Danica Roem becomes first trans*person to be elected to (US) state legislature

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Hahahahaha. I love this.

Alright, honey. Let's assume you're sincere. You don't come across as sincere, but let's try it out and see how far we get.

So, let's start with this poor, downtrodden man you seem to think makes a good example. Let's say that the man needs money. He needs it for the thrift shop, for instance because he needs a blanket or a pair of gloves or something. Or perhaps there's an expense that he needs to have taken care of - like paying for copies to print out his resume, or something of the like. Maybe it's soap, or he needs to be able to plan ahead. He can't tell for sure when the next meal is coming. Could be anything. I once knew a man who only ever asked for a dollar at a time so he could call his daughter once a week. That's it, that's all he ever asked for. This was back around when payphones were still the primary on-the-go method of getting a hold of people.

So, since some (very loud) people are incredibly suspicious of the homeless for whatever reason, they mostly try to give him food. As you have demonstrated. Now he's full, and knows that overfilling yourself often leads to sickness that can actually be really painful and detrimental to someone who has no steady access to a bathroom far less a nice warm house and an endless supply of Pepto. So, this person takes the food they can't eat, that will only go to waste now, and tries to trade it to people who will actually buy it off him and allow him to get five bucks for shampoo or canned goods maybe, or possibly a vegetable or two for later.

See, when you have your opinion and defend it to the complete blindness of everything else, you fail to take into account the reasonable occurrences of what we like to call ... reasons. You know, the cause to the effect you see? It might be that you have information we don't have, but so far all I can hear is that a bunch of god-touting types are arrogant enough to assume that they have an understanding and a judgement and no real compassion unless it's by their own standard. Unfortunately, it's a story most of us are tired of hearing, since ninety percent of the interactions some of us have are at best annoying and at worst, violent, hateful and willfully ignorant.

Saying "it generally hurts" is possibly a better way to be properly communicated, rather than "it should hurt", particularly when the context you gave seemed to offer none of the compassion you now insist would be part of the inherent meaning. To me, that sounds like backtracking your argument and is a dishonest tactic a lot of less savoury types of apologists tend to use, getting so mixed up in trying to put everyone else on a semantic defensive so their "opinions" are somehow appearing to be equated with that of ... well, the rest of the world.

"Trying to find their identity because they have no clue. Better?" No, miss caustic, not better. You seem to be missing a fundamental aspect of the conversation as it has been presented to you. Whether because it has not been communicated clearly, because you are incapable of taking in that many points at once or because you are incapable of understanding the concept as presented, I don't know. I'm inclined instead to believe that you are being dishonest and overtly attempting to misunderstand, instead making overtures to common, anti-liberal tropes to attempt to solidify your position as evenly-weighted in discussion. So, for the sake of being able to clarify that once and for all, allow me to present it in the clearest way I believe it is possible to understand it.

A transgender person knows exactly who they are. They know better than anyone else. No one else has ever seen who they truly are. They get that fixed. None of which requires an outside opinion. None. You can have an opinion all you like, it's entirely irrelevant to anyone aside from yourself. Literally no one needs to hear it because it's not going to present any new information or enrich the world in absolutely any manner whatsoever. Basically, no one has a need for your opinion. If you have ever uttered the phrase "mind you own business", or "nobody asked you", you pretty much have the idea of exactly how much your opinion needs to impact that person's life at all.

Now, this is not to say that your opinion is not allowed. I have no right to try to judge that. However, when your words then impact people who have taken enough shit in their lives and you double down instead of acknowledging that being nasty to people is hurtful regardless of whether you want to be worthwhile somehow or not, we will close ranks and defend each other. And there's more of us than there are of those who oppose us.

See, there's a great fallacy going on right now with the traditionalists, the conservatives, the religious, those of that particular mindset. It is the unfortunate mixup between terms. Theory in common parlance, for instance, is used to replace hypothesis, while Theory ACTUALLY means the method by which we describe a fact/law/absolute. In the same vein, people seem to think they're entitled to have opinions about facts. This is simply not true. The earth revolves around the sun. This is not subject to any of your opinions and we are not required to respect that opinion or its existence. Human beings breathe Oxygen. This is a fact. You are welcome to disagree with this, at which point I would seek to prove that the fact is not subject to your thoughts by having you test it thoroughly. So, simply because you have an opinion does not make that opinion entitled to my respect nor are you entitled to act in such a manner as you please and expect me not to correct the heinous torrent of logical fallacies, cruel judgemental words or the complete lack of personal integrity and accountability that you display. You are entitled to nothing.

You said some things should not change. Fine, you think that. But as previously established, your ideas alone are not inherently worthy of respect. Therefore, what is it that you believe should not change and why? What makes you think that applying  any sort of is/ought fallacy is going to bring you some sort of legitimacy? Simply because something "ought" not to change does not mean that it does not change, or that railing against that change is intelligent, useful or respectable. Once again, hyper-subjective elements are not inherently worthy of respect. I would go so far as to point out that if something is common sense, it is either incorrect if it must then change and is therefore not common sense but common naivete, or else we must all agree to wrap our wounds in moldy bread because common sense tells us that's how we keep from experiencing the creeping rot of flesh that leads to so many amputations. See, people used to believe that because that was the sort of thing that saved limbs. Turns out that it wasn't the moldy bread specifically but the pre-penicillin that was so useful. As a species, humanity learns and grows and becomes the better for it. It's why history is said to have the hindsight benefit of being liberal.

Also, you're going to have to stop saying "want to be gay." There are mountains of evidence by trusted sources that confirm independently (it's what we call peer-review. It's a fundamental aspect of science) that orientation is not a chosen quality. Terminology is entirely subjective and unique to the individual in terms of absolute definition. But orientation is simply not a choice. What you are describing begins inherently dishonest (whether willfully or incidentally is irrelevant at this point) and proceeds into the truly absurd. You equate extremity of internalized action with extremity of outwardly-focused action. You insinuated in your prior argument that the extremity of transgender individuals was somehow linked to the implied fear they would go on to use their state of being to take advantage of others, citing the specific examples you claim happened. If you have to narrow the scope of your argument and add addendum to that extent to the argument you're using, then it was a flimsy argument to begin with and it might be better advised to abandon it in order to better reinforce a superior argument, provided you can find one.

