[quote]
Brilliant Sheila Jeffreys. Now just give the rest of us 10 -20 years to catch up with what you say, which is bloody obvious. Thank you for your courage in speaking out.

Posted by Edithpr, Tuesday, 18 April 2006
[unquote]

What do they teach in school these days? Something is true if it sounds good to the ears on one agrees with an opinion -- even if the arguments for the idea aren't well reasoned and have logical falacies imbedded within the arguments?

Hail to opinion! Truthiness is much more better that silly old truth!

Right?

Noooooooooooo, that's Wrong. For an argument to be logical, it has to be fact-based, and/or it must be able to be argued without depending on logical falacies. Jefferey's viewpoint may have some merit, but we can't tell if it actually does due to the poorly reasoned arguments of her article. Jefferey's article is just the "truthiness" of personal opinion -- a shabaroon in a three-piece suit.

When is the pro-trans lobby and its parasites going to finally decide what transsexualism is? Even on this forum they can't decide whether it's a 'disorder' or a 'biological condition'. Thank goodness a political scientist is objectively speaking on this issue. Doctors invented the profitable idea in the first place, so they've definitely got a biased opinion, and the pro-trans lobby has vested interests in promoting transsexualism--after all, they'd look pretty silly if it was finally seen to be just a ploy for doctors and others to make lots of money! Mutilation is mutilation, even if it's fashionable. Don't believe the rich sadists who promote it.

If anyone thinks that everyone is either totally male or totally female, then this site could provide some education:

http://www.isna.org/node/670

I have no personal axe to grind. My own sexuality is clear and so is that of my close friends and family [as far as I am aware]. But I don't doubt that some people are mixed or indecisive in this respect and I don't begrudge anyone the right to make their own decisions on this.

When I refer to logical fallacies, I refer to an actual set of propaganda tools that obfuscate critical thinking.

Here are some logic problems with the argument from warexx above:

- "When is the pro-trans lobby and its parasites going to finally decide what transsexualism is? Even on this forum they can't decide whether it's a 'disorder' or a 'biological condition'." Whatever transgender people think transsexualism is perhaps is irrelevant; it's been defined in the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care and DSM-IV.

- "Thank goodness a political scientist is objectively speaking on this issue." An "absolute opinion' statement worded as an 'absolute fact.' We have a 'weasel word'-ed opinion that Jefferies is speaking objectively without any showing that Jefferies is speaking objectivity when evidence has been presented in this forum to the contrary.

- "Doctors invented the profitable idea in the first place, so they've definitely got a biased opinion, and the pro-trans lobby has vested interests in promoting transsexualism-- " From a historical perspective, this should be a factually verifiable statement. Again, no supporting references. Again, 'absolute opinion' has been presented as 'absolute fact' ('is' derivative 'have' in 'they've').

- "--after all, they'd look pretty silly if it was finally seen to be just a ploy for doctors and others to make lots of money!" Inversed 'Appeals to Motive' fallacy. Warexx is using sneer words to impinge the motivations of all doctors who disagree with him/her -- doctors and others are greedy. Again, no offer of proof.

- "Mutilation is mutilation, even if it's fashionable. Don't believe the rich sadists who promote it." The logical fallacy of "repetition' is the technique of bombarding a target audience over and over with a simple message until resistance to the message fades away. But, just because we say something over and over again doesn't make it true.

Warexx's comment above reads -- in an overall sense --as an ad hominem attack. It would be better if he or she put a reasoned argument out for discussion instead of the arguments of directly attacking the people who disagree with him/her.

From the first few paragraphs the reader gets the impression that the only girls who self-mutilate are ones who have been sexually abused. There is only one line alluding to the fact that it could also be to do with stress and mental health issues.

The only reason, however, given for self-mutilation is girls' response to sexual abuse by men. Let me say that self-mutilation happens on an individual basis and there is no one reason why girls self-mutilate. Indeed it may have nothing to do with men at all - seeing the issue from this point of view simply puts men in a more powerful and influential light, as if girls cannot have problems that were not caused by men.

I have read articles and seen documentaries on this matter and self-mutilation can also attributed to stress and distress caused by family matters (e.g. divorce, death), pressure at school, and problems with friends and classmates. In this way, cutting becomes a form of release, creating physical pain to mask the inner emotional pain because the physical pain is momentarily stronger, yet easier to overcome. Nowhere is this mentioned in the article.

I notice from the picture that the author engages in her own form of body mutilation: she has her hair cut; and very fashionably too, I might ad.