Is transgender a lie?

[selfinflikted]

Everybody is ravaged by sin. Even devout Christians have to consistently work out their wrongs.

Not everybody. I don't subscribe to "sin" therefore I am exempt.

It's not the sinner, but the sin, that is abominable.

You hear this a lot. But a homosexual is what I am. It doesn't define me, but it is an integral part of who and what I am, therefore I don't see how you can separate the sin from the sinner. I think this is just a convenient way for some people to absolve their conscience from the hate of certain groups of people. "Well, I don't hate the people, just the sin."

The Bible warns heavily about calling evil good and good evil.
That's sort of the contradiction of the liberal mindset of certain Christians altogether. They suppose that it's judging to call something wrong, or even that it really is okay which is just plain untrue.

Again, I don't really care what the Bible says. The only time I do is when it is used to affect policy in the U.S.

I believe that certain people of any sin can be saved, but their groups are generally destined for judgement.
Unconditional election is a proposition that God may save an individual nonetheless for reasons between them and Him. ~not something to rely on, however~

Nor am I worried about being saved. There's nothing to save me from.

 

[Cute Tink]

But, this is not conclusive proof of what you are proposing. In fact, the science is more convincing that the behavior affects brain development, as studies have already demonstrated this for a host of other factors.

I'm expected to have conclusive proof from an area that just recently came under study? That's a tall order.

I thought this was interesting, though, from your link:

Animal models have taught us that stressing the mother in pregnancy can alter brain development in the offspring

That is one area where scientists are suggesting that could be responsible for brain development closer to the opposite sex than birth sex.

I didn't say that behavior, etc. can't impact how the brain works. What I was asking for was evidence (not conclusive proof mind you) that these factors could be responsible for cross sex development.

One source

Except for the behaviorists ..., most schools of psychological thought have ruled out causes related to upbringing, social interactions and sexual practices as leading to transsexualism. As in other fundamental areas of personality, most scientific researchers now believe that the formation of gender identity most likely occurs at an innate neurobiological level. Serious scientific research on the formation of gender identity is now focused on understanding the processes of CNS neurological integration of the fetus during pregnancy.

I could find more, but much is blocked where I am now and I'm avoiding citing to wikipedia.

So, empirically, how would a boy who starts mentally developing into a woman, but otherwise is physically a man, not developing a mental defect as opposed to actually gender, which is codified in the chromosomes?

You ask this question as if I'm qualified to answer it. This is an area being studied right now. See the above link for studies as to this effect.

I do usually say, however, that this is a form of birth defect. However, the original area of treatment - rewiring the brain through psychological means - was not found successful.

Your position requires us to suspend sound judgment and regular approaches to science.

Not really. It is the current area of study of scientists.

If scientists were all in agreement that transgenderism is a mental illness, would be inclined to agree with their empirical evidence or would you still reject it? My opposition in this thread has been purely on empirical, and at times, epistemological grounds. I can be convinced otherwise, but I don't think you really have evidence to present. You have a faith in transgenderism as opposed to the empirically verifiable. So, you might not change your mind, but you cannot convince me without evidence and by asserting logical fallacies, such as rats being puppies and such.

If scientists studying the issue were all saying that it was merely a delusion, should be treated by intense therapy, then that is what I would be doing. I never wanted this to be true and I still wish I was just normal, but wanting and wishing don't make a thing. I went to therapy for a long time before actively starting to transition. HRT has helped me immensely in alleviating strong self hatred, low self esteem and, to some degree, brought me internal peace.

Do I have evidence to present? Yes I do. I fear though that you may fall back on statements like you started this post with and that others who have been presented such evidence will do - conclusive proof.

 

[Marius27]

I am against LGBT for many reasons. For one, it is utterly against Christianity.

Nope, it's not. And 70% of all Jews are not against homosexuality.

This was the truth in Abraham's time, the Apostle's time, and all through the early, middle, and late ages.

