A simple fix for the Transgender issue.

[Ken-1122]

Indeed. That is why people quote experts. So they don't have to explain all the details since most people recognize that experts likely have a better understanding of the subject then they do.

So the ole “Argument of authority” huh? The idea that because someone else knows more than you know, you are to accept what they say without question? One of the things that helped drive me away from theism to become an atheist was this Argument of authority; the fact that it is in the bible, I was supposed to accept it no matter how absurd it sounded to me. They used to say “ God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!”
No! I left those intellectual chains behind when I left theism; I’ll be darned if I allow scientific claims to stifle my ability to question the way religious claims used to; as an atheist I would think you would know better than this! C’mon bruh get with the program! As Atheists we are allowed to question EVERYTHING! Even scientific experts; otherwise it's just another religion.

This is a new and interesting definition of "empty claim". Apparently experts are now required to explain their knowledge to laymen in order to be believed. This is going to play hell with quantum physics.

They are expected to explain their claims to laymen, other experts, and anyone else who wants to know; why do you think they publish their findings for peer review? And speaking of peer review, do you know how many peer reviewed scientific theories have been published by experts only to be falsified by other experts in the field and are no longer considered theories? It is foolish to blindly take a self proclaimed expert at his word without question; as an atheist I would think you would be better than that!

How many times do I have to point out the definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive. The definition of red light is

They don't mention photons so obviously red light is not made up of photons.

If all light contain photons, logic tells you that red lights possess it as well.

No you did not ask me to define it. You stated the biological underpinnings does not mean based on biology.

Since you believe it is, please explain HOW gender (as now defined) is based in biology.

I'm going to go out on a limb and, using the definition of "underpinnings" , say that he means gender is based on biology.

However you can feel free to ask him when you inform him that he is required to provide you peer reviewed studies and a full explanation of his understanding prior to your accepting that he might know what he is talking about.

If he published something for peer review, I can look that up myself! I don’t need to contact him.

 

[KCfromNC]

This discussion is about issues concerning transgenderism.

*Someone mentioned transgender women competing in sports against biological women

Not in the post you were responding to.

 

[Ken-1122]

Not in the post you were responding to.

So what are you talking about?

 

[Speedwell]

Hooligan or not, as long as the silent majority remains silent, the vocal minority (hooligans) becomes the face and voice of the entire movement

What makes it a movement? What are you talking about? Are you implying that gender dysphoria is something new?

 

[Ken-1122]

What makes it a movement? What are you talking about? Are you implying that gender dysphoria is something new?

For most people (as viewed today) it is very new. 10 years ago if somebody were to talk about gender pronouns like Xi, Ze, and others, the typical person would have looked at you like you were crazy.

 

[Speedwell]

For most people (as viewed today) it is very new. 10 years ago if somebody were to talk about gender pronouns like Xi, Ze, and others, the typical person would have looked at you like you were crazy.

So what? Do you think gender dysphoria didn't exist before that?

BTW, nobody is actually requiring you to use those weird pronouns. Do they offend you just by existing?

 

[Ken-1122]

So what? Do you think gender dysphoria didn't exist before that?

I've never had gender dysphoria explained in a way that makes sense to me. Yeah I've heard of men who claim to feel like a woman or identify as a woman; but what does that mean? How do women feel? Is there a feeling women have that men don't? How do you identify as something other than yourself? Unless I can understand what it actually is, I cannot comment on how long it has existed; or if it does.

BTW, nobody is actually requiring you to use those weird pronouns. Do they offend you just by existing?

I never said anything offends me, I just said I don't address them; I address biology instead; hence the controversy.[/quote]

 

[Belk]

So the ole “Argument of authority” huh? The idea that because someone else knows more than you know, you are to accept what they say without question? One of the things that helped drive me away from theism to become an atheist was this Argument of authority; the fact that it is in the bible, I was supposed to accept it no matter how absurd it sounded to me. They used to say “ God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!”

No! I left those intellectual chains behind when I left theism; I’ll be darned if I allow scientific claims to stifle my ability to question the way religious claims used to; as an atheist I would think you would know better than this! C’mon bruh get with the program! As Atheists we are allowed to question EVERYTHING! Even scientific experts; otherwise it's just another religion.