Yes, proof that events such as this have actually happened. Otherwise, we will be forced to assume that you are making the whole thing up to falsely prop up your point. Not that your point cannot be argued without that information. I intend to do so, I just would also like to see some actual evidence to back up your claim. You know, just to make sure you're not trying to troll us. If you came across the information in the first place, you will be capable of finding it again. Almost every new outlet has, for instance, space on a media sharing website such as YouTube.

People lying in order to commit atrocities is something the human race isn't remotely unfamiliar with. It has happened from the dawn of time and will continue to happen for a long time yet to come. Trying to claim that one set of people or another does this more often than others is absolutely ludicrous and nearly impossible to prove, with the possible exception of sociopaths and psychopaths. The practice can be found in any religion, establishment, organization, community or other subset of people. It is how we respond to it that defines us. Will we victimize an entire subset of humanity to punish them for the actions of a few? Or shall we take the more intelligent path and agree as a group that scummy people are scummy people and need to be removed from the privileges of society based on their own merits? I sincerely wish you would address this with a straight answer, so that we can be warned or confirmed on the content of your character as applicable.

You can learn a lot from the news, sure (I doubt "college" since I saw you mention somewhere else that you dislike schools, colleges and the like and listed this as a reason for your ignorance on the content of a subject in another thread here). Provided you have a good cross-section of sources from which to choose and aren't taking, say, Fox news at face value for everything. They are a self-proclaimed conservative network whose invested interests would include maintaining a partisan spin on their news. Local stations, however, tend to be a little bit more balanced due to having a far lesser pool of competition to draw from and generally the grain of salt required to swallow it is a little smaller. So, yes, you can learn from these things. However, if all you're doing is absorbing the information in passing, you are incapable of being called educated on the subject. Most people don't tend to question the information they're given if they're not invested in discussion on the subject. In layman's terms, they don't tend to double-check what doesn't matter to them at the time. If you do not research, you are going to A) be terribly outmatched by those who do, B) run the risk of losing all integrity with the people around you, C) be at risk of being fooled by every person who sees you as a pawn because they assume you're not going to look into something. Google is free, laziness is no excuse for piping up with an unsubstantiated opinion. Particularly one so caustic as you have been wielding.

You do not need to quote everything used by another person in a post. That would be ridiculous. Based on common habits (which I'm hard-pressed to believe you simply did not know), putting quotes around "folks" indicates that you don't necessarily believe the terminology applies. Since 'Folks' is a term used to refer primarily to people as human, insinuating that you do not believe this implies fairly heavily that you in fact believe the opposite, as though these people to whom you refer are not actually people. If you have not been clear on this, I invite you to either clarify or else confirm this suspicion.

Gay people do not necessarily want to change their bodies. That's a false equivocation. Just because some transgender individuals happen to be gay does not automatically mean that they all are. This is the sort of bigoted, unconcerned ignorance that leads most to say that those who express themselves the way you have done are more likely than not transphobic or homophobic. However, to chase down your point, these people are not changing who they are, whether that is gay or not. They are instead getting rid of the parts of them that do not fit how they are. They are not changing FROM their identity, but TO it.

In all of Elliquiy, there are certainly people who carry the stance that they do not understand/have not been exposed to/have not accepted the choices that other people make about their bodies. The trouble is that those mindsets usually do one of two things: Either they discover that they are outnumbered both here and in the real world and that Elliquiy isn't going to be the platform they need to reach out and make a plethora of friends like them or they couple their actual opinions ("transgender people aren't really transgender, just confused") with hatred ("transgender people aren't really people"). The former type tend to believe in a "live and let live" philosophy, which incidentally coincides with the opinions of a great number of people with whom they disagree; LGBTQ/Liberal/People of colour, etc. As such, they agree that they needn't try to change each other's minds and go their separate ways. However, those who would show hostility to those members of the site whose existence they callously deny or seek to appeal to emotion rather than reason are generally not welcome on the PROC boards, if not the site in general. The sort of degredation and heinous claims that have been made already in this thread tend to often be grounds for removal from Elliquiy based on how the opinions are shared. Those who find themselves so vastly outnumbered in terms of opinion tend to see better fruits in debating topics aside from that which will not bear any sort of fruit.

I think you will find that there is resistance to the concept that, aside from "Anyone who wants to be gay" (it is empirically not a choice), that it is opinion that we should support other human beings. The more that people argue with supporting and being kind to people of any group is outside the purview of some morality or opinion makes it less viable that the person speaking such an opinion would be taken seriously or respected as a fellow human being. The heart of the concept of saying that the "opinion" (see, I have it in quotes to show that I am unconvinced it is truly an opinion) that we should be humane and kind to people (or as you put it in your introduction questionnaire 'polite about it') may not necessarily be CORRECT is something that leads me to question the quality of the individual speaking. No one aspect of a person's identity should be a justifiable reason to refrain from treating them as human.

"He needs help and my church has tried". It seems to me you've tried under your own judgement on what he SHOULD need, not in what he actually DOES need. If you thought that he was in need of mental health support or addiction support, there are a plethora of facilities and programs to which a phone call would have been ultimately not only easy but for the best for the individual. Far more than trying to nag him into giving up whatever you believe that he doesn't need. I do notice, however, that you have neatly avoided addressing any other point that was made in the man's defense, taking on only the one that pertained to something that you could re-word to your benefit rather than to what I believe was likely to be accuracy. If your lot would spend so much time mourning the fact they have been unable to help him, perhaps someone might stop and think if they are helping him according to what he needs, or being judgemental in a fashion that their faith itself claims they ought not to be if they expect to call themselves true Christians. (Yes, I know, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy) Let me rephrase. There is no justification, within the JudeoChristian faiths or without, for mandating and trying to force the outside world into needing whatever the members of that faith might insist on. If you haven't been able to help him in one way, consider changing what it is you're trying to help him WITH, otherwise you give up the right to lament over the long hours insanely attempting the same entitled maneuvers.

