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

[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.

Far be it for me to bring patriarchy into it, but when you look at the traditionally assigned "roles" that the genders are expected to fulfill, it's clear that males taking on female "roles" is seen as some sort of psychological disease, for why would they want to take an apparent step down?

The reverse-- women "stepping up" to fulfill male roles, is more often seen as a novelty... unless they start making progress... then they're a threat to the system, somehow.

 

[TLK Valentine]

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:



...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 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.

Indeed -- even I can conflate biology and psychology when the two are related.

The Japanese proverb is true -- even monkeys can fall out of trees.

 

[didactics]

Maybe with my original post, I should have articulated a little better what my particular question is.



Regardless of what trans identifying people think about this (although that would be an interesting question in of itself) what do progressive minded people think about it, who are not trans. So the question in question is, if they’re rational enough to know a man cannot become a woman in the natural sense, why would they encourage, assist, enable them to go through surgeries and hormone treatment? I mean it’s one thing if you have a shady doctor who doesn’t care if it seems unethical, but why should a culture at large promote it? Now I can see how some progressives might want to push back with, well why does it matter to you what others want to do with their body?

And to that, I would have to say it’s unhealthy. We’re not doing anyone a favor by incentivizing this behavior. It is a matter of ethics because not everything that makes us happy is good for us. How is it unhealthy? For one, the surgeries performed can have irreversible effects. Two, we don’t know what effects it has on the body to be on hormone treatment for long periods of time. Many times these individuals become infertile.

 

[muichimotsu]

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:



...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 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.

Nice try, but someone making a mistake in usage of terms meant to denote gender, denoting concepts of man and woman as contrasted with male and female, the latter denoting sex pretty much exclusively, doesn't mean they've been "indoctrinated" or such.

Some men carry eggs because they are biologically female, but don't identify as women. Those same men can lactate, but that's not nearly as relevant because lactation is not strictly related to the female reproductive organs, so that's arguably far less pertinent if we're talking about male/female distinctions

Some women don't carry eggs because they are biologically male, but don't identify as men

You see the comparison and contrast there? We tend to associate male to man and female to woman, but that's a reductive standard in considering physical traits that aren't universal or static in nature as the essential determinant for whether we consider someone a man or a woman, reflecting masculine or feminine dominant social identities that are no more universal than the idea of what constitutes a god or spirit.

 

[comana]

Maybe with my original post, I should have articulated a little better what my particular question is.



Regardless of what trans identifying people think about this (although that would be an interesting question in of itself) what do progressive minded people think about it, who are not trans. So the question in question is, if they’re rational enough to know a man cannot become a woman in the natural sense, why would they encourage, assist, enable them to go through surgeries and hormone treatment? I mean it’s one thing if you have a shady doctor who doesn’t care if it seems unethical, but why should a culture at large promote it? Now I can see how some progressives might want to push back with, well why does it matter to you what others want to do with their body?

And to that, I would have to say it’s unhealthy. We’re not doing anyone a favor by incentivizing this behavior. It is a matter of ethics because not everything that makes us happy is good for us. How is it unhealthy? For one, the surgeries performed can have irreversible effects. Two, we don’t know what effects it has on the body to be on hormone treatment for long periods of time. Many times these individuals become infertile.

I would say leave the decisions, health risks, counseling, etc between those considering/going through transition and their medical professionals. It’s not anyone else’s business.

 

[muichimotsu]

Maybe with my original post, I should have articulated a little better what my particular question is.



Regardless of what trans identifying people think about this (although that would be an interesting question in of itself) what do progressive minded people think about it, who are not trans. So the question in question is, if they’re rational enough to know a man cannot become a woman in the natural sense, why would they encourage, assist, enable them to go through surgeries and hormone treatment? I mean it’s one thing if you have a shady doctor who doesn’t care if it seems unethical, but why should a culture at large promote it? Now I can see how some progressives might want to push back with, well why does it matter to you what others want to do with their body?

