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

[didactics]

Why would it be respectful to start treating someone like the opposite gender? Think on that one. All you have to do is put your foot in the door. So it's a step in the right direction? What if I think gender is binary? Is that fair to me that I have to concede on my beliefs just a teensy-weensy bit?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why would it be respectful to start treating someone like the opposite gender? Think on that one.

Opposite of what? Think on that one.

 

[Kylie]

He/him is a reference to male.

He/him is a reference to a man. Being a man is a result of a person's gender identity, not the physical construction of their bodies.

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!

So you accept that the physical structure of a person's body is not what controls their gender identity.

So it seems to me that it is a natural conclusion that we shouldn't use the physical structure of someone's body to decide whether they are a he, a she, or a they. And if a person asks you to use particular pronouns, it doesn't hurt us at all to use them.

 

[Kylie]

Why would it be respectful to start treating someone like the opposite gender? Think on that one. All you have to do is put your foot in the door. So it's a step in the right direction? What if I think gender is binary? Is that fair to me that I have to concede on my beliefs just a teensy-weensy bit?

Is it fair to expect others to live their lives the way you think they should be lived?

 

[zippy2006]

Is it fair to expect others to live their lives the way you think they should be lived?

For your sake I hope so, because that's exactly how you treat slaveholders (link).

 

[didactics]

Is it fair to expect others to live their lives the way you think they should be lived?

No, it's not fair. If I'm not in any realm of authority to do so, I can't expect people to do what I say. I'm just telling you what I believe, namely there are only two genders. That's what it means that gender is binary. Why is it that when people study the skeleton of some deceased body, they can figure out whether it was a male or female?

 

[muichimotsu]

For your sake I hope so, because that's exactly how you treat slaveholders (link).

When you defend slaveholders, not sure you get to act like you have any moral fiber whatsoever, since that entails you think it's morally permissible to EVER treat another person as property, as a mere means and not an end in themselves.

Expecting someone to follow what are reasonably neutral standards of how to treat other people is not the same as preferential antiquated ideas of how one ought to behave as regards things that are no one's business, since they no more cause social unrest than people's choices in entertainment or food in themselves

 

[didactics]

Just what is the soul? I’ll admit I haven’t given a lot of thought on this one. All I know is that if we have a body, we have a soul. The soul gives life to the body, and when you pass on, that is you die, what passes on? It’s a phrase that means the soul passes on. Maybe I’m wrong to think the mind is the soul, who knows. But when it’s your time, and your soul passes on, where’s it going to? Now I think your soul thinks, and so I think it makes sense that you think once you pass on. And you’ll still know that your soul is linked to your gender/sex.



As far as original sin is concerned, I don’t know if it is accurate to say sin is passed down through the body. How exactly it is passed on, I’m not sure. We inherit sin through Adam, if you can believe it.

 

[Kylie]

For your sake I hope so, because that's exactly how you treat slaveholders (link).

You have the whackiest notions about my morality.

 

[Kylie]

No, it's not fair. If I'm not in any realm of authority to do so, I can't expect people to do what I say. I'm just telling you what I believe, namely there are only two genders. That's what it means that gender is binary. Why is it that when people study the skeleton of some deceased body, they can figure out whether it was a male or female?

And, pray tell, what are the two genders?

 

[PloverWing]

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

Just in case this is a genuine question (rather than just a way of saying "trans people are dumb and icky"), I'll give it a go.

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?

Preface: I use the terms "trans" and "transgender" to refer to people who were assigned female at birth and identify as male, or who were assigned male at birth and identify as female. I think of categories like nonbinary, agender, etc., as a different experience. Be aware that some people use the terminology differently, with "transgender" referring to both phenomena. The vocabulary is in flux, as we figure all this out.

With that said: I'm progressive on this issue, and I am not transgender, so I think I fit the intended audience for your question. I also have several transgender people in my life that I care about.