Yes, calling someone by their skincolour is racist, particularly when it is meant to draw a parallel between that skin colour and a behaviour, and especially when it is an unnecessary description. It was not necessary to describe in any way how he looked instead of simply telling us it was an individual with whom you were familiar and getting to the point. Aside from racist, this behaviour is what is known as "poisoning the well", and only really works when you know your audience. Sometimes, it's used by reflex and it can be difficult to get around the habit of consistent racism to the point where you may not be aware that is the tactic you're employing. This is understandable. However, now that you are aware that this is a problem, I anticipate advanced attempts to avoid using it in the future.

If you called any person by the pronoun by which they wish to be known, you are respecting them. Anything further is your own baggage. As mentioned before, if you call a Doctor "Doctor" instead of their first name, then you really have no basis for argument. I am not genetically a PhD. I am not genetically a medical professional. However, if you will still refer to someone by this title, then you not only grasp the concept and are arguing against it out of willing belligerence, but you are also unequivocally declaring that one is inherently immoral, which can only be achieved by citing sources from a select few religions. Aside from that, the differences are arbitrary and logically in fact support the Transgender individual over the doctor, because one is a personal identity and the other is a vocation. A doctor's license can be revoked but a person's identity is completely and solely their own property.

Referring to you as "he" is not opinion. It is factually incorrect. Assuming you are female, which by your own testimony you are, referring you you as he is simply wrong. It is inaccurate, incorrect. Opinion has no domain here, because there is a "true" and a "false" option and none are dependent on the thoughts or feelings of those who discuss them. Therefore, having an opinion on the subject could be construed as dishonesty. You say you are female. If I challenge that and claim you are male, I am saying that I have a stake in your identity, that the fact of it belongs in some small part to me. I am not entitled to any such nonsense on your behalf, I don't get to decide who you are or what you tell people in that regard. You ascribe to the social construct of female. I have no right to try to impose an opinion on a fact. That is something that a lot of detractors don't understand. Those of us who are not transgender individuals have no right to lay claim to part of that truth and attempt to make it conform to our viewpoints. We are not welcome to try to influence the truth of another person's gender. We're not invited. It is not our place.

The rest of us are perfectly aware that Roem is a person. The person to whom you are referring said that she wasn't being afforded the basic respect of a human. Trying to twist the argument to suit your purposes is dishonest, impotent and factually laughable.

Since you are comfortable with the eyes you have (the example you gave, so if you feel it is inapplicable to some part of this argument, the only one to blame is yourself), you cannot speak to the reality of how a person feels about their body when experiencing dysphoria because you literally have no experience. You know of no research. You have no facts upon which to stand. Therefore, your part in that discussion is ill-informed and we are free to ignore it on the basis that it is wasting everyone's time with unsubstantiated assertion. "Why would I want to change something about me so badly?" This is the part of the argument when you prove that it's not that you disagree with the existence of trans people, but that you cannot UNDERSTAND the viewpoint of a trans person, which makes you woefully incapable of being able to effectively argue against any part of their reasoning. The fact that you have not felt that way doesn't mean you disagree, but that instead you simply haven't experienced it. Not everything must be felt by you personally in order to be valid. It's rather telling that you bring up the concept that someone must have had sex wrong in order to produce an individual who turns out to be transgender. I do, however, applaud your ability to understand that there is only one part of the population that can truly understand what it is like to be transgender. That in and of itself is a useful acknowledgement.

No one has said you need to study the minds of transgender people until you agree. We questioned your unequivocated statements and then the support that you gave as an excuse to be ill-informed, which was simply that you had not researched the phenomenon. You for some reason feel that you are validated in your opinion without having any information. The world at large will tell you that, outside of perhaps context which directly supports their mindset, you would be in the wrong for insisting that your viewpoint, without any such research at all, is equivalent in factual basis and respectability as someone who has done their research. Let me tell you right now, it is absolutely not. An opinion that proudly boasts of knowing nothing of what they're talking about is not an opinion equal to one who speaks with the authority of understanding. It is a lesser opinion and it is the duty of the rest of society to make that understood and to shun that entitlement wherever it exists.

If you're able to correct people about a dog being female, then you understand that when someone biologically, physically, mentally, emotionally, socially and in all other ways presents as a female, referring to them by that standard is considered the civilized thing to do. Failing to do so is merely being belligerent, since they have no basis on which to lay their claims.

"Reminds me of how since Trump got elected there have been riots and violence from people who were so butthurt". I will leave http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/305749-republicans-employ-double-standard-to-discredit this here, since if you read it you will have things to say to answer it, and if you don't, you'll simply look like you're railing against nothing. In short, however, it makes everything from "FeveredDreams does not like my opinion" to "Were there as much violence and protesting when Obama was elected?" look utterly foolish. I would like to point out that the first reports of violence came from Trump supporters, from harassing people in the streets to assaulting people in their homes, in shops and public transit, etc. The same with acts of vandalism. Claiming that people got "butthurt" because Trump became elected is a severely shortsighted admission that you are entirely unfamiliar with the grander scope of the subject and are best ignored.

You didn't state a question from lack of understanding and both you and I know that this statement is more than misleading and only a hair's breadth from being entirely dishonest. You specifically asked a question in order to open the door to a conversation in which you would go on to insist that Marshall's insistence of using a pronoun he knew to be insulting as a reasonable realm of opinion (it's not) rather than an underhanded attempt to discredit and disrespect a political rival. While I will not continue to argue at this point the concept of his intentions, I will by all means address the fact that you will not be able to effectively pass yourself off as having had benevolent intentions, particularly since the context of literally everything else you have said gives the lie to that claim.

It's possible, if you're feeling that people are too easily offended, that you are simply communicating yourself as an utterly unpleasant human being. That is not, to be clear, to say that you ARE an unpleasant human being, only that you are presenting yourself as such. There is an old adage that says "if you walk into a room and three of forty people dislike you, that's their problem. If you walk into the room and only three of forty people like you, that's very definitely your problem." It means that if you find that people are easily offended, you would only be considered a reasonable individual if you were capable of asking yourself if the problem is you, instead of being everyone else's problem. Perhaps you are simply offensive.

