When two worldviews collide.

[Bradskii]

The reason I capitalize Truth is that today there are many claimed truths.

Yours is just one of many.

I did give you practical examples of how this is applied. Its not circular reasoning because we can cite examples of these Truths and support them as fact or as proven through our lived experience.

Then, as I said, provide evidence, facts and reasons to back up any position you want to take. Your record in doing that, as we have just seen, is not exactly stellar.

 

[stevevw]

You presented these people as being experts in the matter. They are not. Perhaps you thought that a fancy official-sounding name gave them some credence. It didn't. They are not interested in facts.

So are you saying that they are not Pediatritians and did not provide any science (facts) to back their claims.

They are not interested in the physical and psychological health of gay and trans people. They simply want to push what they actually describe as Christian morality into areas where science, not religious ideas of morality, is required.

But what they say has been supported by other professionals.

I would have thought that presenting 3 separate links to the same body would have required you to at least have done some cursory investigation into their credentials. You either did and ignored what you found. Or you simply didn't bother.

Either way, it doesn't reflect well on you.

Wait a minute I didn't provide any links to the Royal College of Paediatrics and only one link to Cretella which was not from the RCoP but an individual peer reviewed paper. As you said the first 3 links are from the Cass review and not the RCoP. The 5th link is not from the RCoP but the Australian Newspaper about a court judgement saying Trans Model of care is experimental and not based on science.

The 6th link is from Public Discourse a Body that promotes Evidence Based Policy and citing the Hayes Report that checks the evidence for Government Policy. The 7th Link is the Endocrine Society in England who support Trans care and even their own literature says that Affirmative care such as Puberty Blockers and surgery have very low evidence and unknown risks.

Once again I ask why side track things with logical fallacies. I have provided ample evidence that the Trans Model of care is at the very least experimental with unknown risks and at worst could become another child abuse scandel in the future that shows many children aned young people were misdiagnosed and pushed down a Affirmation path permanately harming them. That is why many are now starting to speak up, speak the Truth and expose these lies about Trans ideology.

But my point for this thread is that here we have two completely deifferent views on this issue like many issues facing modern society. Both sides are claiming that they are protection children aned adeults and have different treatment approaches which may lead to edifferent outcomes. So there is a fundemental difference in worledviews, in beliefs aned ideology.

This difference is becoming more polarized to the point where societyis divided and becoming radical. I think this highlights how the Truth is being denied so that we have Truth bearings and false claims about how humans and society is ordered and what is moral.

 

[Paidiske]

You have already stated your position is late twentieth century.

No, and I'm beginning to think you really haven't understood what I'm trying to say, at all.

I am saying that those who say that people who disagree with them on sexuality are not real Christians, are holding a viewpoint we don't see in Christian discourse before the late twentieth century.

That is not my position; my position is that "real Christians" can hold a diversity of views on sexuality and, whatever the merits or not of those views, still be within the boundaries of what it means to be a Christian.

Lets start with Augustine, can you at least point to where you are finding this?

I mentioned Augustine not because he spoke directly to this issue, but because his work in City of God would be a good illustration of the way Christian thought has developed over time. And because it is a classic set of reflections on colliding worldviews which would be valuable background and perspective for this discussion.

Proclaiming the Gospel is proclaiming the Truth which means exposing falsehoods and sin where this can lead to harming people.

That's not what I mean when I talk about proclaiming the good news of the kingdom. The emphasis is not on falsehoods and sin, but on pointing people to the transformative, life-giving reign of God.

Paul said in Ephesians 5:11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

We expose them by living in a way which shows the alternative. The point is not to go around with a combative approach to others, but to live as children of light, who find out what is pleasing to the Lord and live in a way which is good and right and true.

Its also about protecting people from harm especially children even if done as a practical matter in applying Gods Word in our daily lives.

I agree, protecting people from harm is a key concern. But in general, I see any attempt at control or coercion on moral issues (however altruistically driven) as harmful, so that puts an ideological agenda in a difficult position. When it comes to protecting trans folk, a good starting point is actually listening to them, one on one, in real life, about their experiences; I highly recommend it.

If you see harm being done by someone then I think its wrong to not speak up to expose the wrong because you become implicit in allowing that wrong.

And on the issues you've raised, I see most harm being done by conservative/Christian folks. Speaking up isn't getting me far in this thread, though, is it?

 

[Bradskii]

So are you saying that they are not Pediatritians and did not provide any science (facts) to back their claims.

They are an advocacy group for promoting Christian morality as opposed to what is best for patients. I have therefore zero interest in any of their opinions.

Wait a minute I didn't provide any links to the Royal College of Paediatrics and only one link to Cretella which was not from the RCoP but an individual peer reviewed paper. As you said the first 3 links are from the Cass review and not the RCoP. The 5th link is not from the RCoP but the Australian Newspaper about a court judgement saying Trans Model of care is experimental and not based on science.

The 6th link is from Public Discourse a Body that promotes Evidence Based Policy and citing the Hayes Report that checks the evidence for Government Policy. The 7th Link is the Endocrine Society in England who support Trans care and even their own literature says that Affirmative care such as Puberty Blockers and surgery have very low evidence and unknown risks.

The first three I covered. The next two (not 3 as I said - my bad) were either written by Cretella or quoted her significantly. The next is behind a paywall and the the Endocrine Society link is 7 years out of date.

