When two worldviews collide.

[Paidiske]

When I say "above scrutiny" I mean that someone is starting from the position of assuming someone is correct because of whatever superficial characteristics they possess. In this example, it's assuming that the black person is correct....because they are a black person.

Since no one can prove a negative, this puts the white person in this example in a nearly impossible position whereby they've already been judged guilty.

No; but it's easy for a white person to be oblivious to the impact of their own words. And also to accept feedback, learn and adapt.

Well you're resting this very belief upon certain assumptions. For example, the assumption that such a feeling even exists....and the assumption that there can be such a thing as "the wrong body" in any objective sense of the word.

It's nice that you believe the things you were told....but certainly, reasons exist to not believe them or approach them more skeptically.

Well, yes, I assume that people who describe their experiences to me are, largely, being honest. And I have also seen the studies and brain scans and so on which demonstrate that there appears to be some biological basis to that experience. So, one might interpret those things differently, but objectively there seems to be "something" to the whole thing.

If someone is "old" by which I mean well into adulthood and still struggling with their "identity" they have, imo, wasted their lives or otherwise made extremely poor choices.

In my limited experience, they're often abuse and trauma survivors.

What do you mean "legally recognized"?

I mean that it can be quite difficult and onerous (even where it is practically possible) to have their gender recognised legally, particularly if they have not chosen surgery or have only had limited surgery.

Our lawmakers are struggling with simply explaining what a woman or man is.....so I'm doubtful of any such lawmakers attempting to craft any legal statutes around words they cannot define.

There's a source outlining some of the legal and administrative stuff here: Change of sex

A long way to go to what? What is the end goal?

A just society in which everyone is able to be safe, thrive, and strive to fulfil their potential.

We don't have to go into it....just give me an example.

I'd ban the commercial production and distribution of tobacco products, for a start. You want to grow a little in your garden, and even share with your neighbours, fine. But the days of companies making billions out of a highly addictive substance which only creates massive health burdens for our society should be gone.

What's the traditional approach?

Well, its proponents on this thread have been pretty fuzzy about it, but it seems to be the enshrinement of a particular moment circa 1950, where "Christian values" reigned and we didn't have to deal with messy issues of sex, gender, human rights, and so on. (At least, that's the idealised, somewhat romanticised view of how it was).

They seem to have accepted women in the workplace without much difficulty....

Depends on the workplace. My suspicion that the "traditionalists" don't actually care about women's equality is based on what I've observed of the way such people actually behave.

It would be good to see the left handle this reversal of fortune as well as they did.

It would certainly be good to see the left become focussed, organised and strategic about achieving their goals. I've observed in the last decade or so that (broadly speaking) "the left" seems to have assumed that their self-evidently good and right attitudes would prevail, and that they didn't need to work to build the society they wanted. Then they've watched with dismay as people with different views and more discipline have been more effective. I'm still waiting for that realisation to crystallise enough to galvanise real action, though.

 

[rjs330]

They are not an association representing a medical body of professionals. It was set up purely as an advocacy group and has remained just that - an advocacy group. The association representing pediatricians is the American Accademy of Pediatrics. It has in excess of 67,000 members.The American College of Pediatricians was set up to advocate against trans rights plus gay rights and abortion. They have a few hundred members.

If you want expert unbiased medical opinion then I think the choice is obvious.

The academy of pediatrics gets their information from Wpath and follows Wpaths guidelines. It would be like doctors getting their guidance from Joseph Mengele.

Besides AAP has become a politically left organization. Here are some of their failures.
Peanut allergy guidance.
Flip flopping on kids in school during COVID
Masking of kids in schools
Over two thirds of the members are registered democrats.
And gender ideology is just another example of their leftist leaning.
They are not unbiased in the least.

Whistleblower: American Academy of Pediatrics Ignored, Buried Doctors' Major Concerns Over Trans Agenda

Here's the deal that I'm trying to get across. It's the point of this thread. We have two world views and they will collide. In some things there cannot be a middle ground. And these groups all have their agenda. The fight is over who has it right.

People are starting to wake up and realize they have been bamboozled by the activists and are fighting back against this illogical and unscientific gender ideology. And groups have been formed over the the years to do just that.

