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

[Kylie]

Sorry to butt in. I think the mind is either male or female because it relates to the brain but it's also something you can't directly observe from the outside looking in (unless someone tells you what they're thinking. That's the closest you can get to understanding the mind). I know you pointed out an article about how there can be some defect on the brain. But what I got from that was for example a male brain showing less masculine difference or to the point that it's almost undetectable. I would just call that perhaps female-like, but it's not the same as the brain being mapped out the same as a female.

Still not sure how you got the idea that there are only male minds and female minds.

 

[MehGuy]

The way I understand it is that yes creation has been marred by the curse, but there still is a remnant of beauty as we see structure, order and design. I think when it comes to rare cases of intersex disorders (where it’s very difficult to know if it’s male or female) God still knows what that person was meant to be.

Does God properly communicate what this person is "meant" to be to others in the here and now? Are transgender people who are plagued with feeling like they are born in the wrong body being hinted by the divine?

Is it possible God's declaration might contradict what a conservative Christian would think a person is?

Most of the time, from the collaboration of specialists in their respective field, they can confirm if it is male or female.

I don't see how they're able to make a clear-cut case, only an approximate evaluation for certain cases.

 

[Ken-1122]

If you think gender and biology are the same, then you are wrong. There is a huge amount of evidence to show that a person's identity is separate to the structures they have in their pants. You insist on ignoring this.

Biology is a lot more than what is going on inside of your pants, and as I pointed out before, he/she IS a reference to biology; that's why people refer to animals as he/she based on their biology. Again; animals don't have a gender identity, but they do have biology

 

[Moral Orel]

Because frankly, the pronouns may be a big part of the problem. Once you concede the issue of identity in your own language....how exactly are you going to take a different position in reality when those biological issues matter?

Simple. You separate gender from biological sex as distinct concepts. In areas that biology isn't relevant, then you speak of gender from it's purely sociological standpoint. In areas that biology does matter, then the sociological concept of gender is irrelevant.

In all honesty, masculinity and femininity aren't exactly biological concepts just like sexuality isn't a biological concept. Biology generally creates a disposition one way or the other for all of these things, but they are distinct from scientific facts. So if I decide "he" refers to masculine folk and "she" refers to feminine folk, who's to say I'm wrong? Humans literally just made up language anyways.

I can use whichever pronouns match the masculine or feminine way people present themselves without lying because those pronouns have nothing to do with the concept of biological sex for me. If the trans person thinks differently about that, so what? Who cares? I didn't create the confrontation that will spark that discussion that I don't want to bother with anyways.

And sure, going along with pronouns might make some folk ask for more, so then you just say "no" to the unreasonable stuff. Slippery Slope is a fallacy. You can say, "Sure, whatever" to reasonable stuff without becoming obligated to go along with just any old thing.

 

[Kylie]

Biology is a lot more than what is going on inside of your pants, and as I pointed out before, he/she IS a reference to biology; that's why people refer to animals as he/she based on their biology. Again; animals don't have a gender identity, but they do have biology

The problem is that you base it SOLELY on what they have in their pants, or at least what you assume they have in their pants.

And there have been cases where animals have behaved as members of the opposite sex.

 

[Ken-1122]

The problem is that you base it SOLELY on what they have in their pants, or at least what you assume they have in their pants.

No I do not. I base it SOLELY on their biology which is a lot more than what is in their pants

And there have been cases where animals have behaved as members of the opposite sex.

Are you saying there are some behaviors only female animals do that male animals do not do? (and visa versa) If so, what are some of these behaviors?

 

[Moral Orel]

My claim was talking about a person who was not there.

More bologna. All you said about it was "not part of the conversation". And since you've already been repeatedly saying, "If they don't like it I'll just tell them I only refer to biology with pronouns" then you're clearly talking about people that hear you.

 

[Moral Orel]

And sometimes it do....right?

Why do I need to write out the answer to this? Surely you read the exchange that you inserted yourself into before posting... right?