No, this would be evidence. You claim "X is not based on biology". I counter with "Yes it is, this expert says so". You are now trying to claim I have to prove this experts claims correct. I disagree. I have offered evidence. You need to prove that his claim are wrong. You are instead trying to claim that because he has not explained things to your satisfaction that you can ignore this evidence instead of tracking down why he is wrong.

You want to question then be my guess. However that is not what it appears to me you are doing. It appears you are using questions as a means to dismiss this evidence.

They are expected to explain their claims to laymen, other experts, and anyone else who wants to know; why do you think they publish their findings for peer review? And speaking of peer review, do you know how many peer reviewed scientific theories have been published by experts only to be falsified by other experts in the field and are no longer considered theories? It is foolish to blindly take a self proclaimed expert at his word without question; as an atheist I would think you would be better than that!

Yes, I am so blindly taking the claims of a scholar quoted by a reputable news organization over your claims. How blind of me. <Roll eyes>

If all light contain photons, logic tells you that red lights possess it as well.

But it is not in the definition! Obviously it can't exist if it is not in the definition!

Since you believe it is, please explain HOW gender (as now defined) is based in biology.

Not my bailiwick. Ask the expert.

If he published something for peer review, I can look that up myself! I don’t need to contact him.

OK. Have you found his research yet?

 

[Ken-1122]

No, this would be evidence. You claim "X is not based on biology". I counter with "Yes it is, this expert says so". You are now trying to claim I have to prove this experts claims correct. I disagree. I have offered evidence. You need to prove that his claim are wrong. You are instead trying to claim that because he has not explained things to your satisfaction that you can ignore this evidence instead of tracking down why he is wrong.

You want to question then be my guess. However that is not what it appears to me you are doing. It appears you are using questions as a means to dismiss this evidence.

First of all, your expert never said “X” was based on biology, that is a leap YOU made. He said

“there are biological underpinnings to gender identity, but we do not know the biological factors at play with gender identity”

Now what on earth does that mean? You are the one who made the leap that it means it is based in biology (which I find absurd; if that’s what he meant I’m sure he would have said it) I don’t care what kind of an expert you claim to be, you can’t go around saying “trust me; “X” is true” and expect everybody to believe you because you are the expert.

Yes, I am so blindly taking the claims of a scholar quoted by a reputable news organization over your claims. How blind of me. <Roll eyes>

I’m not saying you have to believe what I say, just come up with your own reasons. Don’t point to someone else who doesn’t explain himself, and expect me to take his word for it because he is the expert.

But it is not in the definition! Obviously it can't exist if it is not in the definition!

I never said because it isn’t in the dictionary definition it is therefore impossible, I’m saying because it isn’t mentioned in the dictionary definition, I have no reason to assume it is.

Not my bailiwick. Ask the expert.

IOW you don’t have an answer; got it!

OK. Have you found his research yet?

I can’t find that which doesn’t exist!

 

[SwordmanJr]

The so-called "transgenders" at work try to force their beliefs down the throats of all others around them, but I am one of the few who refuse to bow my knee to their wicked agenda. I simply disengage from them, only referring to them by their last name, not first or some "gender" reference. I simply say, "Smith thinks we should do this or that..." They can't press charges since I am addressing them by their name, and they hate it that I won't play their game by THEIR rules. However, I'm expecting one of them will eventually try to go after me with some sort of action. To prevent giving them something to go on, I talk to them only in relation to whatever is related to our official duties. Apart from that, if they ask how my family is, I have nothing to say other than, "Sorry. Not job related...," and I don't ask about theirs, or what kind of beer they like, what teams they follow or anything else of any kind of private nature at all. That way they have no inroads for taking action against me.

In a toxic atmosphere created by activists, one must adapt in order to keep from igniting the fumes of the activist's slanderous hatred of God and His people with their being children of Satan. I have a number of people as close friends who suffer from homosexual attractions, but do not act upon them by giving into them. I stand by them and and in the gap for them when they fight it. The activists, however, they're a different breed of creature who resemble those in the pre-flood environment, but much worse.

