Lol oh...I didn't think that was a statement anyone would contest.
Hmm, an attempt to make me think I'm crazy for asking a simple question about the reality of the situation. Seems like a textbook definition of gaslighting.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Lol oh...I didn't think that was a statement anyone would contest.
Despite this quote of no one in particular, it seems that actual researchers are doing actual research in the area, e.g. : https://www.mayo.edu/research/clinical-trials/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoriaWell, for the sake of honesty and consistency, Gender Dysphoria seems to be unique in that it's one of the few where researchers and clinicians have seemingly been content (or pretend to be content) to throw in the towel and say "well, placation is what makes the patient feel the best...so no need for further research"
But those studies & research efforts listed don't seem to be in the theme of "addressing the underlying issues", "seeing what causes it in the first place" or acknowledging that dysphoria itself is even a "problem", and are more in the theme of "how can we stave off side effects from the applied approach we've already determined to be the best one"Despite this quote of no one in particular, it seems that actual researchers are doing actual research in the area, e.g. : https://www.mayo.edu/research/clinical-trials/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria
Do all medical conditions need immediate treatment?If a “medical condition” is discovered in childhood, why would we delay treatment.
I think that is what therapy is for. Just wonder if you have any idea how many there are?Are there transgender people who are younger than 18?
Based upon best practices and the research. We are are allowed to do a lot of things at 18 that we can't to under 18. Why is that such a big deal? Why don't we allow kids to smoke?That is what the State is saying, “You are only eligible for treatment of this ‘condition’ after you turn 18 years of age, you’re allowed to have this condition if you are younger than 18 but aren’t allowed to ‘get treated’ for it.”
Now you get it. That's exactly why. That doesn't make any sense to you? It makes sense to rhe experts in other countries who have actually researched rhe issues.This is so that we don’t “make mistakes” and ruin kids’ lives.
No people who THINK they are transgender need therapy. Maybe a very tiny minority of those who think that way actually DO have dysphoria. Why would you desire to give kids harmful drugs when 99.9% of them.are not actually trans. I guess we should just castrate all the men because a certain percentage of them will be child molesters.Transgender people need therapy to “accept reality”, nothing more.
Partly because some people think that God wouldn’t want children to get medical care, the same God who said that a tiny bit of faith is all that is needed to move a mountain.
That's an awfully broad statement. Cause I can think of an aweful lot of people who believe in God get medical care for their kids. I'm one of them. But I want my kid to get the CORRECT medical care for the CORRECT problem. What i dont want is to be handed a pill that says it will fix everything and only ends up damaging my child because they didnt really have the condition. I expect better than that. Your Christian bashing doesn't quite fly right. It's too full of holes.Partly because some people think that God wouldn’t want children to get medical care, the same God who said that a tiny bit of faith is all that is needed to move a mountain.
What you wrote doesn't mean your comparison is a valid one. Just cause you wrote something doesn't make it valid. Just admit it dude, it was a bad comparison. I've shown you why.If you're just going to ignore what I wrote I might as well just restate it :
They're both treatments used on children which might not have a two decade long proven track record, are not 100% certain to work, and might potentially have side effects. So the comparison seems apt, given that those were excuses previously brought up to ban one of the two.
Plus the similarity you brought up that people are encouraged to ask their doctor about both of them.
I agree, was an interpretation of (I can't stand the LGBTQ agenda." That makes me wonder who has a national LGBTQ agenda that a united group or lobby that has specific demands agreed upon in a national consensus
other than the right to be treated equally.
So I retract that statement, it was exaggerated. Having said that, have you spoken with anyone who has the opinion that transgenders are freaks or they would prefer not to see one?
I don't think that secularism needs to be against the church's rules.
Christianity and humanism are almost the same.
They both believe in helping others, basically feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and clothing the naked. They have different ways of going about these using humanitarian values. One difference is Christians are more likely to support things like going on an offensive war, approving of the death penalty, or regulating women's reproductive rights.
The cool thing about democracy is that if you can get enough Christians to agree on a Christian value-based law, you can get it passed provided it doesn't violate the Constitution.
Don't both sides do this?
Or you are harming them with shame and condemnation. If we want to make sins into law, how much time should an adulterer get?
Have you seen one of those protests where both sides are there like Abortion or the death penalty, even stem cell research can cause a big mess.
I agree but words can also intimidate, threaten, and command.
I understand we shouldn't have to but when is it really appropriate to abandon basic decency?
If you are talking about pronouns, I no we don't have to use them by law but what's the harm in calling someone by the pronoun they wish to be called.
If someone has on makeup and a dress, I don't think it would be hard to remember they prefer to be called "she."
People don't have a duty to do this but how is it harmful? You said yourself that
If a “medical condition” is discovered in childhood, why would we delay treatment.
