To Seem, Rather Than To Be? (Trans Ideology)

[Moral Orel]

True! But I never said you can know something and suspect you might be wrong.

To believe leaves room for doubt; to know does not.
Know vs Believe - What's the difference?

Yeah, and since you say that you can know and be wrong, that's room for doubt. That's "belief".

Even in context you know that you could be wrong in identifying a male or female, so yeah, that's belief bro. It isn't "know" like I said all along.

Untrue! Just because I find it important does not mean I will do more investigating. Don’t assume I am like you.

Sorry but yeah. People put effort into things that are important to them. You have done zero investigating. You reacted to what they look like. Don't pretend you exerted any effort. Exerting no effort is what people do over things they don't really care about.

I never lied. To lie is to make a claim you know is untrue. I was under the impression you believed trans men could get pregnant, so I did not lie.

You made it up. I never said anything at all like it. That's a lie.

 

[Ken-1122]

There are varying degrees I can go along. I can sit quietly. I can close my eyes. I can bow my head. I can fold my hands. Or some combination, or all of them. Or I can ignore what they're doing completely and act how I want. You're saying that because I don't share their beliefs, I can act normally (eating and talking) and that's fine and that's not rude.

Talking while your parents are praying is disruptive. For me to refer to someone's biology instead of gender when they aren't not even a part of the conversation is not disruptive to the person I am talking about

 

[Moral Orel]

Talking while your parents are praying is disruptive. For me to refer to someone's biology instead of gender when they aren't not even a part of the conversation is not disruptive to the person I am talking about

I didn't say I was going to talk to my parents. As long as I'm not talking to them, then I'm not being rude. That's your reasoning, bub. They aren't part of the conversation, so it's impossible to affect them.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yeah, and since you say that you can know and be wrong, that's room for doubt. That's "belief".

I say that now. But if I say I know X to be true, I would not be leaving room for doubt.

Sorry but yeah. People put effort into things that are important to them.

Sources??? What proof do you have that what you said is always true? Or is this just another one of your empty claims?

 

[Ken-1122]

I didn't say I was going to talk to my parents. .

I never said that either.

 

[didactics]

I didn't say I was going to talk to my parents. As long as I'm not talking to them, then I'm not being rude. That's your reasoning, bub. They aren't part of the conversation, so it's impossible to affect them.

To be clear, when I replied that “Im not going to pretend to understand that line of reasoning” I was referring to your beliefs about hard-agnostic. I will respect that you don’t want to argue about that. But about this analogy about blessings over the food, I need to look these comments over before I can reply to that.

 

[Moral Orel]

I never said that either.

Sigh... What you said was:

"For me to refer to someone's biology instead of gender when they aren't not even a part of the conversation is not disruptive to the person I am talking about"

If I am not talking to my parents, then they are not part of the conversation, so I cannot affect them.

I say that now.

Yes, you say that you can "know" things and they might be false. It is only a matter of being convinced. It is not a matter of being right. It's part of your definition of "know" that the item may be true or false. Doubt is built into your definition!

Again, this is reasonable to you, "I am absolutely certain that this is true but it might be false". These are your definitions we're working under.

I know that the Earth is round. An ex-coworker of mine knows that the Earth is flat.
I know that there is no Santa Claus. My four-year old niece knows that there is a Santa Claus.
I know that the universe is billions of years old. Frequenters of these very forums know that the universe is only 6,000 years old.

All of these statements are true all at the same time according to your redefining of the word "know". Ridiculous.

Sources??? What proof do you have that what you said is always true? Or is this just another one of your empty claims?

You need me to prove that people act towards the goals that they place importance in? No. I'm not going to bother with that. You denying it displays phoniness and I'm content with that. I mean, you don't even ask people what their biological sex is and you want people to believe you think it's important to know? Get real.

 

[didactics]

@Moral Orel
Let me see if I’m getting this straight. You are wanting to equate eating and being disruptive during prayer — being rude — with using traditional pronouns regardless of how anyone identifies themself.

 

[didactics]

What you are doing is the same. You don't participate in your parents beliefs by praying, I don't participate in transgender beliefs by using their idea of gender pronouns. For them to insist I engage in their delusions as you are suggesting, would be the same as your parents insisting you participate in their delusions by praying with them.

