When two worldviews collide.

[trophy33]

I think that the big benefit of forums like this is that you get your opportunity to present your arguments for what your opinions might be against others who hold opposite views. And if you are honest, you can determine if they hold up. You can then present them in other arenas confident that they hold up.

However, the quality of the participants is not guaranteed in any way (this is a random open community of just few regular individuals) and so you may think your arguments are good, while in reality life they are not.

And even if somebody good was here, its not guaranteed he is in his best focus, without distractions, with enough of time for reading or responding "in his best", with the needed data and sources at hand. His inability or unwillingness to articulate, defend or prove his idea properly, does not establish his is not actually right and that somebody with the same/similar idea, but better equipped or more willed or taking this more seriously, would not destroy you in a debate, anyway.

 

[rjs330]

don't really think that's a sound explanation. That more kids are aware of and explore questions of identity, sure. That some are more likely to consider transgender identity as an explanation for their own experiences, sure. That it's no longer taboo to even raise the question, sure.

But serious, clinical dysphoria, a social contagion? That's a long bow to draw.

So you think 400% more girls were tans before but never came out? You think that there is suddenly a 400% increase in gender dysphoria that we didn't know about before? It seems like a bigger bow to draw to consider there was among females before like 2016.

And I've already proven to you through your own posting on the issue that your thoughts on hormonal imbalance are not in anyway whatsoever shown to be true. And the fact that we had a sudden increase of 400% in girls identifying as trans is further proof of the issue. Not only that but those increases were only in certain areas. There is NOTHING valid in the position you hold. Yet you hold it anyway.

Your free of course to believe what you want, but if you are going to stake the claim in a debate forum you better have solid evidence. Which you don't.

There is real gender dysphoria and there is transgenderism. I don't know how many times I've been told by the supporters of it that they are two different things. I've been told that you can be transgender and not have dysphoria. Yet there is no scientific evidence for the case.

Now, I do believe dysphoria is real and extremely rare. But we are discovering that it can be treated without blockers or hormones. And I think it HAS to be treated. Especially in children who are scientifically proven to desist at a rate of at least 90%. It's foolish to give children puberty blockers and then hormones when they would have desisted without them. Once they are on blockers nearly 100% go on to hormones. Leave the kids alone.

If you haven't done so yet you really must take a look at Genspect and SEGM.

 

[rjs330]

Empathy - we can mirror the pain of others and so we know its not a good thing. Sociopaths lack this, they are like morally disabled.

Empathy is the test? You know there have been a lot of people throughout history who had no empathy for others. I mean whole cultures. Take slavery for example. Or how the Native Americans were treated. The entire WORLD operates and operated that way. Native Americans were not the only people who were treated that way. And it was deemed morally okay to enslave others, conquer others and even commit genocidal acts. Empathy is a poor judge of morality. History is evidence of that.

God is the final arbiter of what is right and wrong. Morality only exists within a framework of society and changes all the time depending on the society. One cannot trust in morality alone. That's how we got the Holocaust and the horrific things done to the Jews by medical experimentation.

 

[trophy33]

Empathy is the test? You know there have been a lot of people throughout history who had no empathy for others. I mean whole cultures. Take slavery for example. Or how the Native Americans were treated. The entire WORLD operates and operated that way. Native Americans were not the only people who were treated that way. And it was deemed morally okay to enslave others, conquer others and even commit genocidal acts. Empathy is a poor judge of morality. History is evidence of that.

God is the final arbiter of what is right and wrong. Morality only exists within a framework of society and changes all the time depending on the society. One cannot trust in morality alone. That's how we got the Holocaust and the horrific things done to the Jews by medical experimentation.

No, empathy is not a test.

Not sure what you mean by the whole cultures without empathy or even by the whole world without empathy. Any sources for such claims?

 

[rjs330]

If it were considered amoral to assault people then it would become common and society would collapse. That we have formed societies shows that considering it to be wrong has worked to our advantage. Those that didn't consider it to be wrong either aren't with us or are considered a detriment to a healthy society and are punished for it.

So we have come to realise that what works is good. And what we consider to be good can be described as moral.

Oh please, society didn't collapse during slavery or your treatment of the natives in your country. It grew in many areas and it was fine to abuse those people. We've seen it all over the world. And society didn't collapse and infact expanded. The same went for murder. It was okay to murder some people. It's always been that way. If one group of people decides to abuse and murder others it's okay because they decided. Like how the Nazis experimented on the Jews or threw gays into the concentration camps. It was perfectly moral for them to do so. Because they decided it was. Or it's perfectly moral for the Chinese to do what they have done to people.