Debatable, and appeal to tradition is a fallacy. They were quite capable of being wrong. They lived in a patriarchal era. Their understanding is not our understanding. Abraham thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. Shall we agree his view on that?

logical opinion that a Christian who sides with such things is definitively against the Abrahamic God and His laity. That is where my zeal sets in.

Uh, that's not logical in the slightest. You're not acting logically. I can just as easily say anyone who holds such hypocritical, hateful viewpoints as your presenting here is against the Abrahamic God. The difference between the two of us, is my position is actually confirmed by Jesus Christ himself. Yours is not.

"By their fruits you shall know them."

 

[Joykins]

The ~liberal~ Christians disagree with me.

A fair number of moderate ones do, too. Not to mention the non-homophobic, non-transphobic conservative ones. I'll grant you the fundamentalists.

I am reading the statement: "I am against LGBT" and some of your other posts as meaning being against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered persons in general; opposing their equal treatment in society, and, indeed, mocking their (extraordinarily high) suicide and suicide attempt rates. One needn't believe that gay sex is not a sin to have compassion on folks who are different and regard them as human beings like oneself.

Let me tell you a story I read somewhere a long time ago..

Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”

But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

And 'tolerance' is such a loaded notion. Are you tolerant of the intolerant?

What I said was "tolerant of human variation." There are a number of things I find it difficult to tolerate, including prejudice and the smell of grape chewing gum.

The whole thing is built on an errant premise. A conflict of interest if anything.

It all comes down to priorities. Do you spend your whole life meditating on Romans 1, or Luke 10?

 

[selfinflikted]

I find it difficult to tolerate[...] the smell of grape chewing gum.

Not a True Christian. Nor even a human being.

 

[Joykins]

I find it difficult to tolerate...the smell of grape chewing gum.

Not a True Christian. Nor even a human being.

I love and tolerate you as a fellow human being. Just stay the heck outta my car!

 

[poolerboy0077]

Is there anything in history that has spoken of this?

So absence of evidence is being taken as evidence of absence. Oh boy.

 

[Armoured]

Now, you will explain why some Christians on this thread disagree with you too. You know, those of us who are liberal--or are, in fact, merely *tolerant* of human variation--and have nevertheless not left the church?

Or, heck, lifelong conservatives who disagree with him, even. I'm so sick of the "anything I dislike is liberal, therefore wrong!" paradigm that so utterly dominates contemporary American socio-political discussion.

 

[Armoured]

But, this is not conclusive proof of what you are proposing. In fact, the science is more convincing that the behavior affects brain development, as studies have already demonstrated this for a host of other factors.

Further, let's entertain the notion that the brain is developing in such a way to be supposedly more female than male, or vice versa, and it is not being driven by behavior. The onset of genetically predisposed allergies or immune responses is considered a defect of sorts. So, empirically, how would a boy who starts mentally developing into a woman, but otherwise is physically a man, not developing a mental defect as opposed to actually gender, which is codified in the chromosomes?

Your position requires us to suspend sound judgment and regular approaches to science.

If scientists were all in agreement that transgenderism is a mental illness, would be inclined to agree with their empirical evidence or would you still reject it? My opposition in this thread has been purely on empirical, and at times, epistemological grounds. I can be convinced otherwise, but I don't think you really have evidence to present. You have a faith in transgenderism as opposed to the empirically verifiable. So, you might not change your mind, but you cannot convince me without evidence and by asserting logical fallacies, such as rats being puppies and such.

...what's your point? Why does it matter whether you call transgenderism a mental illness or not? If the therapy with the best clinical outcome remains the same, why does it matter what it's called? I'm really not sure what empirical objections you have, when you acknowledge that there are, in fact, histological differences between the brains of transgenderpeople and psycho-normal people?

 

[abacabb3]

I'm expected to have conclusive proof from an area that just recently came under study? That's a tall order.

I thought this was interesting, though, from your link:



That is one area where scientists are suggesting that could be responsible for brain development closer to the opposite sex than birth sex.

I didn't say that behavior, etc. can't impact how the brain works. What I was asking for was evidence (not conclusive proof mind you) that these factors could be responsible for cross sex development.

