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

[TLK Valentine]

Yes sir, this is the battle I want fight. First of all, never did I hint at being anti-medicine.

Not to your knowledge, to be sure...

Second, where do you think we get the raw material to make medical advancements? It comes from creation. Creation points to a Creator. I don’t know what’s with your diatribe against a Creator considering your agnostic.

None at all.

But I support Phil's use of insulin to overcome his flawed body, and I certainly support my own use of lasers to overcome my own flawed body...


...and I support the transgendered's use of whatever they may need, from hormones to surgery, to overcome their flawed bodies.

Why don't you?

 

[didactics]

Not to your knowledge, to be sure...



None at all.

But I support Phil's use of insulin to overcome his flawed body, and I certainly support my own use of lasers to overcome my own flawed body...


...and I support the transgendered's use of whatever they may need, from hormones to surgery, to overcome their flawed bodies.

Why don't you?

I’ve misread you. I took it literally when you asked a rhetorical question, “Is this the battle you want to fight?” And I thought, ‘okay, we’re going to discuss if it’s tenable to know the existence of the Creator.’ But, you really just want to debate me more about gender theory don’t you?



Why don’t I phrase it this way—when did I ever hint at being anti-medicine?

 

[Kylie]

@didactics I hope you haven't forgotten about the simple question I asked in post 110. What are the two genders you claim are the only ones?

 

[didactics]

@didactics I hope you haven't forgotten about the simple question I asked in post 110. What are the two genders you claim are the only ones?

But instead of giving me a gender theory 101, why don't you give me a biology 101.

Sex is a binary, with two rigidly fixed options: male or female, based on a person’s reproductive anatomy and functions.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I’ve misread you. I took it literally when you asked a rhetorical question, “Is this the battle you want to fight?” And I thought, ‘okay, we’re going to discuss if it’s tenable to know the existence of the Creator.’ But, you really just want to debate me more about gender theory don’t you?

Well, this is a thread about gender... why derail it?

Why don’t I phrase it this way—when did I ever hint at being anti-medicine?

Roughly around the time you started this thread, as like as not.

But I could be wrong -- lines like this:

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.

... might lead people to think you're anti-woman... depending on what "limits" you want to base on gender.

 

[Kylie]

But instead of giving me a gender theory 101, why don't you give me a biology 101.

Sex is a binary, with two rigidly fixed options: male or female, based on a person’s reproductive anatomy and functions.

Okay, and how do you tell if someone is a male or female?

 

[jacks]

Okay, and how do you tell if someone is a male or female?

You cradle them gently in your arms, turn them carefully onto their backs, then lift up their tails and look.

 

[muichimotsu]

But instead of giving me a gender theory 101, why don't you give me a biology 101.

Sex is a binary, with two rigidly fixed options: male or female, based on a person’s reproductive anatomy and functions.

Pretty sure sex is defined as more than just the primary characteristics, because of things that you brought up in another post: bone density just one of several traits observed as distinct for the two sexes, but not indicating a strict binary, but a spectrum, since males and females can vary in terms of those secondary and even primary traits (not all uteruses, etc are created equal, for instance) and then we have intersex, which should not just be dismissed as unimportant because they're a smaller number of people.

 

[muichimotsu]

You cradle them gently in your arms, turn them carefully onto their backs, then lift up their tails and look.

Except that's not always a guarantee, especially for infants. And that applies for determining the sex of non human animals moreso, arguably, especially to an untrained eye. As they get older, it's easier, especially if, say, a stray cat you feed is clearly not fixed, you can see certain things when he cleans himself a certain way.

 

[Kylie]

You cradle them gently in your arms, turn them carefully onto their backs, then lift up their tails and look.

I'd like to see if @didactics has the same view as you.

 

[Kylie]

Except that's not always a guarantee, especially for infants. And that applies for determining the sex of non human animals moreso, arguably, especially to an untrained eye. As they get older, it's easier, especially if, say, a stray cat you feed is clearly not fixed, you can see certain things when he cleans himself a certain way.

