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl. For example, it’s not uncommon for children to think that the length of someone’s hair is what makes them a boy or a girl. If a child who likes dolls or long hair is told “those things are for girls”, their response might very well be “okay, then I want to be a girl”.

In this story, the mother of a boy tells us how “Instead of toy soldiers and trains, he asks for princesses and dolls for Christmas and birthdays”.

The mother of the child in this story talks about how her child said “I boy” as a toddler, and “rejected anything frilly or stereotypically girly”. The child themselves says the following:

Evan Singleton has now been living five years as a boy but remembers the pain of pretending.

“All the girls were doing Barbie dolls and nail polish, and I just wasn’t one of them,” he said. “All the boys were doing skateboards and helmets, and I wanted to do that stuff. I never felt right in that body.”


Why this kid thinks that you need a certain type of body to be interested in skateboards is not elaborated on.

The father of this male child who likes to wear dresses, calls the child “gender-fluid”. The father is quoted:

‘In truth, the realization that one of my children identifies with a gender that is opposite the sex she was born with was, and remains, absolutely unremarkable,’

While the father means well, the implications of this statement are not as progressive as it would seem. Liking “sparkly shoes and dresses” like this child did is somehow “opposite” from being a boy?

This male child expressed desire to “marry a prince”, and dressed up “as a girl” at home. The parents told the child “[y]ou can go home and live as Danielle, or you can go home and live as Daniel”. Going home and living as Daniel AND wearing dresses was apparently not an option.

The parents of this male child tell this story:

At 5 months, she took a pink blanket meant for her sister Lily. Later, she showed little interest in toy cars and boy clothes with pictures of sports, monsters and dinosaurs on them. She refused to leave the house if she had to wear boy clothes. After her parents accepted her identity, they said, Coy come out of her shell.

A five month old baby reaches for a pink blanket. An infant, who does not even grasp that objects exist even when they are out of sight, is capable of understanding that they are the “wrong” sex, capable of understanding that pink is a color more often worn by girls, and reaches for a blanket to somehow communicate all of this. And when the parents lets the child wear the same thing that the other children in the family wear, the child seems happier. Very mysterious.

Another article about the same child tells a story about a boy whose parents had strict rules for clothes and hair styles:

At three and a half, Coy turned sullen. He’d spend days on the couch, wrapped in the fuzzy pink security blanket he’d commandeered from his sister. He didn’t want to play, or talk. He especially didn’t want to go outside; any enthusiasm Coy might show for a trip to the playground would disappear as soon as he’d catch sight of the boys’ clothes he was expected to swap for the dresses he wore at home. The only thing Coy hated more was the prospect of getting a haircut; the last time his parents had suggested it, Coy had taken to his bed for days, listless and tearful.

And:

Little by little, Kathryn began letting Coy leave home dressed in a pink shirt – anything to pry him from the house with minimal fuss – and soon enough, with pink sneakers to match. Jeremy drew the line at letting Coy wear colorful hair clips outdoors. “I was trying to avoid a negative experience,” recalls Jeremy, who is even-tempered and stocky with rimless glasses. “Someone going, ‘Why are you dressing your son up as a girl?'”

“Letting” Coy wear a pink shirt – as if the color of a shirt is so important that you literally have to be a girl to be allowed it.

This story tells us that “the number of primary school children referred to the NHS with transgender feelings has quadrupled in five years”. What happens to these kids? According to the guidelines of World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), found here, in most children with “gender dysphoria”, the feelings will disappear before they become adults.

Gender dysphoria during childhood does not inevitably continue into adulthood.V Rather, in follow-up studies of prepubertal children (mainly boys) who were referred to clinics for assessment of gender dysphoria, the dysphoria persisted into adulthood for only 6–23% of children (Cohen-Kettenis, 2001; Zucker & Bradley, 1995). Boys in these studies were more likely to identify as gay in adulthood than as transgender (Green, 1987; Money & Russo, 1979; Zucker & Bradley, 1995; Zuger, 1984). Newer studies, also including girls, showed a 12–27% persistence rate of gender dysphoria into adulthood (Drummond, Bradley, Peterson-Badali, & Zucker, 2008; Wallien & Cohen-Kettenis, 2008).

