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

[BCP1928]

It’s not a religious opinion. At all.

OK, but it is certainly not a scientific opinion.

 

[RileyG]

OK, but it is certainly not a scientific opinion.

Again. What is life? Technically plants are alive and people eat them, animals are alive and people eat them.,…but I’m going too far, here.

 

[BCP1928]

Again. What is life? Technically plants are alive and people eat them, animals are alive and people eat them.,…but I’m going too far, here.

Scientifically speaking, there is quite a bit of "grey area" between living and non living.

 

[Pommer]

Again. What is life? Technically plants are alive and people eat them, animals are alive and people eat them.,…but I’m going too far, here.

Viruses aren’t technically “alive”. Just balls of RNA that replicate after hijacking a functioning cell of an animal, or (indeed) a plant.

 

[RileyG]

Viruses aren’t technically “alive”. Just balls of RNA that replicate after hijacking a functioning cell of an animal, or (indeed) a plant.

Yes. That’s correct.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Not quite - it's a word used to distinguish between one's feelings of sexual identity and biological sex. You may not understand or believe there is such a distinction, but there is good evidence there are such feelings and the distinction exists.

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?

It is a reference to one's feeling of sexual identity, i.e. one's subjective sexual identification, the sex with which one identifies - which may not correspond to one's biological sex. I suppose, to put it in old-school terms, it's an acknowledgement that tomboy girls and effeminate boys don't always 'grow out of it' and that for them it's more than a lifestyle choice.

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".

All words are 'artificial' to the extent that they're all invented and have a meaning that depends on their usage. Their meaning also changes over time as their use changes. Living languages change over time. You may not like the changes that occur in your lifetime, but such is life. These usages are not subcultural slang like the 'jive talk' of last century but reflect broader societal changes.

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).

'Internal sense' means how they feel. A common description is "feeling like a woman trapped in a man's body" or vice-versa.

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?

That's a false equivalence. The article started (the 2nd sentence) by describing how "The modern terms and meanings of transgender, gender, gender identity, and gender role only emerged in the 1950s and 1960s...", and mentions that therefore opinions vary on how to categorize historical accounts.

Are you saying that you don't accept that meanings of the terms mentioned began to change in the 1950s & 1960s? If not, then what is it that you don't accept?

If you were to look into what the Gall 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.

The parallels between the Galli and transgenderism were probably drawn from Roman accounts of the cult after its integration of the goddess into the Roman pantheon - they were said to wear women's clothing, accessories, and makeup, and wanted to pass as women. Consequently, they were often treated as neither men or women, or as 'half-men'. Whether this cultish behaviour counts as transgenderism or transvestitism isn't clear, but the circumstances are clearly very different from those of modern transgenderism.

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.

Given studies (above) suggest that the vast majority of those who receive gender-affirming surgery are satisfied with the results and no longer have gender dysphoria - IOW their mental illness is cured by current definitions, does this mean that suitable surgery can also exorcise evil spirits?

If not, how do you view those who have happy and healthy lives and families?

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

I wasn't trying to prove a point - just suggesting that transgender feelings are nothing new and that there's historical evidence to support that. The Galli are not the most plausible example.

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

It is perfectly normal for like-minded people to associate. Clubs, associations, interest groups, etc., are not asylums. Your use of such derogatory language suggests that you look down or despise mental illness - why is that?

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

That is why they seek help.

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

The evidence suggests that treatment improves their well-being and helps them be happier, more flourishing members of society. Isn't that awful?

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.

As I understand it, that is often the first thing they are told when they mention it, before they seek treatment. I assume they seek treatment when they continue to have distressing gender dysphoria they feel they cannot cope with.

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.

Do you have any evidence that this approach is effective?

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

How sad... I thought the days of ridiculing and belittling people for mental distress were over. Is this really the Christian way?

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.

LGBTQ flags simply express the idea of gender identity inclusivity. Do many schools take children to protests or drag shows? Keeping some things confidential from parents is accepted, even required practice in certain situations, e.g. parental or guardian abuse or neglect.

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.

OK, but as I said, it's a widely acknowledged issue in society that may involve the pupils or people they know or have contact with, so there's a justifiable need to know about it.

No, it isn't

Denial won't change the facts.

You are referencing personalities or preferences - not sex.