The Christian faith is a reasonable faith. It is grounded in truth. It’s not enough for me to believe it is true I must embrace what Christ has done on my behalf. To know and to continue believing is not a delusion. [If the Bible is reliable]



Physics and astronomy are like two witnesses that tell us the earth is sphere-like.

 

[RDKirk]

Does biology always matter in every situation and context? My claim is that sometimes it don't, so if you're picking a fight, that's the side (it always does) that you're taking.

You didn't answer the question.

Ana the Ist presented a specific situation and context, but you have avoided addressing that specific situation and context.

 

[RDKirk]

I think you're just upset because Ken rejects the use of preferred pronouns (trans ideology) and instead uses pronouns in the traditional sense. That doesn't mean he goes around intentionally trying to offend trans people. I mean seriously how long do you need to be around a trans person before you realize they're trans?

I've been around a couple of trans people for the extent of the situation without realizing they were trans...because they presented themselves convincingly enough as trans women within the duration of that context. Which is what they wanted anyway, and they didn't intend to provoke a debate over the issue in those contexts.

Inasmuch as I'm happily married and not in competitive sports, I don't think I'd have been involved with them in any context that it mattered.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Because it's messy semantically, and the two terms can be used interchangeably. It thus behooves us to use them in a more precise manner to avoid really silly discussions that revolve around what Webster's dictionary says, or, as the OP did, defining women entirely as egg carriers

The terms male & female were invented to differentiate between the physical differences of human beings not psychological differences.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I would need to get to know each person, so I could understand what each one really believes and thinks he or she is doing.

In general > while a child is immature, there is no telling what he or she might think.

So, I do not think it is wise for an immature person to permanently change his or her body in ways so the person later as a mature person will not be able to have children. I mean, let's say the child wants to get more attention; so the child has his or her legs amputated, in order to get more attention. This might work for some time, but it can make an unnecessary problem for what the person as a more mature person could do, later. And if the parents change the child permanently, this is not letting the child have an opportunity to make one's choice after he or she is mature enough to make the best choice.

Why would an immature child want to change from being a girl to a boy, or a boy to a girl? For one thing, it could be because the child simply is immature. And there can be parents who are still not developed. So, is their choice making driven by wisdom and maturity in how to relate, or by ongoing immaturity? Why would they want their children to become incapable of having children? Population control??

I get how ones now are promoting dog adoption, rather than leaving poor doggies in the pound while they buy new doggies. May be ones have decided people should adopt the children already without parents, instead of having more children. I suppose certain ones might have this reasoning, but I would not try to speak for everybody.

But I have a theory > as a little boy I can see how girls get attention that I am not getting. Or, as a girl I see how boys are getting attention I am not getting. Either way, I might feel like I'm missing something, and suppose I need to change so I get what the other gender is getting.

But it might be sort of like being a carpenter and seeing how it can be good to be an automotive mechanic. If I get rid of my tools for carpentry, and do not keep developing my skills for using what I do have . . . how would you like me to try to work on your car? At least, with this example, I have some chance of doing something, in auto mechanics.

But a transgender person can't pick up new tools, right?

And having intimacy with feelings of pleasure is not the same as being intimate with another person in
God's love. Learning how to love in a close relationship is more interesting, challenging, and educational And you can learn how to love, in whichever body you start with. And in case others do not know how to love you, changing your body can't help them.

So, what really is each one trying to do?

I completely agree. I asked my 8 year old daughter what she wanted to be when she grows up and she told me she wanted to be a veterinarian. I asked my 3 year old son the same question and he told me he wanted to be a fire truck. Needless to say he will have to wait until he’s 18 years old before we decide to have lights, sirens, chrome bumpers, and hoses attached to him. We’re hoping and praying that he’ll change his mind by that time.

 

[Ken-1122]

Sigh... What you said was:

"For me to refer to someone's biology instead of gender when they aren't not even a part of the conversation is not disruptive to the person I am talking about"

If I am not talking to my parents, then they are not part of the conversation, so I cannot affect them.

If you are sitting next to them, you can affect them. Most of the Christians I know will say a 2-3 second prayer over their food before eating because it would be rude for them to go on and on praying expecting me to remain quiet for an extended period of time. Respect goes both ways.

Yes, you say that you can "know" things and they might be false.

It has happened before. I was 100% certain and I was wrong.

It is only a matter of being convinced. It is not a matter of being right. It's part of your definition of "know" that the item may be true or false.