No one attacked you for an opposing view, we questioned the facts of your statement, then berated you for claiming you have opinions on facts as though that's reasonable or your right, and then berated you for trying to argue facts that you yourself admitted you were uneducated about. The fact that you have oscillated between confirming and contradicting almost everything you've said including that point goes to show that there is little you have already offered on the basis of factual points that can be trusted. You have engaged in dishonest discourse and are attempting to act the victim once that has been pointed out to you. This is a popular tactic amongst the people who wish to cover up their bigotry, whether politically left or right, and discuss according to their own rules. This is a "moving the goal posts" fallacy, meaning that you refuse to converse unless you are in such control that you feel permitted to change the criteria of conversation to match your points or garner sympathy for them, instead of debating in good faith.

Lastly, "the rest of us" insinuates that you are in the majority in your mindset whereas history, polling, scientific study and the course of history would insinuate that you are not. Attempting in your parting shot to not only play the victim but to falsely represent your mindset as the "normal" stance is utterly laughable. What you have accomplished here is to establish to a significant portion of Elliquiy that you are an individual who feels entitled to judge, to claim domain over and to try to manipulate the lives of others and cannot be trusted to take responsibility for one's own words or actions. I would suggest taking some time to come to terms with how you choose to present yourself and either change tactics or take responsibility for your decisions. Perhaps then you won't feel so attacked and we can have productive conversation.

[Sparrowhawke]

There is a lovely quote I have heard in the past, I believe it was a comedian, but I don't remember who. If anyone could throw the name at me again so I could find the full one that would be lovely.

'You don't get to decide when you've hurt someone.'

And I am going to very intentionally stick to that word there. Hurt. Voicing this opinion is not harmless, especially as you are voicing it directly to a number of Trans people. I am not talking just about offense, I am talking about concrete, actual harm. Because physical harm is not the only type of harm that exists, and many people would argue that it isn't even always the worst kind.

Also yes, you may struggle to find people with similar opinions, here. This is a good place by and large, most of the interactions have been lovely and supportive. Because these are good people who respect each other. You seem to be struggling with that. As Fury said, we will certainly close ranks to protect each other.

Now, as I am tired, have writing to do, and Fury has already stated much of what I could possibly say in response far more eloquently, I will leave you with one last thing.

If I did not have the Liege tag, and instead had the Lord tag, you would not know I was trans. I 'pass' well enough in flesh that you would never know I was trans unless I told you. Therefore, you would refer to me as male without any issue.

The fact that you will only refer to someone as their preferred gender if it aligns with what you think it is is something that has bothered me about this kind of argument for a very long time. I am sick of your kind of people picking on the ones who are visible, whether its because they are unable to 'pass' (for whatever reason, including if they don't subscribe to passing as a concept to begin with) or because they are open about their transness, or because some jackass outed them to you, just because you think it is your goddamn right.

You cannot morally defend your position to me. You can't. I don't really care how you feel about that, but there is no string of words you could ever say to me that would make intentionally misgendering people acceptable. It is abhorrent and I am sick of seeing it everywhere I look. Since you can't seem to grasp anything else we have told you so far I can't see how you could ever see the actual impact of your 'opinions' are. But I see them all the time, and I feel them plenty, too.

But of course, it has occurred to me that maybe that's what you want.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Sparrow, darling, I believe I heard Trevor Noah say the same thing, but I would have to look up the title of the piece in which he said it. I'm sure it's been said by other people, however.

Also, I have to correct myself. The phrasing "Lastly, "the rest of us" insinuates that you are in the majority in your mindset whereas history, polling, scientific study and the course of history would insinuate that you are not" is meant to read "Lastly, "the rest of us" insinuates that you are in the majority in your mindset whereas history, polling, scientific study and the course of society would insinuate that you are not." I apologize for any confusion that might have caused.

[Hades]

Reading that long, nicely written rebuttal makes me realize something.   If my plans for world-domination ever come to fruition, I have to make certain to put Fury in charge of my Public Relations department.

[Regina Minx]

...insinuating that you do not believe this implies fairly heavily that you in fact believe the opposite...

Fury,

I can't thank you enough for this post. Your depth, passion, and compassion for our transgendered fellows is clearly shining through. That being said, I do need to take issue with this line of reasoning.

If somebody tells us their position on a single fork of a true/false dichotomy, we cannot infer their position on the other fork of the dichotomy. To do so is to commit the formal logical fallacy of denying the antecedent, and it takes this form:

P --> Q
∴~P --> ~Q.

The go-to example I use to explain this is the following scenario. I have a jar of individual candy pieces on my desk. Before you have an opportunity to count them, you know as a matter of fact that there is either an odd or an even number of candies in that jar. It is a proper dichotomy, just like the statements "Q is true" and "Q is false." If I was to ask you; do you believe there is an even number of candies in that jar, unless you had some sort of super-counting-power, you must honestly say 'No," (note that I would disqualify an 'I don't know,' response, since I asked about belief, not knowledge). You do not believe there is an even number of candies in that jar, but it does not follow from that that I can conclude that you believe there is an odd number of candies in that jar.

You are equally unconvinced of the truth of either fork in the dichotomy. To bring it back to our discussion with Jazzylynn (who I noticed is on probation), she might actually not believe that transgendered people are folks; might not believe them to be people (odd if true). But we cannot conclude that validly based on denying the antecedent.

[Iniquitous]

“Being a pothead can be a lifestyle.”   

Since you do not do research, I am going to do it for you.

Marijuana use can be used to treat and prevent the eye disease glaucoma, which increases pressure in the eyeball, damaging the optic nerve and causing loss of vision.

Marijuana decreases the pressure inside the eye, according to the National Eye Institute: "Studies in the early 1970s showed that marijuana, when smoked, lowered intraocular pressure (IOP) in people with normal pressure and those with glaucoma."
These effects of the drug may slow the progression of the disease, preventing blindness.

Marijuana use can prevent epileptic seizures, a 2003 study showed.
Robert J. DeLorenzo, of Virginia Commonwealth University, gave marijuana extract and synthetic marijuana to epileptic rats. The drugs rid the rats of the seizures for about 10 hours. Cannabinoids like the active ingredients in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (also known as THC), control seizures by binding to the brain cells responsible for controlling excitability and regulating relaxation.