So don't pretend that following the trans and gender activist organizations and medical doctors is somehow unbiased. It's not.

 

[rjs330]

It's also possible for people to experience their own bodies in different ways. I have no reason to believe that the experience of being in the "wrong body" is somehow not real; and plenty of reason to believe the people I've known who've shared that experience with me.

How do they know they are in the wrong body? What makes a biological man believe he is a female?

 

[Paidiske]

How do they know they are in the wrong body?

I am not really in a position to describe an experience I haven't had to you. I would suggest that you read first-hand accounts.

What makes a biological man believe he is a female?

My understanding is that it's largely due to environmental influences on embryonic brain development.

In some ways, though, it doesn't matter. In that, for most of us, what causes it is not the question; the question is, how do I love my (trans) neighbour?

 

[rjs330]

It's also possible for people to experience their own bodies in different ways. I have no reason to believe that the experience of being in the "wrong body" is somehow not real; and plenty of reason to believe the people I've known who've shared that experience with me.

How do they know they are in the wrong body? What makes a biological man believe he is a female

think there are arguments to be had around single sex spaces, for example. But I also think that with a bit of good will and creativity we can work that out. Working out how to handle changing rooms or prisons or refuges doesn't have to be some kind of reason to take an all-or-nothing approach to dealing with trans people.

I think you are wrong on this. No there can't be any creativity on many things. For example, men showering with women or getting naked with them in locker rooms. Same goes for kids and school locker rooms and showers. Theres no creativity that you could come up with that would make that okay. Same goes for prisons. There is no creativity that would allow for men to share prisons with women. We've already seen how that works out.

There can't be any compromise or creativity where it comes to teen girls getting perfectly healthy breasts removed or allowing the sterilization of children.

I really understand your point of view. I do. You want to get along and not be dogmatic about things. You care about people and their feelings. You want to compromise and make allowances for people's differences. And that's good.

There are some things though that cannot be compromised on. I know you say women's sports is a niche issue. However it's a microcosm of the larger issue of can men really be women. Can boys really be boys. B cause if they can then there really is no issue at all. Once you agree that men can be women then there is no compromise. We don't look at women and prohibit them from competing against each other. We don't say if you are a woman who is a little more masculine then you cannot shower with other women or undress in locker rooms with them. We don't tell women they cannot have their own spaces because of a tomboy.
If you are a woman it doesn't matter how tall, shirt, heavy, skinny, masculine or feminine you are. You are a woman. Period. And men cannot have babies.

It's really okay to set boundaries. It's okay to say no. Not everything has to be a compromise. Not everything can be compromised.

 

[rjs330]

I am not really in a position to describe an experience I haven't had to you. I would suggest that you read first-hand accounts

You are dodging the question.
You said people have shared that experience with you. So how do they know they are in the wrong body?

How do you know you are in the right body?

 

[rjs330]

My understanding is that it's largely due to environmental influences on embryonic brain development.

Then your understanding is not accurate. A transactivist will tell you that they are born trans. Then others transactivist will tell you at anytime you can be trans and that it can happen suddenly.

There is zero research that has shown what you claim. They have not made any scientific or biological discoveries in that area.

What exactly is it in his brain that makes him a woman? What is a woman?

 

[Paidiske]

I think you are wrong on this. No there can't be any creativity on many things. For example, men showering with women or getting naked with them in locker rooms. Same goes for kids and school locker rooms and showers. Theres no creativity that you could come up with that would make that okay.

One suggestion I've seen is that such spaces might be configured as a series of self-contained individual cubicles; everyone doing their changing or showering or whatever on their own. That's an example of a creative solution which would be okay.

There can't be any compromise or creativity where it comes to teen girls getting perfectly healthy breasts removed or allowing the sterilization of children.

I don't feel the need to dictate the boundaries of others' medical care.

I know you say women's sports is a niche issue. However it's a microcosm of the larger issue of can men really be women. Can boys really be boys. B cause if they can then there really is no issue at all. Once you agree that men can be women then there is no compromise.

And I'd argue that we need to differentiate between biological sex, where that's relevant (as it is in some sports), and gender as a social category which we can allow to be a bit more flexible.