Not exactly - genetics and birth anatomy are not personalities or preferences; psychological and behavioural aspects are not necessarily preferences, if preference implies voluntary, and they may be incidental to personality. Perhaps transvestitism is more about preference and (arguably) personality than the others, but there's a lot of variation, so homosexuality may be restricted to sexual preference, or be expressed in personality to varying degrees (e.g. camp, butch, etc).

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.

What you call the most basic facts about mammalian biology seem to be a convenient simplification.

For example, phenotypic (anatomical) females usually have XX chromosomes, but some have XY chromosomes usually associated with anatomical males (SWYER syndrome). conversely, some anatomical males have XX chromosomes usually associated with female anatomy (de la Chapelle syndrome). There are variations on this theme with varying degrees of either male or female anatomical sex characteristics, including the true hermaphrodite mentioned previously. There are also sex chromosome duplications, such as Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) and Jacobs syndrome (XYY), which have some or no influence on anatomy respectively. These are rare syndromes, but they exist.

So is a man defined as an individual with XY sex chromosomes or male anatomical sex characteristics? Is a woman defined as an individual with XX sex chromosomes or female anatomical sex characteristics?

Our popular definitions are pragmatic simplifications of a more complex situation. The acknowledgement that there are psychological parallels to SWYER syndrome and Klinefelter syndrome that are not such rarities, has led to questioning about what, exactly, we mean by male & female, and man & woman - this is partly semantic and partly social and cultural. The minorities involved have a media voice and support & pressure groups to push for their recognition and acceptance - they want their own gender identity pronouns, which is a minor inconvenience to old-timers, but not a big deal, but in societies that traditionally segregate certain aspects of life by sex, they want designation according to gender identity. In societies that don't segregate that way (e.g. gender-neutral facilities) it isn't such a problem - except for sport...

I have no dog in this fight, except to support fairness and acceptance; such as gender-neutral facilities and restricting women's sport to those who have not gone through male hormonal puberty ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

That doesn't seem to be the general view, e.g. "The transgender arguments dividing society" BBC headline (March 2018).

Yeah, like bloodletting and trepanation.

Well, no.

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 exact causes are unclear, but twin studies suggest a genetic component, and neurobiology suggests early developmental changes in the brain. Childhood experiences may accentuate it, but I've seen no indications that trauma is thought to play a role.

Your suggestions regarding inappropriate thoughts and evil spirits have no evidential support, and sexual fetishes or taking pleasure in confusing, controlling or dominating others don't appear to be typical or common traits in gender dysmorphia.

How is regret measured?

You can ask the subject directly if they regret their experience, or ask them a set of indirect questions, such as would they have preferred a different outcome, did they feel responsible for what happened, could things have gone better, did they feel pressured into making a decision, etc.

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.

Perhaps no one can produce both types of gametes, but some individuals have both testicular and ovarian tissues capable of doing so, although seems that the condition causes sufficiently abnormal hormonal conditions that the tissues cannot function normally.

There are also individuals with 'paradoxical' sex chromosomes (as mentioned above).

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

Gender dysphoria is listed in DSM-5, which makes it officially recognised as a 'mental disorder' if that helps...?

I've heard of, but don't know much about, Dylan Mulvaney. What makes you think she's a liar?

What anyone believes concerning sin does not matter.

Really? you surprise me, I thought it was quite important to Christians. If it doesn't matter, why mention it in connection with trans people?

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.

Is that effective?

No, it affects every single relationship.

How do you know this? do you know people in that situation?

They are harming themselves.

How?

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

Quite - though I didn't want to put it quite so bluntly (and babies are not particularly well-informed about indoctrination or, for that matter, gender identity).

Objective reality.

Well, science is our best guide to objective reality, and, in so far as it is relevant, it generally doesn't support your view (as above). It doesn't speak to the moral situation, but if the goal is utilitarian (i.e. minimize suffering and promote health & well-being), the science appears to strongly support treatment, e.g. psychiatric and/or medical interventions, up to and including surgery. YMMV.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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?

That's very silly. Lincoln fought the Nazis in *1862*.

 

[Zaha Torte]

That's very silly. Lincoln fought the Nazis in *1862*.

I think you're right - I didn't read the book - I only saw the movie.

 

[Sunflower39]

Nobody I know would have the slightest interest in discussing what you think about the matter. Nobody I know would be the slightest bit interested in even meeting someone that expresses some views as have been expressed in this thread. The only reason I take part in these discussions is to poke around enough to find out what someone actually thinks. To get it out into the open and have some sunlight shone on it. The truth generally comes out, unwrapped, not couched in reasonably polite platitudes.