It also decreases the symptoms of a severe seizure disorder known as Dravet's Syndrome.
During the research for his documentary "Weed," Gupta interviewed the Figi family, who treats their 5-year-old daughter using a medical marijuana strain high in cannabidiol and low in THC.
Their daughter, Charlotte, has Dravet Syndrome, which causes seizures and severe developmental delays.
According to the film, the drug has decreased her seizures from 300 a week to just one every seven days. Forty other children in the state are using the same strain of marijuana to treat their seizures — and it seems to be working.
CBD may help prevent cancer from spreading, researchers at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco reported in 2007.
Cannabidiol stops cancer by turning off a gene called Id-1, the study, published in the journal Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, found. Cancer cells make more copies of this gene than non-cancerous cells, and it helps them spread through the body.
The researchers studied breast cancer cells in the lab that had high expression levels of Id-1 and treated them with cannabidiol. After treatment the cells had decreased Id-1 expression and were less aggressive spreaders.


Medical marijuana users claim the drug helps relieve pain and suppress nausea — the two main reasons it's often used to relieve the side effects of chemotherapy.
In 2010, researchers at Harvard Medical School suggested that that some of the drug's benefits may actually be from reduced anxiety, which would improve the smoker's mood and act as a sedative in low doses.
( I can personally vouch for this one.  I suffer from extreme anxiety and marijuana does help me cope.)

The 2006 study, published in the journal Molecular Pharmaceutics, found that THC, the active chemical in marijuana, slows the formation of amyloid plaques by blocking the enzyme in the brain that makes them. These plaques are what kill brain cells and cause Alzheimer's.


Marijuana may ease painful symptoms of multiple sclerosis, a study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in May suggests.
Jody Corey-Bloom studied 30 multiple sclerosis patients with painful contractions in their muscles. These patients didn't respond to other treatments, but after smoking marijuana for a few days they were in less pain.
The THC in the pot binds to receptors in the nerves and muscles to relieve pain. Other studies suggest that the chemical also helps control the muscle spasms.

Treatment for hepatitis C infection is harsh — negative side effects include fatigue, nausea, muscle aches, loss of appetite, and depression — and lasts for months. Many people aren't able to finish their treatment course because of the side effects.
But, pot to the rescue: A 2006 study in the European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology found that 86% of patients using marijuana successfully completed their Hep C therapy, while only 29% of non-smokers completed their treatment, possibly because the marijuana helps lessens the treatments side effects.
Marijuana also seems to improve the treatment's effectiveness: 54% of hep C patients smoking marijuana got their viral levels low and kept them low, in comparison to only 8% of nonsmokers.
(Have a friend who has Hep C and she uses marijuana to help her cope with the treatments she has to go through)

Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases like Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis could benefit from marijuana use, studies suggest.
University of Nottingham researchers found in 2010 that chemicals in marijuana, including THC and cannabidiol, interact with cells in the body that play an important role in gut function and immune responses. The study was published in the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.
THC-like compounds made by the body increase the permeability of the intestines, allowing bacteria in. The plant-derived cannabinoids in marijuana block these body-cannabinoids, preventing this permeability and making the intestinal cells bond together tighter.

(again, I live with ulcerative colitis. Marijuana helps me deal with it.)

Marijuana alleviates pain, reduces inflammation, and promotes sleep, which may help relieve pain and discomfort for people with rheumatoid arthritis, researchers announced in 2011.


Researchers from rheumatology units at several hospitals gave their patients Sativex, a cannabinoid-based pain-relieving medicine. After a two-week period, people on Sativex had a significant reduction in pain and improved sleep quality compared to placebo users.
(I have fibromyalgia. Marijuana helps my pain levels and allows me to sleep - something I do not do well if I do not have some type of assistance from either natural items or pharmaceutical items)

A study published in the American Journal Of Medicine on April 15 of last year suggested that pot smokers are skinnier than the average person and have healthier metabolism and reaction to sugars, even though they do end up eating more calories because of the munchies.
The study analyzed data from more than 4,500 adult Americans — 579 of whom were current marijuana smokers, meaning they had smoked in the last month. About 2,000 had used marijuana in the past, while another 2,000 had never used the drug.
They studied their body's response to eating sugars: their levels of the hormone insulin and their blood sugar levels while they hadn't eaten in nine hours, and after eating sugar.
Not only are pot users skinnier, but their body has a healthier response to sugar.

Medical marijuana is being used to treat the autoimmune disease Systemic Lupus Ertyhematosus, which is when the body starts attacking itself for some unknown reason.
Some chemicals in marijuana seem to have a calming effect on the immune system, which may be how it helps deal with symptoms of Lupus. The rest of the positive impact of the marijuana is probably from the effects on pain and nausea.

Crohn's disease is an inflammatory bowel disorder that causes pain, vomiting, diarrhea, weight loss, and more. But a recent study in Israel showed that smoking a joint significantly reduced Crohn's disease symptoms in 10 out of 11 patients, and caused a complete remission of the disease in five of those patients.
That's a small study, but other research has shown similar effects. The cannabinoids from marijuana seem to help the gut regulate bacteria and intestinal function.

Recent research from Israel shows that smoking marijuana significantly reduces pain and tremors and improves sleep for Parkinson's disease patients. Particularly impressive was the improved fine motor skills among patients.
Medical marijuana is legal in Israel for multiple conditions, and a lot of research into the medical uses of cannabis is done there, supported by the Israeli government.

The Department of Health and Human Services recently signed off on a proposal to study marijuana's potential as part of treatment for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Marijuana is approved to treat PTSD in some states already. In New Mexico, PTSD is the number one reason for people to get a license for medical marijuana, but this is the first time the U.S. government has approved a proposal that incorporates smoked or vaporized marijuana, which is currently classified by the government as a drug with no accepted medical applications.
Naturally occurring cannabinoids, similar to THC, help regulate the system that causes fear and anxiety in the body and brain.

Research from the University of Nottingham shows that marijuana may help protect the brain from damage caused by stroke, by reducing the size of the area affected by the stroke — at least in rats, mice, and monkeys.
This isn't the only research that has shown neuroprotective effects from cannabis. Some research shows that the plant may help protect the brain after other traumatic events, like concussions.