It's the all-or-nothing approach I'm taking issue with here. Allowing someone (for example) to adopt a new name is a completely separate issue to working out what's fair in elite sport. We don't have to look at this as if the stakes are the same in every situation, because they aren't.

Not everything can be compromised.

But a very great deal can. So why refuse the conversation?

And how do you know that what they are feeling is real?

Feelings are real. They're subjective, but real.

 

[Paidiske]

There is zero research that has shown what you claim. They have not made any scientific or biological discoveries in that area.

It seems the literature would beg to differ. For example: Neurobiology of gender identity and sexual orientation

What exactly is it in his brain that makes him a woman?

I am not saying that a transgendered person is a person of the opposite sex. I am simply positing that their experience of their brain and body not aligning is real.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Are you saying that those infamously dangerous back alley abortions weren't performed in back alleys at all? The lies of pro abortion activists know no limits.

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

Before I read the link...is there any actual evidence that healthcare providers looked at abortion as "money making opportunities lost"?

Obviously, any sufficiently large group will have a wide variety of opinions but it's hard to see how that would be a significant factor. I was of the understanding that some very unpopular cases involving doctors and nurses getting jailed turned a lot of public opinion.

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.

I'm not sure the argument was ever centered on the idea of people being "better" in the past.

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

Odd thing to concern oneself with....the demographics of mass shooters.

 

[Robban]

Well if you haven't then how do you know what they really are feeling? And how do you know that what they are feeling is real?

I think it was wise .

Don't judge unless you have walked a mile in anothers .shoes, or aomething like th.at.

 

[rjs330]

It seems the literature would beg to differ. For example: Neurobiology of gender identity and sexual orientation

I am not saying that a transgendered person is a person of the opposite sex. I am simply positing that their experience of their brain and body not aligning is real.

Sorry but your own so called study doesn't say what you think it does. Here's a quote.

However, it is hypothetically possible that, in rare cases, these events could be influenced independently of each other and result in people who identify with a gender different from their physical sex. A similar reasoning has been invoked to explain the role of prenatal hormones on sexual orientation.

The establishment of gender identity is a complex phenomenon and the diversity of gender expression argues against a simple or unitary explanation. For this reason, the extent to which it is determined by social vs biological (ie, genes and hormones) factors continues to be debated vigorously.17 The biological basis of gender identity cannot be modelled in animals and is best studied in people who identify with a gender that is different from the sex of their genitals, in particular transsexual people.

Overall, these genetic studies are inconclusive and a role for genes in gender identity remains unsettled.

The evidence that prenatal hormones affect the development of gender identity is stronger but far from proven.

I could go on and point out all the things in that study that show it doesn't say what you think it does. But suffice it to say that no there are no studies that say what you claimed.

It's all hypothetical.

 

[Paidiske]

Sorry but your own so called study doesn't say what you think it does.

I read it for myself; and while it points out that there are multiple factors involved and research is ongoing, it's pretty clear that there seems to be evidence in the direction I indicated.

It's all hypothetical.

It's work in progress. But there is a beginning, at least.

Note that what that paper does not say is that these experiences have no biological basis, or don't exist.

 

[rjs330]

am not saying that a transgendered person is a person of the opposite sex. I am simply positing that their experience of their brain and body not aligning is real.

Good then we are on the same page. Because for some their feelings are real. For others they don't really have those feelings. They are just looking for some reason to fit in, be different or a reason they are depressed and settle on they must be trans or trans is the answer.

This is proven by the fact that 80% of teens desist. If this was really a biological reality that they can't escape because of hormonal influences I'm the womb then they couldn't simply desist.

So we are left with the true believers who really do feel that they are in the wrong body. Those feelings are real. However those feelings are not reality. And we have no obligation to alter society based on someone's feelings. It's a mental health issues and needs to be delt with in that fashion. There are people who hear voices. We know that is not reality even though they really believe it's happening. We do not alter society for those people. We don't chop their ears off or make them deaf. Why not? There are people who believe their limb does not belong. Would you support cutting it off? Cutting is another example. People cut themselves to deal with mental health issues which could be caused by various things. But we as a society tell people it's okay to cut themselves. We don't tell them to go see a doctor and let the doctor cut them up even though it makes them feel better. We don't stand around and applaud them and tell them how brave and strong they are to cut themselves. No we try and help all these poor souls deal with the real problems.

