What are your thoughts on this?

[Bradskii]

It is a psychotic condition. I’m not sure how that compares to a psychological condition.

Well, you're not medically trained I suppose. Ask a psychiatrist.

 

[Bradskii]

There is such a thing as parental rights and judges decisions can be reversed.

You may be confusing the executive and the judicial.

I don’t try to tell you how to be an atheist do I?

No, I already know how to do that.

 

[BPPLEE]

You may be confusing the executive and the judicial.



No, I already know how to do that.

And I know how to be a Christian without a sanctimonious atheist telling me

 

[Bradskii]

And I know how to be a Christian without a sanctimonious atheist telling me

This hasn't been a theological debate. My answers to your questions and any points I have made have not been based on any religious consideration. You've put forward your arguments from a secular position and I have responded in kind.

If you want to base your arguments on a religious position then be my guest. But I will have no interest in discussing them.

 

[BPPLEE]

This hasn't been a theological debate. My answers to your questions and any points I have made have not been based on any religious consideration. You've put forward your arguments from a secular position and I have responded in kind.

If you want to base your arguments on a religious position then be my guest. But I will have no interest in discussing them.

@Bradskii ssid “
But let me give you a heads up. If they had come to this forum because perhaps they were Christian and were looking for some anonymous help and they read threads like this, then the chances of them not wanting their problems made generally known would, I would suggest, greatly increase.

 

[Bradskii]

@Bradskii ssid “
But let me give you a heads up. If they had come to this forum because perhaps they were Christian and were looking for some anonymous help and they read threads like this, then the chances of them not wanting their problems made generally known would, I would suggest, greatly increase.

You're looking for solutions without understanding that threads like this, a lot of comments in them and the attitudes exhibited are part of the problem.

Yeah, some Christians might come here hoping to find some love and concern. Some empathy for their distress. Some consideration for their welfare. But in this forum, do they find them? Mostly they find them expressed by those who are not of the faith. But you won't have found me criticising anyone for their religious beliefs. Only on the facts of the matter and opinions as they are stated. As you have stated them. And at no time have you used any religious arguments to put forward your view.

And as I say, I am not interested in arguing about what you or anyone else thinks that God wants. Because it's obviously not the slightest bit relevant as an argument to me. So it's been secular all the way.

 

[Ophiolite]

And if a kid came to this forum for Christian advice he would be overwhelmed by all the non Christians on a Christian forum.
I don’t try to tell you how to be an atheist do I?

If you were to request the forum administrators to make the distinction between the open and Christian only sections more prominent, and direct those seeking Christian advice to the specific Christian sections in a much clearer way, I would support such a move. In the open sections members will post in line with their personal beliefs, religions, orientations and experiences. For those in crisis some of these posts could be challenging. It is a challenge I hope they could rise to, but they should have the choice of avoiding the challenge in the first place. That choice currently exists, but - as I suggest here - it could be more clearly flagged.

As an aside you do not tell me how to be an atheist, but several of your co-religionists have told me (incorrectly) what I believe, what my morals are, etc.

 

[BPPLEE]

If you were to request the forum administrators to make the distinction between the open and Christian only sections more prominent, and direct those seeking Christian advice to the specific Christian sections in a much clearer way, I would support such a move. In the open sections members will post in line with their personal beliefs, religions, orientations and experiences. For those in crisis some of these posts could be challenging. It is a challenge I hope they could rise to, but they should have the choice of avoiding the challenge in the first place. That choice currently exists, but - as I suggest here - it could be more clearly flagged.

As an aside you do not tell me how to be an atheist, but several of your co-religionists have told me (incorrectly) what I believe, what my morals are, etc.

I wouldn’t try to tell you what you believe or what your morals are.
I have no problem interacting with non Christians here I was just making an observation as @Bradskii was trying to guilt shame me

 

[Ophiolite]

I wouldn’t try to tell you what you believe or what your morals are.
I have no problem interacting with non Christians here I was just making an observation as @Bradskii was trying to guilt shame me

My point about the action of "several" others in commenting on my morals was as I noted an aside. I thought it odd that you would open with that and ignore the main message of my post.

"Guilt shame" you? It seems to me he was objectively pointing out that your implicit condemnation of those struggling with aspects of/thoughts on transition might provide further reason for them to conceal their concerns from their parents. It seems unduly sensitive to characterise that as "guilt shaming".

I simply note that you did not address the thrust of my post - could the forum make a better effort to steer vulnerable young Christians away from the Open sections of the forum? Instead you focused on yourself. That's not an attempt to "guilt shame" you, but an attempt to get you to look to the welfare of the young people you otherwise seem so concerned about. (And yes, I suppose there's a bit of an attmept to "guilt shame" you in that last sentence. I leave it to you to decide whether or not it is merited.)

 

[BPPLEE]

My point about the action of "several" others in commenting on my morals was as I noted an aside. I thought it odd that you would open with that and ignore the main message of my post.

"Guilt shame" you? It seems to me he was objectively pointing out that your implicit condemnation of those struggling with aspects of/thoughts on transition might provide further reason for them to conceal their concerns from their parents. It seems unduly sensitive to characterise that as "guilt shaming".

