From Roe-Bots to Inflatable IUD in DC: Pro-Abortion Scare Tactics Hit a New Low

[essentialsaltes]

You got a source for this, or is this just your experience/opinion?

Among Democrat-ish people, there's a very mild anti-Catholic skew. 25% unfavorable versus 22% favorable. But nothing like the skew for evangelicals or even Mormons. Poor Mormons get it from both sides of the aisle.

PEW PEW PEW

 

[RileyG]

You got a source for this, or is this just your experience/opinion?

Experience and there’s plenty of evidence out there.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Weird line of thinking. When you say that you have an opposite gender spouse and somebody replies they also are married to a wonderful man/woman, does that lead to sexual discussions a lot?

Not at all relevant since we are talking about students and their teacher - not two adults.

I got a fun story I want to share - I grew up a Latter-day Saint - Restorationist Christian - and most people don't know much about what we believe.

My senior year of high school the admins suddenly changed the requirements for graduating - they said that we had to put together a binder filled with various schoolwork from all four years of high school and present it to a panel of teachers and discuss what it contains.

This made my class very upset - because it was being sprung on us in our final year - we did not keep schoolwork from all our previous years because we didn't know that we had to.

Anyways - the day of my interview arrived, and my binder was sparse - but I had an idea - right after I handed the binder to the teachers and they asked me to tell them about myself, I said, "I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We are also known as Mormons."

Four sets of eyes locked onto me - the teacher holding my binder slowly closed it - then for the next half hour all I did was talk about my faith and the Lord Jesus Christ - we never discussed the binder - and I got an A.

My point is that people will ask questions about things they don't know or understand - especially if those things are considered abnormal.

So, a teacher who has the LGBT flag hanging in their classroom, makes outrageous claims about themselves and then instructs their students to use incorrect or made-up pronouns to address them by is going to get some questions which will lead to inappropriate discussions.

Because generally I say something that references my husband, or hear somebody say something that references their spouse, and they’re able to glean my sexuality and me theirs, and the conversation doesn’t result in some huge discussion about sex.

How is that information relevant to children in a classroom setting? And are you talking to people whose entire identity is based on their sexual orientation or "gender"?

Weird. I knew which of my teachers were married, which ones weren’t. Who had kids, who didn’t. And yet we were able to avoid discussing anything sexual. Even when Miss Martel told us she was having a baby, we managed to talk about it without talking about her sex life.

I wonder how much of that information was on your tests.

Your teachers didn't seem to be people who based their identity on their sexual orientation or "gender".

Anyways - when you start bringing in homosexuality and transgenderism - then you talk about marriage and babies being made - you don't think children are going to be confused and ask questions like, "How can you be pregnant? I have been calling you Mr. Martel for six months!"

Confusion leads to questions which then lead to inappropriate discussions.

If one wants a religious education, they should go to a religious school.

I never said that - I said history. Do you not consider world religions to be a part of world history?

That information is much more relevant than anything LGBT.

LoL, what? When somebody says something that reveals to you they are with somebody, do you ask them questions about the functions and behaviors that occur between them?

A child might - especially if it is confusing or abnormal.

It’s not, but ok.

It is with all the drag queens and LGBT summer camps - it is.

Then you’re going to have quite a shock when you realize that your kids are going to have all sorts of secrets from all sorts of people that you do not and never will know about, lol.

This sounds like an admission to me - as if you kept secrets with adults your parents did not know about.

I am not talking secrets among friends - but between adults and my children - especially of a sexual nature.

That is predatory stuff and the fact that so many people defend it makes me think they shouldn't be around children.

LoL, what? Teachers make a vague curriculum available, and often deviate from it based on everything from test scores to availability of resources to student need.

The tests correspond to the curriculum - so why deviate?

Why make a curriculum that is based on resources you do not have? And what kind of resources are you even referring to?

No student needs to talk about the sexuality of a teacher or their own sexuality with a teacher.

Lololol, it did not. It exposed parents to the reality of teaching and forced parents to realize how much they rely on teachers for literally everything.

You have not been paying attention and now I know that you do not have any children.

I’m not but whatever you say.

If you are not, then you don't know what a secret is.

They do not, actually.

How are they not?

Lololollllllll you don’t “green light” the curriculums a teacher provides to their students, what are you even talking about?

If I read and agree to the curriculum - I am "green lighting" it for my kid.

If I read and do not agree to the curriculum - I am "red lighting" it for my kid.

