Gender Identity and God

? Scripture says that all have sinned and the penalty of sin is death - i.e. Yhvh condemns everyone to death. Then, it is written, a few find the narrow path, as Yhvh permits.

I really am not trying to reply to what is written about your beliefs per se, I don't think I've even thought about your beliefs per se,(I am taking just one post at a time though, and might have in the past; doesn't matter here) just what is written about the Creators Judgment(s) of the whole world and all of the deeds of the flesh, and salvation of a few in and only in Yahushua HaMoshiach.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Yhvh decides. His Word is the standard today also. But see on this site how many deny His Word.
Much more is abomination today than anyone here admits or is allowed to even post.
All abomination is sin. Some leads to death, some doesn't. Just as it is written.

Very few are on the narrow path. Many on the wide path, not just from sexual sins, but from lives totally devoid of life, slaves of sin and sinfulness from the start.(thus accepting sex with any / other partners not married to; stock market profiting; divorce; greed; hate; politics over righteousness and so on...)

Click to expand...

A couple of comments on this....

Would you not agree that adding to His Word is ALSO a denial of His Word? For, does that not imply that His Word is incomplete and insufficient to create a position of righteousness? If those two statements are indeed true, then your post IS a denial of His Word. Because there is not anywhere in the entire Scripture that an apologetically sound argument can be made that gender transition is sin, which you claim to be fact. Making assumptions that it is sinful is, in fact, a gross misuse of His Holy Word. To do so, one must first reach the decision to denounce it, THEN attempt to justify that choice through the misuse of Scripture. That is completely reverse of the proper way to read Scripture, and is a tactic which the enemy uses very often.

The proper way to read Scripture is to compare Scripture with Scripture, and come to conclusions that are BASED on those comparisons, and nothing else. Your position cannot be reached through that method.

Secondly, based on some of the words you use, you have a very incorrect understanding of transsexuality. There is NOTHING sexual about it, as your words imply that you believe. Instead, it is all about gender identity. This identity is an innate component of the entire identity of the person, and it is not directly tied to the physical components of the person. Indeed, it has been demonstrated numerous times in several clinical studies that this gender identity IS directly tied to the function of particular parts of the brain and it's structure.

Here's a question for you, and everyone, to ponder. If the real essence of a person is their soul and spirit, and not their physical body, then isn't identifying people on the basis of their body and not their real essence identifying them on the basis of flesh, and not spirit? I would assume that a person uses the same criteria for self-identification as they do for the identification of others. If that is true, and someone uses the physical body to identify others, and not the spirit that is within them, then it should also be true that they define their own self by their body, and not by the spirit within. In light of that, I would direct you to the very words of Christ to Nicodemus, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." That which is "born" can trace it's source from that which bore it. Therefore, if identity is determined on the basis of the body and not the spirit, then identity is FROM the flesh. So, by definition, that identity IS flesh, and not spirit. However, if identity is determined by the spirit of the person, and the physical body is merely the "tabernacle" of the real essence of that person, (and as such declares that which is within through its appearance), then is it not honest for that "tabernacle" to portray accurately what is within? Does God not DEMAND honesty from us? Does He not HATE dishonesty and pretense?

Lastly, I would direct you to John 7. In it, Christ makes reference to those "righteous" leaders who condemned Him because He had healed people on the Sabbath and had therefore broken the Sabbath laws. I quote from that passage the following....

"Jesus said to them, “I did one miracle, and you are all amazed. Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a boy on the Sabbath. Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath? Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly."

Please consider these things well before responding. For, "A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards." (Prov 29:11) Proverbs has several verses which declare this same wisdom. In essence, we are admonished to NOT give quick answers. Instead, we are counseled to fully consider each matter before reaching a decision on what position we take. I did so. Much more than you could imagine. (See my previous post.) Sadly, many, (if not truly most), Christians do not follow this advice and proceed headlong into whatever their own hearts tell them, and then try to bend the Scripture to justify themselves. I fear greatly for anyone who does such a thing.

All kinds of anomalies happen during gestation. This is one of them. Thankfully, our nation is becoming more accepting, so it is just a matter of time before these things are not a big deal anymore.

We live in a world full of mulligans and stuff is all screwed up sometimes. Thorns and thistles. So I've never bought the "God made them that way" argument. Life is a series of compromises over those kinds of ideals (in this case, being content with the body you have).

If something makes somebody else happier and it doesn't hurt anyone else, I don't see why other people should be against it.

KitKatMatt said:

I had always believed in a way, that our suffering had a reason. From advancing medicine with something to study so that they could cure or correct it (and learn much about the body along the way to help otherwise)...

Click to expand...

