• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

A simple fix for the Transgender issue.

Discussion in 'Ethics & Morality' started by Ken-1122, Jun 23, 2019.

  1. Strathos

    Strathos No one important

    +2,913
    Christian
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I'm not even talking about trans issues, but the false belief that social constructs aren't 'real'.
     
  2. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +529
    Atheist
    Private
    There are lots of men who like dressing like women and wearing makeup, they even have a name for it; cross dressing. And they are still men who don’t go around claiming they are women

    And there are plenty of women who don’t like wearing skirts or makeup, and they are still women. This is starting to sound sexist.

    Wait a minute; are you saying jobs like school teacher are for women, and jobs like engineers are for men? That IS sexist! There are women who are police officers, Marines, truck drivers, construction workers, and there are men who choose to be stay at home dads, airline stewards, and nurses. A biological woman who doesn’t like wearing makeup, perhaps wants to be an engineer, and prefers jeans over dress has no reason to feel like a guy because of this. What you are suggesting are outdated, sexist ideas that have been dispelled long ago and for good reason.

    It seems what you resonate with gender dysphoria is based on sexism and misogyny. Why would you defend such thoughts and ideas?

    I’m not saying they should be discriminated against, I’m just saying their delusions should not be taken seriously

    When I said “wrong” I didn’t mean morality, I meant wrong as in inaccurate.

    What you listed above was based on sexism

    Any female who doesn’t feel like she is a woman because she doesn’t like makeup and dresses needs to be informed that wearing dresses and make up doesn’t make you a woman

    Grasp the wind made an excellent point. If I am talking to a transgender person, the only pronoun I use when speaking of them is “you” or “your”. I don’t use the pronoun he, or she unless I am talking about you to somebody else. So since the transgender is not a part of the conversation when I refer to him as a he, or him; he is not being disrespected or harmed in any way. I think they are just creating a problem that does not exist.

    Reptiles are cold blooded animals, mammals are warm blooded. To call a cold blooded animal a mammal, or a warm blooded animal a reptile is wrong/inaccurate regardless of what goes on inside of their heads.

    People with XX chromosome and a Uterus are biological females. People with XY chromosome and male sex organs are biological males. To call a person with XX chromosome and a Uterus a male is biologically wrong/inaccurate regardless of what goes on inside of their heads.
     
  3. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,756
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    Dialogues aren't the only kind of conversations.
     
  4. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +529
    Atheist
    Private
    What's your point?
     
  5. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,756
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    You claimed that trans people aren't going to hear anything other than "you" in reference to them in a conversation. In a conversation involving you, me, and a trans person, they'll likely hear "he" or "she" in reference to them.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2019
  6. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +529
    Atheist
    Private
    In a 3 way conversation, you generally refer to the person by name. If I were to refer to you as "she", to the other person, it would give the appearance that I am ignoring you.
     
  7. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,756
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    What?? Using a pronoun or using a proper name are interchangeable. We use pronouns because it sounds awkward to use proper names over and over again. It has nothing to do with ignoring the person. Let's say there's a trans woman named Sally who is part of our conversation right now. I could turn to you and say, "Well, Sally here understands what I'm talking about and she agrees with me." But you're claiming that I should say, "Well, Sally here understands what I'm talking about and Sally agrees with me." Otherwise she'll feel ignored? Poppycock.
     
  8. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +10,820
    Christian
    Married
    No. When laws can change completely just crossing a state line or leaving the city limits, you can't say it's "objective."

    When the effect of a law can change just because a group of three or five or nine people say one day that the law means something different from what everyone thought it meant the day before, you can't say it's "objective."
     
  9. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +529
    Atheist
    Private
    What prevents it from being objective? Are you suggesting that which is objective is incapable of change?
     
  10. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +529
    Atheist
    Private
    Yes. When speaking about a person when they are close enough to hear, the masculine/feminine pronoun may be used in typical language. Under such circumstances I would probably just use their name to save trouble because I would refuse to refer to them as anything other than their biological sex.
     