If my attempts to change the curriculum fail - I remove my kid from the classroom.

You get zero input on curriculums and zero say on what they teach or how they teach it, and you absolutely don’t approve it, lololllllllll!!!

It is publicly posted. Parents are encouraged to read it. Parents can and do share if they want changes - such as at a school board meeting.

I think you misunderstood my claim about "green lighting" a curriculum as being a claim that I have to approve everything the teacher is going to say - but what I meant was "green light" it for my kid.

My point was that teachers post the curriculum publicly for a reason - to make sure parents know what is being taught - and there is an expectation placed on the teacher to only teach what they posted.

If a teacher decides to teach things that were not posted in the curriculum - then they violated the trust placed on them by the parents.

If I don't like what they are teaching - I will say so - and if that falls on deaf ears, then I will find a better alternative for my kid.

You’re the one saying that you’re having all of these sexually charged discussions, not me.

No - I said that LGBT and gender activists are trying to have sexually charged discussions - because their entire identity is based on it.

And for some reason - many of these activists are focusing on children.

I’m capable of hearing basic information about people without it leading to a discussion about sex.

You don't think someone who is obsessed with "gender" identity and sexuality couldn't stir you into a conversation about it? Much less a kid?

But hey, whatever.

You don't have to care about the politicization and sexualization of children. Just don't try to convince me to stop caring.

I would tell you, but apparently sharing personal information that may reveal my sexuality is not appropriate.

If you don't have any children, then you can't weigh in on topics about children.

Thats not entirely true, but whatever.

You don't have children - so it's no wonder you don't know.

Educated and informed children? Oh no…

You can honestly say that with test scores dropping significantly nation-wide?

What are you talking about? My personal business? You asked me, lol!

What do you believe I have asked you?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Not at all relevant since we are talking about students and their teacher - not two adults.

I got a fun story I want to share - I grew up a Latter-day Saint - Restorationist Christian - and most people don't know much about what we believe.

My senior year of high school the admins suddenly changed the requirements for graduating - they said that we had to put together a binder filled with various schoolwork from all four years of high school and present it to a panel of teachers and discuss what it contains.

This made my class very upset - because it was being sprung on us in our final year - we did not keep schoolwork from all our previous years because we didn't know that we had to.

Anyways - the day of my interview arrived, and my binder was sparse - but I had an idea - right after I handed the binder to the teachers and they asked me to tell them about myself, I said, "I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We are also known as Mormons."

Four sets of eyes locked onto me - the teacher holding my binder slowly closed it - then for the next half hour all I did was talk about my faith and the Lord Jesus Christ - we never discussed the binder - and I got an A.

My point is that people will ask questions about things they don't know or understand - especially if those things are considered abnormal.

So, a teacher who has the LGBT flag hanging in their classroom, makes outrageous claims about themselves and then instructs their students to use incorrect or made-up pronouns to address them by is going to get some questions which will lead to inappropriate discussions.

How is that information relevant to children in a classroom setting? And are you talking to people whose entire identity is based on their sexual orientation or "gender"?

I wonder how much of that information was on your tests.

Your teachers didn't seem to be people who based their identity on their sexual orientation or "gender".

Anyways - when you start bringing in homosexuality and transgenderism - then you talk about marriage and babies being made - you don't think children are going to be confused and ask questions like, "How can you be pregnant? I have been calling you Mr. Martel for six months!"

Confusion leads to questions which then lead to inappropriate discussions.

I never said that - I said history. Do you not consider world religions to be a part of world history?

That information is much more relevant than anything LGBT.

A child might - especially if it is confusing or abnormal.

It is with all the drag queens and LGBT summer camps - it is.

This sounds like an admission to me - as if you kept secrets with adults your parents did not know about.

I am not talking secrets among friends - but between adults and my children - especially of a sexual nature.

That is predatory stuff and the fact that so many people defend it makes me think they shouldn't be around children.

The tests correspond to the curriculum - so why deviate?

Why make a curriculum that is based on resources you do not have? And what kind of resources are you even referring to?

No student needs to talk about the sexuality of a teacher or their own sexuality with a teacher.

You have not been paying attention and now I know that you do not have any children.

If you are not, then you don't know what a secret is.

How are they not?

If I read and agree to the curriculum - I am "green lighting" it for my kid.

If I read and do not agree to the curriculum - I am "red lighting" it for my kid.

