Transgender "Inclusive"Language:Where does it end and begin?

[LovelyGiselle]

I don't see any need to change the definition of either.I think this is a pretty simplistic view. Of the few transgender people I've met, none of them thought they would become a biologically reproductive member of the opposite gender. I don't know. What does she claim to be? Do her kids call her mum or dad? And ultimately, why should anyone outside her immediate family care in the slightest?

Now, care to answer my question(s)?

There are more details in the post. Why do you see no need to change the definition?

According to activists and supporterss, that makes you a bigot. This is what I also mean by an agenda. Because not many people actually see past face value of the slippery slope and the actual consequences in the near future of issues like this.

You also asked why should anyone care----I care and we all should care because this issue impacts every man woman and child. This issue is not just about someone being allowed to change themselves. This issue is about people literally spreading a changed definition of civilisation and God's design.

 

[Armoured]

There are more details in the post. Why do you see no need to change the definition?

Why should it? The definitions as they stand seem perfectly adequate to me.

According to activists and supports, that makes you a bigot. This is what I also mean by an agenda. Because not many people actually see past face value of the slippery slope and the actual consequences in the near future of issues like this.

You seem to make these sorts of claims a lot. According to WHICH activists and supporters? Why are their views significant? Because, of the admittedly small number of transgender people I've had much to do with, they don't have a problem with my views, certainly never called me a bigot.

You also asked why should anyone care----I care and we all should care because this issue impacts every man woman and child. This issue is not just about someone being allowed to change themselves. This issue is about people literally spreading a changed definition of civilisation and God's design.

I really don't think so, nor see how. If the person called Bruce Jenner at birth, who has XY chromosomes in each of his cells wants to call himself Caitlyn and refer to him/herself as a woman, no skin off my nose. Who's it hurting? Other than being something new in Western society, what actual, specific harm does it do anyone?

 

[LovelyGiselle]

Why should it? The definitions as they stand seem perfectly adequate to me.

You seem to make these sorts of claims a lot. According to WHICH activists and supporters? Why are their views significant? Because, of the admittedly small number of transgender people I've had much to do with, they don't have a problem with my views, certainly never called me a bigot.

I really don't think so, nor see how. If the person called Bruce Jenner at birth, who has XY chromosomes in each of his cells wants to call himself Caitlyn and refer to him/herself as a woman, no skin off my nose. Who's it hurting? Other than being something new in Western society, what actual, specific harm does it do anyone?

With all due respect, as a Christian, you should be able to discern DEEPER----not at face value as to why this issue is a problem.

The fact that activists are actually wanting to label all of us "cis gender" is just a small little piece of the pie.

This reply of yours also shows me that you did NOT READ the rest of examples in my above post. You just skimmed or skipped straight to answer without carefully reading

Again, I always assume people on this site are UP TO DATE with what is going on in the mainstream world. But clearly, some of you are not. YES there ARE transgender activists who would consider you and me bigoted for not saying that a man can become mother.

Again this issue DOES IMPACT every man woman and child--Please think critically as to why.

 

[LovelyGiselle]

Why should it? The definitions as they stand seem perfectly adequate to me.

You seem to make these sorts of claims a lot. According to WHICH activists and supporters? Why are their views significant? Because, of the admittedly small number of transgender people I've had much to do with, they don't have a problem with my views, certainly never called me a bigot.

I really don't think so, nor see how. If the person called Bruce Jenner at birth, who has XY chromosomes in each of his cells wants to call himself Caitlyn and refer to him/herself as a woman, no skin off my nose. Who's it hurting? Other than being something new in Western society, what actual, specific harm does it do anyone?

Also, harm is not always physical.

 

[Armoured]

YES there ARE transgender activists who would consider you and me bigoted for not saying that a man can become mother.

I don't doubt it. And the Westboro Baptists say some mean things too. Any reason to take said activists particularly seriously?

Again this issue DOES IMPACT every man women and child--Please think critically as to why.