There is some evidence that marijuana can help heal the brain after a concussion or other traumatic injury. A recent study in the journal Cerebral Cortex showed that in mice, marijuana lessened the bruising of the brain and helped with healing mechanisms after a traumatic injury.
Harvard professor emeritus of psychiatry and marijuana advocate Lester Grinspoon recently wrote an open letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, saying the NFL should stop testing players for marijuana, and that the league should start funding research into the plant's ability to protect the brain.
"Already, many doctors and researchers believe that marijuana has incredibly powerful neuroprotective properties, an understanding based on both laboratory and clinical data," he writes.
Goodell recently said that he'd consider permitting athletes to use marijuana if medical research shows that it's an effective neuroprotective agent.

This is a complicated one, because it involves effects that can be both positive and negative. Marijuana disturbs sleep cycles by interrupting the later stages of REM sleep. In the long run, this could be a problem for frequent users.
However, for people suffering from serious nightmares, especially those associated with PTSD, this can be helpful. Nightmares and other dreams occur during those same stages of sleep. By interrupting REM sleep, many of those dreams may not occur. Research into using a synthetic cannabinoid, like THC, but not the same, showed a significant decreasein the number of nightmares in patients with PTSD.
Additionally, even if frequent use can be bad for sleep, marijuana may be a better sleep aid than some other substances that people use. Some of those, including medication and alcohol, may potentially have even worse effects on sleep, though more research is needed on the topic.


One of the most well-known medical uses of marijuana is for people going through chemotherapy.
Cancer patients being treated with chemo suffer from painful nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite. This can cause additional health complications.
Marijuana can help reduce these side effects, alleviating pain, decreasing nausea, and stimulating the appetite. There are also multiple FDA-approved cannabinoid drugs that use THC, the main active chemical in marijuana, for the same purposes.


Marijuana is safer than alcohol. That's not to say it's completely risk free, but it's much less addictive and doesn't cause nearly as much physical damage.
Disorders like alcoholism involve disruptions in the endocannabinoid system. Because of that, some people think cannabis might help patients struggling with those disorders.
Research in Harm Reduction Journal shows that some people use marijuana as a less harmful substitute for alcohol, prescription drugs, and other illegal drugs. Some of the most common reasons for patients to make that substitution are the less adverse side effects from marijuana and the fact that it is less likely to cause withdrawal problems.
Some people do become psychologically dependent on marijuana, and this doesn't mean that it's a cure for substance abuse problems. But, from a harm-reduction standpoint, it can help.

So, why did I go and pull up that (small) amount of research on marijuana?  Because you have no idea what that man is going through.  You judge him as a pothead and unworthy of your help and compassion because you think marijuana is ‘bad’.  See, this is where researching things comes in handy.  You learn new things, you broaden your scope.

Better yet, why don’t you study your bible just a wee bit more. Particularly the part of the bible where it tells you to judge not lest ye be judged.  And the part where it tells you to love your neighbor as much as you love yourself.  I mean, it is a crying shame when a Pagan is having to instruct you on your faith.  It is not your place to judge anyone else or their lifestyles.  It is your place to love them no matter what, to extend a helping hand no matter what. 

Now for the part that really set my teeth to grinding.  My daughter did not just suddenly decide to be gay.  Being gay is who she is. Why on earth do you think a person would CHOOSE to be something that so many ridicule, hate, and abuse???  I know for a fact my daughter didn’t ‘choose’ to be gay and I also know that if someone like you were to -ever- say such a thing to her in earshot of me they’d be getting a lot more than a civil discourse on the matter.

I really cannot decide if you are truly this hate filled or if you are troll.  You have posted nowhere else on this site and you truly seem to just post things that will incite the members of this community.  Either way, it is highly unbecoming of you and demonstrates that it is you who has the problem.

[MiraMirror]

@Jazz: It takes a lot for me to post in here, and I'm honestly terrified of confrontation, but I also can't stay silent on stuff like this.  I'm one of the "transgenders" you keep railing on, and I've also been one of those homeless people you seem to want to judge so badly.  I am not confused or searching for my identity.  I know what it is.  I went through a period of time when I was in denial, and it was absolute hell, because I didn't want to be the weird one in the family.  That's how I thought about it at first, when I figured out just what was even going on.  But you know, I got over it.  Some people like to tout this nonsense about how transfolk are mentally unstable and all this, but let me tell you, you have to go through therapy for quite a while before your therapist makes the call to let you undergo HRT or not.  I have told my therapist anything that might affect that judgment in complete confidence, just the same as anyone who gets on HRT has done.  So that kind of kills that whole "mentally unstable" thing, no?  Considering that to even start HRT, we have to go through therapy, and cis people do not have to do that. 

Point being, I know who I am and here's a shocker- I'm happy with who I am.  I'm a woman, and nobody, not a single person, can take that from me, or tell me that I'm not and seriously make me consider that as truth.  Sure, I might be terrified to be who I am at times, but I'd also like to point out that it isn't really the fault of the transfolk that they have to live in fear.  I walk to work, to the bus stop, etc., with my head down, because I'm from a location where getting clocked as trans means you get killed, raped, or viciously beaten, and the police will often blame the victim if they're trans.  We don't want special treatment, we want equal rights.  We want to be able to work places, be gendered correctly (read: shown common courtesy like everyone else expects to be), to not be fired based on who we are.  The only special rights I see getting passed around are those belonging to certain institutions that get to go tax-free while shoving their noses in politics (you know, that thing that they're legally not supposed to be doing).

And you know, I have it easy, all things considered, because I pass.  If you walk by me on a street, you'd have no idea that I was transgender, not unless I told you, or I wore some kind of tag or something out-and-out telling you that.  You probably pass transgender people every day that you can't out as trans.  You go to the restroom with them and you never know.  There are also some trans people who don't pass as well, or those who don't give a shit if they pass.  That's fine, too.  But none of them should have to stare at the ground out of fear that someone's going to hurt them.