Just because I am unaware something could be false does not mean it cannot be false.

Doubt is built into your definition!

No. Just because there is a chance I could be wrong, does not mean I am aware of this chance.

Again, this is reasonable to you, "I am absolutely certain that this is true but it might be false". These are your definitions we're working under.

I know that the Earth is round. An ex-coworker of mine knows that the Earth is flat.

Even though your co-worker is wrong, they have no doubt that they are anything but right.

I know that there is no Santa Claus. My four-year old niece knows that there is a Santa Claus.

Your niece is wrong, but is 100% certain she is right

I know that the universe is billions of years old. Frequenters of these very forums know that the universe is only 6,000 years old.

Frequenters are wrong but are 100% certain they are right

All of these statements are true all at the same time according to your redefining of the word "know". Ridiculous.

I've redefined nothing, I provided the dictionary definition to prove my case

You need me to prove that people act towards the goals that they place importance in?

No; I need you to prove all people will investigate every single thing they find to be important; that there is not a single thing they find important that they will neglect to investigate. If that is your claim, prove it.

 

[Ken-1122]

The Christian faith is a reasonable faith. It is grounded in truth. It’s not enough for me to believe it is true I must embrace what Christ has done on my behalf. To know and to continue believing is not a delusion. [If the Bible is reliable]



Physics and astronomy are like two witnesses that tell us the earth is sphere-like.

Often when I respond to people, I like to respond in the context of what they believe; even if what they believe is something I don't agree with. If I were responding to a Christian, I would not say the Bible is delusional, if I were speaking to a Hindu I would not say the Vedas are delusional (even though by definition at least one of them has to be). I was speaking to a non-believer so I responded in the context of what he believes.

 

[Ken-1122]

I completely agree. I asked my 8 year old daughter what she wanted to be when she grows up and she told me she wanted to be a veterinarian. I asked my 3 year old son the same question and he told me he wanted to be a fire truck. Needless to say he will have to wait until he’s 18 years old before we decide to have lights, sirens, chrome bumpers, and hoses attached to him. We’re hoping and praying that he’ll change his mind by that time.

I remember a case of a little child wanting to be a girl after looking at a movie about a princess. He wanted to be a girl so he could be a princess. Children should not be taken seriously concerning such issues that can affect them for life.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It's an interest that an immature or a mature person would want.

But if an immature boy or girl . . . or adult immature . . . has problems with being male or female . . . why really is this so? And would it be wise for an immature person to permanently destroy equipment which he or she later as a mature and stable person could use to have children?

I think another thing to consider is the fact that depression and suicide rate for transgenders is astronomically high because they are often ridiculed and outcasted by everyone, even by their family because it’s generally not accepted by society and a child has no awareness of what they’re getting into in that aspect.

 

[PloverWing]

You are wanting “gender binary” to fit in, align with your beliefs about gender spectrum theory. What if I word it this way “gender is binary”?

...

It would all make better sense of course if gender and sex are merely synonyms. Men produce seeds, women produce eggs, if I can point to one singular factor that relates to reproduction.

Okay, if you use the word "gender" and "sex" as synonyms, then, if I understand you, when you talk about affirming the gender binary, you're saying that (for most people) their bodies are either male or female. That makes sense, given how you're using the vocabulary.

Be aware that when many people talk about gender and the gender binary, they're talking about people's inner selves (personalities, interests and aptitudes, social relationships, etc.). Conversations can get confusing when people are using vocabulary differently.

What if there are in fact good things that we associate with masculinity? Such as, a husband showing chivalry to his wife. We shouldn’t throw it all away simply because society latches on to, or holds in high regard things that are otherwise toxic behavior.

This is a completely different topic. As far as I recall, no one in this conversation has talked about which stereotypically masculine or feminine behaviors are good, bad, or neutral. You can start a different thread on that topic, if you like, but it would probably be a distraction to talk about it in this thread.

 

[Moral Orel]

You didn't answer the question.

Do I need to? Just because I defend using pronouns that match how a person presents themselves to the world, I owe it to you guys to talk about every situation and context that someone somewhere has a conflict over biology vs gender? I think it's enough that I've stated repeatedly that biology matters sometimes and pronouns just isn't one of those times.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you are sitting next to them, you can affect them.

Okay, so you can affect people negatively that aren't part of the conversation you're having and you debunked your own claim. Good job.