When two worldviews collide.

[Bradskii]

When did you come to become an Atheist. We’re you a Christian and then transitioned to become an Atheist?

I was doing confirmation lessons in order to be able to take part in communion. I was about 13. And I realised that everyone was taking it all literally.

 

[Bradskii]

It’s funny that you don’t give details, but demand details from others. Isn’t it ironic?

No, It's not. I don't ask for personal details. I'll pass on some limited information about myself to let people know that I have personal experience of any given matter. But it will remain limited. And when I say that no more will be forthcoming, I expect that to be understood and respected.

 

[Bradskii]

No Finland was not the example I first used. I used Europe as the example and included countries who have moved away from Wpath affirmative model. Finland was one of them. They were not THE example but one of many. I don't know what you didn't say Sweden was THE example I originally used.

Well I do actually because Sweden doesn't agree with you. So you can't use them.

But let's look at Finland shall we? Finland continued to allow kids with early childhood dysphoria to have the possibility of medicalization. This despite the fact that their research showed dubious results of it. And they are doing it against the findings of their own reviews. They realize they are EXPERIMENTING on a VERY SMALL subset of children who claim dysphoria. They fully accept that what they are doing is experimenting on kids as research and not because they have come to some conclusion this is the right thing to do. So even they do not agree with you on this.

Unless you are claiming it's being done in Australia and the US as an research experiment on a tiny majority of kids in an experimental clinic.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how difficult is it for you to argue with one person that all this is nonsense and no-one should be doing it. And then arguing with another that there are best practices which should be followed when doing it?

Just curious...

 

[Sabri]

No, It's not. I don't ask for personal details. I'll pass on some limited information about myself to let people know that I have personal experience of any given matter. But it will remain limited. And when I say that no more will be forthcoming, I expect that to be understood and respected.

Ok. Understood, but show others the same respect. I did the exact same thing, but you demanded details from a personal story from me. Hmm sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Sabri]

I was doing confirmation lessons in order to be able to take part in communion. I was about 13. And I realised that everyone was taking it all literally.

Well let me enlighten you. Jesus says take my bread-my body and eat. We as believers do take it literal. Communion the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Do this in remembrance of me. Does that sound familiar. Whosoever eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life. Do your believe in the afterlife? Don’t you want eternal life? Most men do.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I was doing confirmation lessons in order to be able to take part in communion. I was about 13. And I realised that everyone was taking it all literally.

Moving into Fowler Stage 4. Congratulations.

Stage 4: Individuative-Reflective Faith

In Brief: The tacit system of the previous stage comes under critical scrutiny. Responsibility for making decisions about one’s goals and values, previously invested in others, is now taken into on…

knownunknown.wordpress.com

 

[Paidiske]

I "conceded" that they were trying to change the biological meaning of woman or man. That's the wordplay they've engaged in.

I understood you to have been arguing that trans activists were claiming that someone biologically male, could actually become biologically female (or vice versa). I was arguing, in contrast, that trans activists were claiming that the categories of "men" and "women" should be flexible enough to admit trans people, not that they were claiming that a male person literally becomes, biologically, a female person.

If that's not what you were arguing, then I'm afraid your position was unclear. But I still don't think they've changed the biological meaning, I think they're saying biology isn't the only relevant factor which should be taken into account for social purposes. To my mind, that's a change in meaning, but it's about sociology, not biology.

You can't control people's thoughts....nor should you seek to.

We can shape culture, though. We do that all the time, and it's not inherently wrong to do.

What rights don't women have to Australia?

I wasn't speaking only of Australia. But we're still working on equal pay for equal work, so...

So feminism has no need to exist in your nation?

We've made more progress here than in some places, but we still have a long way to go.

Take a look at what your faith based ideology has wrought here in the US. It's only hurt everything it's tried to improve.

Abolishing slavery was bad?

(NB: there is plenty of American Christianity and its ideology which is quite foreign to my sense of what the church's mission is about. So I'm not going to uncritically agree with everything every Christian does. But I don't buy that there have been no improvements along the way).

But you cannot both be correct.

That doesn't mean it's hypocritical if we disagree.

As for Marxism, I'm not promoting socialism (despite the American tendency to use that word for anything government-funded), nor am I particularly taking any economic positions, so no, I'm really not taking on board the idea that I'm "serving" Marx.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I understood you to have been arguing that trans activists were claiming that someone biologically male, could actually become biologically female (or vice versa). I was arguing, in contrast, that trans activists were claiming that the categories of "men" and "women" should be flexible enough to admit trans people, not that they were claiming that a male person literally becomes, biologically, a female person.

