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

[TLK Valentine]

Okay TLK, I’m told I’ve got to take it up with you. You’re telling me I’m living in a fantasy by making obvious truth claims?[

I don't recall accusing you of living in a fantasy for making your little truth claims... But truth be told, the whole conversation has gotten quite boring, and going back would be far more trouble than it's worth.

I tell you, some women menstruate. Some women don’t. Does my latter statement contradict my former statement? Of course not. Now see if you can get this next one—men don’t menstruate. Men never will.

With you so far. Make a point?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ah, the "bait and switch." Here is what you said in post #41:



Were you talking about sex or gender there? If you were talking about gender, then according to your strange theories your statements were false. If you were talking about sex, then we have proof that your fallacious "bait and switch" failed.

I was not talking to you at the time, so your errors are still your own.

 

[zippy2006]

I was not talking to you at the time, so your errors are still your own.

I was responding to that very post, where you were talking about sex. So I respond to your post about sex by making a point about sex, and you reply, "Hey, we're talking about gender here, not sex!" ...which is of course a lie because you were talking about sex and not gender. Nice try, though.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I was responding to that very post, where you were talking about sex. So I respond to your post about sex by making a point about sex, and you reply, "Hey, we're talking about gender here, not sex!" ...which is of course a lie because you were talking about sex and not gender. Nice try, though.

The subject of the thread itself is gender -- and while the two are connected, one does tend to shift back and forth.

Perhaps it help you to consider that before jumping into a conversation?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Problem is womanhood should not and arguably rarely is reducible to simply biology rather than societal norms and ideas we have that can apply even to a woman that is barren and yet, *gasp* can raise children and be a mother figure, encouraging those kinds of lessons and virtues to a child even if she has no biological link to them and has no blood children of her own.

Interesting how "womanhood" is reduced to the ability to bear children -- with the resulting (either stated or implied) argument that the transgendered cannot do so, and thus will never be accepted as a "woman."

The problem (aside from the obvious ones already discussed) is that this argument only addresses male-to-female transgenderism, and is completely moot regarding female-to-male.

An oversight, or a symptom of a larger issue?

 

[muichimotsu]

Interesting how "womanhood" is reduced to the ability to bear children -- with the resulting (either stated or implied) argument that the transgendered cannot do so, and thus will never be accepted as a "woman."

The problem (aside from the obvious ones already discussed) is that this argument only addresses male-to-female transgenderism, and is completely moot regarding female-to-male.

An oversight, or a symptom of a larger issue?

There's bigotry against both in different ways, a lot of it rooted in patriarchal attitudes where women are seen as subservient and any breaking from that is condemned, which includes even tomboyish women depending on the person you ask.

But when you consider that root of trans, it connects to transgression as well and people may unfortunately have that almost subconscious prejudice and association to condemn transgender people based on that

 

[Kylie]

I had a particular question. Do trans people really believe that by transitioning, that they become the opposite sex? I mean, sometimes I hear the phrase thrown around, that trans women are women. I don’t have to be a biologist to know that’s insane—trans women don’t have eggs. Trans women don’t magically start menstruating. Or who knows, maybe a progressive would fire back, does a woman need to menstruate to be a woman? And then I suppose I would have to argue based on what is normative, namely that women usually menstruate, but trans women never have eggs.


So what I’m getting at is, just how dedicated are progressives to this gender theory? Is it irrelevant to state that what is normal of male and female behavior is obvious, if perhaps they believe that what is normal now may not always be normal—meaning that humans may evolve into something different? Or, maybe progressive minded people know that their theory is senseless, except maybe not all, and they would rather use their ideas to divide and conquer. But then again that just sounds conspiratorial.


For example, I watched a video of a trans woman explaining that he thought the concept of male and femaleness really was a concept that the colonizers came up with. I can’t tell you how absurd that is. I guess there’s no point in defining humans as male and female. But that’s like saying that human procreation is irrelevant, and that’s why we don’t need terms like male and female. This really gets into dangerous territory because it’s an attempt to play God—the idea that we don’t have to have limits based on our gender.


