Is transgender a lie?

[GenetoJean]

"Effeminate" is subjective, so let's put that one aside for right now.

It is such a big part of my childhood in the church that it cant just be put aside.

"You realize I'm not a fundamentalist, right? Also, you realize I haven't said anything even remotely like "you dont think the way I do so therefore you aren't saved/repentant/have-the-Holy-Ghost", right?

You didnt say, "Thus, further showing that you didn't repent"?

For somebody who complains so much about being judged, you sure are quick to judge me without even listening to what I have to say.

Please show me where I have said anything about people judging me?

"I don't know. If you'd listened to what I said, rather than just assuming because you disagree with me, I don't think you'd have attributed words to me that I never said.

You didnt say, "Thus, further showing that you didn't repent"?

 

[mmksparbud]

Does a 2 year old have perverted ideas?? That's how old my friends daughter was when her mother realized there was something wrong. The little girl wanted nothing to do with little girl stuff, just boys stuff. The harder the mother tried to interest her i in "girlie" things, like her older sister, the more she rebelled against it. It stayed like that throughout her whole childhood. The girl finally told her mom she always felt she was a boy--which she finally ended up being.
What about the babies that are born with both sets of genitals--are they perverted in the womb??--Why then, when twins were born, and one was a girl and the other had both sets, the dr's and the parents decided the other one must be a boy (because that's what the parents wanted) so they eliminated the all the female parts and as the child got older, they forced her into male clothes and toys but the child didn't act like a girl, and they gave it male hormones around 12--told the child he had hormonal problems. Eventually this "boy" told the family he was gay--that's when they told "him" about his birth and operation. She had never felt she was a boy--they stopped the hormones, he transgendered and was finally herself.
This is not an isolated case. There are literally millions of babies born with both sets and now they are waiting until the child can figure out which one they are. What are they according to all the "God made us male and female" crowd?? God made Adam and Eve male and female, and that is the way it was intended, but DNA and chromosomes and have a way of getting damaged--there are no end of birth defects, yet nobody wants to think that a birth defect can be responsible for this. That somehow it's impossible to have the mind of one sex and the "equipment" of another. Why is that?? God made us with 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 feet 2 eyes and all the rest, yet millions are born without some of these, or so badly damaged that they are useless. There are no end of variations from the perfect anatomy that we were meant to have and those are alright, just a crying shame, but when it comes to gender--nope--there can't be any problems with that!!--Is anyone aware there are countless being born with no gender at all??--No sexual organs--just an orifice to pee out of--what are they? Liars also?? Good thing it hasn't happened to any of you, or your family.
These are still human beings, still Gods children and in a perfect world this would never happen--in case nobody has noticed--we don't have anything perfect in this world.
Having been around some of these people, and seen the grief and turmoil they face, and their families, I am filled with compassion for them. It is an amazing thing that no matter what is done to someone--surgery, hormones, upbringing--a person can withstand all this and still end up being what they see themselves as--not what everybody around them wants them to be. We are made male and female--and that identity is more than the genitals it may or may not have--it's the very soul of that person. Those of neither gender are still human, still God's children. They have to learn how to live in a world they are shut out of, and I can't imagine the loneliness they must feel.
How easy it is to pass judgement on things we have no actual knowledge about. All they want is to be what they were meant to be.[/QUOTE


I am requoting as my questions have not been answered--either they can't be answered or are being ignored as they may make some people use their brain cells??

 

[abacabb3]

I do want to do what is right in God's eyes. IF I could have had some relief from my confusion, depression, and self hate without transitioning, I would. I feel I am doing what God wants me to do.

Again, I never said that you weren't. I just want to point out that how we feel does not dictate right and wrong as Christians, it is what God tells us. And the only indisputable record we have that tells us this is the Scripture.

I am a firm believer in being truthful with people. I dont introduce myself by saying "Hi, my name is XXXX and I am transgender". However, before my friendship with people goes too far, they know I am transgender. I also would NEVER go on a date with anyone without them knowing.

Then, I think that is fine, though if you are dating people of the same gender, I would caution against that. Further, if you don't have sexual desire, I don't see the need beyond anything other than a platonic friendship with someone else, regardless of the gender.

 

[abacabb3]

Are you suggesting that he performed GRS operations for people who were under the care of psychologists and who were diagnosed as gender dysphoric who sought him out and received the care that they asked for?

He lopped off people's private parts, yes.

 

[GenetoJean]

Again, I never said that you weren't. I just want to point out that how we feel does not dictate right and wrong as Christians, it is what God tells us. And the only indisputable record we have that tells us this is the Scripture.

I agreed with this until the indisputable part about Scripture, or at least what we have access to right now that people call Scripture.

Then, I think that is fine, though if you are dating people of the same gender, I would caution against that. Further, if you don't have sexual desire, I don't see the need beyond anything other than a platonic friendship with someone else, regardless of the gender.