I have this mental tool I use in situations like this when people are predicting civilisation/Christianity ending strife and disorder. It's very simple, and you're welcome to use it. It's this; simply look at the thing being discussed and ask "is it worse than Europe in the 30s/40s?" so, thats the NAZIs and the Soviets doing their thing, genocide war, all of that. Now, as you may already know, Europe, and society in general, made it through that period. It wasn't a civilisation ending apocalypse. So... I apply that as a yard stick to the thing being discussed, and if it's worse than Europe in the 30s/40s, I'll join in the hysterical doomsaying, run around in circles and shriek "The End is Nigh!". If it's NOT as bad as 30s/40s Europe, however (which, bad as it was, society and Christianity survived) then I kinda shrug and say "I'm sure we'll be OK."

So, let's apply it here;

Is Caitlyn Jenner claiming to be a woman, and society accepting transgender people generally, as bad as Europe in the 30s/40s?

What do YOU think?

 

[Armoured]

Also, harm is not always physical.

I didn't say physical harm. There's plenty of types of demonstrable harm that aren't physical. But does this cause any of them? Show your working, please.

 

[LovelyGiselle]

I don't doubt it. And the Westboro Baptists say some mean things too. Any reason to take said activists particularly seriously?
I have this mental tool I use in situations like this when people are predicting civilisation/Christianity ending strife and disorder. It's very simple, and you're welcome to use it. It's this; simply look at the thing being discussed and ask "is it worse than Europe in the 30s/40s?" so, thats the NAZIs and the Soviets doing their thing, genocide war, all of that. Now, as you may already know, Europe, and society in general, made it through that period. It wasn't a civilisation ending apocalypse. So... I apply that as a yard stick to the thing being discussed, and if it's worse than Europe in the 30s/40s, I'll join in the hysterical doomsaying, run around in circles and shriek "The End is Nigh!". If it's NOT as bad as 30s/40s Europe, however (which, bad as it was, society and Christianity survived) then I kinda shrug and say "I'm sure we'll be OK."

So, let's apply it here;

Is Caitlyn Jenner claiming to be a woman, and society accepting transgender people generally, as bad as Europe in the 30s/40s?

What do YOU think?

My goodness please use discernment and see this issue for what it is--An ungodly agenda.

Society calling Cailyn Jenner a woman is a problem.

 

[LovelyGiselle]

I didn't say physical harm. There's plenty of types of demonstrable harm that aren't physical. But does this cause any of them? Show your working, please.

You also seem to forget that this agenda does open up a nasty can of worms. Seriously, slippery slopes can arise from this. This is why the question of my post is:
"Transgender "Inclusive"Language:Where does it end and begin?"

With added details on these types of future scenarios. You need to wake up and use discernment and see these things that can cause harmful consequences in the future.

 

[LovelyGiselle]

The biggest problem in the Church right now, is the lack of discernment and the disturbing lukewarm, fence riding, world conforming "comfort" zone that many Christians seem to place themselves in. Hopping on board any mainstream agenda or being too afraid to criticize it.

God help us.

The moral bankruptcy present in the Church today is absolutely appalling.

People don't want to take a stand for what is right anymore. People just want to agree with almost everything that the pop culture world spits out and passes as "equality". God has defined equality already.

And anything outside of God's design is wrong. Plain and simple.

 

[Armoured]

My goodness please use discernment and see this issue for what it is--An ungodly agenda.

Society calling Cailyn Jenner a woman is a problem.

Why?

Again, who does it hurt, and how, specifically?

 

[Armoured]

And anything outside of God's design is wrong. Plain and simple.

Well, God apparently planned for some people to be transgender. I don't see the problem.

 

[LovelyGiselle]

Well, God apparently planned for some people to be transgender. I don't see the problem.

Wolf in sheep's clothing. You do realize all sin and problems like deformities or abnormalities are "natural" too? These things come from the original sin--The fall from Adam.

