Is transgender something to get upset about?

[Immanuel Can]

This is not an adversarial situation, Immanuel.

Actually, that's what I was saying. Neither courts nor philosophy is a genuinely "adversarial" situation. Nobody should be hating or fighting with anybody; but neither should they be vacuously agreeing in either place. Instead, there should be calm, intelligent competition of perspectives, with a view to finding out truth.

As I said, I have no feeling of hostility here. I think two people can disagree quite amiably, and yet be as firm as they like in their views.

We all know that there is suffering and each of us here wants to alleviate it.

I was simply questioning whether that was true -- or wise.

Do we really want our children never to suffer, for example, if their growing up process requires them to overcome some challenges that may even sometimes be painful? I think a good parent would recognize that learning is sometimes painful, and encourage instead the child's sense of confidence in his/her ability to overcome the pains of growth.

If you were to point out to me where for instance I lack scepticism, I'd thank you.

I was not implicating you. I was only speaking generally, and saying that it's good if we all understand what we are doing as an amicable exercise in debate, not a personally-invested fight.

In a cooperative spirit you might have written " Despite that pain and suffering is sometimes beneficial, the suffering in this world is, I agree ,so bad that we want to alleviate it where we can."

I didn't feel that that was what I wanted to say. And so I must thank you for the suggestion, but it's not my idea, so I must decline.

On the contrary, I would argue that sometimes, even when we can, we ought not to alleviate all suffering. Some of it, as I say, is beneficial and necessary to growth and achievement; and if that's what it takes to grow and achieve, then I would say that the most loving thing a parent could do is leave a place for it in their child's life. We can perhaps bubble-wrap our children to keep them from harm; but that is not the way they will learn to trust their own power, stamina and ability.

If we always prevent suffering, how will the child feel any sense of triumph of his or her own, and how will the child become an adult?

[Greta]

Immanuel, my understanding is that all means were explored for many decades before the surgery was accepted. No doubt gender issues are intractable - after all, which of us chatting here would happily adjust to life in the role of the opposite sex? It would feel incongruous to us. If forced into the opposite role, telling us to "get used to it" or treating it as a character building exercise would be futile.

The statistics suggest that transpeople don't mess around when they are forced to live in the wrong role for their minds - many simply just kill themselves, and I don't think their families or friends would be thrilled to know it was in the name of building their character. First and foremost, medicine is about keeping people alive and functional. It should not be a political football, although it appears that is exactly what it's become.

I can see a case for "letting people go" in a situation where we cannot care for everyone, which is I think is the bottom line of your stance. If one was concerned for the character of those born with emotional features more indicative of the opposite sex then surely there'd be better ways than arguing against treatments that many claim saved their lives? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ed-my-life

Still, if we assume that the ultra wealthy cannot and will not surrender their hold on the taxation system then, yes, we do have serious resource scarcity issue and then I can see an argument for withholding funding for the surgery. Of course, in that context, we are also looking at cuts to services for the unemployed, chronically ill, elderly and the disabled.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, my understanding is that all means were explored for many decades...

The history books seem remarkably free from this story...perhaps you'd enlighten me. How was this done, by whom, where, and what strategies were attempted, to the effect that we have now exhausted all possibilities?

It seems to me than when even more dysphoric people who have had the surgery are killing themselves than those who have no had it (though only by a narrow margin) that is as good a reason as you'll find to decide that the "therapeutic regime" of cutting off people's body parts or installing new ones is failing to address the mental illness problem behind dysphoria. It's not only not helping: it's making it marginally worse.

But the overriding factor to note is the appalling suicide rate, and the clear bewilderment and inability to deal with reality that is associated with body dysphoria. We should, if we are decent folk, be earnest to see these people helped...not to see them have their illness given greater scope and publicly proclaimed a good thing.