It’s also an attack on God’s very good design, that in the beginning he made them male and female. Even Jesus affirmed this (see Mt 19:4).

From my understanding, a person's sense of self (their soul, if you want) that tells them what gender they are is not connected to the physical structures they have between their legs. Most of the time, yes, the sense of self and the physical structures match. But in cases where they are mismatched, a person can have their sense of self saying they are a woman and the physical structure they have is a penis, or vice versa.

For people like this, they may wish to live in the way their sense of self or soul is telling them is right for them, and that may include using surgery to alter the shapes of their bodies.

And when it comes to people who are trans and choose to transition, whether it includes surgery or not, I think it's important to remember Matthew 7:1-5.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

 

[muichimotsu]

There may be a lot I don’t agree with you on, but you do have some good insight on this one thing at least. I can’t help but think you must have had the story of Naomi in mind.

I had to remind myself, since my familiarity with it is more recent, since I don't recall it begin discussed in church when I attended in my youth.

With regards to Ruth as her daughter in law, sure, but adoption and family are kind of a common theme in the Old TEstament especially, from what I gather

 

[muichimotsu]

I was responding to that very post, where you were talking about sex. So I respond to your post about sex by making a point about sex, and you reply, "Hey, we're talking about gender here, not sex!" ...which is of course a lie because you were talking about sex and not gender. Nice try, though.

You throw in a non sequitur here and then try gaslighting him to say he said something otherwise? Is that just a talent of yours or did you learn that kind of manipulation of a conversation?

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

Let's watch it with the flaming and goading folks!

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[TLK Valentine]

There's bigotry against both in different ways, a lot of it rooted in patriarchal attitudes where women are seen as subservient and any breaking from that is condemned, which includes even tomboyish women depending on the person you ask.

Oh, absolutely -- I've spoken to trans men and women and heard stories.

But when you consider that root of trans, it connects to transgression as well and people may unfortunately have that almost subconscious prejudice and association to condemn transgender people based on that

I would say less "subconscious" and more "subliminal." I see it as an outside influence pushed by society... rarely expressed in words until someone dares challenge the "norm."

 

[muichimotsu]

Let me make it easier for you to understand: Female mammals produce eggs by definition.

And? No one's contesting that fact or definition, because we rarely refer to people as female or male apart from particular contexts.

It's no more your business how someone identifies themselves in terms of a persistent sense of self as regards social norms about masculinity and femininity than it is what's between their legs unless you're a urologist or gynecologist. Also an andrologist, I suppose, though that's more recent as a specialty and not as studied

 

[muichimotsu]

@muichimotsu You know, when you bring up this idea that your gender identity doesn't have to match your sex, you're in a way hinting at the existence a soul. Would you believe that your soul, which associates with a gender, doesn't have to match your sex? That's no different than saying that God made a mistake. God doesn't make mistakes.

Not really, because a soul is more substantive than simply a general idea of human experience that psychology and metaphysics in philosophy both study, psychology where the nuance of gender and sex started in earnest, albeit societally we generally regarded gender as referring to the masculine and feminine (such as in Romance languages, but also general social ideas) while sex specifically was biological traits, like genitals and the like (primary and secondary sexual characteristics).

A soul gets into the weeds of many aspects theology doesn't really do a good explanation of the problems that come up anymore than the even more complex ones of theology proper, soteriology, etc, let alone the more quibbling ecclesiology and such. I believe we have experiential aspects to our general composition as humans, but they're emergent properties, we don't start with such things as infants, we grow into them as our brain further develops.

You're arugably lending more credence to the idea of gender as something that can be aligned with Christianity and not antithetical to it, because if a soul has its own identity that doesn't necessarily align with the flesh, then the physical sex you are born into can be explained as a product of "sin" being brought into the world and doesn't speak to anything of a mistake in your nature as a creation of God.