I have also been one of those homeless people you talked about, when I was kicked out of my home and disowned by my family.  I was lucky.  Someone found me and took me in when I was at the end of my rope.  Others don't get that luxury.  People give food because they have the mentality of "Oh, they're just going to buy drugs if I give them money".   And you know, some might, because the street is a shitty place to be.  I used to see those streets every day when I headed to work and had somewhere to live.  After I got kicked out and fired from my job for being trans, those same streets looked a hell of a lot different.  They weren't friendly neighborhood areas anymore.  They were potential places to rest for the night.  It's tough, and if you've never lived on the streets, I don't think you have a right to complain about homeless people.  People assume they're homeless because they mismanaged stuff, or that they're at fault, but so many of them were hit with something beyond their control.  It's easy for those in comfortable housing to look down upon them and judge them.

It's easy for people who don't have to live in their shoes to say "This is what you should have done.  This is where you fucked up and it's your fault."  So many people don't realize that the words they speak to people on the street could be the last ones that person hears.  Those words could be the ones that break that person and convince that person to commit suicide.  I managed to survive, if you can call it that, on the street.  I came out of that with pretty awful vitamin deficiencies and not nearly enough nutrition, and every damned time I had to waste food or something, it killed me a little.  I didn't do drugs, personally, but others might.  And you know, if they keep getting food that they can't eat, I don't see what's wrong with taking the edge off every once in a blue moon.  I'm sure they could use it, from someone who got out of that situation only because someone else helped.  Not enough people help.


I went off on a tangent there, but what I'm ultimately saying is this.  Your opinion is your opinion, sure.  Your opinion is not fact, however.  Your opinion ultimately means nothing when medical and psychological science has proven your opinion to be false.  You do not get to tout it as fact when it has been proven to be the opposite.  You're not some amazing visionary or whatever who's going against BS science, or whatever it is you might think.  You're someone standing in the way of progress and understanding, and denying facts and science is harmful.  That kind of thinking is a dated relic, and if you willingly cling to that while the world moves forward, it's not the world's fault that you're getting swept away by "all these new made-up things".  It's yours, because you refuse to research, refuse to understand, and refuse to accept.

[WindFish]

Fury, I wish I could like your posts.

One of my coworkers is transgender and another is gay. It's not something they suddenly "chose" to become. Frankly the idea that it's a choice is offensive and outdated.

Considering that this user haven't posted in anywhere other than in this forum and that she refuses to do any research, I highly suspect that they're here to troll. E is a friendly and welcoming place for the LGBT community and her posts make me question her motives for being here.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Thank you all for the support where it has come.


@Regina Minx You are absolutely correct in identifying and calling out that fallacy. I've always had trouble with it and try to avoid it, but there are scenarios in which I feel as though refusing to accept a toggle option is a little... closed off. This is a case of what I would say is a true toggle situation. One acknowledges or does not acknowledge the humanity of a creature. Believe they are human or believe they are not. One might posit that a third option would be not to believe in either option, but I struggle to attribute that to a reasonable application. What would that statement look like?

I've always struggled with this fallacy because I believe that it permits too much cowardice in terms of stance, but my belief over the subject does not make it one thing or another any more than any other opinion on fact changes the nature of that fact. Thank you for calling me out on that.

My only defense is to point out that I used the word "imply" specifically to insinuate that there are other options but that their likelihood of application in this context (given the acknowledgement of Jazzylynn that the people to whom we were referring exist) was very low. On the basis of communication alone, while logic may reveal a non-path path - like a light switch stuck halfway between settings - the way in which she communicated her ideas gave the impression that she did not feel the need to regard others as human beings.

That being said, I should have found a better way to communicate what I thought, as well. Thank you, Regina.

[Regina Minx]

My only defense is to point out that I used the word "imply" specifically to insinuate that there are other options but that their likelihood of application in this context (given the acknowledgement of Jazzylynn that the people to whom we were referring exist) was very low. On the basis of communication alone, while logic may reveal a non-path path - like a light switch stuck halfway between settings - the way in which she communicated her ideas gave the impression that she did not feel the need to regard others as human beings.

I agree with you that you're probably right about Jazzylynn's stance. She seems to be willfully ignorant at best, and deliberately trolling at worst. This is a logical fallacy that may be minor in this and most contexts, but it's one I'm painfully sensitive to, as it's misused against me all the time.

I am an atheist. I do not believe that there is a god or gods. But when I tell people this, the response if very often "So you're saying there's no god." And I have to break out the candy jar analogy, the proper dilemma/forking language, and explain that my lack of belief in the existence of a god is not the same as my AFFIRMATIVE believe that there are no gods. This is a distinction that can be very hard to spell out, very tricky to make people understand, but if I don't take the time and energy, I usually have to then justify why I have no burden of proof in the "god exists" debate.

So yeah; this is one I'm sensitive too. But even so, generally speaking, it's a good idea to avoid the FORMAL logical fallacies identified by Aristotle and his merry band of logicians.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

I agree. And yes, the Atheism debate is... irritating at best. Particularly when having to spell out that it's not a world view on the basis that a lack of belief does not constitute a world view.

In the end, particularly given the tone of the rest of my response, you are perfectly correct to have called me out on that. Thank you for doing so.

[Oniya]

I just wanna say that these last several posts are the sort of thing I love seeing in the PROC. 

[MiraMirror]

I just wanna say that these last several posts are the sort of thing I love seeing in the PROC.

Might I probe and ask why? .x. 

[Oniya]

People standing up for each other, people pointing out things in a civil manner, and people taking correction with grace.

[TheGlyphstone]

I agree with you that you're probably right about Jazzylynn's stance. She seems to be willfully ignorant at best, and deliberately trolling at worst. This is a logical fallacy that may be minor in this and most contexts, but it's one I'm painfully sensitive to, as it's misused against me all the time.

I am an atheist. I do not believe that there is a god or gods. But when I tell people this, the response if very often "So you're saying there's no god." And I have to break out the candy jar analogy, the proper dilemma/forking language, and explain that my lack of belief in the existence of a god is not the same as my AFFIRMATIVE believe that there are no gods. This is a distinction that can be very hard to spell out, very tricky to make people understand, but if I don't take the time and energy, I usually have to then justify why I have no burden of proof in the "god exists" debate.