I think problem with this explanation is that if there was no such problems in first place, there would be little need for that medical study aswell. I tend to see it in a way that the need for medical study wouldn't exist without the very problem its trying to fix.

KitKatMatt said:

...to giving those who suffer a different view among the world so that they may see everything in a different light.

Click to expand...

I've wondered about this possiblity myself. I see two alternate versions of it:

A) Suffering is for that purpose
B) Suffering can be used for that purpose, but it's not necessarily the original reason behind it.

Would you describe your belief more as A or B? I think I'm myself more towards view B, but my views on topic are somewhat open, this is very hard question to say the least.

Marius27 said:

Many claim that being transgender and especially pursuing Sex reassignment surgery for transsexuality is a grave sin since it mutilates the body and essentially says that God made a mistake in how he created the person. But one could also argue repairing a cleft palate a baby was born with would be doing the same thing.

Click to expand...

I don't consider myself a liberal Christian but I think it is conducive of good discussion to point out that fixing a cleft palate is different from altering the gender of a person. In the latter case, a change is effected from one polarity to another, so to speak. Instead of what God gave, the opposite is wanted. Fixing a cleft palate is more akin to breast implants for a woman who had to have her breasts removed because of breast cancer, in my opinion, not to mention it makes eating easier for the person.

I did not "choose" my 'gender identity' as hetero-sexual male

It was established PRIOR to PUBERTY - due to factors I will probably never fully understand.

All I know is -- in kindergarten -- I just HAD TO sit next to that certain little girl at KoolAid and Cookies time -- or I felt I would DIE!

I did not CHOOSE to be that way -- neither do LGBT people CHOOSE to be as they are -- it is established (imo) at an early age based on factors no one fully comprehends.

So why persecute people for being as they are?

People can THROW SCRIPTURE against homosexuality.

I could Throw Scripture THAT SAYS IT'S OKAY TO HAVE

SLAVES !!

Scripture didn't/doesn't change on either matter...

but what is ACCEPTED by people today HAS changed on both matters.

I know of no modern people who are "Pro-Slavery" and dance up and down on Ephesians and Philemon to "Prove It".

Anto9us said:

I did not "choose" my 'gender identity' as hetero-sexual male

It was established PRIOR to PUBERTY - due to factors I will probably never fully understand.

All I know is -- in kindergarten -- I just HAD TO sit next to that certain little girl at KoolAid and Cookies time -- or I felt I would DIE!

I did not CHOOSE to be that way -- neither do LGBT people CHOOSE to be as they are -- it is established (imo) at an early age based on factors no one fully comprehends.

So why persecute people for being as they are?

People can THROW SCRIPTURE against homosexuality.

I could Throw Scripture THAT SAYS IT'S OKAY TO HAVE

SLAVES !!

Scripture didn't/doesn't change on either matter...

but what is ACCEPTED by people today HAS changed on both matters.

I know of no modern people who are "Pro-Slavery" and dance up and down on Ephesians and Philemon to "Prove It".

Click to expand...

While I DO appreciate your position very much, I'd like to point out a very common mistake. You equated your "gender identity" with being a "hetero-sexual male". Gender identity is entirely distinct from sexuality. They're not really even related, although in MOST people they do tend to compliment one another. It also isn't really related to the sex of a person, although, again, in MOST people they do tend to compliment one another. The whole issue of transsexuality is that the sex and gender do NOT compliment one another.

So, you see, you are actually addressing 3 distinct facets of human existence. Gender, sex, and sexuality. It's VERY common for people to think of all 3 as essentially one and the same. The reason is that in MOST people they DO have congruence between the 3 facets, and the 3 facets blur together and make it difficult for many people to discern the differences. I am UNLIKE most people in this regard. Hence, I AM transsexual. And also hence, I am misunderstood by most people, since they see no real differences between the 3 facets. They are not equipped to be able to understand me. Other transsexuals understand what I am saying extremely well, since they have also experienced being this way.

In everything else you've said, I agree.

Erth said:

I don't consider myself a liberal Christian but I think it is conducive of good discussion to point out that fixing a cleft palate is different from altering the gender of a person. In the latter case, a change is effected from one polarity to another, so to speak. Instead of what God gave, the opposite is wanted. Fixing a cleft palate is more akin to breast implants for a woman who had to have her breasts removed because of breast cancer, in my opinion, not to mention it makes eating easier for the person.

Click to expand...

What you are identifying as the "gender" of a person, which is being altered by surgery, is NOT gender, but sex. The gender cannot be altered. The genetic sex cannot be altered either. However, the phenotypical sex CAN be changed by surgery. THAT is what is happening in gender transition.