Those who are suffering with trans thoughts are as delusional as the person who hears voices of people threatening to kill them.

We should not be altering society in order to help people affirm their delusions.

 

[Paidiske]

Because for some their feelings are real. For others they don't really have those feelings. They are just looking for some reason to fit in, be different or a reason they are depressed and settle on they must be trans or trans is the answer.

This is proven by the fact that 80% of teens desist. If this was really a biological reality that they can't escape because of hormonal influences I'm the womb then they couldn't simply desist.

And some don't find that those experiences stop. For those that do, there may be other explanations. And that's okay, too. Give people time and space to work out what they need.

And we have no obligation to alter society based on someone's feelings.

Obligation may be too strong a word, but it comes back around to the question I posed earlier. What does it mean to love my neighbour?

Those who are suffering with trans thoughts are as delusional as the person who hears voices of people threatening to kill them.

I disagree; but even if this were true, my argument would still be: it's not up to me or you to dictate how they deal with their situation. If medical intervention to some degree helps them to cope and to function, who am I to deny that?

 

[Bradskii]

Peanut allergy guidance.

Peanut allergy is now a left leaning agenda? Where do you get this stuff? Honestly, give me a link.

Flip flopping on kids in school during COVID
Masking of kids in schools.

So they made recommendations re covid with which you didn't agree? From your previous posts on covid you can colour me unsurprised.

Over two thirds of the members are registered democrats.

This is really desperate stuff.

Whistleblower: American Academy of Pediatrics Ignored, Buried Doctors' Major Concerns Over Trans Agenda

The AAP has close to 70,000 members. Any member can propose any resolution. Chairs of internal committees can co-sponsor it to allow it to proceed. If they don't then it's put to the general membership to co sponsor. The resolution was proposed by just 5 members. It received no support.

And one of the 5 sponsors was Julia Mason. See here: Leaked files show pediatricians angry with academy's trans policy

Who she? Well, you will never guess who she writes papers for. Yep, our old friends, the advocacy group, the American College Of Pediatricians! What ya think? Also a member? We should check.

She's also a clinical adviror to SEGM, the Society For Evidence Based Gender Medicine. Yet another vague group who are concerned about trans people. So let's check what people have to say about them: Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine - Wikipedia

'Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine issued a report which described SEGM as a small group of anti-trans activists. Joshua Safer, a spokesperson for the Endocrine Society, described them as outside the medical mainstream. Aviva Stahl stated they were "pushing flawed science"and Mallory Moore stated they have "ties to evangelical activists" '

And these are the people you are presenting that you say are unbiased. It's comical.

Have you got anything that isn't tied to small groups of anti trans groups? I mean seriously, have you got anything apart from these people??

 

[Mountainmike]

I think you missed my point.

Christians often say that Christianity provided humanity with the concepts of don't kill, steal, treat other people badly, and looking after each other. I disagree with that. I think it's far more likely that those ideas were around long before Christianity and Christianity merely adopted them. And then, with the spread of Christianity, it was able to claim that it had invented those concepts.

Yes. Some people would say that giving up everything you own to help others is the only way to live morally. Others would not. Some would say that the death penalty could never be moral. Some would say that the death penalty for certain crimes is quite moral.

Since I am an atheist, I don't care what other people claim is God's truth.

You seem determined to look at everything through the lens of your faith. You must understand that other people do not do that.

This just is not true. Are people trying to make it illegal to be Christian?

Remember, telling people that they can't push their faith onto others is not the same thing as telling them that they can't hold that faith themselves.

"You aren't allowed to be a Christian" = religious persecution.

"You aren't allowed to force others to be Christian" = not religious persecution.

"You are not allowed to be christian" is certainly true in parts of the world.
In the UK you cannot adopt children if you are because of your "beliefs" !
Is how far the ideology is ingrained.
In the UK you are not allowed to "pray" within a certain distance of any abortion facility.
Or even stop because you might be praying!!!!! Free country huh?

The biggest genocides and mass killings in history are atheist in origin and communist in particular, because it does not value life.
Chinese cultural revolution, the gulags, pol pots killing fields, cases in point naziism was socialist/atheist.