God does not like any of this.

You obviously have sucked up into liberal propaganda.

 

[KarateCowboy]

GID is mental disorder, and "trans" is a feeble, primitive way of dealing with it. As we do more research, it will fade into history as better treatments arise.

 

[Armoured]

Wolf in sheep's clothing. You do realize all sin and problems like deformities or abnormalities are "natural" too? These things come from the original sin--The fall from Adam.

God does not like any of this.

You obviously have sucked up into liberal propaganda.

Sure all deformities are caused by sin. You don't go around trying to convince people accepting people in wheelchairs is sinful, do you? Why should the "deformity" of transgendered people be any different?

 

[Armoured]

GID is mental disorder, and "trans" is a feeble, primitive way of dealing with it. As we do more research, it will fade into history as better treatments arise.

Feel free to believe and hope that. Until better treatments arise, however, accepting trans people as what they say they are is the best clinical option.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

GID is mental disorder, and "trans" is a feeble, primitive way of dealing with it. As we do more research, it will fade into history as better treatments arise.

I think it's a collection of psychological problems paired with not being confident in their gender. To deal with it they change genders.
A person feeling they are not the gender their body dictates is not a cause for wanting to commit suicide, in other words. All the scientific field has done is cave in to society's demands.

 

[Red Fox]

Well, God apparently planned for some people to be transgender. I don't see the problem.

Remember it is the tendency of many Christians to focus on and criticize other people for their sins than to focus on and correct their own sins. The old saying of "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones" rings true in discussions like this one. It seems to be much easier for these Christians to point out the sins of other people than it is for them to face and deal with their own sins. However, if their sins are pointed out by other Christians then many of them will cry foul and protest with the "Thou shalt not judge" argument. It is amusing to see how defensive many of them will become and resort to snide or derogatory remarks whenever their position or belief is questioned.

 

[Yeshuas_My_Freedom]

Do not dodge and deflect. Tackle the issue and the question.

Where does sin begin and end?

An agenda can't succeed unless those it targets concede their position and fall under the jurisdiction or commands for compliance that the agenda lays out.

No man on earth will ever be pregnant.That's a God appointed fact.

Do those in deficit have the power to change God's plan? That which God created to be and operate within the laws of nature? No.

It's like anything, if you use something for something it was not created for it will eventually suffer the consequences of misuse.

Thomas Beatie is a woman. She had two children through artificial insemination with her then lesbian lover.
That's the facts.

Trans-afflicted people you'll notice are fully formed as their birth sex. Female, male.
Their mind is what tells them they're in the "wrong body". And all of that is mental and chemical imbalance.

The trouble that's arising in this society is that we're losing our courage to say no to those who demand they suffer their misalignment by flaunting it with pride. And in the course of events necessary to sustaining that pride those afflicted expect everyone else to concur with, tolerate, how the afflicted see themselves. Or else be called bigot and phobic by the intolerant afflicted.

"Transgender inclusive language, where does it end and begin?" With you! Making the free willed choice not to condone or uphold mental illness that grown chronic self-mutilates the body.

And if biological women being pregnant isn't something the trans-afflicted community members think is to be tolerated in their circle, that's just too bad. Womb envy is their problem. Not ours.

 

[Tallguy88]

ADMIN HAT

Thread moved from News to American Politics

 

[essentialsaltes]

For those who support the transgender agenda, since everyone and everything human related on the planet should literally be re-defined to help these folks feel better about themselves, and since civilization itself should be re-defined, where does it begin and end?

As is always the case, cultures adjust to new ideas and circumstances. Women are not property. Corporations are people. Change is inevitable, and it affects the way we think, we talk, and make law. I can't tell you where it will end, but it'll do no good trying to stand on the beach trying to hold back the tide as it comes in. I could take each of your individual questions and say "Yes, that's great." or "No, that'd be terrible." but it won't be me who decides -- it will be something like the average opinion of the whole society that decides.