One source



I could find more, but much is blocked where I am now and I'm avoiding citing to wikipedia.



You ask this question as if I'm qualified to answer it. This is an area being studied right now. See the above link for studies as to this effect.

I do usually say, however, that this is a form of birth defect. However, the original area of treatment - rewiring the brain through psychological means - was not found successful.



Not really. It is the current area of study of scientists.



If scientists studying the issue were all saying that it was merely a delusion, should be treated by intense therapy, then that is what I would be doing. I never wanted this to be true and I still wish I was just normal, but wanting and wishing don't make a thing. I went to therapy for a long time before actively starting to transition. HRT has helped me immensely in alleviating strong self hatred, low self esteem and, to some degree, brought me internal peace.

Do I have evidence to present? Yes I do. I fear though that you may fall back on statements like you started this post with and that others who have been presented such evidence will do - conclusive proof.

My observation here is that you are arguing "well the jury is out, so you can't prove me wrong." So, you certainty really has nothing to do with the empirically verifiable which is my point.

To me, the whole question is pretty cut and dry. Someone born something stays that way. It is not that complicated. Truth is predetermined and not decided by our perceptions. So, outside of cases where there are syndromes and chromosome disorders, I merely view the whole transgender issue as one pertaining to personalities and delusions coupled with personalities. If a man has a man's voice, has XY chromosomes, and has a man's build, he's a man, even if he thinks he's a woman. There is a reason men are physically different than women. Because in a very real way, they are totally different creatures than women when it pertains to height, voice, organs, and etcetera. The same way rats are different than puppies.

If someone cannot accept these very obvious truths, they are simply deluded and cannot be reasoned with.

 

[abacabb3]

...what's your point? Why does it matter whether you call transgenderism a mental illness or not? If the therapy with the best clinical outcome remains the same, why does it matter what it's called? I'm really not sure what empirical objections you have, when you acknowledge that there are, in fact, histological differences between the brains of transgenderpeople and psycho-normal people?

I am sure schizophrenics have histological differences as well. I just don't believe in lobotomizing them. Morally, I am opposed to mutilation.

 

[Armoured]

I am sure schizophrenics have histological differences as well. I just don't believe in lobotomizing them. Morally, I am opposed to mutilation.

Lobotomy isn't the best available evidence based treatment for schizophrenics though, is it?

Sometimes, the best clinical outcomes need "mutilation" to happen. That, essentially, is what any form of surgery is. Targeted mutilation. Frankly, the only difference I can see between gender reassignment therapy and removing a diseased appendix, say, is that one involves sex organs, and therefore instantly triggers all the socially imposed emotional baggage that implies.

From a medical standpoint, it's really quite simple. "What therapy leads to the best clinical outcome?" Is the only question an ethical practitioner cares about. Whether some random third party feels the therapy is "morally questionable" is really rather irrelevant.

 

[Cute Tink]

My observation here is that you are arguing "well the jury is out, so you can't prove me wrong." So, you certainty really has nothing to do with the empirically verifiable which is my point.

That isn't what I said at all, so your point is moot here.

To me, the whole question is pretty cut and dry. Someone born something stays that way. It is not that complicated. Truth is predetermined and not decided by our perceptions. So, outside of cases where there are syndromes and chromosome disorders, I merely view the whole transgender issue as one pertaining to personalities and delusions coupled with personalities. If a man has a man's voice, has XY chromosomes, and has a man's build, he's a man, even if he thinks he's a woman. There is a reason men are physically different than women. Because in a very real way, they are totally different creatures than women when it pertains to height, voice, organs, and etcetera. The same way rats are different than puppies.

If someone cannot accept these very obvious truths, they are simply deluded and cannot be reasoned with.

Sounds like what you're saying is that you don't care what "the jury" says, you think this so that's the way it is. If God Himself plopped down in front of you and said that you were wrong would you even consider his words, or is your opinion the entirety of everything? I ask this way because you completely ignored my response and substituted that which you wanted to hear from me.

 

[cutekittycat]

so we do not use surgery to fix people, then?