Morality is shifting sand and not solid. It's merely based upon your desires or feelings. It's a poor way of operating. Because tomorrow it may not be immoral.

 

[rjs330]

No, empathy is not a test.

Not sure what you mean by the whole cultures without empathy or even by the whole world without empathy. Any sources for such claims?

I just gave you some. Did you not read the post?

 

[trophy33]

I just gave you some. Did you not read the post?

I see no sources. Just claims.

 

[rjs330]

sure as heck know the positions I couldn't even apply for because they aren't open to women.

Are you talking about your church again. If you are so set on you right to be able to hold certain positions etc, then you have chosen the wrong church. It's not right for you to join a church who have certain values, beliefs and doctrine and then whine and moan that those beliefs, values and doctrine don't fit your personal goals, beliefs and values.

Join a church that does. I understand that you have been threatened or verbally assaulted for holding your position. Does your church not say that is wrong?

But aside from that I hear an awful lot of complaining about an organization that has been around a very long time and have a doctrine and belief system that you know well. Quite frankly if they have treated you that way then you don't belong there. If they really believe that way they should never have let you in in the first place. For you to put pressure on them is wrong and complain about it when you knew what you were getting into is wrong.

If you really felt called by God then you should have joined a religious organization that would be open to you to pursue that calling. Organizations that have the doctrine that you support, minus the belief that women should not hold certain positions.

 

[rjs330]

I see no sources. Just claims.

Do you really need sources for slavery and how the Natives Americans were treated? Do you really need sources for the Nazis and how the Jews and gays were treated? Do you honestly need historical sources for how people have treated others who belonged to other tribes or groups? Do you know nothing about history? The Mayans come to mind. Don't you know anything about them?

Maybe you should do some reading.

 

[trophy33]

Do you really need sources for slavery and how the Natives Americans were treated? Do you really need sources for the Nazis and how the Jews and gays were treated? Do you honestly need historical sources for how people have treated others who belonged to other tribes or groups? Do you know nothing about history? The Mayans come to mind. Don't you know anything about them?

Maybe you should do some reading.

Sources for whole cultures or even world having no empathy. Thanks.

 

[rjs330]

Sources for whole cultures or even world having no empathy. Thanks.

Yeah, go read a good history book. That's all you need.

Sounds like whatever education you had was sadly lacking.

 

[trophy33]

Yeah, go read a good history book. That's all you need.

Sounds like whatever education you had was sadly lacking.

Please, stop your repeated personal attacks. When you claim something extraordinary, better have some prepared sources, instead of being mean.

 

[rjs330]

Please, stop your repeated personal attacks. When you claim something extraordinary, better have some prepared sources, instead of being mean.

I'm not being mean. I gave you sources. Any history book. That's a source.

If you don't know these things then whatever education you had was missing something. That's not an attack on you it's an attack on whomever gave you the education.

If you don't know this stuff that's not your fault. You only know what you've been taught.

My education taught me all about this stuff. I learned all about the world of slavery, how the Natives Americans were treated. I learned all about how the Jews were treated by Nazis and about the Mayan sacrifice culture. It's sounds like you were not taught any of that. That's not your fault. It's your teachers fault.

 

[trophy33]

I'm not being mean. I gave you sources. Any history book. That's a source.

If you don't know these things then whatever education you had was missing something. That's not an attack on you it's an attack on whomever gave you the education.

If you don't know this stuff that's not your fault. You only know what you've been taught.

My education taught me all about this stuff. I learned all about the world of slavery, how the Natives Americans were treated. I learned all about how the Jews were treated by Nazis and about the Mayan sacrifice culture. It's sounds like you were not taught any of that. That's not your fault. It's your teachers fault.

Please, pay attention to my question - give me sources that whole cultures or world were without empathy. Not examples of evil in the world.

And again, stop talking about my or your education. Talk to the point.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ah, no. Genetics is about what genes you have, and how/when/how strongly those genes are expressed.

Which is directly responsible for the things you're describing.

If, for example, maternal diet alters her hormone levels, that's not about genetics of the developing foetus at all.

If what she eats alters her hormones to the point where her kid comes out trans....that absolutely has to do with her genetics. Imagine how absurd your premise is....imagine eating garlic bread made your kid trans. Wouldn't we be seeing an abundance of them in places with an abundance of garlic bread consumption?

Here's an interesting article unpacking underlying causes: Justifying gender discrimination in the workplace: The mediating role of motherhood myths

Here's an alternative explanation....