But my point for this thread is that here we have two completely deifferent views on this issue like many issues facing modern society. Both sides are claiming that they are protection children aned adeults and have different treatment approaches which may lead to edifferent outcomes.

Then what we need is comprehensive, scientifically based guide to best procedure. Such as this one: Standards of Care - WPATH World Professional Association for Transgender Health

Let me know what objections you have with it.

 

[stevevw]

Not buying your timeline. All the attitudes and behaviors you think are detrimental—abortion, variant sexuality, rejection of organized religion, etc.— have existed way before the 50s. And with the same frequency. It was just covered up.

I disagree it operated at the same level and was covered up. If that was the case it could not have been covereed up because the level at which it happens today is a normal part of society that it happens so often. Yes it was covered up and thats because it was taboo. Nevertheless it doesn't change the fact that throughout time there has been moral concern around these issues like abortion and sex.

I agree there were times and pockets in society that disagreed and practiced these things and that even the Church at times condoned a form of abortion for a time. Life waas very unregulated and hard only formulating societies so a lot went under the carpet or impossible to regulate. But it seems the Church and society kept coming back to the moral Truths of God and gradually articulated Gods Truth into society.

We see that around the 300s to around the 600's when abortion law was codified it was illegal. Abortion and Contraception in the Middle Ages

Again in the 1600s abortion was regarded as illegal and a sin when the church determined that life began at conception and not the Quickening. Still pre Quickening abortions were only performed in relative secret because it was looked down upon in society unlike today.

https://medium.com/the-history-inquiry/past-and-precedence-abortion-law-in-the-middle-ages-and-its-use-to-overturn-roe-v-576a3141f3c6

I n 1858, the American Medical Association launched a successful campaign to criminalize abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Many of these laws remained unchanged until vacated by the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

So even if we go from mid 1800's that is a long time that most Western nations social norms and laws were against abortion. I don't think we have ever been at this level of acceptance in our Western Christian history where abortion is so easily available and so many abortions are happening for non life threatening reasons and a matter of convience.

I could go through the other issues in the same way, like in the 14th century, premarital sex was prohibited and considered a sin and this was still the case pre 1960 until no fault divorces came in. Marriage has mostly been based on Tradition whether religious or secular and this has only changed recently.

Now it’s more open, to be freely and frankly discussed. Which is a good thing. (Example: The Catholic Church seems to be finally dealing with it’s clerical pedophilia nightmare. For this, it deserves some credit.)

Yes its good that we are more open and honest, but I think that is a human failing we repeat a lot. We are probably currently creating another scandel now that we will look back on and say it was covered up and caused much harm. But I also wonder about what freedom can edo when taken too far that we lose our moral compass. It seems progressive want to abandon any limitation of sexual expression. When I see half naked men dressed as women doing erotic dances in front of kids I wonder if that is not too far. Yet some say its morally OK.

I’ll give you a reference. The Way We Never Were is from the 90s, but still worth reading. Stephanie Coontz is a sociologist, formerly at Evergreen State U. The book is a well-researched study of so-called “family values,” going back to colonial times. It’s very informative.

The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostal…

The Way We Never Were examines two centuries of America…

www.goodreads.com

Thanks though its got a pay wall.

Not to get off topic. Do you think religion can mitigate our mass shooting epidemic? To me, that’s an enormously more pressing issue than gender dysphoria.

Yes thats another problem happening in our schools. There is an epidemic of mental illness happening especially for young people. I think what is happening now the the result of how we have liveed as a society in the past. Its complex and there are many factors like poverty, substance abuse, lack of support, family breakdown, abuse, trauma, social media, climate change, financial hardship, no prospects, fear of the future and world conflict ect.

But I also think we have sort of set this generation up to fail with unreal expectations of material happiness and that the Utopia that has been promised by Governments and this world has not happened. Young people have no hope or meaning in life and they carry deep resentment at the system. In that sense we need an overhaul, we need a saviour as I think its getting beyond us..

The thing about the gun problem in the US is that it will be hard to convince those in power to give up their arms. Its got to a point where people cannot be without arms but also cannot live with them. I Australia the Governemnt haed an amnesty after a big shooting incident and allowed everyone to surrender thier arms and guns were banned except for police, sports and on farms.

PS Sorry if there is spelling errors with the letter 'E' as it randomly types out when I hit the key de I mean'D'. lol.

 

[stevevw]

That's not what I mean when I talk about proclaiming the good news of the kingdom. The emphasis is not on falsehoods and sin, but on pointing people to the transformative, life-giving reign of God.

I agree but we are not just talking about proclaiming the Gospel but about how to live and operate in society which requires certain rules and standards otherwise we woulde desend into chaos. Moses seen that and thats why he gave the law to help the Isrealites live together in a stable society.

We expose them by living in a way which shows the alternative. The point is not to go around with a combative approach to others, but to live as children of light, who find out what is pleasing to the Lord and live in a way which is good and right and true.

Yes the best way is to live by example. But surely part of that example is to support and promote those Truths we live by when needed such as when debating policy or laws just as organisations will deo with submissions that point out how certain policies and laws will lead to harm especially when it comes to children. Even if we are acting for the purpose of justice or best practice.

