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

[RDKirk]

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.

Eh? A synopsis of that book reads:

Neither Christopher Columbus nor his contemporaries thought the earth was flat. Yet this curious illusion persists today, firmly established with the help of the media, textbooks, teachers―even noted historians. Inventing the Flat Earth is Russell's attempt to set the record straight. He begins with a discussion of geographical knowledge in the Middle Ages, examining what Columbus and his contemporaries actually did believe, and then moves to a look at how the error was first propagated in the 1820s and 1830s and then snowballed to outrageous proportions by the late 19th century. But perhaps the most intriguing focus of the book is the reason why we allow this error to persist. Do we prefer to languish in a comfortable and familiar error rather than exert the effort necessary to discover the truth? This uncomfortable question is engagingly answered.

Inventing the Flat Earth is Jeffrey Burton Russell's attempt to set the record straight. He begins with a discussion of geographical knowledge in the Middle Ages, examining what Columbus and his contemporaries actually did believe, and then moves to a look at how the error was first propagated in the 1820s and 1830s―including how noted writers Washington Irving and Antoinne-Jean Letronne were among those responsible. He shows how later day historians followed these original mistakes, and how this snowball effect grew to outrageous proportions in the late nineteenth century, when Christians opposed to Darwinism were labelled as similar to Medieval Christians who (allegedly) thought the earth was flat. But perhaps the most intriguing focus of the book is the reason why we allow this error to persist. Do we prefer to languish in a comfortable and familiar error rather than exert the effort necessary to discover the truth? This uncomfortable question is engagingly answered, and includes a discussion about the implications of this for historical knowledge and scholarly honesty.

No educated Europeans since 350 BC thought the earth flat. The story that they ever did was created and perpetrated in the 1800s. However, they were aware--and were correct since 350 BC -- of how huge the spheroidal earth actually was, and given the travel technology of their day, they simply could not conceive that anyone could circumnavigate the planet (they were right about that, too).

 

[Kylie]

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.

Have you ever actually done that?

If so, I would ask what their response to you was, but I imagine that they would have called you some names that you couldn't post without being slapped with a warning for profanity.

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

If you think that's what a trans person is, you obviously don't know any trans people.

 

[Kylie]

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

And what if you suddenly found out that Sally was born with a penis? If you were telling me about Sally, would you start referring to her as "he"?

 

[Ken-1122]

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

As a rule, yes. But there has occasionally been exceptions to that rule done on a case by case basis.

 

[didactics]

Eh? A synopsis of that book reads:

Neither Christopher Columbus nor his contemporaries thought the earth was flat. Yet this curious illusion persists today, firmly established with the help of the media, textbooks, teachers―even noted historians. Inventing the Flat Earth is Russell's attempt to set the record straight. He begins with a discussion of geographical knowledge in the Middle Ages, examining what Columbus and his contemporaries actually did believe, and then moves to a look at how the error was first propagated in the 1820s and 1830s and then snowballed to outrageous proportions by the late 19th century. But perhaps the most intriguing focus of the book is the reason why we allow this error to persist. Do we prefer to languish in a comfortable and familiar error rather than exert the effort necessary to discover the truth? This uncomfortable question is engagingly answered.

Inventing the Flat Earth is Jeffrey Burton Russell's attempt to set the record straight. He begins with a discussion of geographical knowledge in the Middle Ages, examining what Columbus and his contemporaries actually did believe, and then moves to a look at how the error was first propagated in the 1820s and 1830s―including how noted writers Washington Irving and Antoinne-Jean Letronne were among those responsible. He shows how later day historians followed these original mistakes, and how this snowball effect grew to outrageous proportions in the late nineteenth century, when Christians opposed to Darwinism were labelled as similar to Medieval Christians who (allegedly) thought the earth was flat. But perhaps the most intriguing focus of the book is the reason why we allow this error to persist. Do we prefer to languish in a comfortable and familiar error rather than exert the effort necessary to discover the truth? This uncomfortable question is engagingly answered, and includes a discussion about the implications of this for historical knowledge and scholarly honesty.