If my attempts to change the curriculum fail - I remove my kid from the classroom.

It is publicly posted. Parents are encouraged to read it. Parents can and do share if they want changes - such as at a school board meeting.

I think you misunderstood my claim about "green lighting" a curriculum as being a claim that I have to approve everything the teacher is going to say - but what I meant was "green light" it for my kid.

My point was that teachers post the curriculum publicly for a reason - to make sure parents know what is being taught - and there is an expectation placed on the teacher to only teach what they posted.

If a teacher decides to teach things that were not posted in the curriculum - then they violated the trust placed on them by the parents.

If I don't like what they are teaching - I will say so - and if that falls on deaf ears, then I will find a better alternative for my kid.

No - I said that LGBT and gender activists are trying to have sexually charged discussions - because their entire identity is based on it.

And for some reason - many of these activists are focusing on children.

You don't think someone who is obsessed with "gender" identity and sexuality couldn't stir you into a conversation about it? Much less a kid?

You don't have to care about the politicization and sexualization of children. Just don't try to convince me to stop caring.

If you don't have any children, then you can't weigh in on topics about children.

You don't have children - so it's no wonder you don't know.

You can honestly say that with test scores dropping significantly nation-wide?

What do you believe I have asked you?

TL;DR. What I did skim shows that there's just a lot of whimsical thinking about how schools and life in general works, as well as a lack of understanding of science, medicine, and society. I can't muster up the enthusiasm to want to go through it bit by bit when you've made clear you're not hoping to learn, you just want to repeat the same thing over and over again and just have it accepted as indisputable fact, with some personal attacks and baffling attempted insults sprinkled in. And frankly, I don't need to give somebody who called me a sexual predator my attention, nor do they deserve the benefit of my experience, education, and knowledge.

So, you're absolutely right, 2+2=5, enjoy.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I stopped at the very beginning when it tried to claim that eunuchs were transgender or "third gender".

Maybe the problem here is semantic. The word 'gender' has changed its common usage and meaning in recent years to refer to an individual's subjective sexual identification. Now that it's more widely acknowledged that this can differ from an individual's biological sex and has scientific support, it's a useful way to distinguish one from the other.

Word meanings often change as societies become more understanding and accepting of minority viewpoints - take 'gay', for example.

See the Merriam Webster dictionary Usage Guide:

"In the 20th century sex and gender each acquired new uses... Later in the century, gender also came to have application in two closely related compound terms: gender identity refers to a person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female; gender expression refers to the physical and behavioral manifestations of one's gender identity. By the end of the century gender by itself was being used as a synonym of gender identity."​

​

I am a little surprised you abandoned the whole article because you encountered an unaccustomed word usage...

The delusion begins when a person thinks that they can "feel" like anything or anyone other than themselves.

Many such individuals find they can cope by meeting up with like-minded people. Unfortunately, some individuals feel extremely unhappy about it. The question is whether we try to help relieve their distress, or whether we call them delusional and walk on by.

The CF member I was talking to claimed that their grandson became aware of the differences between the sexes after coming to know about transgenderism.

No one needs to know anything about transgenderism to come to know the difference between the sexes.

Perhaps other people think that, as transgenderism has become accepted widely enough in Western societies that there is a justifiable need to know about it. Should it not be mentioned because you don't like it?

Every human being is either male or female. It is a binary and we do not make any choice

None of this changes anything. There are only the two sexes - zero genders - infinite personalities.

Sex is a many splendoured thing, and more complicated than you suggest. As a graduate in Human Biology, I tend to assume other people know this. But the fact is that sex is not simply binary either genetically, anatomically, psychologically, or behaviorally. Having said that, the population distribution of those aspects clusters around 'twin peaks' of male traits & female traits, so that's where social and cultural norms tend to focus.

This is what I meant when I spoke about inappropriate thoughts finding place within us - allowing evil spirits to influence us - and eventually rob us of our identity.

Anyone can invoke the idea of evil spirits to oppose or denigrate anything they don't like. It's not an argument, but more an indicator of the lack of an argument.

Yikes.

Why would they need hormones and surgery if gender is not the same as biological sex?

Yikes, a health service that tries to relieve suffering and distress ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The source of the distress is usually the conflict between their feeling of gender identity and their physical appearance. The idea is to try to modify one or the other (possibly even both) to reduce that conflict to manageable levels.

Thank you for sharing all these sources.