They're arguing that the biological definition (the only definition I'm actually aware of) is something that should be eliminated. The new definition isn't quite something they seem capable of putting together.

If that's not what you were arguing, then I'm afraid your position was unclear. But I still don't think they've changed the biological meaning

They absolutely are arguing against the biological meaning. Feel free to reference any discussion of "woman" with a trans activist....and give a 3 count in your head and see if it takes that long to hear the words "biological essentialist" come out of their mouth.

We can shape culture, though. We do that all the time, and it's not inherently wrong to do.

There's no "cultural definition" of woman. None. You haven't provided any.

I wasn't speaking only of Australia. But we're still working on equal pay for equal work, so...

So lol there's really no one who believes in the gender pay gap. It's been debunked more times than I can count at this point. By far the best example is the US women's soccer team essentially proving to the world not only were they over paid...but bad at math.

We've made more progress here than in some places, but we still have a long way to go.

A long way to go at what?

Abolishing slavery was bad?

That's a wild idea....wokism didn't abolish slavery.

(NB: there is plenty of American Christianity and its ideology which is quite foreign to my sense of what the church's mission is about. So I'm not going to uncritically agree with everything every Christian does. But I don't buy that there have been no improvements along the way).

Talking about the faith based beliefs of wokism. If you want to claim that Christianity has largely been a positive political force, you've been arguing on the wrong side of the discussion on this thread.

As for Marxism, I'm not promoting socialism (despite the American tendency to use that word for anything government-funded), nor am I particularly taking any economic positions, so no, I'm really not taking on board the idea that I'm "serving" Marx.

Marxism changes depending upon the person promoting it. If you think man's primary function is economic....you get something closer to Leninism. If you think man's primary function is cultural....you end up with something closer to Maoism....or wokism.

 

[Paidiske]

They absolutely are arguing against the biological meaning.

Again, that was not what I understood you to be saying.

So lol there's really no one who believes in the gender pay gap.

Having experienced it myself, I certainly do.

A long way to go at what?

To reshaping our society for the full participation and flourishing of women (as well as men).

That's a wild idea....wokism didn't abolish slavery.

You talked about a faith based ideology, and my faith based ideology is Christianity, and that had a lot to do with abolishing slavery.

If you want to claim that Christianity has largely been a positive political force, you've been arguing on the wrong side of the discussion on this thread.

It's been a mixed bag. As long as it sees its political imperatives as being about responding to human need, transforming injustice, and so on, it tends to do well. When it starts seeing its political imperatives as being about enforcing personal morality or the like, it tends to get far messier.

Marxism changes depending upon the person promoting it.

I would have thought Marxism would have been defined by the writings of Marx.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Again, that was not what I understood you to be saying.

I've said it multiple times now. If you want me to prove it, I can point out on the 3rd page of your citation where the author makes the typically bad arguments around genetic abnormalities as the reason why we should adopt a non-biological meaning for man and woman.

Then there's incidents like this...

UC student says she failed assignment for using term 'biological women'

A University of Cincinnati student says she received a failing grade on an assignment because she used the term "biological women."

www.cincinnati.com

Which clearly demonstrate the desire to deny biological sex.

Having experienced it myself, I certainly do.

I'm sure it's illegal to pay a woman less in your nation just because you're a woman. What happened when you filed a lawsuit?

To reshaping our society for the full participation and flourishing of women (as well as men).

Feminism doesn’t care about men and "flourishing" is too vague and subjective a term to mean anything.

You talked about a faith based ideology, and my faith based ideology is Christianity, and that had a lot to do with abolishing slavery.

I meant your other faith-based ideology....the one called wokism. The one that tells you women can have penises.

It's been a mixed bag. As long as it sees its political imperatives as being about responding to human need, transforming injustice, and so on, it tends to do well. When it starts seeing its political imperatives as being about enforcing personal morality or the like, it tends to get far messier.

Perhaps that explains the appeal of wokism....it allows for the moralizing that you see as inherently wrong with Christianity.

I would have thought Marxism would have been defined by the writings of Marx.

Marx famously said "I am not a Marxist". You'd need to understand Das Capital and how Capital can refer to more than money according to later Marxists.

 

[Paidiske]

Which clearly demonstrate the desire to deny biological sex.

I thought you were claiming that trans activists were claiming that a person could actually become biologically a person of the other sex. If that's not what you meant, I'm sorry, but it really wasn't clear.

I'm sure it's illegal to pay a woman less in your nation just because you're a woman. What happened when you filed a lawsuit?