Are there transgender people who are younger than 18?
That is what the State is saying, “You are only eligible for treatment of this ‘condition’ after you turn 18 years of age, you’re allowed to have this condition if you are younger than 18 but aren’t allowed to ‘get treated’ for it.”
This is so that we don’t “make mistakes” and ruin kids’ lives.
Transgender people need therapy to “accept reality”, nothing more.
Partly because some people think that God wouldn’t want children to get medical care
What I'm wondering is what that agenda is specifically. the only "agenda" I have been exposed to is their desire to be treated as equalsI don't know about national consensus....but I've seen multiple activists referring to their gay agenda.
I think it is the restroom issue that is being discussed when equality is being spoken of. Also, it's not legal but socially, I understand that they often face discrimination at work.In what ways aren't they being treated equally?
I have seen people on this forum express those kinds of opinions fairly often. Mostly by Evangelicals and my fellow Catholics.It's certainly possible I have...I've never heard anyone say that though.
I agree because I am not aware of any universally accepted book of agreed-upon beliefs. IMO, Jesus was the first Humanist with his agenda of non-violence and universal forgiveness. I think that runs parallel with Humanism though specific dos and don'ts I'm sure vary.Secular humanism tends to be more incoherent imo....but again, that's just my opinion.
It's much better now but I remember guys going out "gay bashing" and some men having a special hatred for those who live an "alternative lifestyle. I also think things like public ridicule can be harmful. Having a different opinion than someone else and expressing it does no harm until one uses that differing opinion to guide their hiring practices or otherwise discriminate.An accusation of "harm" lobbed at those who disagree with you.
I agree, but I am thinking more of situations where someone is expressing an unsolicited opinion that is demeaning.Well threats are illegal. They have to meet a certain criteria of realistic danger....but threats are illegal.
As for the rest...these are the risks of engaging in discussion or debate. It's certainly possible that someone's opinions are scary to you...and if that's the case, you shouldn't engage in discussion. The reality is that everyone disagrees with you on something....and if that's something you can't deal with, the solution is to not engage in discussion, it should never be silencing anyone who disagrees with you.
That helps no one.
I haven't read all of the statistics and even then I don't know how accurate they would be BUT, I'm not completely convinced that the instances of abuse in women's restrooms have increased significantly. If someone is an abuser, from what I understand, it's a certain percentage of people from every walk of life. I don't agree with a big burley dude claims to be a woman and does not present themselves as a woman. Even before this was an issue dudes were sticking cameras in public toilets and got up to all kinds of mischief. There is "sex" and there is "gender." I think that in order to keep trans people out of the lady's room, they should clarify that the criteria for using a restroom is based on sex alone. I think the big deal they make is not just because they want to relieve themselves in close proximity to women but they more like don't want to go to the men's with a dress on.If you're referring to those cases when someone calls a transgender person a freak...it's probably because of the harm they believe is happening to children.
People are capable of seeing where this is going....logically. When the law being debated was "trans people getting special privileges to use whatever restroom they like"....a group of people opposed to the laws said it would result in women being sexually harassed and assaulted in restrooms. Guess what? That's exactly what happened and keeps happening. That's the topic of several Planet Fitness threads. It's not magic...nobody can see into the future...it's just common sense.
That's where I recommend doing a study on the psychology of gender dysphoria. It's actually a medical issue even though it's mental health insurance will pay for the treatment of it and insurance companies don't pay for anything that's not considered medical. Because of the dysphoria, they don't think they are lyingI think it's a bad thing if they start believing their own lies and I'm sitting there lying to them.
That's the thing, like you said, they genuinely believe they are a woman and they would feel like they are lying to themselves to deny that's their "true" identity.This doesn't appear to be what's happening with trans people though. They appear to genuinely believe they are a woman even though they are clearly a man. If they understand they aren't really a woman....why are they asking me to lie about it? If they don't see it as a big deal....why am I being asked to lie about it?
I think some of it depends on where they are surgically. I must admit, as progressive as I am, I really don't like the sports thing.I used to think it was a small, unimportant request...but then I saw otherwise smart people abandon reality. I saw them arguing that men should be allowed in women's prisons, that men should be allowed in women's sports, that children should be given experimental drugs as part of a treatment that the FDA did not approve of. Why? I think it's at least in part because they started referring to men as "she" and "her" and in their minds....they stopped realizing that this was all a lie they agreed to play along with.
If they had not buckled and submitted to these demands that they lie....they probably wouldn't have conceded so many other demands that were far more ridiculous.
That's where I believe they are wrong. For the trans people I have known, if they wanted to look like a man, they would have just kept their male identity. That notion does open up a loophole where straight men can just lie and say they are a woman and if they still have a penis and present themselves as a male, there is no reason they should go to the ladies but we both know that every movement or opinion has its extremists.The mistake you're making is thinking that the makeup and dress are somehow related.