We can all then make decisions as regards those people who espouse such views

Bradskii, you do realise that other people are entitled to hold different views from yours, don’t you? Not everyone will agree with you, and that’s perfectly fine. Constantly arguing and dismissing others just because you disagree with their perspectives isn’t productive.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii, you do realise that other people are entitled to hold different views from yours, don’t you? Not everyone will agree with you, and that’s perfectly fine. Constantly arguing and dismissing others just because you disagree with their perspectives isn’t productive.

People will be judged by the views that they hold. That's one reason for poking around in threads like this. To dig out what people actually think. And what you'll find, if you poke around enough, is that what they say within the forum is often at odds with how they would act face to face.

 

[Pommer]

People will be judged by the views that they hold. That's one reason for poking around in threads like this. To dig out what people actually think. And what you'll find, if you poke around enough, is that what they say within the forum is often at odds with how they would act face to face.

My!, but I find your optimism boundlees!

 

[RileyG]

People will be judged by the views that they hold. That's one reason for poking around in threads like this. To dig out what people actually think. And what you'll find, if you poke around enough, is that what they say within the forum is often at odds with how they would act face to face.

Very true and true of social media in general.

When some people are online they are more confrontational and less friendly. They don’t have to see the other persons reactions. So some can be incredibly hurtful and don’t realize the pain they are causing.

 

[Pommer]

Very true and true of social media in general.

When some people are online they are more confrontational and less friendly. They don’t have to see the other persons reactions. So some can be incredibly hurtful and don’t realize the pain they are causing.

I enjoy a good argument (either five-minute one or the full hour), [IKYK], I’m not so much “ideologically driven” as I am simply enjoying “wagging-my-tongue” (in a manner of speaking).

When I receive a slight, or mild hostility here, I know that I have touched someone with my meager workings here enough to praise me with an insult, (or some clever, pithy turn-of-phrase, (which is everso more enjoyable).

As it is, I needn’t get insulted, should I choose not to be.

 

[RileyG]

I enjoy a good argument (either five-minute one or the full hour), [IKYK], I’m not so much “ideologically driven” as I am simply enjoying “wagging-my-tongue” (in a manner of speaking).

When I receive a slight, or mild hostility here, I know that I have touched someone with my meager workings here enough to praise me with an insult, (or some clever, pithy turn-of-phrase, (which is everso more enjoyable).

As it is, I needn’t get insulted, should I choose not to be.

Arguments can be very good for the brain because it helps people think critically.

By arguing, I don’t mean fighting. I mean defending your issue in a position, such as debating.

 

[Bradskii]

Arguments can be very good for the brain because it helps people think critically.

By arguing, I don’t mean fighting. I mean defending your issue in a position, such as debating.

There should be a section of the forum where you take your position for something...and argue against it. They could call it Advocatus Diaboli.

 

[RileyG]

There should be a section of the forum where you take your position for something...and argue against it. They could call it Advocatus Diaboli.

Why, yes. It’s always good to hear both sides of the issue, and analyze them critically.

 

[Pommer]

Arguments can be very good for the brain because it helps people think critically.

By arguing, I don’t mean fighting. I mean defending your issue in a position, such as debating.

There’s knack to it…one begins to see most political arguments as “repeats” of fights we’re always had.
There’s three political bugaboos in American politics
1. Immigrants, Ben Franklin was worried about the German immigrants
2. “Is our children learning?”, (which I maintain is grammatically correct)
3. “The ‘other-side’ will be the ruin of this Nation!”

Mostly it’s been a fun romp these past few decades…but people are making the mistake of taking their politics far too seriously, which never leads to “good times”, only entertaining ones.

 

[RileyG]

There’s knack to it…one begins to see most political arguments as “repeats” of fights we’re always had.
There’s three political bugaboos in American politics
1. Immigrants, Ben Franklin was worried about the German immigrants
2. “Is our children learning?”, (which I maintain is grammatically correct)
3. “The ‘other-side’ will be the ruin of this Nation!”

Mostly it’s been a fun romp these past few decades…but people are making the mistake of taking their politics far too seriously, which never leads to “good times”, only entertaining ones.

History repeats itself

 

[Pommer]

History repeats itself

Because…

 

[RileyG]

Because…

…people make the same mistakes and like routine?

Lol, I’m just talking nonsense now.