What do you believe these surveys prove and why do you consider them to be credible?

You're welcome.

As someone once said, 'proof' is for mathematics, logic, and alcohol. I think the credibility of the satisfaction trends they report is likely to be fairly high because they are a small selection of many such papers and the vast majority are in broad agreement. Scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals are the most credible source of scientific information, albeit not infallible! (these papers do point out relevant caveats).

If it helps, here's what a meta-analysis & systematic review of 27 studies, pooling 7928 transgender patients who underwent any type of gender assignment surgery, found:

Regret after Gender-affirmation Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prevalence​

Results:​

"The pooled prevalence of regret after GAS was 1%... Overall, 33% underwent transmasculine procedures and 67% transfemenine procedures. The prevalence of regret among patients undergoing transmasculine and transfemenine surgeries was <1%.​

...​

Conclusions:​

"Based on this review, there is an extremely low prevalence of regret in transgender patients after GAS..."​

​

All intersex people are either male or female - no true hermaphrodites exist.

Not so - it's a rare abnormality (about 5% of disorders of sexual differentiation) - as this case study explains (contains surgical details and pictures) : True Hermaphrodite: A Case Report.

True - they could be indulging in a sexual fetish or take pleasure in confusing, controlling or dominating others.

Sure - anyone can indulge in sexual fetishes or take pleasure in confusing, controlling or dominating others. Do you have some reason to think there's a greater percentage of that in the transgender community?

The person I was responding to and the LGBT community as a whole.

Oh, I see. Well, I guess there are people in those sex-related minorities feel there's some advantage in being 'lumped together' - maybe they do it for solidarity, recognition, or influence?

Ok - but that does not make it any less sinful.

To you, perhaps, but not everyone - not even all Christians - think it's sinful.

Like thinking you are a member of the opposite sex or "gender".

Potentially, yes - I understand it, it generally manifests more as a feeling or feelings that they become aware of. There's a growing body of scientific evidence of significant brain differences between trans individuals and cis-gender individuals.

It affects every relationship you have.

Not necessarily - sexual relationships, yes; social relationships, probably; other relationships, not so much - but it depends on the individual.

What "harmless behavior"?

That of transgender people.

I would claim that opposite has happened.

There is a philosophical case to be made that all social & cultural learning is a form of indoctrination, but going by the root and common use of the word, it generally refers to the inculcation of a particular doctrine and omitting or rejecting others. I don't think that learning about a wide variety of views and doctrines fits the bill. YMMV.

I will encourage them to focus on discovering what is true.

Who decides what is true? What criteria for truth do we use - objective? subjective? relative? pragmatic? moral? spiritual?
All of the above?

Our best guide to how the world works is science and the scientific method. Beyond that, critical thinking can help us distinguish between what is rational and reasonable and what is not. Learning about what other people think and trying to understand why they think that way can help us understand why they do what they do, and so on.

Not every voice or idea is valid.

Agreed - and we can't make an informed judgment about that unless we listen and try to understand it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Amen! Anti-Catholicism is the last bigotry that is still accepted by society. Most liberals absolutely DESPISE Catholics.

That's not been my experience - some may despise certain Catholic viewpoints and may despise some Catholics (there are unpleasant people in every walk of life), but not Catholics in general - unless it's the church as an organization.

Last I heard, anti-atheism was the most widely accepted bigotry in the US - despite increasing numbers (apparently 28% of Americans polled say they have no religious affiliation), atheists are one of the most disliked 'religious' groups, and one of the most disliked groups in general.

 

[RileyG]

That's not been my experience - some may despise certain Catholic viewpoints and may despise some Catholics (there are unpleasant people in every walk of life), but not Catholics in general - unless it's the church as an organization.

Last I heard, anti-atheism was the most widely accepted bigotry in the US - despite increasing numbers (apparently 28% of Americans polled say they have no religious affiliation), atheists are one of the most disliked 'religious' groups, and one of the most disliked groups in general.

#1. Maybe not as individuals, sure.

#2. That’s true

 

[Chrystal-J]

Interesting info:

Some Contraceptives Can Cause Early Abortions​

Advocates of contraception claim it doesn't cause abortions. However, that claim rests on an inaccurate redefinition of "pregnancy" as beginning only after an embryo successfully implants in the mother's uterus. This, then, excludes from the meaning of abortion all pills and devices that cause the death of an embryo before implantation. Yet it's scientifically indisputable that a new human life begins when an embryo first forms at fertilization—6 to 8 days before implantation.