I agree, protecting people from harm is a key concern. But in general, I see any attempt at control or coercion on moral issues (however altruistically driven) as harmful, so that puts an ideological agenda in a difficult position. When it comes to protecting trans folk, a good starting point is actually listening to them, one on one, in real life, about their experiences; I highly recommend it.

I do as I work in front line care. But I am not even talking about one on one situations but as policy ans law for society and I am not talking about taking a confrontational approach though nowadays any mention of alternation options is considered hateful. I am talking about offering the Christain voice into the equation when we are determining best policy or practice which often is supporteed by the facts and reality.

By not offering the Christain voice I think we are being neglectful because we hold back the Truth or at least the Christain Truth which could help. Otherwise we sit by and allow harm to be edne. Look at Wilberforce and other great reformers. They spoke out even protesteed to make their voice heard aned it changed things ande saved many lives.

And on the issues you've raised, I see most harm being done by conservative/Christian folks. Speaking up isn't getting me far in this thread, though, is it?

How has the Christain voice done harm. If its speaking for Truth when we see harm being caused to others especially children and those who are promoting lies that are causing this harm are offeneded I think this is the right thing to do.

But here you are speaking up against what you percieve is wrong as a Christain. So you are also edeoing what you claim we should not do. I think this shows that there is a philosophical difference in views about what is harm, and what we should do about it.

 

[stevevw]

They are an advocacy group for promoting Christian morality as opposed to what is best for patients. I have therefore zero interest in any of their opinions.

The first three I covered.

Yes from the Cass Review. That alone is support enough. The NHS took on their recommendations and ceased with the Trans Care Model of Affirmation.

The next two (not 3 as I said - my bad) were either written by Cretella or quoted her significantly.

The article only quotes Cretella twice. But then it doesn't quote her negatively but actually supports what she is saying and the article is from Public Discourse which is an independent policy organisation that investigates the scientific validity of health care for public policy and has nothing to do with the ACoP or religion.

The next is behind a paywall and the the Endocrine Society link is 7 years out of date.

It doesn't matter if its 7 years old which is quite within academic rigor for Uni. Its more the point that the same information is still on their cite that is supporteed by other independent science that the science for Affirmative Trans care such as Puberty Blockers is very poor and in fact points to harm.

Claims like Puberty can be magically switched on and off without any issues is rediculous. Switching off a naturqal development has health risks across a number of areas and many are not even associated with Puberty but normal bone and brain health. It amounts to a risky and experimental process that some are willing to take in order to promote this ideology.

Then what we need is comprehensive, scientifically based guide to best procedure. Such as this one: Standards of Care - WPATH World Professional Association for Transgender Health

Let me know what objections you have with it.

That is exactly what the Cass review has deone and it found that Trans gender Affirmative Care model has no evidience. Ironically WPATH was the reference for the Trans Model of Care and supports the same ideology that was founed to have no evdience. Another irony is that WPATH hasn't updated its policies for 11 years beyond your 7 year cut off.

 

[Paidiske]

I agree but we are not just talking about proclaiming the Gospel but about how to live and operate in society which requires certain rules and standards otherwise we woulde desend into chaos.

Ah, but here we come back around to the argument about Christians not being able to expect society's rules and norms to be based on our religious beliefs.

Yes the best way is to live by example. But surely part of that example is to support and promote those Truths we live by when needed such as when debating policy or laws just as organisations will deo with submissions that point out how certain policies and laws will lead to harm especially when it comes to children. Even if we are acting for the purpose of justice or best practice.

I just think you're putting the emphasis in an unhelpful place. Instead of obsessing over black-and-white, Christian-and-non, categories of thought; just get on with doing what we're here, as Christians, to do. Proclaim the good news, baptise people and nurture their faith, serve our neighbours in need. That's where our focus should be. Not on culture wars and trying to impose our take on Truth on everyone.

I am talking about offering the Christain voice into the equation when we are determining best policy or practice which often is supporteed by the facts and reality.

Honestly, I don't think a specifically Christian voice has any place in that discussion, except perhaps for Christian patients whose faith informs their treatment options. It's a matter best left to medical experts, not armchair ethicists.

I mean, I didn't read all 260 pages of the document @Bradskii just gave us, did you? (If you did, kudos). What I took from a glance was, this is way above my level of expertise. I ought to have the humility to recognise that other people are doing solid work here, and leave them to it.

By not offering the Christain voice I think we are being neglectful because we hold back the Truth or at least the Christain Truth which could help. Otherwise we sit by and allow harm to be edne.

You are assuming two things; firstly that a "Christian" voice is going to say anything different than anyone else, and secondly, that a non-Christian take is automatically harmful. I don't agree with either of those assumptions.

Look at Wilberforce and other great reformers. They spoke out even protesteed to make their voice heard aned it changed things ande saved many lives.

Are you really comparing best-practice medical care, undertaken voluntarily, to slavery? That's a bit of a stretch (far too much of a stretch for me to take it as a credible comparison).

How has the Christain voice done harm.

Oh dear Lord. How about you start here: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default...tralia_LGBTconversiontherapyinAustraliav2.pdf

That's hard reading, but I think necessary for Christians to recognise.

But here you are speaking up against what you percieve is wrong as a Christain. So you are also edeoing what you claim we should not do.

This is a debate section of a Christian forum. I'm not trying to coerce anyone by imposing rules or social norms, or insisting they conform to my "Truth." You are free to ignore my words. It's a bit different to the tenor of some of the other posts, no?