I believe the technical term is "troublepuffs."

 

[didactics]

Well, this is a thread about gender... why derail it?

I’m not derailing my thread. I put it under the topic of Christian only, so it’s definitely relevant if I want to share the gospel.

Roughly around the time you started this thread, as like as not.

But I could be wrong -- lines like this:



... might lead people to think you're anti-woman... depending on what "limits" you want to base on gender.

Well what I mean is that gender/sex is binary. So to put it in your terms—biological sex—you’ve conceded that it hasn’t been done yet, i.e. a biological man to become a biological woman.
There is never going to be a scientific paper that can prove a man can become a woman.

 

[didactics]

Pretty sure sex is defined as more than just the primary characteristics, because of things that you brought up in another post: bone density just one of several traits observed as distinct for the two sexes, but not indicating a strict binary, but a spectrum, since males and females can vary in terms of those secondary and even primary traits (not all uteruses, etc are created equal, for instance) and then we have intersex, which should not just be dismissed as unimportant because they're a smaller number of people.

But technically speaking, if the primary functions are working properly, then the secondary traits should not be fundamentally altered, right?

 

[didactics]

I'd like to see if @didactics has the same view as you.

See I think it’s too reductionist that if I think gender/sex is binary then our genitals are the only thing that define us. Most of us know that we have hormones too. I understand next to nothing about what chromosomes are, but I know it is a primary trait distinguishes between male and female.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I’m not derailing my thread. I put it under the topic of Christian only, so it’s definitely relevant if I want to share the gospel.

Um, no... first of all, your thread is in the "Open to all members" part of the forum -- if it wasn't, I wouldn't be here.

Second, if "sharing the Gospel" was your intention, why weren't you honest about that in your first post?

Well what I mean is that gender/sex is binary.

And you are incorrect in that meaning for several reasons -- not the least of which is that you're still assuming the terms are interchangable.

So to put it in your terms—biological sex—you’ve conceded that it hasn’t been done yet, i.e. a biological man to become a biological woman.

This is true -- and yet, they are still not binary.

I assume that you have not heard of Intersex people -- those whose bodies biologically differ from the conventional expectations of "male" or "female."

For starters, their chromosomes differ from the XX ("female") or XY ("male") standards -- there are Xs, XXYs, XYYs, etc. Also, their bodies respond differently to hormones (specifically testosterone and estrogen) than people of their apparent biological sex. Finally, their ability to produce sperm and/or eggs is not what you'd expect -- most of them can produce neither, while according to anecdotal evidence (I haven't found a link to confirm this) a very few can produce both.

Now, we're only talking about a small percentage of the population who are biologically intersex -- because the definitions of sex are not as clear cut as you would like, and not everyone with these biological traits chooses to come forward, the estimates range from as high as 4% to as low as .0018% of the population. (source: Intersex population figures – Intersex Human Rights Australia)

...but any number in that range is still larger than zero, which means there are people who don't fall into your biological distinctions of "male" or "female."

There is never going to be a scientific paper that can prove a man can become a woman.

Because God says so, or because you do?

And once again, you're ignoring gender because it inconveniences you.

And please note that none of this has anything to do with the Gospel... which you're not sharing in any meaningful way.

 

[didactics]

Um, no... first of all, your thread is in the "Open to all members" part of the forum -- if it wasn't, I wouldn't be here.

Second, if "sharing the Gospel" was your intention, why weren't you honest about that in your first post?

I was honest about it, because the discussion is placed in the (Christian only) catalog. I’m not saying that means you can’t be in this discussion, but it should allow me to relate, a precedence, for my bias in favor of God’s Word.

I assume that you have not heard of Intersex people -- those whose bodies biologically differ from the conventional expectations of "male" or "female."