Jr

 

[Kylie]

The so-called "transgenders" at work try to force their beliefs down the throats of all others around them, but I am one of the few who refuse to bow my knee to their wicked agenda. I simply disengage from them, only referring to them by their last name, not first or some "gender" reference. I simply say, "Smith thinks we should do this or that..." They can't press charges since I am addressing them by their name, and they hate it that I won't play their game by THEIR rules. However, I'm expecting one of them will eventually try to go after me with some sort of action. To prevent giving them something to go on, I talk to them only in relation to whatever is related to our official duties. Apart from that, if they ask how my family is, I have nothing to say other than, "Sorry. Not job related...," and I don't ask about theirs, or what kind of beer they like, what teams they follow or anything else of any kind of private nature at all. That way they have no inroads for taking action against me.

In a toxic atmosphere created by activists, one must adapt in order to keep from igniting the fumes of the activist's slanderous hatred of God and His people with their being children of Satan. I have a number of people as close friends who suffer from homosexual attractions, but do not act upon them by giving into them. I stand by them and and in the gap for them when they fight it. The activists, however, they're a different breed of creature who resemble those in the pre-flood environment, but much worse.

Jr

Did you ever see the movie Wall*E? What did you think of the character Eve?

 

[Bodhicitta]

Not a complete 'fix', but if more liberal women join this pro-sex-biology movement, it will slow the feverish transgender hobbyists.

Transgender Groups Threaten, Jeer Feminist's Pro-Biology Speech

 

[Kylie]

Not a complete 'fix', but if more liberal women join this pro-sex-biology movement, it will slow the feverish transgender hobbyists.

Transgender Groups Threaten, Jeer Feminist's Pro-Biology Speech

You can't fix a problem by trying to hide it.

And a person's sense of gender identity does not live in their genitals. I know of plenty women who have had hysterectomies and no longer have a uterus or ovaries who still identify as women.

 

[Kaon]

You can't fix a problem by trying to hide it.

And a person's sense of gender identity does not live in their genitals. I know of plenty women who have had hysterectomies and no longer have a uterus or ovaries who still identify as women.

We all (should) know what gender means, and is - we choose to entertain paradigms that tell us how to think. I personally abhor it, and you do not need to adhere to the paradigm of today in order to realize a woman is more than her breasts and vagina. But, we also shouldn't lie to ourselves and say there is NO physical representation of a man and woman. That is a very specific psychology being used to exploit the lot of us for something to come.

Your gender does have a strong dependence on your original genetics - namely the storehouse of hormones that truly influence the phenomena associated with gender.

Gender is a misnomer if it is fluid and interchangible: we are looking for chemical anomalies in the body that differ from the processes associated with men and women. Since humans don't possess the knowledge to know this difference on a fundamental level, what is happening is we are using artifacts from enlightenment and post-modern romanticism to justify our inability to cope with these massive differences.

Instead of accepting what it is, and understanding it, we scoops it out, chop it up, or completely ignore it. I get the current gender paradigm, but it is a specific type of human exploitation.

 

[Kylie]

Your gender does have a strong dependence on your original genetics - namely the storehouse of hormones that truly influence the phenomena associated with gender.

There is no evidence to show that a person's sense of their own gender is related to the pattern of X and/or Y chromosomes in their bodies.

There is also a lot of evidence to show that the two are unrelated.

Gender is a misnomer if it is fluid and interchangible: we are looking for chemical anomalies in the body that differ from the processes associated with men and women. Since humans don't possess the knowledge to know this difference on a fundamental level, what is happening is we are using artifacts from enlightenment and post-modern romanticism to justify our inability to cope with these massive differences.

Again, there's no evidence to show that the chemical make up of a person's body determines their gender identity. And if there is any evidence, it's not related to the bits that determine whether they have a penis or a vagina.

Instead of accepting what it is, and understanding it, we scoops it out, chop it up, or completely ignore it. I get the current gender paradigm, but it is a specific type of human exploitation.

And if a person says that they are trans, and they are, say, a woman despite having been born with a penis, who exactly is exploiting them? For what purpose? Who exactly is hurt by accepting that they are telling the truth?

 

[FireDragon76]

Not a complete 'fix', but if more liberal women join this pro-sex-biology movement, it will slow the feverish transgender hobbyists.

Transgender Groups Threaten, Jeer Feminist's Pro-Biology Speech

This is just transphobia in masquerade.


I've met few Buddhists that align with the social politics of the religious right in the US, but I guess life continues to surprise me.

 

[Not David]

This is just transphobia in masquerade.


I've met few Buddhists that align with the social politics of the religious right in the US, but I guess life continues to surprise me.

Each group have their own goals.