If anything, it's more an unfortunate situation that God puts people in, not unlike plenty of other things, like struggles with fertility or disabilities like being blind or deaf.

No one's claiming God made a mistake, and if anything the justification is easily hand-waved away as "God works in mysterious ways," Who are you to question that someone is going against God's will when all you have is selective ideas that are translations of translations of languages from cultures that believed the earth was 6000 years old or the like?

 

[TLK Valentine]

And? No one's contesting that fact or definition, because we rarely refer to people as female or male apart from particular contexts.

It's no more your business how someone identifies themselves in terms of a persistent sense of self as regards social norms about masculinity and femininity than it is what's between their legs unless you're a urologist or gynecologist. Also an andrologist, I suppose, though that's more recent as a specialty and not as studied

Kind of odd that someone would seemingly want some sort of medical verification of their ability to ovulate before treating them as they would a female.

 

[muichimotsu]

Kind of odd that someone would seemingly want some sort of medical verification of their ability to ovulate before treating them as they would a female.

It's almost like we intuitively have assumptions, but like many things, that should be corrected by a consideration that we're imperfect and people are complicated. Given my upbringing in the South, I still have to confront unfortunate stereotypes I was likely brought up with about black people, in part because I barely interacted with many since my state has way more white people anyway.

 

[Skye1300]

I had a particular question. Do trans people really believe that by transitioning, that they become the opposite sex? I mean, sometimes I hear the phrase thrown around, that trans women are women. I don’t have to be a biologist to know that’s insane—trans women don’t have eggs. Trans women don’t magically start menstruating. Or who knows, maybe a progressive would fire back, does a woman need to menstruate to be a woman? And then I suppose I would have to argue based on what is normative, namely that women usually menstruate, but trans women never have eggs.


So what I’m getting at is, just how dedicated are progressives to this gender theory? Is it irrelevant to state that what is normal of male and female behavior is obvious, if perhaps they believe that what is normal now may not always be normal—meaning that humans may evolve into something different? Or, maybe progressive minded people know that their theory is senseless, except maybe not all, and they would rather use their ideas to divide and conquer. But then again that just sounds conspiratorial.


For example, I watched a video of a trans woman explaining that he thought the concept of male and femaleness really was a concept that the colonizers came up with. I can’t tell you how absurd that is. I guess there’s no point in defining humans as male and female. But that’s like saying that human procreation is irrelevant, and that’s why we don’t need terms like male and female. This really gets into dangerous territory because it’s an attempt to play God—the idea that we don’t have to have limits based on our gender.


It’s also an attack on God’s very good design, that in the beginning he made them male and female. Even Jesus affirmed this (see Mt 19:4).

I will never understand their way of thinking, I think it's all down to living in a fantasy land. Lots of people don't like something that they are, they can't demand the world treat them the way they feel like they are inside. For example I've heard older people, especially my mom say she still feels young in her mind even though her body is older. So if someone is 60 years old and feels 25 in their mind, they don't get to change their birth certificate and demand people refer to them as a 25 year old. They can try to make themselves look younger, but legally they are still 60 years old. What if someone inside feels like they are still 10 years old? They don't get to legally be a 10 year old and get adopted by someone and not have to work or have responsibilities. Lots of people would love that. Haha. There was a real life story about a midget who tried to pass herself off as a kid and got adopted by a family. I guess she felt like she was really 10 years old inside. You can't just go around letting people call themselves something that goes against reality, because an adult 10 year old going to school and getting adopted will be next. There really are groups of people who identify as little children. So this is next, after transgender will be trans-age regression. Adults legally being children. We have to draw the line somewhere. They call themselves Littles.

 

[Skye1300]

What's the difference between being a Little and a transgender? Littles really feel like they are children in an adult body. Would you like Littles going to school with your children or playing with your children because legally you have to act like they are really children or be accused of being intolerant or racist? LOL We need to teach people to accept reality, not teach the whole world to reject reality and acknowledge them as what they feel like they are.