Physicians' textbooks and handbooks reveal that some types of contraception sometimes work by preventing a living, developing, embryonic baby from reaching the uterus and successfully implanting, which results in his or her death.

Article: Another Look at Contraception

 

[comana]

Interesting info:

Some Contraceptives Can Cause Early Abortions​

Advocates of contraception claim it doesn't cause abortions. However, that claim rests on an inaccurate redefinition of "pregnancy" as beginning only after an embryo successfully implants in the mother's uterus. This, then, excludes from the meaning of abortion all pills and devices that cause the death of an embryo before implantation. Yet it's scientifically indisputable that a new human life begins when an embryo first forms at fertilization—6 to 8 days before implantation.

Physicians' textbooks and handbooks reveal that some types of contraception sometimes work by preventing a living, developing, embryonic baby from reaching the uterus and successfully implanting, which results in his or her death.

Article: Another Look at Contraception

It’s not a redefinition when pregnancy can only occur after implantation. IVF embryos do not make a woman pregnant while they are stored in cryogenic freeze. The same goes for naturally conceived embryo not yet or unsuccessfully implanted. It’s not a pregnancy If not implanted.

 

[Chrystal-J]

It’s not a redefinition when pregnancy can only occur after implantation. IVF embryos do not make a woman pregnant while they are stored in cryogenic freeze. The same goes for naturally conceived embryo not yet or unsuccessfully implanted. It’s not a pregnancy If not implanted.

It's still a life, whether implanted or not.

 

[comana]

It's still a life, whether implanted or not.

A life not viable until implanted. If someone is concerned about the small chance an embryo doesn’t implant due to contraception use, then they are probably not a good candidate for those birth control options. Thats why we have options to choose from.

 

[Chrystal-J]

Viable is defined as: The adjective viable refers to something able to function properly and even grow. It is made up of the Latin root vita, which means "life," and the ending -able, which means "to be possible."

Viable - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

When something is viable, it has the ability to grow or function properly. A viable seed can develop into a plant, while a viable company has the resources to succeed.

www.vocabulary.com

Life is present and will grow when not cut off.

 

[comana]

Viable is defined as: The adjective viable refers to something able to function properly and even grow. It is made up of the Latin root vita, which means "life," and the ending -able, which means "to be possible."

Viable - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

When something is viable, it has the ability to grow or function properly. A viable seed can develop into a plant, while a viable company has the resources to succeed.

www.vocabulary.com

Life is present and will grow when not cut off.

There are a lot of things that can halt further development. I’ve seen estimates of 40% don’t make it past the first trimester, whether a failure to implant or early miscarriage.

Articles that equate IUDs and birth control pills with abortion are just spreading fear about very effective forms of pregnancy prevention.

 

[Zaha Torte]

TL;DR. What I did skim shows that there's just a lot of whimsical thinking about how schools and life in general works, as well as a lack of understanding of science, medicine, and society. I can't muster up the enthusiasm to want to go through it bit by bit when you've made clear you're not hoping to learn, you just want to repeat the same thing over and over again and just have it accepted as indisputable fact, with some personal attacks and baffling attempted insults sprinkled in. And frankly, I don't need to give somebody who called me a sexual predator my attention, nor do they deserve the benefit of my experience, education, and knowledge.

So, you're absolutely right, 2+2=5, enjoy.

The truth does not change or expire - and I will repeat it over and over for as long as I am able.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

The truth does not change or expire - and I will repeat it over and over for as long as I am able.

And should I see you share some, I’ll re-examine if there’s any point to discussing it with somebody else.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Maybe the problem here is semantic. The word 'gender' has changed its common usage and meaning in recent years to refer to an individual's subjective sexual identification.

I understand that "gender" is a phony word popularized in the 50's to create a false distinction between one's identity and biological sex.

Now that it's more widely acknowledged that this can differ from an individual's biological sex and has scientific support, it's a useful way to distinguish one from the other.

Did you not just say that the word "gender" refers to a person's "subjective sexual identification"?

Yet now you claim that it can differ from a person's biological sex. Is it a reference to sex or not?

Word meanings often change as societies become more understanding and accepting of minority viewpoints - take 'gay', for example.

I understand that there are people who artificially change the meaning of words to have them better fit their agenda - like "gay", or "gender" or "marriage".