 

[Bradskii]

Another irony is that WPATH hasn't updated its policies for 11 years beyond your 7 year cut off.

The paper I linked to is about 7 months old. From memory it's the 8th iteration.

 

[stevevw]

The paper I linked to is about 7 months old. From memory it's the 8th iteration.

Nevertheless WPATH supports the same Trans Model that the NHS has banned. The NHS also removed the link under Guidelines to WPATH as well.

Another unfounded claim by WPATH in their Guidelines is that Hormone Blockers are completely reversible. This has been proven wrong as well or at least that there is not enough evidence to make such a claim. But thats what ideologues do, they make these unfounded claims to support their beliefs rather than base it on evedience.

Are puberty blockers reversible? The NHS no longer says so

Are puberty blockers reversible? The NHS no longer says so

The NHS has made some welcome updates to its web page on gender dysphoria and no longer claims that puberty blockers are 'reversible'.

www.transgendertrend.com

The 'Royal College of General Practitioners' also issued a Position statement on the Trans care moel and deemed it lacked evdience as well.
The Royal College of General Practitioners has issued a position statement warning about the lack of evidence of safety of current protocols used to treat trans-identified minors

Royal College of General Practitioners Has Issued a Position Statement Expressing Alarm About Treatments of Children With Gender Dysphoria — The Homoarchy

NEWS

www.genderhq.org

GPs risk causing transgender storm after issuing unprecedented warning over 'lack of evidence' on treatments that pave way for children to have a sex change

GPs risk transgender storm over unprecedented warning on treatments

Doctors' leaders have issued an unprecedented warning over NHS treatments for children which pave the way for a sex change. They say there needs to be more research on the issue.

www.dailymail.co.uk

But enough of this. My interest is how can there be such contradictory positions on many of these issues in todays society. Its like people are living in 2 completely different worlds one where up is up and down is down and the other where up is down and down is up. Why is there this stark difference. Is this a battle for Truth and reality.

As seen by the debate and different positions and that these issues involve potential harm to children so I think it matters finding the Truth. I think the stark difference comes down to worldview, one believes humans are gods and can reconstruct nature and reality and the other respects the Truths we have come to know through our history that have proven to work and are beyond human ideas.

 

[stevevw]

Ah, but here we come back around to the argument about Christians not being able to expect society's rules and norms to be based on our religious beliefs.

No we are talking about pragmatics. We need some sort of standard. You don't have to be a Christian to object an point out certain policies and ideas that are percieved to cause harm to children and society. Christian organisations do it all the time like the Salvos and St Vinnies with their submissions on Government policy. Thats because they care and want the best for people as Christian organisation.

I just think you're putting the emphasis in an unhelpful place. Instead of obsessing over black-and-white, Christian-and-non, categories of thought; just get on with doing what we're here, as Christians, to do. Proclaim the good news, baptise people and nurture their faith, serve our neighbours in need. That's where our focus should be. Not on culture wars and trying to impose our take on Truth on everyone.

That is why I linked Christian worldview with Conservative and Traditionalists who may not be Christian but still believe in the long held Truth and Facts we have come to know. You engage in the same approach when you point out ideas like Conversion therapy being wrong and I am sure you have a word or two to say about womens Rights. You speak up because you care. You call it obsessing because you disagree but I think you would have the same level of concern if it was something you believed was wrong and needed to stop.

Honestly, I don't think a specifically Christian voice has any place in that discussion, except perhaps for Christian patients whose faith informs their treatment options. It's a matter best left to medical experts, not armchair ethicists.

I mean, I didn't read all 260 pages of the document @Bradskii just gave us, did you? (If you did, kudos). What I took from a glance was, this is way above my level of expertise. I ought to have the humility to recognise that other people are doing solid work here, and leave them to it.

And Christian organisations use medical experts as part of their submissions. So if the government wanted to bring in a harsh policy that may harm people you don't think Christian organisations that are involved in helping those people should submit their views on what makes best policy in making their lives better. I hear the Pope make position statements now and then on Marriage and Sex is he not the voice of the true Church.

You are assuming two things; firstly that a "Christian" voice is going to say anything different than anyone else, and secondly, that a non-Christian take is automatically harmful. I don't agree with either of those assumptions.

But I am not making those assumptions. I have repeatedly said that often a Christian voice is in line with the Conservative, traditional even the science. Its when those positions align that we can be confident that it represents the Truth and facts. But there are differences between views and the difference can be a matter of harm or life and death so we need to have the debate to find that Truth and not just assume things.

Are you really comparing best-practice medical care, undertaken voluntarily, to slavery? That's a bit of a stretch (far too much of a stretch for me to take it as a credible comparison).

You missed the point. Its about speaking up for injustice or anything that is deemed harmful. Making a position statement that represents your position so that its clear in opposing a potential bad policy or even norm. Sometimes medical expertise is needed and we become more aware but sometimes like you don't have to be an expert to know when something is wrong or is unreal. People knew slavery was wrong they just needed someone to tell them the Truth of the matter that all humans are equal under God.

Oh dear Lord. How about you start here: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default...tralia_LGBTconversiontherapyinAustraliav2.pdf

That's hard reading, but I think necessary for Christians to recognise.