 

[didactics]

I don't recall accusing you of living in a fantasy for making your little truth claims.

Okay, well I’m sorry for the misunderstanding. It was Tanj who was telling me that I’m living in a fantasy to assume that progressive minded people really believe a trans person can become the opposite sex/gender (If I’m getting that right).



Look, all I’m getting at is that I know there are people out there that truly suffer from gender dystopia. It doesn’t make me a bigot that I don’t want to use the preferred pronouns, because I know they (trans people) don’t really become the opposite sex. If someone trans were to get angry with me because I referred to them as such (what they are, not what they seem), I wouldn’t concede. I might just use their name in place of the pronoun instead, perhaps.

But, I only wanted to know if progressive minded people really believe trans people become the opposite sex. It seems like I get a non-answer—that it doesn’t really matter. When I point out biological features that are unique to male and female, it’s treated like that’s beside the point. Why? I know people are more than what they are—but what they do. But who you are and what your role is, are interrelated. Just because there are things women can do just as much as men, and there is some overlap, doesn’t deny the former. You’re as much who you are as what you do.

You and other like minded people are the only ones who say this. If you stopped repeating this fantasy, no-one would be saying it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Okay, well I’m sorry for the misunderstanding. It was Tanj who was telling me that I’m living in a fantasy to assume that progressive minded people really believe a trans person can become the opposite sex/gender (If I’m getting that right).

You're not getting it quite right if you're going to keep thinking that sex and gender are the same or that the terms are interchangeable.

Look, all I’m getting at is that I know there are people out there that truly suffer from gender dystopia. It doesn’t make me a bigot that I don’t want to use the preferred pronouns, because I know they (trans people) don’t really become the opposite sex.

But are pronouns connected to sex, or gender?

If someone trans were to get angry with me because I referred to them as such (what they are, not what they seem), I wouldn’t concede. I might just use their name in place of the pronoun instead, perhaps.

And how would you know who they "are" without a physical inspection? Are you entitled to make one?

But, I only wanted to know if progressive minded people really believe trans people become the opposite sex. It seems like I get a non-answer—that it doesn’t really matter.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it a non-answer. They become the opposite gender... It's all right there in the name: transgender.

I don't know why it matters so much to you that they choose to change their physicality to more closely match their psychosocial identity -- one would think you would better things to do with your time that make other people's lives more unpleasant for no good reason.

Alas, too many people don't, it seems.

When I point out biological features that are unique to male and female, it’s treated like that’s beside the point. Why?

Because it is... and we'll keep telling you until it eventually sinks in.

I know people are more than what they are—but what they do. But who you are and what your role is, are interrelated.

Who you "are" is far more than your body -- one would think a Christian of all people would be the first to agree... but I've spent enough time on this forum to become inured to disappointment.

And your "role" is not something to be determined by strangers without your consent... but "consent" is a topic which doesn't get nearly enough discussion here or anywhere else.

Just because there are things women can do just as much as men, and there is some overlap, doesn’t deny the former. You’re as much who you are as what you do.

And as long as you think that "who you are" is determined by nothing but the dangly bits you may or may not have between your legs, you've got some catching up to do.

 

[zippy2006]

The subject of the thread itself is gender -- and while the two are connected, one does tend to shift back and forth.

You are attempting to use red herrings to ignore the fact that the ability to produce eggs is precisely one of the scientific ways we identify sex, which contradicts the claim you made in post #41 as follows:

Men don't carry eggs. Some women don't carry eggs.
Women lactate. Some men lactate.

Clearly neither of these characteristics -- by presence or absence -- are useful in defining men or women.

...in that post you were demonstrably using 'men' and 'women' to denote sex, and you made the false claim that the egg-carrying characteristic is not useful in defining men or women.

Perhaps it help you to consider that before jumping into a conversation?

Perhaps you should read post #6, and admit your mistake regarding eggs.

The reason you have confused yourself is because you have tried to accommodate the irrational trans ideology.