For starters, their chromosomes differ from the XX ("female") or XY ("male") standards -- there are Xs, XXYs, XYYs, etc. Also, their bodies respond differently to hormones (specifically testosterone and estrogen) than people of their apparent biological sex. Finally, their ability to produce sperm and/or eggs is not what you'd expect -- most of them can produce neither, while according to anecdotal evidence (I haven't found a link to confirm this) a very few can produce both.

Now, we're only talking about a small percentage of the population who are biologically intersex -- because the definitions of sex are not as clear cut as you would like, and not everyone with these biological traits chooses to come forward, the estimates range from as high as 4% to as low as .0018% of the population. (source: Intersex population figures – Intersex Human Rights Australia)

...but any number in that range is still larger than zero, which means there are people who don't fall into your biological distinctions of "male" or "female."



Because God says so, or because you do?

And once again, you're ignoring gender because it inconveniences you.

And please note that none of this has anything to do with the Gospel... which you're not sharing in any meaningful way.

Okay, so I was just reading something about the subject of bones. From what I gather, some skeletal remains have to be categorized as ‘indeterminate’ even if they’re looking at distinct features like the hip bone. In most cases, the pelvic arch is wider in females, narrow in males. And here’s the quote: “For example, a particularly tall, narrow-hipped woman might be mistakenly cataloged as a man.”

But from what I understand, there are no cases where—if you had an entire skeletal remains preserved—it would be impossible for an anthropologist to determine its sex. Correct? As there would be other defining features to help make the case I presume.

 

[didactics]

Okay my mistake, it's not in the Christian catalog.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I was honest about it, because the discussion is placed in the (Christian only) catalog. I’m not saying that means you can’t be in this discussion, but it should allow me to relate, a precedence, for my bias in favor of God’s Word.

Once again, you seem woefully unaware of how the forum works. The discussion is clearly in the (Open to All Members) catalog. Non-Christians such as myself would not be allowed to post in this thread if it were not.

Second, What does that say about transgendered people who are not Christians? Why would you choose to hide your discussions about their situation from them?

Third, exactly what Gospel are you trying to share here? Jesus was a breaker of societal norms, and happily sat with and ministered to people whom the establishment at the time had written off -- the lepers, the poor, the prostitutes... even the Roman occupiers.

Of course, now you're the establishment, aren't you? Makes me wonder where Jesus -- let along his message -- actually fits in your world. What makes the transgendered less deserving of love and dignity than the lepers?

You're certainly sharing... something... but I'm not so sure it's "Gospel."

Okay, so I was just reading something about the subject of bones. From what I gather, some skeletal remains have to be categorized as ‘indeterminate’ even if they’re looking at distinct features like the hip bone. In most cases, the pelvic arch is wider in females, narrow in males. And here’s the quote: “For example, a particularly tall, narrow-hipped woman might be mistakenly cataloged as a man.”

And I thought you said you were here to share the Gospel... what do bones have to do with Jesus?

I do wish you'd pick a story and stick with it?

But from what I understand, there are no cases where—if you had an entire skeletal remains preserved—it would be impossible for an anthropologist to determine its sex. Correct? As there would be other defining features to help make the case I presume.

What does that have to do with gender?

 

[didactics]

I must have forgot that I didn’t put it in a Christian only section, but I didn’t know there was a restriction of who could reply either way. I guess I thought it would be okay considering it’s a Christian forum after all. If my post doesn’t get scrubbed then it’s all good.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I must have forgot that I didn’t put it in a Christian only section, but I didn’t know there was a restriction of who could reply either way. I guess I thought it would be okay considering it’s a Christian forum after all. If my post doesn’t get scrubbed then it’s all good.

Quite all right -- actually, you could ask the moderators to move this thread into one of the "Christians-Only" areas... when they do, they'll scrub every post from a non-Christian (as well as any post responding to one), and you'd get to start over.

Personally, I think it'd be better if you didn't. The topic affects the transgender and the people who know and care about them, so it would make sense to get as many viewpoints as possible.

Besides, if you really are here to share the Gospel, why would you stay in the Christians-Only section? You'd only be preaching to the choir.