  11. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,756
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    Great! Then we agree they aren't just inventing problems where there aren't any like you said originally.
    It's great that you'll be nice enough to not intentionally use a pronoun that people are going to find insulting, but we both know there are plenty of folks that ain't nice and will do it for the sake of being insulting. So there is a problem, and for folks like you that care which pronouns you say, the simple fix is just not using pronouns. Sounds fine to me.
     
  12. Pommer

    Pommer Autodidact polymath

    +1,075
    United States
    Deist
    In Relationship
    US-Democrat
    Have you ever knowingly talked to a transsexual person?
     
  13. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +529
    Atheist
    Private
    No we don’t agree; I believe they are

    Let me clarify. I will continue to refer to people according to their sex not gender. If a person tells me they want me to refer to them as Zi, Xi, or some other nonsense when they are close enough to me to hear me talking to someone else about them, I will either explain to them I don’t address gender; I address biological sex, or if I don't have time for such a discussion to save trouble I will just address them by name. Hope that clears things up.
     
  14. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +529
    Atheist
    Private
    No.
     
  15. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,756
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    Well, we established that you were all wrong about this:
    Which was your justification for thinking they were just making up problems that don't exist. So you should agree with me. You've been wrong about everything you and I have discussed, why don't you agree yet?

    Ahh. So you don't care if you disrespect or harm people. Gotcha.

    To be totally honest, I won't learn new pronouns either, I think it's pretentious. I'll refer to them by name instead because I'm not going to intentionally offend someone who isn't a jerk.
     
  16. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +529
    Atheist
    Private
    No we have not
    As I said before, I believe transgenderism is based on delusion. They may be sincere in what they are saying, but I believe it is all based on delusion; not reality. I have yet to have someone give an adequate explanation of what it means to identify as another sex. Clizby WampusCat gave a perspective but the explanation given gave the impression transgenderism is based on sexism, misogyny, and outdated ideas of years past. I sorta doubt it is based on that, but that was the explanation given on post #182, the best explanation I've gotten thus far. Perhaps you can explain; perhaps I'm missing something.
    I dont see it as disrespect to refer to someone by their biological sex. Why do you find it disrespectful?
     
  17. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,756
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    Sure we did. Remember, you said:
    So I said:
    And you agreed:
    Trans people are part of conversations where a pronoun like "he" or "she" will be used to refer to them. You were wrong, and you acknowledged that. Now you just don't want to work this realization into your thinking process because you want to keep imagining that the offense is manufactured, but you don't have any reason to think that anymore. The reason you gave is gone.
    It's disrespectful to intentionally do things that you know will offend people. Since being offended is irrational (i.e. based solely on emotional reasons), that applies to everything, not just transgender people. I don't tell Jesus jokes to Christians because it will offend them; it doesn't matter that I think what they believe is wrong. I'm not going to hop up on a free-speech-soapbox and offend people just on the principle that I think everyone should stop being offended about anything.
     
  18. grasping the after wind

    grasping the after wind That's grasping after the wind

    +3,050
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Others
    That which is objective is that which applies under all circumstances. Noticing that things change is irrelevant to whether something is objectively true or not. Objective realty cannot be something concocted by a person like an arbitrary rule that has been made up in an attempt to explain the world through abstraction. To observe an apple next to another apple is objective reality . To say that there are two apples is subjective statement. Two is a subjective concept. An apple is an objective reality but the word apple is a subjective abstraction.
     
  19. grasping the after wind

    grasping the after wind That's grasping after the wind

    +3,050
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Others
    I highly doubt your expertise on my worldview.
     
  20. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +10,820
    Christian
    Married
    But it didn't change.

    When, for instance, the Supreme Court decided that the Fifth Amendment applied to state courts, nothing about the Constitution had changed at all. Merely the opinion of five people changed.
     
Loading...