Catching up with wonderful women: The women-are-wonderful effect is smaller in more gender egalitarian societies - PubMed

Inequalities between men and women are common and well-documented. Objective indexes show that men are better positioned than women in societal hierarchies-there is no single country in the world without a gender gap. In contrast, researchers have found that the women-are-wonderful effect-that...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The more egalitarian the society...the less free bonus points you get simply for being a woman. It's not that the world is unfair....you're simply losing your privilege.

What's the social justice saying? People are blind to their own privileges? Losing your privilege just "looks unfair" when in reality....it's simply becoming fair.

I sure as heck know the positions I couldn't even apply for because they aren't open to women.

You picked a church though....they don't separate church and state in Australia?

Ana, you're missing the point. If you're at a disadvantage due to your sex all the way through your career,

You haven't shown any disadvantage.

the cumulative effect of that will hold you back from realising your potential, whatever the limit of your personal potential happens to be.

Yeah that's not how it works. You can get an obstacle to career advancement....but once that obstacle is gone, it's essentially on you.

Well, you've identified the question of use of gender-segregated public spaces. But it matters even in things like whether you carry a social penalty for dressing in a way you personally find comfortable.

We don't have that here. Nobody is making laws against men wearing dresses.

The variety here can be from the very simple (using the correct pronouns for someone)

The correct pronouns are the ones you use. I've been called "she" on here because of my name. This doesn't matter to me. I wouldn't try to get someone fired for it. How pathetic and petty would I have to be for that?

to the more sophisticated recognition of boundaries. And sure, some of that is being socially re-negotiated (I recently had a guest express astonishment that my husband does most of the cooking in our household), but some of it is (or should be) pretty clear. Not that long ago I had to explain to a bloke why it was inappropriate to mail me a gift of lingerie...

Ok....I don't think that happened. I don't know why I see women telling these stories that neither me nor any other man I've ever known has ever bore witness to but anyway....much like tales of racism, I suspect demand outstrips supply.

 

[Bradskii]

However, the quality of the participants is not guaranteed in any way (this is a random open community of just few regular individuals) and so you may think your arguments are good, while in reality life they are not.

And even if somebody good was here, its not guaranteed he is in his best focus, without distractions, with enough of time for reading or responding "in his best", with the needed data and sources at hand. His inability or unwillingness to articulate, defend or prove his idea properly, does not establish his is not actually right and that somebody with the same/similar idea, but better equipped or more willed or taking this more seriously, would not destroy you in a debate, anyway.

That's true to some extent. Shooting fish in a barrel has neve been a popular pastime with me. But one can only respond to whatever argument is presented. And I get more out of presenting my argument as it clarifies my position in my own mind. Plus I'm often off on a Google hunt for facts and figures and evidence in general. If I find they don't support my opinion, then...I have to re-evaluate my position.

 

[Ana the Ist]

However, the quality of the participants is not guaranteed in any way (this is a random open community of just few regular individuals) and so you may think your arguments are good, while in reality life they are not.

And even if somebody good was here, its not guaranteed he is in his best focus, without distractions, with enough of time for reading or responding "in his best", with the needed data and sources at hand. His inability or unwillingness to articulate, defend or prove his idea properly, does not establish his is not actually right and that somebody with the same/similar idea, but better equipped or more willed or taking this more seriously, would not destroy you in a debate, anyway.

Some people on here don't talk to me anymore....

Some people claim to consider evidence, then refuse to look at any they've literally just asked for.

I would strongly recommend that when asked for evidence, ask "what sort of evidence would you find convincing?"

If the response is absurd on its face....don't bother. They don't really care about evidence. They only imagine their beliefs are evidence-based.

 

[Bradskii]

Oh please, society didn't collapse during slavery or your treatment of the natives in your country. It grew in many areas and it was fine to abuse those people. We've seen it all over the world. And society didn't collapse and infact expanded. The same went for murder. It was okay to murder some people. It's always been that way. If one group of people decides to abuse and murder others it's okay because they decided. Like how the Nazis experimented on the Jews or threw gays into the concentration camps. It was perfectly moral for them to do so. Because they decided it was. Or it's perfectly moral for the Chinese to do what they have done to people.

Morality is shifting sand and not solid. It's merely based upon your desires or feelings. It's a poor way of operating. Because tomorrow it may not be immoral.

But we're not talking about individual, or even large scale abuses. We're talking society as a whole - if no-one thought what you described was wrong. It's obvious that your examples can be classed as being such because we know without doubt that they caused harm. They were therefore immoral. That some people didn't care that it caused harm doesn't make it 'moral for them'.