What do you do? Pretend to pray?

I don't do that around religious people.

Why do I need to write out the answer to this? Surely you read the exchange that you inserted yourself into before posting... right?

@RDKirk Same question to you.

 

[Ken-1122]

More bologna. All you said about it was "not part of the conversation".

I thought that was implied. My bad if I didn't make myself clear.

And since you've already been repeatedly saying, "If they don't like it I'll just tell them I only refer to biology with pronouns" then you're clearly talking about people that hear you.

Yes. If the people I am talking to claim I am mis-gendering the person I am talking about, I will tell them I am referring to their biology

 

[RDKirk]

So you wouldn't see any problem with me not going along with my parent's beliefs when they pray over a meal and just act normally, right? It's fine to just go about my life as though there isn't something they care about, and that won't make me a jerk?

My response is similar to Ana the Ist's remark.

There is a median between pretending to accept belief that to you are nonsense and being an intolerant jerk.

As you should have seen by my experience in Air Force basic: Just sit there respectfully for a moment, don't pretend to be one of them.

And as I also mentioned earlier, while I sympathize with people suffering gender dysphoria, the percentage of people who actually do suffer gender dysphoria is extremely small. I don't feel any social obligation at all to change my life at the demand of virtue signalers and poseurs.

 

[Moral Orel]

My response is similar to Ana the Ist's remark.

That wasn't the question I was talking about. It was this one:

Why do I need to write out the answer to this? Surely you read the exchange that you inserted yourself into before posting... right?

But if you thought I was looking for actual advice on how to deal with people praying around me, then I know the answer already.

I'd like to know though, why you and Ana are so intent on hearing me say "sometimes biology matters". I think ya'll are looking for a virtue signal that I'm on your side in the overarching trans debate.

 

[Kylie]

No I do not. I base it SOLELY on their biology which is a lot more than what is in their pants

Okay, and how do you get this information? Do you ask them to let you do a chromosome test on them?

Are you saying there are some behaviors only female animals do that male animals do not do? (and visa versa) If so, what are some of these behaviors?

Female animals displaying in the way males do, etc.

Don't tell me you think that male and female animals always behave in exactly the same way...

 

[Moral Orel]

I thought that was implied. My bad if I didn't make myself clear.

So if you work with Sally, and you've been calling Sally by "she" and "her" for years, but you suddenly find out that Sally was born "Bob" you won't refer to Sally as "he" or "him" except when Sally can't hear you? What do you do when Sally can hear you?

 

[Ken-1122]

Okay, and how do you get this information? Do you ask them to let you do a chromosome test on them?

Of course not. What did you think I did before, look in their pants to see if they are biological male or female? C’mon; as I said before, I do what everybody else does, I look at them and make a judgment based on how they look. If I get it wrong, I apologize and make adjustments. However if the person I am talking to tells me the person I am talking about has pronouns they, zen, xem, or someone who identifies as a different gender, I will let them know I am addressing their biology, not their gender.

Female animals displaying in the way males do, etc.

People do that too! But just because a woman wears men's clothes, does not make her a man and visa versa.

 

[Ken-1122]

So if you work with Sally, and you've been calling Sally by "she" and "her" for years, but you suddenly find out that Sally was born "Bob" you won't refer to Sally as "he" or "him" except when Sally can't hear you? What do you do when Sally can hear you?

I never said anything like that! If I've always known Sally as a woman, that would mean Sally looks like a woman; not a man. I treat would Sally the same way I would a cross dresser. I used to work with a person who crossed dressed occasionally when he dressed as a woman I would still see him as a man, but in public I would address him as a woman (obviously it would look rude for me to call what looks like a woman a man.) But I would not act as if he was a woman; I would still recognize him as being a man. The same would be for Sally

 

[com7fy8]

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.

I personally understand that Jesus wants us to be kind to transgender people. We do not want them to change because of pressure or hate or threat of rejection. But God does not have us approve of what is wrong.