No educated Europeans since 350 BC thought the earth flat. The story that they ever did was created and perpetrated in the 1800s. However, they were aware--and were correct since 350 BC -- of how huge the spheroidal earth actually was, and given the travel technology of their day, they simply could not conceive that anyone could circumnavigate the planet (they were right about that, too).

Thanks for pointing that out. However, I was just pointing out that smart as St. Augustine was, he couldn’t conceive of the possibility of people inhabiting a yet to be discovered continent across the sea. He assumed that it couldn’t be because they would almost all be ignorant of any preaching of the gospel, and that for a long time.

 

[didactics]

And what if you suddenly found out that Sally was born with a penis? If you were telling me about Sally, would you start referring to her as "he"?

I don't have to know that Sally was born with a penis. I just need to know beyond a reasonable doubt that sally is in fact a male. And if a male, cannot be a female. It's up to Sally to explain to me why I need to keep saying she when referring to him. I don't need to walk away and be rude about it. I just need an explanation. The burden of proof is on Sally.

 

[Ken-1122]

Have you ever actually done that?

If so, I would ask what their response to you was, but I imagine that they would have called you some names that you couldn't post without being slapped with a warning for profanity.

The closest I’ve come was once upon entering a public restroom, I saw a person that appeared to be a woman. I immediately assumed I was in the wrong restroom, I apologized, stepped back outside the door, looked at the picture of a male figure on the door and told the person that this is the mens room. The person said he knew and that he was a man. I took him at his word and went about my business.
I never had a person I know tell me about someone’s gender pronouns, if I did, I would have a lot of questions to ask, because the concept of transgenderism has never made sense to me; the idea of gender roles actually sound rather sexist to me, I think it is sexist to proclaim specific roles only men are supposed to engage in, and other roles only women are supposed to engage in. Thus far I have not had such a conversation; perhaps some day I will.

If you think that's what a trans person is, you obviously don't know any trans people.

That’s not what I said. I’m pointing out that your claim of male animals displaying in a way female animals do is not a sign of transgenderism in the animal world.

 

[Ken-1122]

And what if you suddenly found out that Sally was born with a penis? If you were telling me about Sally, would you start referring to her as "he"?

Didactics made an excellent point. If Sally is a man, I will treat Sally the same as I treat cross dressers; I would no longer act as if Sally were a woman.

 

[Kylie]

I don't have to know that Sally was born with a penis. I just need to know beyond a reasonable doubt that sally is in fact a male. And if a male, cannot be a female. It's up to Sally to explain to me why I need to keep saying she when referring to him. I don't need to walk away and be rude about it. I just need an explanation. The burden of proof is on Sally.

And the only thing Sally needs to do is say, "I want you to use feminine pronouns for me." If you insist on referring to Sally with he/his pronouns after this point, then I'd say you are being rude about it.

 

[Kylie]

The closest I’ve come was once upon entering a public restroom, I saw a person that appeared to be a woman. I immediately assumed I was in the wrong restroom, I apologized, stepped back outside the door, looked at the picture of a male figure on the door and told the person that this is the mens room. The person said he knew and that he was a man. I took him at his word and went about my business.

Funny. Your behaviour there seems to go against what you've said elsewhere in this thread.

I never had a person I know tell me about someone’s gender pronouns, if I did, I would have a lot of questions to ask, because the concept of transgenderism has never made sense to me; the idea of gender roles actually sound rather sexist to me, I think it is sexist to proclaim specific roles only men are supposed to engage in, and other roles only women are supposed to engage in. Thus far I have not had such a conversation; perhaps some day I will.

You don't need to understand what it means to be trans. You simply have to understand that a trans person knows themselves a lot better than you ever could, and respect their wishes.

That’s not what I said. I’m pointing out that your claim of male animals displaying in a way female animals do is not a sign of transgenderism in the animal world.

Honestly, I don't think there's anything that you would take as such a sign.

 

[didactics]

And the only thing Sally needs to do is say, "I want you to use feminine pronouns for me." If you insist on referring to Sally with he/his pronouns after this point, then I'd say you are being rude about it.