According to the trans activists, if this guy claims to be a woman and uses the pronouns "she/her", then that's 100% valid....and not something anyone should question.
Agreed, I choose to use their preferred pronoun (which hasn't come up very often in my experience). It does bring up a valid question....Are we obligated to do that by law? Would it be considered harassment if someone doesn't? Personally, I would just give them the common courtesy of using their preferred pronoun. I don't feel harmed by it and I'm sure they appreciate it. I don't think people are inherently in the wrong for not doing it but my personality is designed in a way that I feel more uncomfortable antagonizing someone.I don't think it's harmful. It's certainly uncomfortable for some people (like myself) but it isn't harmful to anyone.
Unless your place of business has a policy where people can be fired for not using someone's preferred pronouns....it's not harmful.
I don't think that secularism needs to be against the church's rules. Christianity and humanism are almost the same. They both believe in helping others, basically feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and clothing the naked. They have different ways of going about these using humanitarian values. One difference is Christians are more likely to support things like going on an offensive war, approving of the death penalty, or regulating women's reproductive rights.
I think that what is most important is what does the majority have to say?But the flip side of that precedent is the one that often gets overlooked. And whenever there's a public debate over a hot issue where most of the Christians are on one side, and the non-religious on the other... people want to act as if the latter has carte blanche and immediately has the upper hand by default simply because their position doesn't stem from religion. That's not how it's supposed to work either.
An argument that is truly compelling likely will be shared by the majority. The problem with passing laws based on Christian values and not the majority's values is that we can end up with the minority ruling the majority. As a democracy, that is the opposite of of it.I don't know that secular laws should be able to bypass the "compelling" requirement simply because the majority of opponents to it happen to be Christian. I could come up with the dumbest law proposal ever, if the only arguments against it happen to be Christian-based ones, that doesn't give said proposal de facto validation or credibility.
I think what disqualifies a Christianity-based law, in general, is that it is often not shared by the majority of citizens. I'm a Christian and I don't like to see that stuff going on, so I don't participate in the acts of sodomy or dressing like a woman. I am entitled to have that opinion. If it's not shared by the majority however, that opinion will get voted down. What we are really talking about is people's personal moral compass but a Christian viewpoint is not shared by the majority and/or it is unconstitutional, it is invalid in a legal sense.And I think that's what's happening in a lot of regards with the debates over transgender topics. Because the majority of opponents to certain aspects happen to be Christian, a lot of people operate under the premise that any criticism or pushback is constitutionally invalid (because they attempt to tie every criticism to a religious viewpoint to disqualify it), which then leads to them making some rather uncompelling arguments for their position
I don't think they are cast as illegitimate until they try to make a law that the majority doesn't agree with. For example, murder, assault, and rape are agreed upon as being illegal one, because it's unconstitutional and two, the majority agrees on that set of morals whether Christian or secular.A "legislative indolence" of sorts, where because all of their opponents arguments are being cast as illegitimate, they often don't have to have to come up with any good compelling arguments of their own. (and often get rather hot under the collar when you press them for one)
Like you said, it's valid.They have their argument of "you can use religion to legislate how other people live" (which is valid) that they're accustomed to trotting out at the first sign of pushback
It is really up to the individual to choose whether it is more important to them to not take medication because of the side effects, or if they are willing to deal with the side effects because they believe their mental health and happiness is more important to them. Unless it is patently deadly to take hormones (and it's different for everybody how much side effects are cause damage. For example, at some point, I stopped producing testosterone so I take a T-shot every two weeks knowing there is a risk of getting an enlarged heart. I have a few things going on in my abdomen so I get a full organ ultrasound at regular intervals. That way any damage being done to my system can be monitored and my medication should be adjusted accordingly. A doctor is responsible to go through a patient's medical history and they should be vigilant to observe, blood test, and.or scan them regularly. It may not be practical for everyone and a doctor should should be monitoring their patient. I think they take the risk of side effects believing they can trust their doctor to do that.However, you take that argument away from them, and present things like studies showing that transgender athletes retain a huge percentage of their physical advantage even after being on hormone therapy for 2 years, or citing the long term side effects of cross-sex hormone therapy in general... they seem to immediately fallback on an appeal to emotion argument like "oh yeah?!? is SPortsBalL so iMporTanT that you get to make someone feel bad?", before eventually just giving up altogether and opting for the much less creative retort of "Bigot!" or "Transphobe!", or even worse, the emotional blackmail response of "would you rather have an alive daughter or a dead son?"
I don't always by the "what does the majority say?" The majority could be extremely misinformed. Just cause the majority thinks this or that doesn't mean they are correct. I think you know this.think that what is most important is what does the majority have to say?