I walked into that one didn't I. I'm going to spend a bit of time on this one as its the second time you have brought it up and it may turn out to be a good example of the different thinking and how we can work out the Truth with these issues we are facing. I did'nt want to get into debating particular issues but this may act as a good example of how ideological belief can pose as truth and distort peoples thinking.

Yes there are so called Christians who still try to use what could be classed as a supernatural intervention to convert gays and Trans people. But I think the voices you probably hear in politics is about something completely different. Its not about Gays but allowing alternative therapies for Gender Dysphoria like psychotherapy and watch and wait apart from the Trans Care Model. These alternative therapies have been falsely made out to be Conversion Therapy.

What has happened is that only one Model of care is being allowed the 'Affiirmative and Transition model'. Any promotion of alternative therapies that try to find other reasons why someone may be GD and Trans is seen as pathologising and not accepting and affirming the GD person. But recent research has shown that there are underlying issues that have not been investigated properly and this has led to many young people who were not otherwise Trans being diagnosed as Trans and many sent down the Trans Model path when they should have had therapy or even a watch and wait approach.

In fact a case can be made that the Trans Affirmation Model itself is a form of Conversion therapy. The Trans model assumes kids with GD are Trans and therefore sends them down the Trans Model path at earlier and earlier ages. Kids begin to socially transition at 3, 5 and 8 years old. Once on this path many end up having Puberty Blockers and Cross sex Hormones. Studies have found that transitioning and Hormone therapy itself may contribute to Gender Dysphoria and feeling Trans. It can actually make someone more GD and Gender inconguent thus pushing them further down the Trans path.

Studies have found that there are several co-morbities like Autism, other body dysmorphia, childhood abuse and trauma. A high % around 2/3 are Autistic and many turn out to be Gay or Lesbian. In recent years there has been a spike in GD cases especially young people and especially females and many without a history of GD. Sort of like a social contagion happening like eating disorders. Around 85% to 90% of kids will grow out of GD after puberty. So in some ways puberty resolves the gender dysphoria for most.

Given that the Affirmation model assumes gender incongruent behaviour is being Trans and kids are sent down the Trans Model path and that most were not actually Trans and theres not much evidence to support the model then the potential for misdiagnosis and doing harm is high. In some ways the Trans Model is Converting kids who were never Trans such as Gays and Austic kids into being Trans which is a form of Conversion Therapy.

That is why we are seeing the likes of the NHS, the APA, Royal Academy of Doctors ect coming out and distancing themselves from the Trans care Model. Cases of regret are begining to grow and we couled see another scandel on the horizon.

So thats why theres an objection to the Trans Model and why people are pushing for a more holistic and evdenced based approach that includes alternative therapies that Trans activists and even Gender specialists have called Conversion Therapy. But its not, its just good practice, to not assume kids are Trans and not to force the entire health system to follow one approach which has no evidence. Activists misrepresent the alternative therapies because they want no other therapy but the Trans model of Affirmation.

This ideology has been accompanied with a wholesale promotion of everything rainbow throughout society to the point where people are rejecting it because its going overboard more like a religion. I mean when half naked adult males are sexually dancing in front of kids in the name of inclusion then something doesn't seem right. Its more like indoctrination. No one wants to deny people with GD any Rights. This whole ideology is not about Rights. Its about pushing a worldview on society. Hence the title of the thread "When two world collide".

But heres the point relating to this thread. How on earth did people in such powerful positions create this situation. How have these ideas which are irrational and unreal to many been allowed to infiltrate to the highest levels of government, education and health care. I think because its based on an ideological belief and not reality. Only a belief can cause someone to believe irrational ideas that have no evidence and ten think they are the truth for an entire culture to follow to the point that they have to be enforced. Whether one side is right or not there is certainly two different worldviews out there conflicting with each other and its getting violent on both sides.

This is a debate section of a Christian forum. I'm not trying to coerce anyone by imposing rules or social norms, or insisting they conform to my "Truth." You are free to ignore my words. It's a bit different to the tenor of some of the other posts, no?

Either am I, just trying to voice an alternative view and get to the Truth. But I would imagine that you would support say policies or rules that supported your views and beliefs if asked to or if in a situation where you had to submit your position on policy that may cause people to follow standards they disagreed with for the betterment of society. Its unreal to say that we can completely avoid causing people to go along with stuff we disagreed with. So we make rules and regulations all the time in fact we are so bound up in rules we can't move without infringing on someone. If thats the promised Utopia then no thanks.

 

[jayem]

We see that around the 300s to around the 600's when abortion law was codified it was illegal.

Maybe it was illegal in the lawbooks. But that didn't stop women from terminating pregnancies. This is pasted directly from the SciAmer article:

Therefore, the medical historical evidence proposes a very different story from that told by official religious or legal texts. The fact of the matter is that good Christian women were indeed undertaking abortions and using contraceptives. Yet, wealthy and elite Christian women had not only recourse to the best medical knowledge of their era but also the privacy to undertake these practices without shame.

Most surprisingly, however, these medical practices were not only relegated to herbal, pharmaceutical contraceptives and abortifacient drugs, but also the various surgical interventions, what today we would refer to as a late-term abortion.

In 1858, the American Medical Association launched a successful campaign to criminalize abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Many of these laws remained unchanged until vacated by the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

So even if we go from mid 1800's that is a long time that most Western nations social norms and laws were against abortion. I don't think we have ever been at this level of acceptance in our Western Christian history where abortion is so easily available and so many abortions are happening for non life threatening reasons and a matter of convience.