And to that, I would have to say it’s unhealthy. We’re not doing anyone a favor by incentivizing this behavior. It is a matter of ethics because not everything that makes us happy is good for us. How is it unhealthy? For one, the surgeries performed can have irreversible effects. Two, we don’t know what effects it has on the body to be on hormone treatment for long periods of time. Many times these individuals become infertile.

You mean cis people? As opposed to trans people? That's the term you're looking for

Man and woman are not biological terms, that's where you're starting with a mistaken premise.

And no one is saying you can become a female or male in terms of surgery because that would entail not only chromosomal changes, but fundamental replacement of reproductive organs and hormonal balances to get to even some "normal" standard.

It's not incentivized in any financial sense, the cost of these procedures and surgeries is rarely covered by any kind of insurance, unless that's been changing recently. So that's something a trans person would have to either work to get the funds themselves or get help from charitable people

Pretty sure we have been studying effects, but merely because it's inconclusive now doesn't mean we should just outright forbid these procedures when even getting such things tends to require efforts that are not often known by the general public to be a thing, it's not just done on a whim and any doctor worth their salt wouldn't approve that anyway.

You have to generally live as the opposite gender for a year and then get evaluated afterwards to be considered for reconstructive surgery or the like, afaik.

And that's just one example I'm aware of, hormone treatments are also complicated in that you don't just go to one, you have to prep the body from what I understand

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

Pretty sure you've misunderstood that group, because it's not necessarily done in the broader sense, but within a specific context. They are not demanding they be treated as children anymore than a crossdresser is demanding they be treated as the opposite gender they're presenting as in the context of what can be enjoyable and not reflection of trans identity

Slippery slope fallacy is just dripping from this attempt at an argument, to say nothing of appealing to petty fears and using children as a political pawn to generalize a group and demonize anyone you can associate with them as "irrational" or "insane"

 

[didactics]

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.

The body itself is not evil. It is through the body, sin is passed down.
"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me (Psalm-51:5)!

 

[muichimotsu]

The body itself is not evil. It is through the body, sin is passed down.
"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me (Psalm-51:5)!

So the body is the medium for evil? I didn't claim it was evil, most Christians aren't Gnostics, but the idea that sin is passed down through the body would potentially lend credence to the idea that trans people are not created as a mistake, but that "sin" has unfortunately made them be born in a body that does not match their "soul" if we're going with this angle that the soul is the seat of gender identity

Problem is that can still be interpreted as essentially doing something bad to even try and align your body more with your gender identity in any way, even just wearing clothes of the opposite gender and such, let alone HRT and such

 

[Kylie]

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.

The thing is, though, that the pronouns a person uses isn't about what's between their legs. It's about what their sense of self is saying.

You wouldn't stop referring to a man as "he" if he was in an accident and lost his genitals, would you? The pronouns have never been about what's between their legs.

But, I only wanted to know if progressive minded people really believe trans people become the opposite sex.

It's not about physical sex, it's about gender. And that never changes. A trans woman was always a woman, even when they were born and were thought to be a boy. And the surgery isn't about changing something so they can become a woman, it's about making their body better fit the person that their sense of self tells them that they are.

 

[didactics]

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.

Yeah, but think about it: who you are—what is that? Is it a soul? Are you acknowledging that as human beings we have a soul?



For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? (Mk 8:36)



Can you really be agnostic if you know there is a soul?



I didn’t mean to say that the soul is not more important than the body. It is way more important. What I meant is who you are (biologically speaking) is just as important as what you do.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yeah, but think about it: who you are—what is that? Is it a soul? Are you acknowledging that as human beings we have a soul?



For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? (Mk 8:36)



Can you really be agnostic if you know there is a soul?



I didn’t mean to say that the soul is not more important than the body. It is way more important. What I meant is who you are (biologically speaking) is just as important as what you do.

Pretty sure theology doesn't have a singular answer to the nature of the soul, some Christians tend towards the idea that the body and soul are intertwined, like the soul is the foundation and the body is important only in the sense that physicality is kind of innate to existence in a way. Even in the final judgment, we don't just exist as souls, the general consensus tends to be we'll get perfected bodies, because God can do that.