 

[Kylie]

This is just transphobia in masquerade.

Agreed. We don't need any more TERFs.

 

[Kaon]

There is no evidence to show that a person's sense of their own gender is related to the pattern of X and/or Y chromosomes in their bodies.

There is also a lot of evidence to show that the two are unrelated.

One is psychology, one is genetics. In fact, the idea of one's own gender could be considered a philosophical issue - but that is assuming the human knows what s/he is talking about in the first place. If there is no foundation to determine left from right, then you will always be lost.

You can choose to say that gender and genetics are not related if you choose to see gender as a philosophical issue. But, to say there is no evidence to show gender is related to genetics is disingenuous. But, as long as we are talking about gender as a thought-form, then you are free to imagine any vessel as any gender - because it your personal philosophy on gender.

Again, there's no evidence to show that the chemical make up of a person's body determines their gender identity.

Gender identity and gender are fundamentally different. There are plenty of biological benchmarks that define gender for us; what one perceives gender to be is an issue of philosophy and psychology.

And if there is any evidence, it's not related to the bits that determine whether they have a penis or a vagina.

Gender identity is a philosophy and psychology. I am not talking about gender identity. There are biological benchmarks for gender. Gender identity is in the eye of the beholder, but gender is biological.

And if a person says that they are trans, and they are, say, a woman despite having been born with a penis, who exactly is exploiting them? For what purpose? Who exactly is hurt by accepting that they are telling the truth?

There is a spiritual aspect that you may be ignorant of since you are an atheist.

However, corporate transhumanism is big business now, and will be in the future. If people can be convinced that their humanity is a fluid matter of philosophy, there won't be a bar on humans changing their physiology and genetics to be made in their image. That is fine if that is what you choose, but the culture that goes into getting people to believe this is what is happening is what is profitable - because it will make money.

The money for the surgeries for people to change their physiology to meet their mental expectations of who they are does not go to charity. The drug companies that make medicine for the endocrine system do not give their money to charity.

Your mind is being changed not by your own doing, but by a series of paradigms that rely on social, psychological and economic pressure for vindication. There is very little grant money to provide research between the chemical and environmental affects on what we perceive as gender identity.

Of course, this likely sounds like foolishness to you, so I am not expecting you to agree - nor do I think you need to. I am saying this because I cannot possibly convince you of anything since you are an adult, so my motivation now and in the future is not to convince you of anything.

 

[jacknife]

One is psychology, one is genetics. In fact, the idea of one's own gender could be considered a philosophical issue - but that is assuming the human knows what s/he is talking about in the first place. If there is no foundation to determine left from right, then you will always be lost.

You can choose to say that gender and genetics are not related if you choose to see gender as a philosophical issue. But, to say there is no evidence to show gender is related to genetics is disingenuous. But, as long as we are talking about gender as a thought-form, then you are free to imagine any vessel as any gender - because it your personal philosophy on gender.







Gender identity and gender are fundamentally different. There are plenty of biological benchmarks that define gender for us; what one perceives gender to be is an issue of philosophy and psychology.



Gender identity is a philosophy and psychology. I am not talking about gender identity. There are biological benchmarks for gender. Gender identity is in the eye of the beholder, but gender is biological.





There is a spiritual aspect that you may be ignorant of since you are an atheist.

However, corporate transhumanism is big business now, and will be in the future. If people can be convinced that their humanity is a fluid matter of philosophy, there won't be a bar on humans changing their physiology and genetics to be made in their image. That is fine if that is what you choose, but the culture that goes into getting people to believe this is what is happening is what is profitable - because it will make money.

The money for the surgeries for people to change their physiology to meet their mental expectations of who they are does not go to charity. The drug companies that make medicine for the endocrine system do not give their money to charity.

Your mind is being changed not by your own doing, but by a series of paradigms that rely on social, psychological and economic pressure for vindication. There is very little grant money to provide research between the chemical and environmental affects on what we perceive as gender identity.

Of course, this likely sounds like foolishness to you, so I am not expecting you to agree - nor do I think you need to. I am saying this because I cannot possibly convince you of anything since you are an adult, so my motivation now and in the future is not to convince you of anything.

My favorite part about this response is a hint of a spiritual aspect that's not further touched upon. And the idea of what constitutes humanity becoming more of a philosophical concept wouldn't be amazing.