Ultimately, I would love to find another person who feels the same way I do about sex and have a platonic intimate relationship with them. (Intimate doesnt have to mean sexual.) I dont see this ever happening so I will probably stick with platonic friendships.

 

[Cute Tink]

He lopped off people's private parts, yes.

With their consent? Because of gender Dysphoria?

 

[abacabb3]

That's a relatively new definition of male and female. It isn't necessary to define sex/gender that way. For example, if someone, who is clearly female in other ways, is born without a womb, we would still consider them female.

Again, technically speaking, the DNA determines something. For example, what constitutes being a child? According to law, your age does. According to religious tradition, it might be the responsibilities you bear. According to science, at least what I have seen, it is essentially those who have no complete their physical growth are still considered to be children. For example, height, hormone levels, and even metacognitive faculties are all developing to an indeterminate point in time (ranging anywhere between 14 to 21 years old, depending on the person and gender.)

So, what about people with gigantism. Are they perpetually children because they have a disorder in which they are essentially always growing?

There is a certain point where for practical purposes we cannot be perpetually in doubt what makes a dog a dog, a cat a cat, a child a child, and adult an adult, a man a man, and a woman a woman. Of course, if we change the definition from a man being a being with a XY chromosome to a homo sapien individual who thinks that one's a male, then you can use that same logic to change the definition of anything. If I think I am a Zebra, then I am a Zebra.

However, we have a preponderance of genetic evidence and clear reason to go with the majority and understand aberrations as just that. It hink doing anything else does violence to episteomology in general, because then how can we know anything if we cannot even agree on extremely simple practical things, like what makes a boy a boy and a girl a girl?

What if the XX genes don't express what is typical of them? Which gene expressions are necessary to be female? Remember that there is always variation in our chromosomes, so there are no perfectly 'correct' XX chromosomes.

Being that males cannot have two X chromosomes without having a disorder, I think it is simple enough to state that we know one's gender by the DNA.

A dog born with three legs (if that is possible) is still a dog. A dog with no legs would probably still be considered a dog. We allow for variation in our definitions.

Yes, but we would classify that dog as deformed in some way. And, we wouldn't classify a cat that thinks its a dog as a dog, even if surgey made it look like a dog. The DNA doesn't lie.

 

[abacabb3]

With their consent? Because of gender Dysphoria?

cAN a mentally ill person give consent for a lobotomy?

 

[abacabb3]

I agreed with this until the indisputable part about Scripture, or at least what we have access to right now that people call Scripture.

You see, then if our foundation for truth is somewhere else, we cannot have a common ground. My opinion is this as a Christian. If the Scripture is not our foundation, we have no firm foundation. Historically, the Scripture was always treated as so. But if we don't, all we have to go by are the opinions of men, which shift and change. So, then you have no certainty anymore.

Ultimately, I would love to find another person who feels the same way I do about sex and have a platonic intimate relationship with them. (Intimate doesnt have to mean sexual.) I dont see this ever happening so I will probably stick with platonic friendships.

Well, as long as it is not sexual, though I don't really understand such a relationship, I don't think it is necessarily wrong. However, being that most people are sexual, you will probably not find your perfect match. And, I don't think it is good to compromise to be sexual with the same gender.

 

[Cute Tink]

cAN a mentally ill person give consent for a lobotomy?

Bad comparison. Can a question be answered without a poor analogy?

 

[abacabb3]

Bad comparison. Can a question be answered without a poor analogy?

Not really. Mutilating people is wrong. THere are people out there that want a hole drilled into their skull to experience a "high." Even if it is "consensual" it is wrong.

 

[Cute Tink]

Not really. Mutilating people is wrong. THere are people out there that want a hole drilled into their skull to experience a "high." Even if it is "consensual" it is wrong.

You believe I am mutilating my body. I believe I am fixing a problem that causes me intense distress. The medical community tends to agree with me.

And your further examples are still off point.

 

[GenetoJean]

You see, then if our foundation for truth is somewhere else, we cannot have a common ground. My opinion is this as a Christian. If the Scripture is not our foundation, we have no firm foundation. Historically, the Scripture was always treated as so. But if we don't, all we have to go by are the opinions of men, which shift and change. So, then you have no certainty anymore.

Even amoung more traditional Christians, they dont agree on "the Scripture".

Well, as long as it is not sexual, though I don't really understand such a relationship, I don't think it is necessarily wrong. However, being that most people are sexual, you will probably not find your perfect match. And, I don't think it is good to compromise to be sexual with the same gender.

It means I would still like the long walks on the beach, the laying in each other's arms, and the having one person you are closer to than anyone else but not the sex.

 

[abacabb3]

You believe I am mutilating my body. I believe I am fixing a problem that causes me intense distress. The medical community tends to agree with me.

And your further examples are still off point.