Of course I didn't, because I knew the backlash would be worse than putting up with it.

Feminism doesn’t care about men and "flourishing" is too vague and subjective a term to mean anything.

Feminism - or at least, several schools of feminism, and certainly those I lean towards - would argue that dismantling patriarchy ultimately benefits men as well.

Flourishing isn't too vague and subjective a term for me to see it as a basic human good (in the technical, ethical sense) worth working towards.

Marx famously said "I am not a Marxist". You'd need to understand Das Capital and how Capital can refer to more than money according to later Marxists.

Ah, similar to how Calvin wasn't a Calvinist. I would be interested to read a Marxist take on social capital, actually, but right now would consider myself far too ignorant on that front to accept the label "Marxist."

 

[rjs330]

On a scale of 1 to 10, how difficult is it for you to argue with one person that all this is nonsense and no-one should be doing it. And then arguing with another that there are best practices which should be followed when doing it?

Just curious...

You are either misinterpreted what I by accident or deliberately. Not sure which.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say it was by accident. Because while I do believe we should not be transing children ever and have pretty much said so, I never claimed not stated that Finlands practices were the best practices.

And you still haven't defined what man is.

 

[rjs330]

understood you to have been arguing that trans activists were claiming that someone biologically male, could actually become biologically female (or vice versa). I was arguing, in contrast, that trans activists were claiming that the categories of "men" and "women" should be flexible enough to admit trans people, not that they were claiming that a male person literally becomes, biologically, a female person.

What do you think they are doing? When a trans person takes hormones what are they trying to become? How about when they obtain surgeries what are they trying to become? When they cut off their penis create a vagina what are they trying to become? When they sew on a fake penis and cut their breast off what are they trying to become?

 

[Paidiske]

What do you think they are doing? When a trans person takes hormones what are they trying to become? How about when they obtain surgeries what are they trying to become? When they cut off their penis create a vagina what are they trying to become? When they sew on a fake penis and cut their breast off what are they trying to become?

Here's the thing: people who do all those things know - in a bone-deep, gut-deep way that perhaps none of the rest of us know, since we don't live with the physical toll of it - that they can only approximate the biology of the other sex; and that they do so, not so that they "become" the other sex, but so that their bodies are more congruent with their own sense of identity.

 

[timothyu]

Here's the thing: people who do all those things know - in a bone-deep, gut-deep way that perhaps none of the rest of us know, since we don't live with the physical toll of it - that they can only approximate the biology of the other sex; and that they do so, not so that they "become" the other sex, but so that their bodies are more congruent with their own sense of identity.

Logical. Personally I as a male have always shuddered at the thought of intimacy with a male yet I still have good male and female friends. It is in my nature to feel so since I was old enough toknow about such things. Who is to say it is any different for those who (in their inner nature) shudder at the thought of intimacy with the opposite gender? As to why some gender swap (many men are happy to remain effeminate without a thought of homosexuality and the reverse for women holds true) must somehow be connected to more than just aligning with their feminine or butchy inner selves, even though some who swap may still pursue what previously was their own sex. There is a lot more to this than what appears on the surface. I wonder if they will find happiness when the body is no longer an issue?

 

[Paidiske]

I wonder if they will find happiness when the body is no longer an issue?

I have sometimes wondered how things will be different for them in the resurrection. Clearly the distress will be gone, but apart from that...?

 

[Bradskii]

Ok. Understood, but show others the same respect. I did the exact same thing, but you demanded details from a personal story from me. Hmm sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

If I asked and you wished not to divulge any personal details then that's an end to it.

 

[Bradskii]

Well let me enlighten you.

No need. I had all the information I needed.

 

[timothyu]

I have sometimes wondered how things will be different for them in the resurrection. Clearly the distress will be gone, but apart from that...?

Yeah, how will they identify then when all that is gone? Perhaps the focus should be on that for all of us now. We are not our vessels.

 

[Bradskii]

Moving into Fowler Stage 4. Congratulations.

Stage 4: Individuative-Reflective Faith

In Brief: The tacit system of the previous stage comes under critical scrutiny. Responsibility for making decisions about one’s goals and values, previously invested in others, is now taken into on…

knownunknown.wordpress.com

That's very interesting. I hadn't come across that before.

Fowler's definition of Stage 4 isn't a perfect fit, but it's very close indeed. And reading about his stage 5 it tends to fit as well. Although science was my 'next stage of awareness.' Specifically evolution and more specifically evolutionary psychology. I'll read more.