See the Merriam Webster dictionary Usage Guide:

"In the 20th century sex and gender each acquired new uses... Later in the century, gender also came to have application in two closely related compound terms: gender identity refers to a person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female; gender expression refers to the physical and behavioral manifestations of one's gender identity. By the end of the century gender by itself was being used as a synonym of gender identity."​

​

I am a little surprised you abandoned the whole article because you encountered an unaccustomed word usage...

This definition you shared makes no sense if "gender identity" differs from biological sex - since it claims that it refers to their "internal sense" of being male or female (or something even more whacky).

Male and female are biological terms - and I did not stop reading because of any "unaccustomed word usage".

If you began reading an article that started by saying something ridiculous like, "Abraham Lincoln fought the Nazis in 1492" - you really believe you would stick it out?

If you were to look into what the galli were you'd realize that they were not "transgender" or a "third gender" - that is just historical revisionism - an attempt to put an ancient square peg into a modern-day round hole.

The galli were cultists that would - out of a religious zealotry - commemorate the consort of the pagan goddess they worshipped by castrating and flogging themselves for sexual gratification.

There are different versions of the story of this consort - one has him going insane and castrating himself after he broke his vow of chastity (then he unalived himself) - another was that a king castrated him after he first castrated the king (in self-defense because the king tried to SA him) and he died after that.

I don't believe the galli have anything to do with what we consider "transgenderism" today - but if you want to claim that they do - then you would be drawing some parallels between transgenderism and a fanatical religious desire to mutilate and harm oneself to gratify sexual urges all in an effort to become more like a person whose story involved sexual trauma and always ends in insanity, suffering and death.

Now that I think about it - maybe there are some parallels.

Even if there have been transgender people - as we understand them - all throughout human history then all that would prove is that mental illness and evil spirits have existed all throughout human history.

So, even if you were to prove your point - it does not make the concept of transgenderism any less false.

Many such individuals find they can cope by meeting up with like-minded people.

Yes - the inmates are more comfortable when they are running the asylum.

Unfortunately, some individuals feel extremely unhappy about it.

It is only natural for them to be unhappy in that state of mind.

The question is whether we try to help relieve their distress, or whether we call them delusional and walk on by.

I would argue that anyone who affirms the delusion is the person who is "walking on by" - or worse - actively causing more harm.

The first step in helping these people is get them to understand that their feelings are subject to change and that they are not what they claim to be.

To reference the Good Samaritan - anyone who affirms this delusion would be akin to convincing the man on the road that what happened to him was good and that his wounds are a blessing - then they would convince the man to hurt himself more.

Now - I cannot literally pick up any transgender person I see and take them somewhere - like the Samaritan did - but I can share the truth with them and invite them to come to the Lord Jesus Christ and be healed.

Perhaps other people think that, as transgenderism has become accepted widely enough in Western societies that there is a justifiable need to know about it. Should it not be mentioned because you don't like it?

I agree with this completely. I want people to know everything about it so they can see how ridiculous it is.

Everyone should come to know about it - just like how everyone should come to know about Christianity and other world religions - but it has to be done appropriately.

Just like how a teacher can teach the history and doctrine of Christianity without promoting it - like having crosses in the classroom, invitations to church, witnessing, saying prayers or anything like that.

A teacher can also teach the concept of transgenderism without promoting it - no LGBT flags in the classroom, invitations to protests or drag shows, affirming delusions, keeping secrets from parents or anything like that.

The point that I was making is that there is no need to know anything about transgenderism in order to know the differences between the sexes - not that I don't want anyone to know anything about transgenderism.

Sex is a many splendoured thing, and more complicated than you suggest.

No, it isn't

As a graduate in Human Biology, I tend to assume other people know this. But the fact is that sex is not simply binary either genetically, anatomically, psychologically, or behaviorally. Having said that, the population distribution of those aspects clusters around 'twin peaks' of male traits & female traits, so that's where social and cultural norms tend to focus.

You are referencing personalities or preferences - not sex.

Traits associated with the sexes and social and cultural norms have no bearing on whether a person is male or female.

A woman who is more masculine than most other women is not a man - a man who decide to dress like a woman is not a woman.

I find it sad that you could receive an education in this field and still reject the most basic facts about mammalian biology.

Anyone can invoke the idea of evil spirits to oppose or denigrate anything they don't like. It's not an argument, but more an indicator of the lack of an argument.

My mentioning evil spirits was not an attempt to make an argument.