I don't think we have any laws that are based soley on Christian values. Christians have to convince people their arguments are valid as well. Another question that has to be asked is are Christians really the minority here? Rhe majority of Ameticans identify as Christian. So in your scenario the majority IS ruling the minority as you think it should be.The problem with passing laws based on Christian values and not the majority's values is that we can end up with the minority ruling the majority. As a democracy, that is the opposite of of it.
I'm still not sure what you think is a Christian based law you are concerned about?think what disqualifies a Christianity-based law, in general, is that it is often not shared by the majority of citizens. I'm a Christian and I don't like to see that stuff going on, so I don't participate in the acts of sodomy or dressing like a woman. I am entitled to have that opinion. If it's not shared by the majority however, that opinion will get voted down. What we are really talking about is people's personal moral compass but a Christian viewpoint is not shared by the majority and/or it is unconstitutional, it is invalid in a legal sense.
You forgot the caveat "unless they are not an adult." Adults make all kinds of harmful decisions and they bear the responsibility subtlety for those. The adults should be doing what the can to keep.the kids from making those harmful decisions because they are not mentally or emotionally prepared for them. Why you keep.missing this is beyond me.is really up to the individual to choose whether it is more important to them to not take medication because of the side effects, or if they are willing to deal with the side effects because they believe their mental health and happiness is more important to them. Unless
Hmm, an attempt to make me think I'm crazy for asking a simple question about the reality of the situation. Seems like a textbook definition of gaslighting.
What I'm wondering is what that agenda is specifically. the only "agenda" I have been exposed to is their desire to be treated as equals
I think it is the restroom issue that is being discussed when equality is being spoken of.
I have seen people on this forum express those kinds of opinions fairly often.
I agree because I am not aware of any universally accepted book of agreed-upon beliefs. IMO, Jesus was the first Humanist with his agenda of non-violence and universal forgiveness.
It's much better now but I remember guys going out "gay bashing" and some men having a special hatred for those who live an "alternative lifestyle.
I also think things like public ridicule can be harmful. Having a different opinion than someone else and expressing it does no harm until one uses that differing opinion to guide their hiring practices or otherwise discriminate.
I agree, but I am thinking more of situations where someone is expressing an unsolicited opinion that is demeaning.
I haven't read all of the statistics and even then I don't know how accurate they would be BUT, I'm not completely convinced that the instances of abuse in women's restrooms have increased significantly.
If someone is an abuser, from what I understand, it's a certain percentage of people from every walk of life. I don't agree with a big burley dude claims to be a woman and does not present themselves as a woman.
Even before this was an issue dudes were sticking cameras in public toilets and got up to all kinds of mischief.
There is "sex" and there is "gender."
I think that in order to keep trans people out of the lady's room, they should clarify that the criteria for using a restroom is based on sex alone. I think the big deal they make is not just because they want to relieve themselves in close proximity to women but they more like don't60s want to go to the men's with a dress on.
That's where I recommend doing a study on the psychology of gender dysphoria.
That's the thing, like you said, they genuinely believe they are a woman and they would feel like they are lying to themselves to deny that's their "true" identity.
I think some of it depends on where they are surgically. I must admit, as progressive as I am, I really don't like the sports thing.
Agreed, I choose to use their preferred pronoun (which hasn't come up very often in my experience).
It does bring up a valid question....Are we obligated to do that by law?
Would it be considered harassment if someone doesn't?
Do they? How do you know? How does anyone know? We have to take it by faith that they do. How exactly is that determined? How does any of us know they really honestly feel they ARE a woman. Because they say so?That's the thing, like you said, they genuinely believe they are a woman and they would feel like they are lying to themselves to deny that's their "true" identity.
But those studies & research efforts listed don't seem to be in the theme of "addressing the underlying issues", "seeing what causes it in the first place" or acknowledging that dysphoria itself is even a "problem", and are more in the theme of "how can we stave off side effects from the applied approach we've already determined to be the best one"
What you wrote doesn't mean your comparison is a valid one. Just cause you wrote something doesn't make it valid. Just admit it dude, it was a bad comparison. I've shown you why.
I think the major point of contention there is with regards to minors. If someone's 20 years old, do what you want as long as you're not infringing on anyone else.It is really up to the individual to choose whether it is more important to them to not take medication because of the side effects, or if they are willing to deal with the side effects because they believe their mental health and happiness is more important to them.
Merely being a "professional in the field" doesn't make someone immune from biases, or taking some marching orders from the institutions that provide their funding.I'm sure that the professionals in the field will be disappointed that you think they're doing their job incorrectly.
Anyway, given the the post from yesterday claimed there wasn't any research at all, it is hard to believe this claim is based on a thorough review of the entirety of the research performed since then.