So yeah; this is one I'm sensitive too. But even so, generally speaking, it's a good idea to avoid the FORMAL logical fallacies identified by Aristotle and his merry band of logicians.

Just as far as semantic terminology goes, this would be the difference between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism? The latter is admittedly a sort of linguistic kludge since gnosticism is in itself a religious tradition, but the gist is between saying someone believes but cannot prove X, and someone categorically stating X as an objective fact.

[Oniya]

Just as far as semantic terminology goes, this would be the difference between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism? The latter is admittedly a sort of linguistic kludge since gnosticism is in itself a religious tradition, but the gist is between saying someone believes but cannot prove X, and someone categorically stating X as an objective fact.

The 'gnosis' in this case comes from the Greek for 'to know' (also part of 'diagnosis').  Gnosis is 'knowledge', agnosis is 'absence of knowledge'.  The religious 'gnosticism' uses the same root word. [/linguistical trivia]

[Mithlomwen]

People standing up for each other, people pointing out things in a civil manner, and people taking correction with grace.

^ So much this. 

Thank you all for yet again proving what a wonderful place E really is. 

[TheGlyphstone]

The 'gnosis' in this case comes from the Greek for 'to know' (also part of 'diagnosis').  Gnosis is 'knowledge', agnosis is 'absence of knowledge'.  The religious 'gnosticism' uses the same root word. [/linguistical trivia]

so its not a kludge, its linguistic retro-engineering!

[Regina Minx]

Just as far as semantic terminology goes, this would be the difference between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism? The latter is admittedly a sort of linguistic kludge since gnosticism is in itself a religious tradition, but the gist is between saying someone believes but cannot prove X, and someone categorically stating X as an objective fact.

Not...quite. In this context, it has more to do with the shifting of the burden of proof. A lot of religious people tend to view religious belief and belief in god as the norm, and to ask those that differ from the norm to justify themselves. The burden of proof in any debate rests with the person making the claim. The theist "I believe that god exists" and the strong atheist "I believe that no god exists" would each have a burden of proof to demonstrate the truth of their claim. But just like a court of law is not set up to determine guilt or innocence, but whether or not guilt has been proven, my usual tactic for discussing this is to make the argument that until such time as something is demonstrated to be true, disbelief in it is the only epistemologically warranted position.

This is not the same thing as the gnostic-agnostic spectrum. In fact, gnosticism, atheism, and theism are not mutually exclusive or contradictory, and 'agnosticism' is not a middle ground between atheism and theism. Gnosticism refers to what you know, and theism refers to what you believe. One of the classical definitions of knowledge is "justified true belief"; you can believe things you don't know, and disbelieve things you don't know. Helpful visual diagram is helpful:



Because I am a Bayesian, though, there is not much in the world that I am gnostic about. Almost all of my knowledge is known to be true only within the error bars of my own epistemic certainty, with provisions that I might be wrong baked into almost everything I claim to 'know'.  Personally, I think the notion of knowledge/belief fuzzy at best, and would just as soon dispense with notions of absolute certainty and replace it with probablistic belief instead, but that's me.

[Oniya]

Because I am a Bayesian, though, there is not much in the world that I am gnostic about. Almost all of my knowledge is known to be true only within the error bars of my own epistemic certainty, with provisions that I might be wrong baked into almost everything I claim to 'know'.  Personally, I think the notion of knowledge/belief fuzzy at best, and would just as soon dispense with notions of absolute certainty and replace it with probablistic belief instead, but that's me.

This just means you pop open Photoshop and throw a 'blur' filter on the diagram.  ;D  (Or a circular gradient if you want to be really ambitious.)

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Gnosis is really only important if you have an abundance of breed, auspice or tribal gifts.

[/Werewolf trivia]

[FeveredDreams]

I am a jerk,  I can admit that.  After a certain point of hearing the same stuff over... and over and over again.  I lost it.

While I am not apologizing to Jazz,  I am sorry for coming off as an asshole and tainting the legitimacy of the words of people who are calmer and capable of well defending my views.  I should have known to step aside. 

[NebulousCass]

I would just like to say that I am pretty excited about Danica Roem's election.
A lot of hard work went into that win and probably a whole lot of persecution was suffered through as well.
Not just during the campaign but before, during and afterwards will be a constant thing.

Hopefully this is the beginning of an era of acceptance, tolerance and love toward all members of the human race.

I only hope that one day, perhaps in the far future that our descendants can look back at us and say "This, this is where peace began.". I weep at the thought that looking into the future there will be no voice to speak about us, that we will be forgotten by the cosmos because we were consumed by our own hatred, our own mistrust of one another so much that we silenced our voice, that we annihilated ourselves. That one day we are united as one race, one planet. Bound together by a mutual acceptance and understanding, where bigotry and hatred are far removed from our culture and we can all work and live together in peace, working toward the betterment of all mankind.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

I would just like to say that I am pretty excited about Danica Roem's election.
A lot of hard work went into that win and probably a whole lot of persecution was suffered through as well.
Not just during the campaign but before, during and afterwards will be a constant thing.

Hopefully this is the beginning of an era of acceptance, tolerance and love toward all members of the human race.

I only hope that one day, perhaps in the far future that our descendants can look back at us and say "This, this is where peace began.". I weep at the thought that looking into the future there will be no voice to speak about us, that we will be forgotten by the cosmos because we were consumed by our own hatred, our own mistrust of one another so much that we silenced our voice, that we annihilated ourselves. That one day we are united as one race, one planet. Bound together by a mutual acceptance and understanding, where bigotry and hatred are far removed from our culture and we can all work and live together in peace, working toward the betterment of all mankind.

+1000, darling. I'm really hoping.

[Remiel]

Because I am a Bayesian, though, there is not much in the world that I am gnostic about. Almost all of my knowledge is known to be true only within the error bars of my own epistemic certainty, with provisions that I might be wrong baked into almost everything I claim to 'know'.  Personally, I think the notion of knowledge/belief fuzzy at best, and would just as soon dispense with notions of absolute certainty and replace it with probablistic belief instead, but that's me.

As Socrates said: "I am the wisest of all the Greeks, because I, alone out of all the Greeks, know that I know nothing."