What one does is far more important than things that are impermanent and imperfect by nature: our bodies fail, they weaken, they are vulnerable to harm. All that is meant to be countered by the eventual hope of eternal life Christianity offers, it doesn't mean the body is nearly as important as you're suggesting

 

[didactics]

Man and woman are not biological terms, that's where you're starting with a mistaken premise.

And no one is saying you can become a female or male in terms of surgery because that would entail not only chromosomal changes, but fundamental replacement of reproductive organs and hormonal balances to get to even some "normal" standard.

But it is a biological term. A woman is an adult female human being. Notice the word female in that definition?

 

[didactics]

Pretty sure you've misunderstood that group, because it's not necessarily done in the broader sense, but within a specific context. They are not demanding they be treated as children anymore than a crossdresser is demanding they be treated as the opposite gender they're presenting as in the context of what can be enjoyable and not reflection of trans identity

There are trans people who demand you use the pronouns they want. That's all it takes to treat someone like the opposite gender and I'm not buying it.

 

[muichimotsu]

But it is a biological term. A woman is an adult female human being. Notice the word female in that definition?

That's not a biological term, that's a term that incidentally references biology as a matter of common usage, but is not identical in the meaning of female as a biological term specifically

 

[muichimotsu]

There are trans people who demand you use the pronouns they want. That's all it takes to treat someone like the opposite gender and I'm not buying it.

Because it's based on societal norms of what pronouns refer to. As others aptly pointed out, it isn't meant to entail female/male or refer to one's genitals because, as polite civil people, we don't usually care about your genitals, unless it's a medical emergency related to that

 

[Kylie]

But it is a biological term. A woman is an adult female human being. Notice the word female in that definition?

A person's gender identity is not determined by their biology. It's not determined by what they've got between their legs.

There are trans people who demand you use the pronouns they want. That's all it takes to treat someone like the opposite gender and I'm not buying it.

No, that's not "all it takes" but it's a start. And why would you not want to show them that little bit of respect by addressing them in the way they wish to be addressed?

 

[muichimotsu]

There are trans people who demand you use the pronouns they want. That's all it takes to treat someone like the opposite gender and I'm not buying it.

Littles are not who the poster suggested they are, it's not unlike those who practice stuff in the BDSM community, they're not forcing it on society as a whole in general, if at all.

 

[didactics]

The thing is, though, that the pronouns a person uses isn't about what's between their legs. It's about what their sense of self is saying.

He/him is a reference to male. I could be wrong in thinking male and female is biological term, forgive me, I don't really know. I was not suggesting that if a male lost his penis in an accident then he would cease to be male. There is a lot to biology. If I have lost my penis in an accident, I would still have the anatomy of a male. My bone structure is different from a female. I wouldn't be able to deliver, have a newborn child pass between my legs if I wanted, could I? It doesn't make sense to think that if I lost my penis in an accident I would cease to be male. What would I be then? You only have two options. Would it make me become a female I ceased to have a penis? Of course not!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yeah, but think about it: who you are—what is that? Is it a soul? Are you acknowledging that as human beings we have a soul?

Can a "soul" be male or female? As it has no legs -- let alone no dangly bits to hang between them -- it doesn't help determine your identity.

The point is that your identity is determined by many things... In fact, one could say that our "identity" is the result of reconciling the numerous contradictions imposed on us by biology, society, psychology, sexuality, culture, religion, etc., etc....

But ultimately, our identity is self-determined.

For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? (Mk 8:36)

I prefer quoting that line with Matthew 16:26 -- but what's your point?

Can you really be agnostic if you know there is a soul?

Oh, please... Don't derail the thread just because you think you see a shot at a quick and easy conversion.

But to answer your question: yes, I can be an agnostic and believe in the intangible... and you don't have the authority to tell me I can't be.

I didn’t mean to say that the soul is not more important than the body. It is way more important. What I meant is who you are (biologically speaking) is just as important as what you do.

But "who you are" is a lot more than simply biological -- it's societal, psychological, sexual, racial, generational, etc., etc... but most of all, it's intersectional. No single factor determines "who you are," and certainly no outsider gets to do it for you without your consent.

And isn't that what truly bothers you about the transgendered?