It is often argued that transition doesn't make a male into a female. That statement is both correct AND incorrect at the same time. The terms "male" and "female" relate to both genetic sex AND phenotypical sex. The genetic sex cannot be changed. The phenotypical sex CAN be. I usually do not argue with someone who says that surgery can't make a male into a female, because I AM aware of the distinction between the dual usage of the words "male" and "female, but I do NOT know in what way they are using the words. If I were to try and point out the distinction, they would usually see it as double talk and simply ignore it. But, I AM correct in the duality of the words "male" and "female".

And that fact poses another question entirely. If the phenotypical sex IS changed, then HOW would sexuality be defined AFTER it has been? In the minds of many professionals in the fields of psychology and medicine, the definition of sexuality is dependent on the phenotypical sex of the individuals involved. In the minds of many people opposed to the whole idea of sexual reassignment, they hold that the definition of sexuality is dependent on the genetics of those involved.

The latter group has a caveat that they wish to ignore. There is a condition known as Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, or CAIS.

Those afflicted are genetically male. However, the condition renders their bodies incapable of responding to testosterone, so they develop in the womb as phenotypically female in every visible way. They are born as girls, recognized as girls, self-identify AS girls, and grow up to become women. The condition is almost never recognized until they reach the age of puberty and they fail to menstruate. That is because they have no internal female sexual organs. They have undescended testes with a fully developed vagina. Many of these women marry, but they are sterile.

So, I'd be interested to know how those here that insist that a post-op male to female transsexual in a relationship with a male is in a homosexual relationship define the relationship of a CAIS woman in her marriage?

JackofSpades said:

I think problem with this explanation is that if there was no such problems in first place, there would be little need for that medical study aswell. I tend to see it in a way that the need for medical study wouldn't exist without the very problem its trying to fix.




I've wondered about this possiblity myself. I see two alternate versions of it:

A) Suffering is for that purpose
B) Suffering can be used for that purpose, but it's not necessarily the original reason behind it.

Would you describe your belief more as A or B? I think I'm myself more towards view B, but my views on topic are somewhat open, this is very hard question to say the least.

Click to expand...

Having grown up with gender dysphoria and now in transition, AND having done a great deal of study on the topic of transsexuality, both in Scripture and in the scientific arenas, I would choose "B".

There IS a very real benefit derived from being transsexual that few people are aware of. There is a significant statistical difference between the intellectual abilities of transsexuals and the rest of the population. We think differently. And we tend to be able to entertain several different perspectives on a problem than most people can. It surprises many people to learn the professions which are common among transsexuals that most cisgendered people could never qualify for.

For instance, I have a personal friend that is transsexual and is a nuclear physicist. She obtained her doctorate at the age of 26, and has been a university professor since she was 24.

Another quite talented mathematician, who is also transsexual, created a crucial algorithm for computers; without which we would never had been able to have PC's. She created it back in the 60's, before her transition, while working for IBM. She is currently a mathematics professor in Michigan.

Many of the virtual reality games and other such programming was and is being developed by people who are transsexual. To be sure, not all that are in those fields are transsexual, but the statistical population of transsexuals in such highly technical fields is beyond the average in the whole population.

So, while the condition can and does produce some suffering in individuals with it, they also generally have a benefit from it. And most people are unaware of any of this. And we ALL benefit from their intellectual abilities, whether you know it or not.

"the condition renders their bodies incapable of responding to testosterone"

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], Stephanie -- that seems to be happening to me through sheer AGE !!

I thank God for Viagra and Cialis!!

I am clueless to post-op male with female transsexual - and CAIS - and how to define relationships...

all I say is -- Go for it til you absolutely can't go no more!

Anto9us said:

"the condition renders their bodies incapable of responding to testosterone"

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], Stephanie -- that seems to be happening to me through sheer AGE !!

I thank God for Viagra and Cialis!!

I am clueless to post-op male with female transsexual - and CAIS - and how to define relationships...

all I say is -- Go for it til you absolutely can't go no more!

Click to expand...

Giggles!

Anto9us said:

I did not "choose" my 'gender identity' as hetero-sexual male

It was established PRIOR to PUBERTY - due to factors I will probably never fully understand.

Click to expand...

This guy has a great video about choosing to be LGBT...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NNgReolAZY
"Nobody would choose to be a second class citizen and to get death threats and to not be accepted by your own family"

TX_CO_Matt said:

This guy has a great video about choosing to be LGBT...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NNgReolAZY
"Nobody would choose to be a second class citizen and to get death threats and to not be accepted by your own family"

Click to expand...

There's not a single person who claims that any of these things are a choice who can remember when they made the choice to be straight. Not one.