But how rude am I being is what matters. It's better that I have an edge, but it's not the same as disrupting prayer at the dinner table, unless you're telling me that trans ideology is like a religion to you.

 

[Kylie]

Didactics made an excellent point. If Sally is a man, I will treat Sally the same as I treat cross dressers; I would no longer act as if Sally were a woman.

I think Sally would know if she were a man or a woman much better than you.

 

[Kylie]

But how rude am I being is what matters. It's better that I have an edge, but it's not the same as disrupting prayer at the dinner table, unless you're telling me that trans ideology is like a religion to you.

It's not edgy to say to a trans person, "You say you're a woman, but since you were born with a penis I will only ever refer to you as a man." It's not edgy, it's just rude and disrespectful.

 

[Ken-1122]

Funny. Your behaviour there seems to go against what you've said elsewhere in this thread.

What have I said previously that seem to go against my actions?

You don't need to understand what it means to be trans. You simply have to understand that a trans person knows themselves a lot better than you ever could, and respect their wishes.

Or I can just address according to biology instead of gender

Honestly, I don't think there's anything that you would take as such a sign.

Definitely not just your word; that's for sure.

 

[didactics]

It's not edgy to say to a trans person, "You say you're a woman, but since you were born with a penis I will only ever refer to you as a man." It's not edgy, it's just rude and disrespectful.

See what you are doing is putting the weight of proof on me. You say that I'm rude and you put that in my lap (if I can you that expression). Well I'm handing it back to you with a message, "By what standard?"

 

[Kylie]

What have I said previously that seem to go against my actions?

When you said, "I base it SOLELY on their biology which is a lot more than what is in their pants." Post 546.

And yet now you tell us of a time when you went into the men's room, saw someone you took to be a woman, yet when they told you they were a man, you did not consider their biology, you just took them at their word!

Or I can just address according to biology instead of gender

Why? Why do you think that you have the better option than just addressing people how they ask to be addressed?

Definitely not just your word; that's for sure.

How about this?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/aje.12360

 

[zippy2006]

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.

Some believe that personal pronouns should be assigned on the basis of prevailing cultural gender stereotypes. Others believe that they should be assigned on the basis of the subjective gender preferences of the person being referred to. Which of these two positions do you hold to? If neither, then what third position do you hold to?

By "presents themselves" are you talking primarily about their objective appearance or their subjective beliefs?

 

[Ken-1122]

When you said, "I base it SOLELY on their biology which is a lot more than what is in their pants." Post 546.

And yet now you tell us of a time when you went into the men's room, saw someone you took to be a woman, yet when they told you they were a man, you did not consider their biology, you just took them at their word!

I had no choice but to take them at their word.

Why? Why do you think that you have the better option than just addressing people how they ask to be addressed?

Addressing biology is much easier. With a hundred different genders (Omnigender, non-binary, Pangender, etc) and pronouns (Zir, Xem, Sie, etc) this type of absurdity is a game I do not wish to play.

How about this?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/aje.12360

Female lions naturally growing a mane like a male lion? That’s not transgender, that's more like intersex. Transgender would be a normally developed female lion identifying as a male lion

 

[Kylie]

I had no choice but to take them at their word.

Then why do you have a chance with other people? What opportunity do you have to examine the biology of other people that you did not have here?

Addressing biology is much easier. With a hundred different genders (Omnigender, non-binary, Pangender, etc) and pronouns (Zir, Xem, Sie, etc) this type of absurdity is a game I do not wish to play.

Poisoning the well. You dismiss it as "absurd" and "a game" in order to justify why you don't want to do it.

Female lions naturally growing a mane like a male lion? That’s not transgender, that's more like intersex. Transgender would be a normally developed female lion identifying as a male lion

And how would a female lion show that? Perhaps by acting as a male lion? Oh look, that's exactly what they did.

 

[Ana the Ist]

True, but how much of our mind is formed from our experiences, not just the genetics?

Your experiences are a result of stimulus and response and sentience....so I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here....

Could you rephrase the question?