That's not to say that there aren't situations where deciding if harm is caused is a debateable point. Drug laws was the example I used. Do some of them cause harm, or do they prevent it? Maybe it's 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. We'd need some evidence. Whereas in the case of killing Jews or gays, we need none.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not being mean. I gave you sources. Any history book. That's a source.

Maybe you misunderstand exactly what empathy is. It's not a synonym for sympathy. It's an ability to understand what others are feeling. We almost all have it to a certain degree. Or have them, as there's emotional empathy and cognitive empathy. Sociopaths are understood to lack emotional empathy. If they abuse someone or someone is in pain, they know what the other person is feeling, but they just don't care about it. But again, unless one has a mental health problem, we all have that ability.

It's required to be able to follow what Jesus told us - to treat others as we would like to be treated. We need to know what others would like and would not like, just as we do ourselves.

Now, whether you act correctly or not when you do know how an action is likely to hurt others, physically or emotionally, is another matter. You may understand that the person is going to suffer, but either ignore that or include that as a reason for hurting them.

So to say that whole cultures have no empathy is saying that whole cultures have a common mental disorder. Which is nonsensical. As was mentioned upstream: 'whatever education you had was sadly lacking.'

 

[Paidiske]

So you think 400% more girls were tans before but never came out? You think that there is suddenly a 400% increase in gender dysphoria that we didn't know about before?

Whatever the explanation for that (and I do think it's possible that massive under reporting in the past is a significant contributing factor), I don't buy the idea that it's all "social contagion."

And I've already proven to you through your own posting on the issue that your thoughts on hormonal imbalance are not in anyway whatsoever shown to be true.

No, you haven't. I've seen the studies for myself, and find them convincing.

Are you talking about your church again. If you are so set on you right to be able to hold certain positions etc, then you have chosen the wrong church. It's not right for you to join a church who have certain values, beliefs and doctrine and then whine and moan that those beliefs, values and doctrine don't fit your personal goals, beliefs and values.

Yes, I'm talking about the church. The church which ordained me, and which considers that ordination valid and licit, but where (for example) I can't work as a priest 500km up the road in Sydney. Where jobs are routinely advertised as not being open to women. Now, you may think it wrong to advocate for simple consistency in this church, but I don't.

I understand that you have been threatened or verbally assaulted for holding your position. Does your church not say that is wrong?

It says that, but does nothing about it.

Which is directly responsible for the things you're describing.

No, not necessarily. Genes code for our bodies' production of proteins. Those proteins then interact with each other, and with other substances, in very complex ways. Not everything that impacts our molecular physiology is genetic, in the sense of, being directly controlled by the proteins our genes code for.

Imagine how absurd your premise is....imagine eating garlic bread made your kid trans. Wouldn't we be seeing an abundance of them in places with an abundance of garlic bread consumption?

My premise is a little more complex than that (and I don't think anyone has suggested garlic bread as a contributing factor).

It's not that the world is unfair....you're simply losing your privilege.

If we were so privileged, why didn't we see that reflected in women's life outcomes?

You picked a church though....they don't separate church and state in Australia?

Technically, no. Australia occupies a middle ground, legally, where we have no Established (state) church, but we also don't have formal legal separation of church and state.

You haven't shown any disadvantage.

I have, but you've dismissed it every time.

We don't have that here. Nobody is making laws against men wearing dresses.

I talked about social penalty, not legal penalty. There may not be laws against it, but it does affect how people treat you.

This doesn't matter to me. I wouldn't try to get someone fired for it. How pathetic and petty would I have to be for that?

Well, it doesn't particularly matter to me either. But I'm not, for example, on the receiving end of sustained workplace bullying where that's a feature, so...

Ok....I don't think that happened.

Honestly, Ana, if you're just going to accuse people of lying when they share their personal experience, then you're not really engaging in good faith, and I think this conversation might have reached the point of diminishing return.

(You know the kicker with that particular incident? After I returned that gentleman's unwanted gift, and explained that it was inappropriate, he wrote to my boss to formally complain about my rudeness).

I don't know why I see women telling these stories that neither me nor any other man I've ever known has ever bore witness to

And you can't imagine that things you don't see, don't actually happen? You've never witnessed a rape, so it doesn't happen? Never seen an incident of domestic violence, so they're making it up?

Here's a thought: maybe your own little bubble, isn't the sum total of human experience. Part of the value of a forum like this, could be the ability to gain insight into situations you yourself will never face.