Some people have a very strong internal sense of gender. They feel that it's not only their body that is (say) male, but that their inner self is masculine as well. If they picture living their life in a female body, it would be all wrong for them. If a person like that has a male body, then their inner and outer selves fit, and it's all fine. If a person like that (with an inner masculine self) has a female body, however, they may feel that the mismatch between their body and their inner self is so bad that they're miserable and can't function well in life. I've seen depression, more than once. I've seen suicide.

(Flip the scenario in the obvious way for a person in a male body who feels strongly that their inner self is feminine.)

Physical transition shouldn't be undertaken lightly. You're correct that it's a major, permanent change to the body, that it interferes with childbearing, and that some people regret the transition. There should be extended, careful evaluation by both a therapist and a physician. If talk therapy or a change of clothing style will resolve the dysphoria, by all means, take that gentler path. But for some people, physical transition brings improved quality of life. I've seen that happen in two people who are close to me. For situations like that, I support their decision.

 

[PloverWing]

Now I think your soul thinks, and so I think it makes sense that you think once you pass on. And you’ll still know that your soul is linked to your gender/sex.

Hang on: You've been saying that maleness/femaleness is only a characteristic of bodies, that one's inner self is irrelevant to maleness/femaleness. What do you mean when you say that a soul can have gender?

 

[didactics]

Hang on: You've been saying that maleness/femaleness is only a characteristic of bodies, that one's inner self is irrelevant to maleness/femaleness. What do you mean when you say that a soul can have gender?

I'm saying that your soul is partner with your body.

 

[PloverWing]

I'm saying that your soul is partner with your body.

Do you mean that your soul has a gender, and that it always matches the body? Or something else -- can you clarify?

 

[Skye1300]

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"

My point is, that's how trans gender started out and now look where society is. Once trans becomes normalized and accepted, the next group of strange people will step up to have their denial of reality validated by people. And if you acknowledge reality, you will be again labeled intolerant and or a bigot. Each generation gets more and more confused and farther and farther away from God's plan.

 

[muichimotsu]

My point is, that's how trans gender started out and now look where society is. Once trans becomes normalized and accepted, the next group of strange people will step up to have their denial of reality validated by people. And if you acknowledge reality, you will be again labeled intolerant and or a bigot. Each generation gets more and more confused and farther and farther away from God's plan.

No, Littles as a kink community, afaik, is not remotely where transgender in any implication, let alone the original idea that likely goes back to the 60s or so, came from

Do you...just not care that you're using a blatant fallacy here, fearmongering about a slippery slope that only your group really fears?

Reality is not purely objective, we can seek objectivity, but we are necessarily viewing it through a subjective lens. You no more can approach reality in itself than you can observe your own self thinking

Maybe let your god sort out their own plans instead of thinking you can speak for them as to the specifics of said plan.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, it's not fair. If I'm not in any realm of authority to do so, I can't expect people to do what I say.

And you do understand that you are not in your realm of authority, correct?

I'm just telling you what I believe, namely there are only two genders. That's what it means that gender is binary.

And you do understand that your belief, while common, is not nor has it ever been universal, correct?

Why is it that when people study the skeleton of some deceased body, they can figure out whether it was a male or female?

Because for the nth time, physical characteristics determine biological sex, which is not the same as gender.

 

[didactics]

If all we need to do is have each others backs and not step on anyones toes and just accept the spectrum, then sure, I’m just skippy! But if things point in another direction, maybe it’s really that a Creator God makes us a little uncomfortable to deal with. After all, the natural follow up to that is: are we held accountable to God? Are we held to our own subjective standard of morality, or is God Holy?



The Bible tells us that a heart issue does exist and the heart of it is sin. It also tells us lying, blasphemy, adultery, thieving and murder is a sin, even when it is not carried out but is in our hearts. So if it seems unfair God levels us and puts all of us in our place showing that His Law demands perfect obedience which none of us are capable of, but He is. The Ten Commandments were written in stone by God himself, on two stone tablets. Yes that’s in the Old Testament and Jesus came to fulfill the Law not abolish it and He said, whoever loves God keeps my commandments (see Jn 14:15). So what if we don’t keep His commandments? According to that standard, it means we are deserving of the eternal punishment in hell. Is that too much a punishment? You might ask. The Bible tells us that His Law reveals this alienation from Him. It may seem unfair to us but it is out of love that God warns us of our eternal dilemma.