I'm sure elective abortion was considered a moral failing by some physicians. But an equal (and maybe greater) reason for the AMA to oppose abortion was that physicians were losing business to midwives and other providers willing to perform abortions.

Though the 19th century is seen as a time of more restrictive sexual mores, abortion was actually common: according to at least one estimate, one in every five women at the time had had an abortion. Abortifacients were hawked in store fronts and even door to door. Vendors openly advertised their willingness to end women’s pregnancies. And in private, women shared information about how to prevent conception and induce miscarriages. (emphasis mine)

The Criminalization of Abortion Began as a Business Tactic | HISTORY

But health reasons were also important. Antibiotics and sterile technique didn't exist in the early-mid 19th century. Obstetric procedures were crude, and there was a significant risk of a woman dying, or being impaired for life by a septic abortion.

I'm sure abortion was seen by polite society as objectionable, if not abhorrent. But it still happened. Which bolsters my point that people weren't any better behaved centuries ago. It was just kept under wraps.

Yes thats another problem happening in our schools. There is an epidemic of mental illness happening especially for young people. I think what is happening now the the result of how we have liveed as a society in the past. Its complex and there are many factors like poverty, substance abuse, lack of support, family breakdown, abuse, trauma, social media, climate change, financial hardship, no prospects, fear of the future and world conflict ect.

But I also think we have sort of set this generation up to fail with unreal expectations of material happiness and that the Utopia that has been promised by Governments and this world has not happened. Young people have no hope or meaning in life and they carry deep resentment at the system. In that sense we need an overhaul, we need a saviour as I think its getting beyond us..

The thing about the gun problem in the US is that it will be hard to convince those in power to give up their arms. Its got to a point where people cannot be without arms but also cannot live with them. I Australia the Governemnt haed an amnesty after a big shooting incident and allowed everyone to surrender thier arms and guns were banned except for police, sports and on farms.

I can agree with most of that. I suspect a part of our mass shooting incidents is instant communication and reporting of these crimes. Which triggers men (who are 98% of mass murderers) who feel inadequate and insecure to act likewise. But that's getting off-topic.


Characteristics Shared by the Young Men Committing Mass Shootings

 

[Bradskii]

Nevertheless WPATH supports the same Trans Model that the NHS has banned. The NHS also removed the link under Guidelines to WPATH as well.

Another unfounded claim by WPATH in their Guidelines is that Hormone Blockers are completely reversible. This has been proven wrong as well or at least that there is not enough evidence to make such a claim. But thats what ideologues do, they make these unfounded claims to support their beliefs rather than base it on evedience.

WPATH themselves addresses this here: https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Doc...nt re Nov 14 2022 NYT Article Nov 22 2022.pdf

Finally, the authors of this article suggest that “England's National Health Service (that should be the UK's National Health Service) last month proposed restricting use of the drugs for trans youths to research settings.” In fact, the pivot that the National Health Service took was to enroll ALL youth initiating puberty blockers for treatment of gender dysphoria into a prospective research protocol so that more comprehensive data might be collected.

In other words, to tread carefully and ensure that data is collected correctly. And the guidelines to which I linked earlier has a complete chapter on this matter and lists 21 details recommendations for this. See page 110 in that document for details and let me know what you object to.

In short, the NHS is NOT saying that puberty blockers are irreversible. Even the first link you gave tells you that. So when you say 'This has been proven wrong' (highlighted above) is itself completely wrong. Anyone who has told you that is lying. So there are no unfounded claims. So how about we start dealing with facts and you stop bending the truth to suit your argument?

 

[Paidiske]

But enough of this. My interest is how can there be such contradictory positions on many of these issues in todays society.

I might be tempted to observe that many people are both incredibly ignorant, and easily manipulated.

I think the stark difference comes down to worldview, one believes humans are gods and can reconstruct nature and reality and the other respects the Truths we have come to know through our history that have proven to work and are beyond human ideas.

Yeah, that's not really an accurate representation of either "side" of the discussion.

No we are talking about pragmatics. We need some sort of standard.

We have many standards. Why is it not okay, in a new situation, for it to take time for standards to develop and be refined? After all, the church has had two millennia and we're still refining ours...

That is why I linked Christian worldview with Conservative and Traditionalists who may not be Christian but still believe in the long held Truth and Facts we have come to know.

You keep making this argument that the traditional position has been long tested and found sound. It hasn't; in many ways, it's been long tested and found severely wanting, which is why it has been so robustly challenged. I think you need to account for that in your position.

You engage in the same approach when you point out ideas like Conversion therapy being wrong and I am sure you have a word or two to say about womens Rights. You speak up because you care. You call it obsessing because you disagree but I think you would have the same level of concern if it was something you believed was wrong and needed to stop.

If you can't see the difference between advocating for fundamental human rights, and trying to micro-manage other people's medical treatment according to your personal belief system, I think much of the point of this conversation is lost.

And Christian organisations use medical experts as part of their submissions. So if the government wanted to bring in a harsh policy that may harm people you don't think Christian organisations that are involved in helping those people should submit their views on what makes best policy in making their lives better.

I don't think the point of such advocacy should be about imposing a specifically Christian approach. If we can demonstrate harm in objective terms, great. If we can't, maybe we need to back off.