I have a theory why ones want to change. The girl sees boys getting a certain sort of attention that the girl wants. So, she thinks she should be a boy. Likewise there could be cultural approval which is going to girls and certain boys feel neglected and want to become girls so they get the approval that they see girls getting.

And then when this does not work . . . aggressive ones can demand what they dictate, while others get depressed and suicidal.

But we can have real love with whatever we've already got for bodies and abilities. And we have love by giving love, including to those who do not know how to love us.

"be content with such things as you have" > in Hebrews 13:5.

With love we can be creative with what we have, and not fool ourselves into trying to get love from ones who don't know how.

I mean: we do not get real love because of our gender and abilities; but ones can see others getting praise and acceptance because of gender things and gender-connected abilities and suppose they are getting real love.

But real loving comes with unselfish and humble and kind character and growing and learning, including learning how to love with what you have, and loving others no matter what they have or don't have.

 

[didactics]

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.

I find it interesting that at least two users are questioning you about “knowing.” I wanted to share this from a booklet “How Should I Think” which you can get for free: Ligonier.org/freeCQ



“Historically, the scientific method is a method that stands on two legs, the deductive and the inductive, or what we might call the formal and material, or the rational and the empirical…In criminal cases, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s not the same thing as beyond a shadow of a doubt. You can raise doubts about anything if you want to, except that you are doubting, because the doubt that you were doubting proves that you were doubting…We don’t want to be adrift in a sea of cynical skepticism about science or about sense perception…the only transition, the only portal, from our mind to the world outside of the mind is through the senses…We must remember, however, that our sense perception has limits.”

 

[didactics]

Does God properly communicate what this person is "meant" to be to others in the here and now? Are transgender people who are plagued with feeling like they are born in the wrong body being hinted by the divine?

Is it possible God's declaration might contradict what a conservative Christian would think a person is?



I don't see how they're able to make a clear-cut case, only an approximate evaluation for certain cases.

Christians have been wrong about Bible interpretations before, many times actually. But what is key or foundational is that the Word is authoritative and must be true, meaning there are only apparent contradictions but no outright contradictions. I thought this was interesting so I want to share it here. I was reading this book awhile back called Inventing the flat earth / Russell, Jeffrey Burton

page 9 it reads:



“…Ptolemy and Augustine, they argued that the sea was too wide; the curvature of the planet would prohibit return from the other side of the world; there could not be inhabitants on the other side because they would not be descended from Adam; only three of the traditional five climatic zones were habitable; God would not have allowed Christians to remain ignorant of unknown lands for so long.”



St. Augustine 354-430 AD.

 

[Moral Orel]

I never said anything like that!

Yeah, you did. You said "I no longer address gender".

 

[RDKirk]

I have a theory why ones want to change. The girl sees boys getting a certain sort of attention that the girl wants. So, she thinks she should be a boy. Likewise there could be cultural approval which is going to girls and certain boys feel neglected and want to become girls so they get the approval that they see girls getting.

Or following the norm for their genders doesn't seem to be working out for them: "Being a girl" doesn't seem to be paying off for one girl the way it seems to for other girls, so she wonders if she's really a girl. A boy doesn't feel he's as successful at being a boy as other boys, so he wonders if he's really a boy.

Or they may just have some tendencies toward the other gender that don't actually mean much. Gina Carano, for instance, was always a "tough" girl...but in her childhood nobody suggested that she might actually be a boy.

There is a certain male YouTuber, an Asian guy with an awesomely deep and melodious bass voice, who idiosyncratically wears feminine makeup. He liked wearing makeup even as a teenager, and had been told that tendency meant he was homosexual (fortunately, in those days it wasn't suggested that he was really a girl). He didn't feel homosexual--he just liked wearing makeup--but people told him he was, so he'd accepted it. Until he discovered Prince, who had been "fabulous" but nobody ever thought Prince was homosexual. So, he realized he could be "fabulous" and still be happily heterosexual.