Why we can’t just try to shape up our life



Why won’t God accept me by my own terms? It’s for the simple reason that God does not grade us on a curve, 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law (James 2:10,11). God is so just that He will not let us go on our own merit. We are all bent on sin and have turned our backs to God, so He must change us. This is the free gift of grace, but it came at a cost— His Son. What we must do is admit our wrong, confess our sins to Him and know that we do deserve His punishment. What the cross shows us is that the wrath of God is not only for the sin or crime against Him but the wrath abides on the sinner. Sin leads to death, which is what Jesus endured three days in burial (though He was not a sinner). Jesus’ work of salvation is shown by pardoning the sinner, taking the punishment we deserve, and offers us new life by His authority as shown in His rising from the dead. His call to us is simple, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt 3:2; 4:17) It is not that we are unable to understand it; it is a heart issue and the problem is sin. We need a Savior from sin as much as we need a Savior from hell.



What we all need is a new identity and that's true for the drunkard or adulterer or fornicator and the effeminate (trans woman). We cannot call this a mere resolution; we are called to repent and put our trust in Christ. He lived the perfect life for us, took the punishment we deserve, died on the cross and rose again.



Does that mean we repent perfectly? No. But we need to put off our former way of living, such that our former identity doesn't control us. It is not by the measure of our faith for Jesus said, "truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.” (Matt 17:20) No one is a mature believer the moment they put their faith in Christ. But, those who are His own follow Him, and His righteousness far exceeds anyone's self identity.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If all we need to do is have each others backs and not step on anyones toes and just accept the spectrum, then sure, I’m just skippy! But if things point in another direction, maybe it’s really that a Creator God makes us a little uncomfortable to deal with. After all, the natural follow up to that is: are we held accountable to God? Are we held to our own subjective standard of morality, or is God Holy?

Well, let's talk about that Creator God...

Let's start with one of His creations: My friend Phil.

Now, Phil is,of course, one of God's creations, but alas, it would seem that on that day, God was a little careless when it came to Phil's pancreas. You see, Phil is a type 1 Diabetic, and if things point to God's standard of morality, Phil would have been dead years ago.

But... with a daily injection of insulin, Phil is just fine.


Now, let's discuss another one of God's creations: Me.

God chose to make me nearsighted, and rather than accept His judgement and spend my entire life squinting at things, I chose to wear glasses. That worked for a while, and then something better came along -- Laser Corrective Surgery. I had my eyes zapped as a gift for myself on my 30th birthday, and I haven't needed glasses since. Just another example of science fixing God's oversight.


So, accepting God's morality, I'd be half-blind and Phil would be all-dead. Improving on it has improved both our lives dramatically, I dare say...

...and if you need more proof that sometimes God's handiwork needs a little tweaking, I've got two words for you: pediatric cancer.

Is this the battle you want to fight?

 

[didactics]

Well, let's talk about that Creator God...

Let's start with one of His creations: My friend Phil.

Now, Phil is,of course, one of God's creations, but alas, it would seem that on that day, God was a little careless when it came to Phil's pancreas. You see, Phil is a type 1 Diabetic, and if things point to God's standard of morality, Phil would have been dead years ago.

But... with a daily injection of insulin, Phil is just fine.


Now, let's discuss another one of God's creations: Me.

God chose to make me nearsighted, and rather than accept His judgement and spend my entire life squinting at things, I chose to wear glasses. That worked for a while, and then something better came along -- Laser Corrective Surgery. I had my eyes zapped as a gift for myself on my 30th birthday, and I haven't needed glasses since. Just another example of science fixing God's oversight.


So, accepting God's morality, I'd be half-blind and Phil would be all-dead. Improving on it has improved both our lives dramatically, I dare say...

...and if you need more proof that sometimes God's handiwork needs a little tweaking, I've got two words for you: pediatric cancer.

Is this the battle you want to fight?

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