What treatments are these kids typically offered? Many of them are being given “puberty blockers”, drugs that prevent the body from going through puberty, putting maturation on hold. This is supposed to give them time to think, and decide whether they want to live as the sex they were born, or go on to take the hormones of the opposite sex. But how are these kids, many of whom have an extremely simplified and immature understanding of sex and gender, supposed to take this choice when their brains are being prevented from maturing? Lupron, the main drug being used for this purpose, can lead to permanent loss of bone density. It also has depression as a common side effect.

Doctors are now performing sex change operations on minor children:

Dr. Christine McGinn estimated that she had done more than 30 operations on children under 18, about half of them vaginoplasties for biological boys becoming girls, and the other half double mastectomies for girls becoming boys.

In the same article, Dr. Norman Spack of Boston Children’s Hospital, says that he was “salivating” at the prospect of giving puberty suppressing medications to pre-pubescent children:

Dr. Spack recalled being at a meeting in Europe about 15 years ago, when he learned that the Dutch were using puberty blockers in transgender early adolescents.

“I was salivating,” he recalled. “I said we had to do this.”


Children, who cannot legally get tattoos even with parental consent, are being sterilized, for a condition that seems to rely heavily on sexist stereotypes, by doctors who salivate at the thought of giving this treatment.




"We all know gender is a social construct and guidelines differ in cultures, eras, etc. So the little boy who wanted a pink blanket would be quite rightly gendered male say about 70 years ago, as pink was considered a much stronger color than blue, pink was manly and appropriate for strong male sexed people. Baby boys also wore dresses in frilly lace, didn’t have their hair cut as toddlers and wore mary janes?

How intuitive of a 2 year old to instinctively know that pink is now for girls, he must be on a second life with the knowledge that gender rules CHANGE. What a brilliant little boy."



The above is Franklin D Roosevelt as a baby boy.

False positives: How many 12-year-olds is it acceptable to mistakenly sterilize?

As anyone who has spent time reading my blog well knows, I am highly skeptical of the scant existing research which purports to show a binary, static “male” or “female” brain. To my knowledge, there is no research in existence that proves a gendered brain is present from birth; and that that gendered brain is unchanging and persistent throughout the lifespan, regardless of lived experience. 

But for the purposes of this post, and despite this dearth of evidence for “brain sex,” let’s just assume that the strident proponents of childhood transition are correct: there is an immutable male and female brain, set in stone and impervious to change via life experience. (Of course, this flies in the face of the settled science of neuroplasticity—but we’ll ignore that for the time being). Further, we will assume that, for a small percentage of people who experience gender dysphoria in childhood (no more than about 20%, the number generally agreed upon even by the most zealous transgender advocates), this gendered brain is mistakenly lodged in the skull of the “wrong” body. It follows that there is such a thing as a truly transgender child. These kids really do have a mismatch between brain and body, and the most humane and medically responsible thing that can be done for them is to let them “transition” to the opposite sex, post haste. As young as possible.

Case closed? Not quite.

First, let’s be very clear what we are talking about here, in terms of pediatric medical treatment. The current protocol for children identified as transgender is puberty blockers (GnRH agonists) administered at the onset of puberty (Tanner Stage 2). The child is then monitored for several years, and if they continue to believe they are the opposite sex, cross-sex hormones are started, so as to prevent natural puberty occurring in the “wrong” gender (i.e., the biological sex of the child). In the case of a natal girl with two x chromosomes and a biologically female body, she will not go through maturation of the ovaries, menstruation, breast development, nor other primary and secondary sexual characteristics. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone for a girl) will cause her to develop more in line with the sexual characteristics of a male: a slightly enlarged clitoris, increased body and facial hair, and an enlarged larynx resulting in a deepened voice. She will thus avoid the assumed trauma of going through the “wrong” puberty, with shrinkage and no maturation of her internal reproductive organs. She will appear more or less as the gender (male) she (now he) identifies with. These changes are permanent. They cannot be undone.

And one of these permanent changes is of special import: In nearly every case, this treatment protocol will result in irreversible sterility. This child will never be able to produce their own biological children. However, the gender experts believe this outcome is worth it and justified for “truly transgender” children. The puberty-blocked girl (who still has the brain of a prepubescent child, not that of a maturing adolescent) agrees that transitioning is far more important than future fertility, and the adults in charge make the monumental decision to destroy the child’s future reproductive capacity.

Fair enough? Maybe, if we continue to assume that there is such a thing as a “truly transgender” person with an immutable, innate gender identity; if we treat this condition as a sort of birth defect that will never change, even later in life; and that the young person in question will be forever miserable to the point of suicide if they do not chemically and surgically alter and thereby sterilize their hated and mistaken body.