Indeed plenty of atheist regimes have done so, take the rwandan genocide, the vendee massacre, or the paris commune.
Where was the atheist moral code then?

The crusades in comparison were a civil affair. Saladdin sent a sick Richard the lionheart fruit to help him recover.
They even tried to cook up an arranged marriage to solve the sovereignty problem!

The number of abortions dwarfs many of those genocides. The figures are horrendous !
In the US Over half a million a year.
That is what happens when you cease to value life, and value entitlement over moral code.
Yet (almost all) Christianity, and before that (almost all) judaism always opposed abortion.

Of course the "reformers" even reformed part of judaism to allow it - leaving out the most important doctrines of all.

I am looking at history, not lens of faith

When "survival of fittest" is all that is left. The deaths are horrendous. That is the stated "faith" of atheist evolutionists everywhere.

 

[jayem]

Are you saying that those infamously dangerous back alley abortions weren't performed in back alleys at all? The lies of pro abortion activists know no limits.


Before I read the link...is there any actual evidence that healthcare providers looked at abortion as "money making opportunities lost"?

In my post, I quoted articles from Scientific American and the History Channel. And the links are posted. Why don't you read the articles before critiquing them?

Of course, in the 19th century, abortion was risky. But so was childbirth. Most deliveries back then were handled by midwives, not physicians. Ever heard of puerperal fever? It was a very dangerous bacterial infection of the uterus and upper genital tract that occurred a within a few days of delivery. We know now it was caused by group B streptococcus. And was acquired by unsanitary delivery technique. From 20-25% (and sometimes more) women died. I'm posting a quote from the article, and the link.

The first recorded epidemic of puerperal fever occurred at the Hôtel-Dieu de Paris in 1646. Hospitals throughout Europe and America consistently reported death rates between 20% to 25% of all women giving birth with intermittent epidemics with up to 100% fatalities of women giving birth in childbirth wards.

Puerperal fever - wikidoc

 

[ralliann]

Wow, you get your knickers in a twist rather quickly it seems. One of my dearest friends HAPPENED TO BE HOMOSEXUAL. Am I allowed to mention that in response to your suggestion that I'm some gay-bashing troglodyte? Are you irked that I don't fit into your little woke box of preconceptions as to what a mainstream Christian "must" be like?

How would my friend have reacted if I'd discussed the biblical passages with him? No, that isn't a serious question and you aren't interested in what I think. More to the point, what does it say about you that you think I'd harangue a homosexual friend with biblical passages? Again, it appears you're determined to fit me into your little box of woke preconceptions and stereotypes. I decline to play your silly game.

Perhaps you might actually read Romans 1:29-32. The "deserving of death" passage refers to far more than homosexuality:

"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."​

The above would not have described my homosexual friend - not by a long shot.

In regard to my "level of the beasts" remark, your suggestion was that the harm of homosexuality should be viewed strictly in terms of whether the participants are of consenting age and do in fact consent. If they do, they are welcome to insert any bodily part into any bodily orifice of a same-sex partner if it makes them happy. This, it seems to me, is viewing human sexuality strictly from a barnyard perspective. Now that I see you identify as atheist, I guess this makes sense - the barnyard is pretty much all you have. Your perspective ignores the psychological and spiritual dimensions and the actual and potential consequences of the LGBTQblahblahblah movement for society in general and the Christian faith in particular.

Looking back at where this conversation started. We in the new covenant faith, have already taken the death penalty (including, homosexuals). We have already died in baptism. Same manner of death for all sinners. So while talking of Paul, speaking in the new covenant , the manner in which the Christian death penalty is accomplished is in baptism. Is this not what we believe and do? We die, and are buried in baptism.
Therefore could it be said those that believe no such thing, are up in arms over dunking or sprinkling (depends on denomination) as the manner in which we apply the death penalty?

 

[rjs330]

I think it was wise .

Don't judge unless you have walked a mile in anothers .shoes, or aomething like th.at.

I don't think we need to walk in someone's shoes to recognize that the path they are walking is destructive. Do you actually have to be an alcoholic in order to be able to make a claim that alcoholism is not good and is destructive?

Must you be inflicted with a mental illness to be able to claim that a persons delusions are are not reality?
Your comment is a drive by without giving actual thought in what you are saying.