I have repeatedly said that often a Christian voice is in line with the Conservative, traditional even the science. Its when those positions align that we can be confident that it represents the Truth and facts.

Well, first of all, I'd have to disagree with you about "the science." Not once, not ever (and I hold degrees in both science and theology) have I ever seen a Christian/conservative/traditional position on a divisive matter, where that view was in line with the best scientific understanding of the time. I'd include the issues you raise here.

But no, just because positions align doesn't mean that position is Truth.

People knew slavery was wrong they just needed someone to tell them the Truth of the matter that all humans are equal under God.

For people who "knew" that, there sure was a robust defence of it.

But I think the voices you probably hear in politics is about something completely different. Its not about Gays but allowing alternative therapies for Gender Dysphoria like psychotherapy and watch and wait apart from the Trans Care Model. These alternative therapies have been falsely made out to be Conversion Therapy.

Firstly, no. The political issue is not just about treating gender dysphoria. It is just as much about protecting people from conversion therapy aimed at sexuality.

Secondly, no. This is not about allowing treatment that is neither pharmacological nor surgical for people with gender dysphoria (that is understood as best practice, and is a given).

Conversion therapy is well defined and is a completely separate thing.

Misrepresenting the argument is, in itself, part of the problem.

What has happened is that only one Model of care is being allowed the 'Affiirmative and Transition model'. Any promotion of alternative therapies that try to find other reasons why someone may be GD and Trans is seen as pathologising and not accepting and affirming the GD person. But recent research has shown that there are underlying issues that have not been investigated properly and this has led to many young people who were not otherwise Trans being diagnosed as Trans and many sent down the Trans Model path when they should have had therapy or even a watch and wait approach.

There have been some isolated incidents of people whose care was not sufficiently carefully discerned. But it is blatantly untrue to say that this is the experience of everyone seeking medical care. The very documents we've seen discussed in this thread lay out a much more complex picture.

But the worst thing about your response here, is that your question was, "How has the Christian voice done harm?" And when I put evidence in front of you, of very real and profound harm, you did not acknowledge it in any way. This is not an issue we should be dodging or avoiding!

No one wants to deny people with GD any Rights.

Apparently some want to control their medical treatment options, though.

This whole ideology is not about Rights.

In a world where people still face the death penalty in some places for being gay, I'm not really buying this. The most basic rights are being denied these people, and we're surprised when they want to advocate for their own safety and wellbeing?

But heres the point relating to this thread. How on earth did people in such powerful positions create this situation. How have these ideas which are irrational and unreal to many been allowed to infiltrate to the highest levels of government, education and health care.

I suspect that the more hateful and disgusting the Christian/conservative side got, the more obvious it seemed to wider society that theirs was not the right side of the argument. I mean, when (for example) we saw Christian groups pour millions into the no campaign in the same-sex marriage plebiscite, coupled with truly foul propaganda suggesting that gay folks are all paedophiles and child abusers, why would anyone think that was the right way to treat this group of people?

Only a belief can cause someone to believe irrational ideas that have no evidence and ten think they are the truth for an entire culture to follow to the point that they have to be enforced.

Of course, part of the disconnect here is your claim that these are irrational ideas with no evidence. That's not true either.

If thats the promised Utopia then no thanks.

Ah, so rules are great, as long as they're your rules.

 

[stevevw]

WPATH themselves addresses this here: https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/Public Policies/2022/USPATHWPATH Statement re Nov 14 2022 NYT Article Nov 22 2022.pdf

Finally, the authors of this article suggest that “England's National Health Service (that should be the UK's National Health Service) last month proposed restricting use of the drugs for trans youths to research settings.” In fact, the pivot that the National Health Service took was to enroll ALL youth initiating puberty blockers for treatment of gender dysphoria into a prospective research protocol so that more comprehensive data might be collected.

In other words, to tread carefully and ensure that data is collected correctly. And the guidelines to which I linked earlier has a complete chapter on this matter and lists 21 details recommendations for this. See page 110 in that document for details and let me know what you object to.

In short, the NHS is NOT saying that puberty blockers are irreversible. Even the first link you gave tells you that. So when you say 'This has been proven wrong' (highlighted above) is itself completely wrong. Anyone who has told you that is lying. So there are no unfounded claims. So how about we start dealing with facts and you stop bending the truth to suit your argument?

The link you provide is the recently updated one in response to the Cass report. But before this WPATH followed the Trans Affirmative Model which included claims that Puberty was completely reversible and a bunch of other unfounded claims that the article I linked addressed such as Sex is assigned at birth and other language that was more ideologically based than evidenced based.

Are puberty blockers reversible? The NHS no longer says so

The NHS has made some welcome updates to its web page on gender dysphoria and no longer claims that puberty blockers are 'reversible'.

www.transgendertrend.com

Finland who is well ahead in this area had abandoned WPATH Trans Model well before the Cass Review and now rather than make the Affirmation model the first treatment method with little therapy they now make therapy the first treatment and try to avoid Hormone therapy and Surgery altogether and only in certain cases and even then there is caution.

Finland prioritizes psychotherapy over hormones, and rejects surgeries for gender-dysphoric minors. The guidelines urge caution given the unclear nature of the benefits of these interventions, largely reserving puberty blocker and cross-sex hormones.