If God himself plopped down in front of you and said that you were wrong would you even consider his words, or is your opinion the entirety of everything? I ask this way because you completely ignored my response and substituted that which you wanted to hear from me.

He did that once. People nailed him to a tree. (ba-da tssss).

jokes aside,
this. so much this. i wanted to ask this, but i do not know how.
obviously, we cannot speculate what God thinks and those who opposed of the idea will basically say that God will NOT ask this type of question.

 

[StephanieSomer]

Other people aren't killing them. They are killing themselves.

They are killing themselves in a society that is more socially accepting of them than other societies.

I challenge you to attend a TDOR vigil this November and hear the list of names of people beaten, burned, shot, hanged, run over, knifed, bludgeoned, and otherwise obliterated simply for being themselves. Then come back and read what you just posted.

 

[StephanieSomer]

Is there anything in history that has spoken of this?

There are a few things to consider here, to say the least. The prime one being that a sex change being mandatory to prevent some drastic action should have some history- being that such a medical procedure has only existed for what, a few decades at most?

Nothing about it makes sense, because it is indeed nonsensical.

Were you aware that heart transplants are a great deal more recent than sex reassignment? I surely hope you don't have any heart issues, because your attitude would prevent you from getting the help you need.

 

[StephanieSomer]

But, this is not conclusive proof of what you are proposing. In fact, the science is more convincing that the behavior affects brain development, as studies have already demonstrated this for a host of other factors.

Further, let's entertain the notion that the brain is developing in such a way to be supposedly more female than male, or vice versa, and it is not being driven by behavior. The onset of genetically predisposed allergies or immune responses is considered a defect of sorts. So, empirically, how would a boy who starts mentally developing into a woman, but otherwise is physically a man, not developing a mental defect as opposed to actually gender, which is codified in the chromosomes?

Your position requires us to suspend sound judgment and regular approaches to science.

If scientists were all in agreement that transgenderism is a mental illness, would be inclined to agree with their empirical evidence or would you still reject it? My opposition in this thread has been purely on empirical, and at times, epistemological grounds. I can be convinced otherwise, but I don't think you really have evidence to present. You have a faith in transgenderism as opposed to the empirically verifiable. So, you might not change your mind, but you cannot convince me without evidence and by asserting logical fallacies, such as rats being puppies and such.

One simple question. It's a yes or no. Have you read any of the clinical studies that have been done on transsexual study? Simply reading what someone ELSE reports that the studies conclude is a "no". Have you read the actual clinical studies?

 

[StephanieSomer]

My observation here is that you are arguing "well the jury is out, so you can't prove me wrong." So, you certainty really has nothing to do with the empirically verifiable which is my point.

To me, the whole question is pretty cut and dry. Someone born something stays that way. It is not that complicated. Truth is predetermined and not decided by our perceptions. So, outside of cases where there are syndromes and chromosome disorders, I merely view the whole transgender issue as one pertaining to personalities and delusions coupled with personalities. If a man has a man's voice, has XY chromosomes, and has a man's build, he's a man, even if he thinks he's a woman. There is a reason men are physically different than women. Because in a very real way, they are totally different creatures than women when it pertains to height, voice, organs, and etcetera. The same way rats are different than puppies.

If someone cannot accept these very obvious truths, they are simply deluded and cannot be reasoned with.

Rather than attacking a premise that is based on real scientific studies and a host of support from many large professional organizations, why not put together a cogent, reasonable, well documented argument to prove your points. Or is that too much to ask? Just forget trying to tear apart someone else's reasoning. List your own and provide convincing evidence from data, professional opinions, AND Scripture to back your position.

Do that, And I'll quietly listen.

 

[Skybringr]

Were you aware that heart transplants are a great deal more recent than sex reassignment? I surely hope you don't have any heart issues, because your attitude would prevent you from getting the help you need.

Thanks to liberals, I wouldn't get a heart transplant either way

 

[StephanieSomer]

Thanks to liberals, I wouldn't get a heart transplant either way

Then I sincerely hope you remain healthy. And that is not facetiousness. I meant it.