I simply note that you did not address the thrust of my post - could the forum make a better effort to steer vulnerable young Christians away from the Open sections of the forum? Instead you focused on yourself. That's not an attempt to "guilt shame" you, but an attempt to get you to look to the welfare of the young people you otherwise seem so concerned about. (And yes, I suppose there's a bit of an attmept to "guilt shame" you in that last sentence. I leave it to you to decide whether or not it is merited.)

First I don’t condemn anyone. Some people can’t seem to post without attributing things I never said to me.
Second I don’t think a forum like this is a good place for someone who is struggling to find support.
Most people on here are just expressing their opinions and are not trained counselors or medical professionals.
There is nothing wrong with your suggestion but I don’t really have an opinion on that one way or the other.
Even if you make the changes you can’t control where someone chooses to read

 

[Ophiolite]

First I don’t condemn anyone. Some people can’t seem to post without attributing things I never said to me.

So, you are not asserting that there is a movement afoot to promote and support the normalisation of trans people within schools and to hide this from children's parents? And you are not implicitly thereby condemning those who are behind this movement? In that case, just what are you objecting to, because the condemnation is implicit in many of your posts?

 

[BPPLEE]

So, you are not asserting that there is a movement afoot to promote and support the normalisation of trans people within schools and to hide this from children's parents? And you are not implicitly thereby condemning those who are behind this movement? In that case, just what are you objecting to, because the condemnation is implicit in many of your posts?

I don’t condemn transgender children and I think when it comes to something as important as changing your gender the parents should be involved when the child is a minor. School officials may feel that their hands are tied in these situations and I don’t think that’s a good thing.
If a 12 year old can change their gender at school and hide it from their parents what other decisions can they make?
We don’t allow them to smoke, buy alcohol, drive a car and they are too young to give consent to have sex yet they can make a decision that will affect them for the rest of their lives and hide it from their parents?
Doesn’t seem right

 

[Bradskii]

If a 12 year old can change their gender at school and hide it from their parents what other decisions can they make?

I still thinking you're missing the main point. Which seems obvious to me. Which is why a young person concerned about their gender doesn't turn for help to their parents in the first instance. The fact that a teacher may be obliged to keep that information from the parents is a direct result of that. It's the cause of that. It's the reason why it has to be done.

That's the problem that needs to be solved.

Some of the parents in one of the articles you linked to went to court to say that when their child had a problem that the kid didn't want to to talk to them about then they were demanding the school should be forced to tell them. So just absorb that for a moment. They went to court to say in public that they weren't the sort of parents that their child could turn to in a time of trouble. And they wanted to blame the school?

 

[Ophiolite]

I still thinking you're missing the main point. Which seems obvious to me. Which is why a young person concerned about their gender doesn't turn for help to their parents in the first instance. The fact that a teacher may be obliged to keep that information from the parents is a direct result of that. It's the cause of that. It's the reason why it has to be done.

That's the problem that needs to be solved.

Some of the parents in one of the articles you linked to went to court to say that when their child had a problem that the kid didn't want to to talk to them about then they were demanding the school should be forced to tell them. So just absorb that for a moment. They went to court to say in public that they weren't the sort of parents that their child could turn to in a time of trouble. And they wanted to blame the school?

There is something in our mutual backgrounds that enables us to see how obvious this is and how you have nailed the nature of the problem. And something in the backgrounds of others that make this argument nothing more than white noise. I don't know how to break the log-jam and it breaks my heart that this is so.

 

[BPPLEE]

I still thinking you're missing the main point. Which seems obvious to me. Which is why a young person concerned about their gender doesn't turn for help to their parents in the first instance. The fact that a teacher may be obliged to keep that information from the parents is a direct result of that. It's the cause of that. It's the reason why it has to be done.

That's the problem that needs to be solved.

Some of the parents in one of the articles you linked to went to court to say that when their child had a problem that the kid didn't want to to talk to them about then they were demanding the school should be forced to tell them. So just absorb that for a moment. They went to court to say in public that they weren't the sort of parents that their child could turn to in a time of trouble. And they wanted to blame the school?

Obviously some people are bad parents but you can’t punish all parents because of a few.
Oh wait, that’s the liberal answer to all problems.

 

[BPPLEE]

There is something in our mutual backgrounds that enables us to see how obvious this is and how you have nailed the nature of the problem. And something in the backgrounds of others that make this argument nothing more than white noise. I don't know how to break the log-jam and it breaks my heart that this is so.

If only the rest of us were as enlightened as you two.
I see @Bradskii ’s point but y’all seem incapable of seeing mine
Isn’t it possible that this is not a black and white issue and there is more than one valid viewpoint?

 

[BurningBush84]

 

[BPPLEE]

Is this what they mean when they say “Age appropriate “ ?

 

[BPPLEE]

Yeah, some Christians might come here hoping to find some love and concern. Some empathy for their distress. Some consideration for their welfare. But in this forum, do they find them? Mostly they find them expressed by those who are not of the faith. But you won't have found me criticising anyone for their religious beliefs. Only on the facts of the matter and opinions as they are stated. As you have stated them. And at no time have you used any religious arguments to put forward your view.

And as I say, I am not interested in arguing about what you or anyone else thinks that God wants. Because it's obviously not the slightest bit relevant as an argument to me. So it's been secular all the way.

Proselytizing are we?

 

[Bradskii]

Proselytizing are we?

I'm giving you the facts. How you interpret them is up to you.