These new guidelines represent a significant tightening of the more recent practices promoted by WPATH. WPATH Standards of Care 7 (SOC7) allows for hormones and surgery to be offered to youth with a pubertal-onset of gender dysphoria which is frequently complicated by mental health problems or neurocognitive comorbidities (such as ADHD and autism-spectrum disorders), following only a cursory assessment. Assessments by mental health professionals can be bypassed altogether according to the "informed consent model" of care endorsed by WPATH SOC7.
One Year Since Finland Broke with WPATH "Standards of Care"

The point is WPATH was quite willing to support the Trans Affirmative Model even though there was little evidence, unknown risks and counter evidence to their claims which put kids at risk. It took an Independent Review to push these changes through onto WPATH and other Gender Clinics. Before that there were objections reflecting the findings from Cass which was rejected as being Transphobic. But still WPATH and some Gender Clinics still push the Trans Model Affirmative Model in some schools.

But the damage has already been done because we have a lot of kids and aedults who are confued by the false claims about sex and gender identity like a little boys can become real girls and they can enter the opposite sex spaces. That is still being pushed by activists and supporters.

So what this shows is that ideology had and is still creeping into the system and institutions without any factual basis. But this is only an example of the ideology at work in society which we still have to address like in sports, womens Rights, Gay and Lesbian Rights in fact the Trans ideology now attacks Lesbians for speaking up for women as a unique sex and the sexualization of kids in education.

To put things in perspective my original claim here #230
For example by supporting Affirmation and Transition model of care for Gender Dysphoria the Episcopal Church is supporting an idea that has no basis in fact or reality and is harmful to young people. At the very least we have little to no data in this area so the risks are unknown.

I think I have well and truely shown I was correct and Like other Organisations and individuals who fell for this Ideology the Episcopal Church has been found out for supporting an idea which is not based in fact or the Truth and has contributed to harming and not helping young people with Gender Dysphoria..

 

[Bradskii]

Finland who is well ahead in this area had abandoned WPATH Trans Model well before the Cass Review and now rather than make the Affirmation model the first treatment method with little therapy they now make therapy the first treatment and try to avoid Hormone therapy and Surgery altogether and only in certain cases and even then there is caution.

Which is exactly what WPATH recommends. You haven't read the recommendations I gave, have you...

WPATH Standards of Care 7 (SOC7) allows for hormones and surgery to be offered to youth with a pubertal-onset of gender dysphoria which is frequently complicated by mental health problems or neurocognitive comorbidities (such as ADHD and autism-spectrum disorders), following only a cursory assessment.

We're now on to Version 8. Anything you say that refers to an earlier version is a waste of your time posting. You really need to read that version and then tell me what complaints you have about it.

I'll still be here when you've finished.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Things like workplace bullying and harassment aren't necessarily illegal, but they can do massive harm.

Most workplaces have policies against these things already. Are these really what you had in mind?

The point of the parable is that that's not something for us to get hung up on. Spending time categorising belief systems and behaviours so that we can tell who's "in" and who's "out" is not what we're called to do. It's a distraction. Better that we focus on the mission at hand, and leave the sorting to the Almighty later.

Right...good to see you don't believe in this oppressed/oppressor nonsense.

 

[Paidiske]

Most workplaces have policies against these things already. Are these really what you had in mind?

Given that I was specifically talking about "people insisting on pushing their views in their workplace, in a way which impinges harmfully on others," and giving that as a reason why people had lost their jobs or been disciplined, yes, that was pretty much what I had in mind.

Right...good to see you don't believe in this oppressed/oppressor nonsense.

There's a place for being aware of power dynamics and how those affect people negatively. But the kind of argument @stevevw is putting forward, about labelling everything that isn't a very particular, narrow view as "anti Christ" and "anti God" and so on, is really very unhelpful.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Which is exactly what WPATH recommends. You haven't read the recommendations I gave, have you...


We're now on to Version 8. Anything you say that refers to an earlier version is a waste of your time posting. You really need to read that version and then tell me what complaints you have about it.

I'll still be here when you've finished.

If Finland is following the Dutch model, as I suspect....then they don't allow any transitional treatment if there's a presence of a concomitant disorder like depression, ADHD, or autism. Their idea of therapy lasts through puberty. The affirmative care model allows for the approval of full testicular removal after 22 minutes of assessment lol.

I don't know why Wpath has been lying about multiple nations dropping their model....but they came clean about it recently.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Given that I was specifically talking about "people insisting on pushing their views in their workplace, in a way which impinges harmfully on others," and giving that as a reason why people had lost their jobs or been disciplined, yes, that was pretty much what I had in mind.

Is that why you think people were being canceled? By coworkers for things they said at work?

I was under the impression everyone knew it was by total strangers for opinions expressed online. I can provide examples if you want.

There's a place for being aware of power dynamics and how those affect people negatively. But the kind of argument

I don't see a lot of examining "power dynamics"....but I do see a lot judging people by race, sex, or other circumstances of their birth which are beyond their control.

That's naked bigotry in my eyes.

@stevevw is putting forward, about labelling everything that isn't a very particular, narrow view as "anti Christ" and "anti God" and so on, is really very unhelpful.

Ok...well you said...

"Spending time categorising belief systems and behaviours so that we can tell who's "in" and who's "out" is not what we're called to do. "

The oppressor/oppressed dynamic is exactly what you're describing above....both in belief systems and behaviours.