So we must ask ourselves what real "compassion" is...is it persisting with this failed regime of emasculating people? Is it in blaming the victims? (Surely not.) Is it in "normalizing" their malady, so that they are dissuaded from even seeking help with the mental illness? Is it using these poor folks as tokens for our own "liberal" virtue signalling, while paying no care for their suffering?

Or is it in getting them counselling, comfort and a better therapy?

I'll opt for that last one: which one is your pick?

[Greta]

I think we should mind our own business and get out of their way. People have changed gender roles in all societies so it's obviously a natural variant. It only makes sense that people use whatever technology is available to live in a way that feels comfortable. I wonder how many killed themselves because they were identified and discriminated against?

In trying to "help", when motivated by the ideology* of having people remain in the state in which "God made them" you become part of the problem. A multitude of strangers "trying to help", as you say you are, would seem utterly depressing. I would hate to have people judge and assess me in that way.

It's ultimately just biological diversity made problematic by the stigmas imposed by still-patriarchal societies that neurotically enforce gender roles.


* I assume that you have no special interest in, or care about, transgender people's welfare over that of others.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can, people who are a different gender from their genitalia are not "mentally ill". They are people whose gender is not what society is dictating what their gender ought to be. Mental illness is not to be defined by abnormality, but by suffering and morbidity. If we all had a culture of tolerance many fewer people might suffer from body dysphoria and consequently they would not find their lives to be intolerable.

'Transgender' is caste as undesirable. Gender orientation, unlike bodily features such as genitalia, is a combination of nature and nurture. Let's extend nurture(society tolerance levels) so that minority gender preferences lead to neither suicide nor invasive surgery.

Let's consider that society should change so that we all accept that there is a variety of genders. The very fact that there are people who want to have plastic surgery to alter their healthy genitalia might indicate that society refuses to tolerate extremes of the bell curve.We should be asking "why does society not accept that some people are different from what is considered to be normal?" that is the question we should be asking.

[TSBU]

Spanish.

Magnificent language. So expressive. I regret I have all too little of it right now. Lo siento.

Not very different to any other romanic language: French, Italian, Portugués... It's said that Russian is very expresive too.

Transgender is not body dysphoria, or at least, that's not enough definition of the problem.

It is, it's just an extreme form and, as you say, often associated with other conditions that complicate it, such as Aspergers Syndrome or a history of abuse. The people who experience it are thoroughly worthy of sympathy.

I wouldn't put al the "dysphoria" problems in the same group, they are too different. But a I said, I haven't met any person who wanted to shange their sex. In any way, "often" is not always. I have a history of abuse and I like my penus.

Completely diferent problems. And in some cases, it's very understable to feel that way, if you borned witout legs... who wouldn't want to have them?

Actually some body-dysphoric people wouldn't want them. Consider the sufferers of BIID, for example: they actually amputate limbs, or maim themselves...but then, so do some of the "transgendered."

I know, but where is the difference? I haven't met any person who said that puting fake tits or limbs implies being mentally ill when it is a woman the one who wants it, and the big etc going through creams and all that wasted money. What I'm defending is their right to do what they want, even if I find them wrong with my eyes, as long as it is their problems. At least, if I'm going to phisically stop someoene from dong anything, I'm the one who is going to do it, and only after knowing the person, I don't think that puting a law will help anyone, that's all.

...being fat is for many people a crime...

It shouldn't be...but neither should it be "normalized." Fat kills. It creates heart attacks, joint problems, fertility issues, breathing problems, economic distress, social impairment, severe self-image problems, and sometimes death. It should be treated, not normalized.

What do you understand by normalized? Yep, it create many health problems... not economic distress, not social impairment, and not severe self-image problems: idiots are what cause that things. Many people can't stop being fat, it is in their genes, like being short or other things, and healthy problems doesn't explain a shit, people attack beccause of their sex behaviour.

People smoke, that's an adiction that will destroy you. As far as I know, changing sex is not worse for the body than smoking cigarettes.

I don't normalize smoking either. It kills too. I know several people who could not quit, and died of lung cancer. That's truly horrible. We should wish for every person who smokes that they would quit before they die horribly. We shouldn't encourage them to smoke.

I don't know what do you understand by normalize, you can only control yourself, and you are only one, you can't normalize anything. Yep, smoking is a piece of shit, and it's a good comparison with fat people, I don't find many people laughing at smokers. I don't encourage them, it's just an example of how "nor sane" are everybody, and how little you can controll.

Do you want to forbide smoking?

Do you want to empower lung cancer?

There is a third option between "with me or against me", I want to empower my own choices about my life if they don't harm other people.

No matter what you think, it depends on the case, and if you really want to help a person, then do it yourself, at least try to know the fucking person before interfering in their choices.

If someone is mentally ill, then what they do is either a reduced choice, in some cases, or no choice at all. In such cases, we "interfere" if we can, because the person in question is needing help.

I don't agree at all. Being wrong (or deeply wrong, in the core and personality) doesn't change the fact that you are making the choice. If you want to interfere, do it alone, not protected by the masses and the law, go an help a group of drug addicts or whatever you want, but know them before acting. If a person with cancer wants to die because of pain and is going to die in 5 days anyway, there are going to be many people claiming that the person should stay alive... I'd say "you want to interfere? ok, up your hands, let's see who interfere better".

That is why we don't execute the insane: even if they committed homicide, they could not always help it. And to the extent they could not help it, we may even incarcerate them for their own good and the good of society; but we also treat them, and we don't regard their behaviour as criminal. They had no ability to do otherwise at the time.

No. You are asuming that majority choices are correct or sane, but everybody is crazy. There is no good reason to do most of what is done.

Since you ask, I can tell you that the person I'm talking to about this I know very well. And I don't "interfere" with his choice: he is going ahead as he sees fit. I have no power and no intention to restrict him. But I fear for him, because when it's all over, he'll find no sympathy among the "liberal" set, if he continues to have struggles with his identity, self-image and self-destructiveness. The "liberals" will refuse him compassion, because he won't fit their narrative about how transgenderism solves such issues. They will isolate him and ignore him. Their attitude will be, "Why is he complaining? He makes it sound like transgendering doesn't help sufferers become "normal" and "happy." " They will prefer their narrative to his happiness...and life...and they will make him an outcast if he complains.

I must apologyze, I wasn't really reading the thread, and you seem to be reasonable. If you don't interfere but talking etc, then you have my best wishes with that person. But... I'm afraid some people are beyond repair.

So I sincerely fear for him. His "allies" will turn on him instantly if this does not work. And they will continue to deny he needs help. He will be all alone. But I will not turn on him. His friendship with me will not depend on my agreement with his choice, and I will continue to see him as a real person and a friend, and I will treat him as such.

It's going to be painfull for you I think Good luck.

I wonder, would you? If a friend of yours were to convert to some conservative religious or political position with which you don't agree -- perhaps, say, opposing the normalizing of transgenderism, for example -- could you still treat him as a friend?

I don't have close friends. I have people who would fight for me, and I would fight for them, but I don't feel many more than what I feel for my cat, because in my eyes, everybody is "crazy". So, every time I'm with a person, I'm doing something like that.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I think there is a far more serious problem. And that is due to reality dysphoria due to religion. Many people have a gene mutation which causes an unreasonable obsession with the idea of a divine being. This disorder is responsible for many psychological problems.

God Gene Dysphoria Disorder.

1) Sufferers of GGDD are seldom aware of their disease, and consider themselves 'normal'. This is one of the key problems with GGDD.
2) They consider most of the rest of the world as wrong, misguided, or wicked for not following their moral rules.
3) They have a serious problem with allowing others to lead their lives in their own way. This not only negatively effects GGDD free people, but also most other sufferers of GGDD each of whom have key differences in their conceptions of this "divine presence" or "divine being".
4) This condition has led to wars of religion both inter-religious and intra-religious wars are directly attributable to those carrying the mutation, especially where those affected get into key areas of political power.
5) For many affected in a rationally organised world these tendencies are little more than an amusing oddity, but as the condition is characterised by an arrogant confidence, there is always a danger that the condition can be passed on to others by activating epigenetically others' GGDD gene.
6) Severe cases include Hitler and Donald Trump.


GGDD Treatment regimes.

Identification of the "god gene" or the GGDD, is relatively new and has been previously masked as simple cultural indoctrination.
Reason and Evidence can be a complete cure for those exhibiting the mild form of GGDD, and this has been ably demonstrated by the rise in Atheism and Secular politics ever the last 200 years following the Enlightenment.
More serious cases are now being looked into for possible lobotomies, and other surgical interventions.

[TSBU]

I think there is a far more serious problem. And that is due to reality dysphoria due to religion. Many people have a gene mutation which causes an unreasonable obsession with the idea of a divine being. This disorder is responsible for many psychological problems.

God Gene Dysphoria Disorder.

1) Sufferers of GGDD are seldom aware of their disease, and consider themselves 'normal'. This is one of the key problems with GGDD.
2) They consider most of the rest of the world as wrong, misguided, or wicked for not following their moral rules.
3) They have a serious problem with allowing others to lead their lives in their own way. This not only negatively effects GGDD free people, but also most other sufferers of GGDD each of whom have key differences in their conceptions of this "divine presence" or "divine being".
4) This condition has led to wars of religion both inter-religious and intra-religious wars are directly attributable to those carrying the mutation, especially where those affected get into key areas of political power.
5) For many affected in a rationally organised world these tendencies are little more than an amusing oddity, but as the condition is characterised by an arrogant confidence, there is always a danger that the condition can be passed on to others by activating epigenetically others' GGDD gene.
6) Severe cases include Hitler and Donald Trump.


GGDD Treatment regimes.

Identification of the "god gene" or the GGDD, is relatively new and has been previously masked as simple cultural indoctrination.
Reason and Evidence can be a complete cure for those exhibiting the mild form of GGDD, and this has been ably demonstrated by the rise in Atheism and Secular politics ever the last 200 years following the Enlightenment.
More serious cases are now being looked into for possible lobotomies, and other surgical interventions.

I really don't know if you are being sarcastic or you believe that crap XD.

[Immanuel Can]

I wonder how many killed themselves because they were identified and discriminated against?

Statistically, discrimination does not correlate at all with suicide. It must be a negligible number, if any. For if it did, then the most suicidal people would be the most discriminated-against; and statistically, we know the opposite is often true. For example, white people commit suicide more often than African Americans...and I don't think anyone is going to say that the discrimination is against whites, are they?

In trying to "help", when motivated by the ideology* of having people remain in the state in which "God made them" you become part of the problem.

Well, I didn't use those words: but "the problem" is manifestly not discrimination but mental illness. I didn't create that; I'm the one who wants to advocate for help and support, so I'm more a part of the solution, perhaps.

A multitude of strangers "trying to help", as you say you are, would seem utterly depressing. I would hate to have people judge and assess me in that way.

If you're ever mentally ill, I hope that somebody will come to your aid. But to do that, they will have to correctly diagnose your condition...they will have to make a judgment about what is happening to you.

It's ultimately just biological diversity made problematic by the stigmas imposed by still-patriarchal societies that neurotically enforce gender roles.

This is nothing but Liberal propaganda language, without a hint of truth in it, I'm afraid. Examine the facts.

Our societies are no longer "patriarchal" in the West, at least not for women under the age of 30, who are far more likely to be hired, get the same wages as men by law, take more spaces in higher education, have more social supports, are less reviled in our entertainments, are far less likely to commit suicide or be killed on the job, don't have to enlist, have rights to children that males can never dream of having, have the courts entirely on their side, legally have recourses that men are routinely denied, get the majority of health care, and dies later. Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?

As for gender roles, the "Arthur Ashe Courage Award" goes to a trans male. So the evidence doesn't back that view.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Our societies are no longer "patriarchal" in the West, at least not for women under the age of 30, who are far more likely to be hired, get the same wages as men by law, take more spaces in higher education, have more social supports, are less reviled in our entertainments, are far less likely to commit suicide or be killed on the job, don't have to enlist, have rights to children that males can never dream of having, have the courts entirely on their side, legally have recourses that men are routinely denied, get the majority of health care, and dies later. Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?

Which Utopia do you mean? Tne Trump administration has equal numbers of men and women?
There are just as many women earning tons of money as men? Women get adequate special leave to have their babies,and thereafter can nurse them in public whenever the babies are hungry which babies often are?

You are at it again, Immanuel, you are insisting upon whataboutery balance sheets and here am I getting drawn in . Wherein does power lie, Immanuel?

[Immanuel Can]

Which Utopia do you mean?

None. Life isn't perfect for anybody. But some people have it better, and some worse. Right now, women have many advantages, just as I listed them previously.

But I should have added the educational system: it's highly biased in favour of female habits and styles of learning, and against young males. All the studies show that, even the ones being done by ardent Second-Wave Feminists like Faludi, Steinem or Sommers. It's not even a matter of debate anymore.

There are just as many women earning tons of money as men?

Didn't say that. Didn't even imply that. What I said was that in the West, we have laws that absolutely forbid the practice of paying women less than men for the same job. Check your local laws. But men a) do more dangerous jobs than women do, on average, and b) stay in the workforce longer and more consistently than most women choose to do, so overall earnings and promotion remain higher for males...because women make different choices.

In fact, men don't even have many of these choices, as below...

Women get adequate special leave to have their babies, and thereafter can nurse them in public whenever the babies are hungry which babies often are?

In my country, men get some birth accommodations too; but it's not equal. For the most part, women have their reproduction subsidized, and men do not. That's another way the scale tips against men.

In America, for example, young single mothers who conceive irresponsibly are given welfare. Men don't get that. In fact, they don't even have a right to say what happens to any children they've produced...not even to say whether those children get to live or die, let alone what will happen to them after they're born...and then men are held financially accountable to support any children the woman unilaterally "chose" to have rather than kill, whether the men "chose" to bring them to term or not. Seems kind of one-sided, no?

Wherein does power lie, Immanuel?

Which "power"? Physical? Political? Moral? Verbal? Demographic? Military? Economic? Persuasive? Reproductive? I'm not sure which you're asking.

[Immanuel Can]

Not very different to any other romanic language: French, Italian, Portugués... It's said that Russian is very expresive too.

Maybe. But I find Spanish a very humane, warm kind of language. It's very sociable, and not so much a crisp, cold, business-like kind of thing.

Favourite word: "sobremesa." We need that word in English...and that practice, too.

I must apologyze, I wasn't really reading the thread, and you seem to be reasonable. If you don't interfere but talking etc, then you have my best wishes with that person. But... I'm afraid some people are beyond repair.

Thank you. But you needn't worry. I know that people find "tone" impossible to detect online, and so they tend to imagine a tone for you. It's not always the right one, and this creates misunderstanding.

My friend isn't, per se, "beyond repair," I hope. But I also hope his new choice doesn't lead him to think that he is. After all, when you've tried the "ultimate solution," then if it doesn't work well for you, and you're still not happy with yourself, what do you have left to hope?

I worry he will despair and become harmful to himself. Many people in his situation do. So all I can do is keep the lines of communication open for him.

[Belinda]

Which Utopia do you mean?

None. Life isn't perfect for anybody. But some people have it better, and some worse. Right now, women have many advantages, just as I listed them previously.

But I should have added the educational system: it's highly biased in favour of female habits and styles of learning, and against young males. All the studies show that, even the ones being done by ardent Second-Wave Feminists like Faludi, Steinem or Sommers. It's not even a matter of debate anymore.

There are just as many women earning tons of money as men?

Didn't say that. Didn't even imply that. What I said was that in the West, we have laws that absolutely forbid the practice of paying women less than men for the same job. Check your local laws. But men a) do more dangerous jobs than women do, on average, and b) stay in the workforce longer and more consistently than most women choose to do, so overall earnings and promotion remain higher for males...because women make different choices.

In fact, men don't even have many of these choices, as below...

Women get adequate special leave to have their babies, and thereafter can nurse them in public whenever the babies are hungry which babies often are?

In my country, men get some birth accommodations too; but it's not equal. For the most part, women have their reproduction subsidized, and men do not. That's another way the scale tips against men.

In America, for example, young single mothers who conceive irresponsibly are given welfare. Men don't get that. In fact, they don't even have a right to say what happens to any children they've produced...not even to say whether those children get to live or die, let alone what will happen to them after they're born...and then men are held financially accountable to support any children the woman unilaterally "chose" to have rather than kill, whether the men "chose" to bring them to term or not. Seems kind of one-sided, no?

Wherein does power lie, Immanuel?

Which "power"? Physical? Political? Moral? Verbal? Demographic? Military? Economic? Persuasive? Reproductive? I'm not sure which you're asking.

_________________________________________________
My reply to Immanuel:
There is no "the educational system", these vary from country to country, Immanuel (my underline). If you refer to curriculums those are dictated by law to a large extent.Do you imagine that girls are inherently less interested than boys in science , is that the problem? As to method I taught my students and pupils according to their individual needs as all decent teachers do.

There still exists a glass ceiling for women (Trump administration! )and there is even a social class bias. It's an uphill struggle to make employers observe equality laws.

IC

But men a) do more dangerous jobs than women do, on average, and b) stay in the workforce longer and more consistently than most women choose to do, so overall earnings and promotion remain higher for males...because women make different choices.

Women make those choices because the playing field is uneven.

Regarding the work women must do to gestate, labour at giving birth, and breast feed infants there is no comparison with what the fathers must do at those times. You seems to have led a sheltered life unaware of perinatal mortality in the developing world and among the world's poor on the whole. There is no absolute compulsion for fathers to support mother and child whereas the mother has no choice other than the challenging alternatives of carrying to term or elective abortion. Thereafter the mother often has to undertake the entire care of the child as the father has deserted. What would you have, Immanuel, minimal care for mothers? Note carefully, Immanuel, I say nothing against the rights of attentive, affectionate, and dutiful fathers and I do support those rights wholeheartedly.

Yes indeed reproduction is one-sided and it's women who carry the heavier burden. Your vision regarding women and reproduction and childcare is blinkered, Immanuel. Both as regards the imperative burdens that women carry, and the actual numbers of responsible versus irresponsible fathers worldwide.

I C

In America, for example, young single mothers who conceive irresponsibly are given welfare. Men don't get that.

The man is irresponsible too, Immanuel. Also do reflect on seduction, rape and incest in all of which the woman is the victim of the conception event.
I said "power". I mean any and all forms of power over others which result in who gets the best deals. I really thought that you could work that out without quibbling.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I think there is a far more serious problem. And that is due to reality dysphoria due to religion. Many people have a gene mutation which causes an unreasonable obsession with the idea of a divine being. This disorder is responsible for many psychological problems.

God Gene Dysphoria Disorder.

1) Sufferers of GGDD are seldom aware of their disease, and consider themselves 'normal'. This is one of the key problems with GGDD.
2) They consider most of the rest of the world as wrong, misguided, or wicked for not following their moral rules.
3) They have a serious problem with allowing others to lead their lives in their own way. This not only negatively effects GGDD free people, but also most other sufferers of GGDD each of whom have key differences in their conceptions of this "divine presence" or "divine being".
4) This condition has led to wars of religion both inter-religious and intra-religious wars are directly attributable to those carrying the mutation, especially where those affected get into key areas of political power.
5) For many affected in a rationally organised world these tendencies are little more than an amusing oddity, but as the condition is characterised by an arrogant confidence, there is always a danger that the condition can be passed on to others by activating epigenetically others' GGDD gene.
6) Severe cases include Hitler and Donald Trump.


GGDD Treatment regimes.

Identification of the "god gene" or the GGDD, is relatively new and has been previously masked as simple cultural indoctrination.
Reason and Evidence can be a complete cure for those exhibiting the mild form of GGDD, and this has been ably demonstrated by the rise in Atheism and Secular politics ever the last 200 years following the Enlightenment.
More serious cases are now being looked into for possible lobotomies, and other surgical interventions.

I really don't know if you are being sarcastic or you believe that crap XD.

It's not crap. It's what Mr. Can is suffering from.

[TSBU]

I think there is a far more serious problem. And that is due to reality dysphoria due to religion. Many people have a gene mutation which causes an unreasonable obsession with the idea of a divine being. This disorder is responsible for many psychological problems.

That's absurd. Any person with a but of curiosity about genetics or neurology can know that it's absurd. There isn't a "god gen", brain structures, thoughts, electrochemical signals, can't be so concrete in a gen... Where are the scientific studies?

God Gene Dysphoria Disorder.

1) Sufferers of GGDD are seldom aware of their disease, and consider themselves 'normal'. This is one of the key problems with GGDD.

Well, I'm an atheist, but believing in god ismore common than being an atheist. And what you are saying can be said about every self-lie or about common stupidity.

2) They consider most of the rest of the world as wrong, misguided, or wicked for not following their moral rules.

Most is more than half? More than half of the world believe in god, and more than half of EEUU voters have voted for that anoying guy.

3) They have a serious problem with allowing others to lead their lives in their own way. This not only negatively effects GGDD free people, but also most other sufferers of GGDD each of whom have key differences in their conceptions of this "divine presence" or "divine being".

May they have a problem leting others belive in god? Put a comunist and a capitalist (I mean, people who say they are that) in a room and they will argue for hours, considering the other one wrong. You can put a hillary and a trump voter, it would be similar.

4) This condition has led to wars of religion both inter-religious and intra-religious wars are directly attributable to those carrying the mutation, especially where those affected get into key areas of political power.

I think I can think in wars against some genetic tipes or races too... And, hell, are you saying that someone has picked samples of enough bodys in every holy war and they all have in common something that people away from the war didn't have? That would be pretty awesome!

5) For many affected in a rationally organised world these tendencies are little more than an amusing oddity, but as the condition is characterised by an arrogant confidence, there is always a danger that the condition can be passed on to others by activating epigenetically others' GGDD gene.

Rationallly organised world... yeeeaaaahh....

6) Severe cases include Hitler and Donald Trump.

Oh, I think that's one of the wars that included hate against other races and some believers in god...

GGDD Treatment regimes.

Identification of the "god gene" or the GGDD, is relatively new and has been previously masked as simple cultural indoctrination.

God gene... it is ridiculous even in the name, it obviously is someone trying to catch attention by puting that name. Where are the "studies"?

Reason and Evidence can be a complete cure for those exhibiting the mild form of GGDD, and this has been ably demonstrated by the rise in Atheism and Secular politics ever the last 200 years following the Enlightenment.

Wait... then where is the difference between having the gene or being simply wrong if it can be cured with evidence? Being stupid is genetic and it can't be cured, if that's what you are talking about.

More serious cases are now being looked into for possible lobotomies, and other surgical interventions.

Porque en mi barrio todos somos así, dialogantes, solidarios, transigentes, en fin: buena gente. Y recuerda, si lo niegas... te doy una hostia.