I literally posted videos of people saying it. I also posted a very long informational piece on affirmative care. I've posted articles showing what is happening to kids. I told you to look up other videos and provided other stories and yet you still claim it isn't happening. You posted information on what some guidelines say. But you have not presented any information on what actually happens while we have.
Okay, let me make explicit something I thought was obvious. If you post a video, and I post a peer-reviewed journal article, or a primary document such as a hospital's standards of care, and our posts contradict one another, I am going to take the journal article or the like as holding much more weight. It doesn't matter how many videos you post, or opinion pieces, or the like, while I can find actual research, and actual clinical guidelines and standards of care, which do not say what those videos or the like claim, then I'm not going to believe a thing in those videos. Any twit can put anything on YouTube and say whatever they like; as far as I'm concerned, they're meaningless in establishing anything.
I suppose you haven't listed to any of what I posted.
Not when a quick google is generally enough to find robust evidence that most of what you've said has no real basis in fact.
But I am not sure what your point is though. Are you saying theres no such thing as a guilty conscience when it comes to morality.
No; I am saying our consciences are not an infallible hotline to transcendant moral truth. It is a guide, but a guide which needs to be well-formed and sometimes challenged.
Just look at all the threads on this site along the lines of "I think I've committed the unpardonable sin, and am damned for eternity!" Most of the time no such thing is going on.
Really. I think all Cultures converge on basic morals like murder, stealing, rape, child abuse, adultery and violence against others.
Given that rape in marriage wasn't even a crime across Australia until the 1980s, and there's no global consensus about what constitutes child abuse (just as two examples), I think it's pretty demonstrable that it's not that simple.
I don't think its so often and people have a misunderstanding perhaps because of stereotyping Christianity.
Come on, Steve. Surely you're aware there's a whole pseudoscientific industry out there pandering to Christains who want to deny basic science?
I'm not saying it
has to be that way, but in real life, it's a significant reality.
When I say "we need an enforced ethical standard" I am not saying it should be Christian ones or any belief about morals including Woke beliefs. I have been saying that it should be based on the Truths we know that work and stand up to reason and rationality and that it just so happens o align with Christian values. Therefore its not by force but by the overall rationality and reasoning of them.
How terribly convenient. Of course, those truths are actually subject to question and debate and far from universally accepted, so...
Not here, not in the US. Also, I didn't see any links despite going back a couple pages so if you could provide them again or give me a post number, I'll look.
Given that I've just got back from a couple of days away and have a bunch of things to deal with (other than arguing on the internet; how dare real life interfere with my hobbies?) I'm going to decline to re-do work I've apparently already done. Feel free to follow it up or not as you wish.
Lol ok...so you're certain about the cross sex hormones and the puberty blockers? You're aware these are used to treat child sex offenders because they kill any possible sexual arousal right? That's what the term "chemical castration" means...that's the other use.
I didn't know that, but it appears that "chemical castration" is basically a medication that drops testosterone levels, and is reversible.
Who is suffering? Children? There's no evidence of any trans suicide epidemic.
I can't find hard figures for actual suicides (rather than suicidality), but even increased levels of suicidality (and other markers of distress) surely are worth taking into account as forms of suffering? Should we only care when people get to the point of actually killing themselves? (It's a bit late, then, isn't it?)
The president of WPATH, a practicing surgeon with more clinical experience treating trans people than almost anyone in the world is on video, saying that puberty blockers render people permanently sexually impaired, impotent, infertile or whatever. I've offered to share this evidence with you....you don't want to see it.
I'll say to you what I said to rjs330; find a reputable source. A video ain't it. Peer-reviewed journal article would be acceptable.
Why are you so certain that gender is a real thing?
I am arguing that sexed brain development (which can be congruent or incongruent with the sexed development of the body) is a thing.
How can the path of least harm involve the possibility of misdiagnosing 100% of children for the benefit of an estimated 1% of children?
There is always the
possibility of misdiagnosing someone. Even the refusal to assess anybody carries the possibility of valid diagnoses being missed. The challenge is to make sure that diagnostic criteria, assessment processes, and so on, are as good as possible; not to refuse to have them.
Of anyone who walks into a clinic, before a word is spoken, we can say....
Over 99% aren't trans.
Over 99% aren't experiencing gender dysphoria if they are under 15yo.
The study I posted up thread found that about one third of people referred to a clinic didn't meet diagnostic criteria. So no, you can't say that.
Of those experiencing gender dysphoria, 85% will desist without any treatment or intervention at all by the end of puberty.
Those aren't the numbers I can find (I can find a lower rate), but that many people's dysphoria desists is not in dispute.
Yet somehow, despite the facts, you think a model that assumes the person who says they are trans are in fact trans is a good model. Why?
That's not how I understand the model to operate. As I read the actual protocols, the person and their experiences and so on are carefully assessed, and, crucially, not everyone goes on to treatment. What the model does is not rule out the possibility that they are trans,
a priori.
We absolutely shouldn't be making it a part of public school curriculum
We should hide the existence of trans people from school children? How is that going to work when many of them will know a trans person? Isn't it better to give them some social framework, and, in particular, aim to avoid bullying?
When you actually consider that literally none of these medical interventions have any proven long term benefits
I've posted numerous links in the thread showing otherwise.
....if your concern was really about doing the least harm....you should literally pretend trans people don't exist.
I see. And I should refuse to recognise the trans people in my congregation? Refuse to listen to their experiences, and reflect with them on how that shapes their spirituality, prayer life, social engagement, and so on?
Doesn't sound pastorally responsible to me.
No you are incorrect. These studies have all been reviewed by many and been found to be lacking in their methodology and so are not reliable.
I see. And your source for this claim? Peer-reviewed journal article preferred; if it's a video, don't bother. (Also, don't bother with a link to an opinion site by an institute with the purpose "to keep America and its great cities prosperous, safe, and free.")
It's time to get off the trans train and stop the support of harming children who if left alone and merely received psychological support to live within their own bodies would desist.
But this is not true for everyone. What about those for whom it is not true?
It is imperative that the real Church of God take advantage of every lawful means (preaching God's Word, prayer, political activism, etc.) to seek the dominance of the Christian worldview at all levels of society. If the Christian worldview does not dominate, then another will if the Church fails in its godly duties. When a person casts his or her vote, they are seeking the dominance of their worldview. In addition, one must not confuse the nation as a whole with idividual Christians in terms of biblical requirements. Thus, to work to gain dominance of the Christian worldview in the nations is not contrary in any way to the love of Christ.
This is
exactly the attitude I'm arguing against. Our mission is not to dominate all levels of society with a Christian worldview. That is not the purpose for which God sends us. And in fact, when we do try to do that, we undermine our actual mission, since we cannot dominate others, and then expect them to believe that our domination is in some sense, good news!