The problem is, these gender experts—from the most certain to the most cautious—agree that they don’t reliably know which of these children really will be transgender for life. And what that means is there are going to be some false positives: kids who will mistakenly go through extreme medical and pharmaceutical treatments—not just in childhood and adolescence, but for life, since hormones must constantly be administered to suppress the “wrong” body from reverting to the characteristics normal for the genetic makeup of the person. Some number of these kids will have been misdiagnosed. It’s inevitable. Even the most careful clinician, who believes they have narrowed their treatment cohort to only those children who are most “persistent, consistent, and insistent” cannot prevent this, because the research simply isn’t there to tell clinicians who will or won’t grow up to be truly transgendered.

Let’s agree, for the sake of discussion, that these gender clinicians—and the parents who are authorizing the treatments—truly believe they are doing the right thing. They believe that these puberty-blocked children who continue to insist they are the opposite sex are correct. It’s worth repeating that these children’s brains, and thus their critical thinking, reasoning, judgment, and other aspects of executive function, have also not been allowed to mature; because puberty is about brain development, not just secondary sex characteristics. No matter how careful these clinicians and parents are, they are still going to catch a few wrong fish in the transition net they are casting.

Does this matter? How many misdiagnosed kids are acceptable? How many sterilized children (many of whom might otherwise have grown up to be gay or lesbian adults) are ok? 100? 50? 20? 2? 1?

Put it this way: If there were any other treatment, for any other disorder, which resulted in sterilizing prepubescent children, and which caused irreversible, permanent changes with as-yet-unknown side effects, you’d better believe that treatment would be limited to only the most extreme cases—and even then, only after extensive clinical trials.

We don’t remove organs and body parts, we don’t give children powerful drugs for any other disorder based on what currently amounts to clinical guesswork. We don’t remove organs or administer chemotherapy because someone might go on to develop cancer later. We don’t prescribe poorly studied, off-label drugs or perform surgery on children to relieve them from psychological distress in any other case apart from “gender dysphoria.” Surgeries and lifelong drug treatment are rightly seen as last resorts, not the first line of treatment for a problem that might turn out to be transient.

The media and trans activists are constantly telling us how important it is to transition children—as young as possible. But what about the kids who might be wrongly diagnosed? Why does no one talk about them? Why is their future happiness not a subject for media exploration? What about the suicide rates of adults who realize with horror later in life that they actually don’t want hormones and surgeries? That it was all a big mistake? That they don’t want to have to routinely stretch or pump up their artificially constructed sexual organs to keep them in some sort of working order? What about the adults who will mourn the children they were never allowed to bear because of decisions made by parents and doctors decades earlier?


If we care about all children, including the 80-95% of kids who in fact are only “gender nonconforming”; if only a small number of “truly transgender” children exist, why not allow those few to transition as adults, when they have the cognitive wherewithal to decide for themselves? Why not simply help them cope with their feelings of dysphoria in childhood, instead of stunting their intellectual, emotional, and physical development, and risking the huge mistake of proactively sterilizing even one non-transgender child for life?

Would it really be so terrible for parents to simply let their kids wear what they want, pursue activities they want, heck, “identify” as they want, without the medical piece?

It only takes one person to file a malpractice lawsuit. There is no minimum number for a class action suit, but given the increasing numbers of children undergoing these early transition protocols, the typical 20-50 plaintiffs is not an unlikely number for future adults willing to litigate; a fraction of the people who will wish their parents and doctors had simply allowed them to dress and behave as they wished as children, without making permanent decisions that could not be undone.

So I ask the gender specialists, the parents, the activists, the journalists celebrating the medical transition of children: Granting you for the moment that your fervent belief in immutable, innate gender corresponds to reality, what concern do you have for the children who will be wrongly sterilized, drugged, and surgically altered? Do those children matter to you at all?

Is it acceptable to wrongly sterilize even ONE child?

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2079
Points : 5552
Reputation : 2777
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 26
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Transhumanism And The Posthuman World

Post by susie on Sun Apr 10, 2016 7:28 pm


Rapture of the Future: The Omega Point
avatar
susie

Posts : 80
Points : 862
Reputation : 264
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 57
Location : NOLA

View user profile Http://www.angelfire.com/ks/shotgunsusie/4love.html

Back to top Go down

Re: Transhumanism And The Posthuman World

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum