Is transgender a lie?

[Armoured]

And you know this...how?

Because his ideology demands it be true. Surely you've noticed how reality conforms to correct ideology?

 

[Skybringr]

Because his ideology demands it be true. Surely you've noticed how reality conforms to correct ideology?

Whatever you say, Roman. Your ideology should be saying the same thing.

 

[jennimatts]

You see, then if our foundation for truth is somewhere else, we cannot have a common ground. My opinion is this as a Christian. If the Scripture is not our foundation, we have no firm foundation. Historically, the Scripture was always treated as so. But if we don't, all we have to go by are the opinions of men, which shift and change. So, then you have no certainty anymore.

(sorry for being about 300 posts late on this thread)

Interesting that Jesus defied what the religious establishment firmly believed and taught as scriptural truth, and to which they required strict adherence. I don't think it a good idea for us to never challenge our interpretation of scripture.

 

[Skybringr]

(sorry for being about 300 posts late on this thread)

Interesting that Jesus defied what the religious establishment firmly believed and taught as scriptural truth, and to which they required strict adherence. I don't think it a good idea for us to never challenge our interpretation of scripture.

That is historically an inaccurate perception.

The Pharisees were rightfully expecting a warrior, like David, who would drive away tyranny and put them above all others.
After all, they deserved it. They fought alongside with God and were persecuted for thousands of years- they were promised eminence.

Jesus railed the Pharisees because they were hypocritical. By the same note, he acknowledges that they were rightful successors of Moses.

*hence, the succession of Peter to Francis thereafter the atonement

You are missing out on a key observation of the whole thing. I would suggest you take note of it, and see the hypocrisy in your own standing.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yet, people choose to call themselves something they are not

That's not fair - the Christians on this thread who have been calling people names are still Christians despite their misdeeds. Remember, they're saved, not perfect.

 

[KCfromNC]

It is only easy for those not within the issue. For anyone dealing with transgender issues it is extremely personal...

Sure, I don't mean to minimize the amount of pain the nonsense I quoted causes to people who are dealing with this issue. It has to be bad enough without "loving" Christians here to call you all sorts of names.

I was just pointing out the fact that those who are here attacking trans folks can't even be consistent in what they are saying. They're absolutely certain that they are right and are just throwing anything they can up against the wall to rationalize the icky feelings they seem to have. Pointing out how baseless their feelings are is my attempt to show that they're just confused and lost on the issue, hopefully taking away some of the sting of the name-calling and vitriol they seem to be compelled to share with people they've never met.

 

[KCfromNC]

I love how atheists are all about empirical evidence and are absurdly difficult to talk to on just about anything no matter how simple.

But with the lacking evidence of transgenders, or anything liberal, you all blindly accept it

Go figure. I guess all that liberal nonsense is in fact- liberal nonsense.

None of this clears up the contradiction in what you wrote. You tell us education doesn't matter and at the same time want us to accept the "research" of someone educated in the area as authoritative. Can't have it both ways, at least if you want people to think you're being consistent rather than just cherry-picking stuff that agrees with your biases.

On the other hand, if you used "liberal" one more time, it would have been a convincing rebuttal. Oh well, better luck next time.

 

[FireDragon76]

I agree. Society accepted them as transgender and now they are killing themselves. If society had not accepted them as such they would have been compelled to not identify themselves as transgender and they would probably still be alive.

Transgender persons have twice the unemployment rate of the national average, and they are much more likely to be discriminated against in employment and lose their jobs. Besidse the high suicide rate, every year transwomen are harassed, physically assaulted, or murdered, often savagely due to "gay panic". This sure doesn't sound like social acceptance to me.

 

[Joykins]

It does not matter if they admit their gender identity to others or not, that part is superficial. Being transgender is not as simple as just saying you are or not. Either you are or you are not. The point is whether you let people know or not. In the past they would not have told anyone and kept it to themselves, and live a lie.

There are actually documented cases of people living most of their lives as the opposite gender and only getting caught at death. More rare, but it happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Barry_(surgeon) - this person was either, trans intersex, or *really, really* wanted to be a surgeon.

 

[Skybringr]

None of this clears up the contradiction in what you wrote. You tell us education doesn't matter and at the same time want us to accept the "research" of someone educated in the area as authoritative. Can't have it both ways, at least if you want people to think you're being consistent rather than just cherry-picking stuff that agrees with your biases.

On the other hand, if you used "liberal" one more time, it would have been a convincing rebuttal. Oh well, better luck next time.

I said that coerced opinion and speculation doesn't matter. Doesn't matter what kind of education a person has, a guess is a guess is a guess.

And facts are facts, and the fact of the matter is that there is no conclusive evidence to back those opinions.
As far as we can honestly deduce, there can be nothing said that transgenders were 'born that way'.
That is simply what liberals and whatnot want it to be- the desire for it to be natural rather then a deviance.

The field of psychology and genetics is a vastly incomplete science. How you all get 'fact' out of something as grand as gender and sex is really just absurd anyway. Abusing and stretching out these so called observations to propel something you really do not even know.

 

[selfinflikted]

I said that coerced opinion and speculation doesn't matter. Doesn't matter what kind of education a person has, a guess is a guess is a guess.

And facts are facts, and the fact of the matter is that there is no conclusive evidence to back those opinions.
As far as we can honestly deduce, there can be nothing said that transgenders were 'born that way'.
That is simply what liberals and whatnot want it to be- the desire for it to be natural rather then a deviance.

The field of psychology and genetics is a vastly incomplete science. How you all get 'fact' out of something as grand as gender and sex is really just absurd anyway. Abusing and stretching out these so called observations to propel something you really do not even know.

So if there is no conclusive evidence either way as you argue, especially where genetics are concerned, why is your default position to call it as you have? Why not give the people who are actually dealing with this issue and have firsthand experience - something you do not, and who almost always say that this is not a choice, the benefit of the doubt until something conclusive is found, either way?

I have a hunch that if you were completely honest with yourself and us, the answer would be: Because icky.

 

[Skybringr]

So if there is no conclusive evidence either way as you argue, especially where genetics are concerned, why is your default position to call it as you have? Why not give the people who are actually dealing with this issue and have firsthand experience - something you do not, and who almost always say that this is not a choice, the benefit of the doubt until something conclusive is found, either way?

I have a hunch that if you were completely honest with yourself and us, the answer would be: Because icky.

I am against LGBT for many reasons. For one, it is utterly against Christianity. This was the truth in Abraham's time, the Apostle's time, and all through the early, middle, and late ages. And the modern age. In fact, all the way up to about thirty years ago it was universally known to be against God. People are simply aiming to redefine Christianity.

Secondly, there is nothing to call transgender an innate, natural thing. The very fact that it has so prematurely been called factual just proves, indisputably, that science is not propelling it. It is the agenda of LGBT and it's defenders.

It is also being used as an attack on Christianity. The Church of England was pummeled heavily just by the LGBT in the UK.
Everywhere there is a liberal crowd, there is a notion that the Church is basically the big bad wolf for having not accepted homosexuality. People have left Christianity because of it, and society is pushing with all it's might to continue to bash with that same club.

Even on this site, atheists are primarily about two things it seems- the existence of God -or- LGBT.
~It is an observational fact~

And it is in my true, logical opinion that a Christian who sides with such things is definitively against the Abrahamic God and His laity. That is where my zeal sets in.

 

[selfinflikted]

I am against LGBT for many reasons. For one, it is utterly against Christianity. This was the truth in Abraham's time, the Apostle's time, and all through the early, middle, and late ages. And the modern age. In fact, all the way up to about thirty years ago it was universally known to be against God. People are simply aiming to redefine Christianity.

Great, so be against it. Not everyone is inclined nor obliged to believe the way you do and, thankfully, as an extension do not have to play by the same "rules." IOW, I couldn't care less if "[LGBT] is utterly against Christianity."

Secondly, there is nothing to call transgender an innate, natural thing.

You mean, except for, of course, the people who actually have to deal with the issue personally. I guess their testimonies are meaningless, even though they are living it.

The very fact that it has so prematurely been called factual just proves, indisputably, that science is not propelling it. It is the agenda of LGBT and it's defenders.

I think you are confused. I'm not sure that anyone has called innate transgender a fact. However, there are facts that support evidence that it is innate. There is a subtle distinction there, and I think you have twisted or unintentionally twisted what we are all saying about evidence and facts.

It is also being used as an attack on Christianity. The Church of England was pummeled heavily just by the LGBT in the UK.
Everywhere there is a liberal crowd, there is a notion that the Church is basically the big bad wolf for having not accepted homosexuality. People have left Christianity because of it, and society is pushing with all it's might to continue to bash with that same club.

Get back to me when you know what actual persecution is. Perhaps, you should start by talking to some of the trans people in this very thread. They know persecution far better than you, I'd wager.

Even on this site, atheists are primarily about two things it seems- the existence of God -or- LGBT.
~It is an observational fact~

Then you haven't ventured out very far into the subforums that atheists are allowed to participate in. There are so many more topics besides the two you've mentioned. Far more.

 

[Skybringr]

I couldn't care less if "[LGBT] is utterly against Christianity."

You obviously don't care. You came on a Christian site to make it well known, after all.
The agenda is highly evident. Homosexual, liberal, atheist.. I mean, it's like the most politically incorrect redneck at a back country Texas grill out- you fit the profile there home slice

 

[Joykins]

You obviously don't care. You came on a Christian site to make it well known, after all.
The agenda is highly evident. Homosexual, liberal, atheist.. I mean, it's like the most politically incorrect redneck at a back country Texas grill out- you fit the profile there home slice

Now, you will explain why some Christians on this thread disagree with you too. You know, those of us who are liberal--or are, in fact, merely *tolerant* of human variation--and have nevertheless not left the church?

 

[selfinflikted]

You obviously don't care. You came on a Christian site to make it well known, after all.
The agenda is highly evident. Homosexual, liberal, atheist.. I mean, it's like the most politically incorrect redneck at a back country Texas grill out- you fit the profile there home slice

I am here for the debate, exchange of ideas, boredome, and lulz. I am not here to try to force any agenda, or to make anything well-known. What a ridiculous thing to say to me. I am also not your "home slice" or anything resembling that. I could never be friends with anyone who thinks I'm an abomination, perverted, sick or twisted.

 

[Skybringr]

Now, you will explain why some Christians on this thread disagree with you too. You know, those of us who are liberal--or are, in fact, merely *tolerant* of human variation--and have nevertheless not left the church?

The ~liberal~ Christians disagree with me.

And 'tolerance' is such a loaded notion. Are you tolerant of the intolerant?
The whole thing is built on an errant premise. A conflict of interest if anything.

 

[Skybringr]

I could never be friends with anyone who thinks I'm an abomination, perverted, sick or twisted.

Everybody is ravaged by sin. Even devout Christians have to consistently work out their wrongs.

It's not the sinner, but the sin, that is abominable. The Bible warns heavily about calling evil good and good evil.
That's sort of the contradiction of the liberal mindset of certain Christians altogether. They suppose that it's judging to call something wrong, or even that it really is okay which is just plain untrue.

I believe that certain people of any sin can be saved, but their groups are generally destined for judgement.
Unconditional election is a proposition that God may save an individual nonetheless for reasons between them and Him. ~not something to rely on, however~

 

[abacabb3]

Studies of the brain are showing development closer to that of the opposite sex than the birth sex. Some people claim that it is caused by behavior, belief or environment, but they have no evidence or have presented no evidence to support the conclusion that it would have this exact effect.

But, this is not conclusive proof of what you are proposing. In fact, the science is more convincing that the behavior affects brain development, as studies have already demonstrated this for a host of other factors.

Further, let's entertain the notion that the brain is developing in such a way to be supposedly more female than male, or vice versa, and it is not being driven by behavior. The onset of genetically predisposed allergies or immune responses is considered a defect of sorts. So, empirically, how would a boy who starts mentally developing into a woman, but otherwise is physically a man, not developing a mental defect as opposed to actually gender, which is codified in the chromosomes?

Your position requires us to suspend sound judgment and regular approaches to science.

If scientists were all in agreement that transgenderism is a mental illness, would be inclined to agree with their empirical evidence or would you still reject it? My opposition in this thread has been purely on empirical, and at times, epistemological grounds. I can be convinced otherwise, but I don't think you really have evidence to present. You have a faith in transgenderism as opposed to the empirically verifiable. So, you might not change your mind, but you cannot convince me without evidence and by asserting logical fallacies, such as rats being puppies and such.

 

[Andrea411]

Sure, I don't mean to minimize the amount of pain the nonsense I quoted causes to people who are dealing with this issue. It has to be bad enough without "loving" Christians here to call you all sorts of names.

I was just pointing out the fact that those who are here attacking trans folks can't even be consistent in what they are saying. They're absolutely certain that they are right and are just throwing anything they can up against the wall to rationalize the icky feelings they seem to have. Pointing out how baseless their feelings are is my attempt to show that they're just confused and lost on the issue, hopefully taking away some of the sting of the name-calling and vitriol they seem to be compelled to share with people they've never met.

I have vague memories of this same kind of argument when there were the first heart transplants. I recall thinking I could Never do that and look how far we have come...
Of course this is somewhat different but not all that much... Christians need to realize people sin, we all do and we all need the Lord. Pushing people away from God bc they believe they are sinners is not the Great Commission.

If you disagree fine but for the Christians we need to do it in a way that presents Jesus. We sin, we expect to be forgiven bc we are trusting in Christ. They sin, they can expect to be forgiven if they are trusting in Christ. The Lord is looking at hearts not genitalia... the whole thing is a confusing mess for the church, there are times when it would just be better to step back and admit we don't have the answers.
We were never called to fix secular society so if you don't believe they are Christians why are you trying to fix them? If you think they are Christians that are misguided, than treat them like Christians... ya know the old love, patience, kindness, speak the truth in love... please don't embitter non-believers or make Christ look bad by acting as if you know what He would say on issues He never addressed.

hey just sayin'

God bless, andrea