Mutilation is by definition cutting off an organ. So, the medical community for philosophical reasons can say something is not mutilation, but facts don't change facts.

 

[abacabb3]

Even amoung more traditional Christians, they dont agree on "the Scripture".

Not exactly. Traditionally, there is agreement over 66 books of Scripture and debate over the additional books. There is no history of not think the Scripture is authoritative, it's authority was no questioned until relatively recently.

It means I would still like the long walks on the beach, the laying in each other's arms, and the having one person you are closer to than anyone else but not the sex.

Again, others may not agree with me, but I don't think that is wrong being that if two Italian men kiss each other in a platonic way, it's no wrong.

 

[Cute Tink]

Mutilation is by definition cutting off an organ. So, the medical community for philosophical reasons can say something is not mutilation, but facts don't change facts.

This is more than "cutting off an organ". Changing the usage and appearance is closer to the fact.

 

[Paradoxum]

Again, technically speaking, the DNA determines something. For example, what constitutes being a child? According to law, your age does. According to religious tradition, it might be the responsibilities you bear. According to science, at least what I have seen, it is essentially those who have no complete their physical growth are still considered to be children. For example, height, hormone levels, and even metacognitive faculties are all developing to an indeterminate point in time (ranging anywhere between 14 to 21 years old, depending on the person and gender.)

I'd disagree. I'd say a child is someone pre-puberty. During puberty you are normally a pre-teen and a teen.

So, what about people with gigantism. Are they perpetually children because they have a disorder in which they are essentially always growing?

There is a certain point where for practical purposes we cannot be perpetually in doubt what makes a dog a dog, a cat a cat, a child a child, and adult an adult, a man a man, and a woman a woman. Of course, if we change the definition from a man being a being with a XY chromosome to a homo sapien individual who thinks that one's a male, then you can use that same logic to change the definition of anything. If I think I am a Zebra, then I am a Zebra.

It isn't just about thinking your something though. It's deeper than that. Very young children can show signs of it, because they act differently.

If you eat grass, are always on your hands and knees, and never talk... then perhaps mentally you are like a Zebra (though I doubt that's actually possible).

However, we have a preponderance of genetic evidence and clear reason to go with the majority and understand aberrations as just that. It hink doing anything else does violence to episteomology in general, because then how can we know anything if we cannot even agree on extremely simple practical things, like what makes a boy a boy and a girl a girl?

I don't think being male and female is simple though. It should be given philosophical and ethical consideration, and we should just assume that simple definitions are right.

Being that males cannot have two X chromosomes without having a disorder, I think it is simple enough to state that we know one's gender by the DNA.

But in this sentence you accept that they are male. You say that a MALE with two X chromosomes has a disorder. You still think they are male though.

Yes, but we would classify that dog as deformed in some way.

True, but I think it becomes more difficult when we talk about the mind and the body differing.

And, we wouldn't classify a cat that thinks its a dog as a dog, even if surgey made it look like a dog. The DNA doesn't lie.

Actually I think we would say it's a dog. It would be a dog in at least some sense. For all practical purposes, it would be a dog; and mentally it would be one.

 

[Reeniee]

Mutilation is by definition cutting off an organ. So, the medical community for philosophical reasons can say something is not mutilation, but facts don't change facts.

So is a surgeon removing an appendix from someone "Mutilation" in your book?

Both are being done by a medical practitioner to a consenting individual with a medical diagnosis that is being treated.

 

[FireDragon76]

There is a certain point where for practical purposes we cannot be perpetually in doubt what makes a dog a dog, a cat a cat, a child a child, and adult an adult, a man a man, and a woman a woman. Of course, if we change the definition from a man being a being with a XY chromosome to a homo sapien individual who thinks that one's a male, then you can use that same logic to change the definition of anything.

That's reductionism. Being male cannot be reduced to having XY chromosomes any more than a car can be reduced to a steering wheel. Not to mention, a good hefty dose of questionable gender essentialism is present in your thinking. Most philosophers are moving away from essentialism in general as naïve.

There is no way, at present, to scientifically validate that the person that has a male body but in fact believes they are female is in fact female, but that doesn't change the fact that much of the medical community believes that gender reassignment is beneficial in many cases. For many individuals with gender dysphoria, simply taking hormones and living in their prefered gender is enough, others need various forms of surgery. It's a question of harm reduction- doctors have a duty to alleviate individual suffering, not to enforce religious doctrines or societal norms.

The alternatives, such as forcing these individuals to try to believe they are something other than what they feel to be, doesn't seem to work. Transgender individuals, left untreated have extremely high suicide rates, this is not some kind of lifestyle choice, it's really a very desperate act and I hope people would be compassionate and realize that.

 

[abacabb3]

This is more than "cutting off an organ". Changing the usage and appearance is closer to the fact.

Actually the perception of appearances is subjective. The idea that there is the mutilation of body parts is an objective fact.