There is no need for me to present an argument against because there is no argument for transgenderism.

Yikes, a health service that tries to relieve suffering and distress ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yeah, like bloodletting and trepanation.

The source of the distress is usually the conflict between their feeling of gender identity and their physical appearance.

The source of their distress is most likely some trauma - but even if it is not - it involves focusing on inappropriate thoughts that allows evil spirits to take up residence - the result is either mental illness, sexual fetish or taking pleasure in confusing, controlling or dominating others.

The idea is to try to modify one or the other (possibly even both) to reduce that conflict to manageable levels.

If their body is healthy - there is no need to modify it.

You're welcome.

As someone once said, 'proof' is for mathematics, logic, and alcohol. I think the credibility of the satisfaction trends they report is likely to be fairly high because they are a small selection of many such papers and the vast majority are in broad agreement. Scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals are the most credible source of scientific information, albeit not infallible! (these papers do point out relevant caveats).

If it helps, here's what a meta-analysis & systematic review of 27 studies, pooling 7928 transgender patients who underwent any type of gender assignment surgery, found:

Regret after Gender-affirmation Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prevalence​

Results:​

"The pooled prevalence of regret after GAS was 1%... Overall, 33% underwent transmasculine procedures and 67% transfemenine procedures. The prevalence of regret among patients undergoing transmasculine and transfemenine surgeries was <1%.​

...​

Conclusions:​

"Based on this review, there is an extremely low prevalence of regret in transgender patients after GAS..."​

How is regret measured?

Not so - it's a rare abnormality (about 5% of disorders of sexual differentiation) - as this case study explains (contains surgical details and pictures) : True Hermaphrodite: A Case Report.

There is no person that produces both types of gametes. No person that can make themselves pregnant.

Everyone is either male or female - no true hermaphrodite exists.

Sure - anyone can indulge in sexual fetishes or take pleasure in confusing, controlling or dominating others. Do you have some reason to think there's a greater percentage of that in the transgender community?

No, but those are the only options outside of mental illness. Or they are just liars like Dylan Mulvaney.

Oh, I see. Well, I guess there are people in those sex-related minorities feel there's some advantage in being 'lumped together' - maybe they do it for solidarity, recognition, or influence?

Political power. I agree.

To you, perhaps, but not everyone - not even all Christians - think it's sinful.

What anyone believes concerning sin does not matter. Just like what anyone believes concerning "gender" doesn't make a man a woman.

Potentially, yes - I understand it, it generally manifests more as a feeling or feelings that they become aware of. There's a growing body of scientific evidence of significant brain differences between trans individuals and cis-gender individuals.

I am sure that trauma and sin can cause significant brain differences - which is why we need to help them accept the trauma and the fact that they sin and lead them down the road of recovery and repentance by relying on the merits and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Not necessarily - sexual relationships, yes; social relationships, probably; other relationships, not so much - but it depends on the individual.

No, it affects every single relationship.

That of transgender people.

They are harming themselves.

There is a philosophical case to be made that all social & cultural learning is a form of indoctrination, but going by the root and common use of the word, it generally refers to the inculcation of a particular doctrine and omitting or rejecting others. I don't think that learning about a wide variety of views and doctrines fits the bill. YMMV.

It fits the bill if you reject common sense and the most basic of facts that even babies are aware of.

Who decides what is true? What criteria for truth do we use - objective? subjective? relative? pragmatic? moral? spiritual?
All of the above?

Objective reality.

Our best guide to how the world works is science and the scientific method. Beyond that, critical thinking can help us distinguish between what is rational and reasonable and what is not. Learning about what other people think and trying to understand why they think that way can help us understand why they do what they do, and so on.

I agree in the general.

Agreed - and we can't make an informed judgment about that unless we listen and try to understand it.

Agreed - but we cannot let the inmates run the asylum.

 

[Zaha Torte]

And should I see you share some, I’ll re-examine if there’s any point to discussing it with somebody else.

You don't see the point in sharing the truth with others?

 

[Belk]

It's still a life, whether implanted or not.

Which is irrelevant to if it is a pregnancy or not.

 

[Chrystal-J]

Which is irrelevant to if it is a pregnancy or not.

So, killing them off by not giving them a food source is ok?

 

[RileyG]

So, killing them off by not giving them a food source is ok?

If the couple had consensual sex, they chose to get pregnant. They can’t scream and call themselves victim because of basic biology occurs.

Simple