When two worldviews collide.

[Paidiske]

Is that why you think people were being canceled? By coworkers for things they said at work?

There's a difference between being fired and being cancelled. I was talking specifically about being fired, in particular, since that was the issue another person raised.

I don't see a lot of examining "power dynamics"....but I do see a lot judging people by race, sex, or other circumstances of their birth which are beyond their control.

That is not, however, what we were talking about here.

"Spending time categorising belief systems and behaviours so that we can tell who's "in" and who's "out" is not what we're called to do. "

The oppressor/oppressed dynamic is exactly what you're describing above....both in belief systems and behaviours.

I was speaking specifically of @stevevw's desire to have a neat distinction between two worldviews, one (very narrowly defined as) Christian and the other anti-Christian.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So are you saying that they are not Pediatritians and did not provide any science (facts) to back their claims.

But what they say has been supported by other professionals.

Wait a minute I didn't provide any links to the Royal College of Paediatrics and only one link to Cretella which was not from the RCoP but an individual peer reviewed paper. As you said the first 3 links are from the Cass review and not the RCoP. The 5th link is not from the RCoP but the Australian Newspaper about a court judgement saying Trans Model of care is experimental and not based on science.

The 6th link is from Public Discourse a Body that promotes Evidence Based Policy and citing the Hayes Report that checks the evidence for Government Policy. The 7th Link is the Endocrine Society in England who support Trans care and even their own literature says that Affirmative care such as Puberty Blockers and surgery have very low evidence and unknown risks.

Once again I ask why side track things with logical fallacies. I have provided ample evidence that the Trans Model of care is at the very least experimental with unknown risks and at worst could become another child abuse scandel in the future that shows many children aned young people were misdiagnosed and pushed down a Affirmation path permanately harming them. That is why many are now starting to speak up, speak the Truth and expose these lies about Trans ideology.

But my point for this thread is that here we have two completely deifferent views on this issue like many issues facing modern society. Both sides are claiming that they are protection children aned adeults and have different treatment approaches which may lead to edifferent outcomes. So there is a fundemental difference in worledviews, in beliefs aned ideology.

This difference is becoming more polarized to the point where societyis divided and becoming radical. I think this highlights how the Truth is being denied so that we have Truth bearings and false claims about how humans and society is ordered and what is moral.

The religion they belong to is dogmatic...it's faith based....it's immune to evidence.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's a difference between being fired and being cancelled.

What's the difference?

That is not, however, what we were talking about here.

I remember the OP.

I was speaking specifically of @stevevw's desire to have a neat distinction between two worldviews, one (very narrowly defined as) Christian and the other anti-Christian.

Ok....and my point still stands.

It really simple. You either hold that as a a principle...or you don't. Imagine someone says "I'm 100% against the death penalty."...and one day someone gets the death penalty and the same person says "I agree with the death penalty in this case".

Is that person actually against the death penalty in principle? No.

 

[Paidiske]

What's the difference?

One is a formal result of breach of employment conditions; the other is the organic response of the public to views they find repugnant.

Ok....and my point still stands.

It really simple. You either hold that as a a principle...or you don't. Imagine someone says "I'm 100% against the death penalty."...and one day someone gets the death penalty and the same person says "I agree with the death penalty in this case".

Is that person actually against the death penalty in principle? No.

I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make here. I was challenging both the narrowness and rigidity of @stevevw's categories, and the need to have such categories at all. What's that got to do with an oppressor/oppressed dynamic, or the death penalty?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I might be tempted to observe that many people are both incredibly ignorant, and easily manipulated.

Agreed.

Yeah, that's not really an accurate representation of either "side" of the discussion.

Agreed. I think he thinks it's a moral argument because it's always framed as such. It's not a moral issue.

We have many standards. Why is it not okay, in a new situation, for it to take time for standards to develop and be refined? After all, the church has had two millennia and we're still refining ours...

This is no new situation. Catamites, eunuchs, and other such sterilized and abused people have become the playthings of the wealthy long before now.

You keep making this argument that the traditional position has been long tested and found sound. It hasn't; in many ways, it's been long tested and found severely wanting, which is why it has been so robustly challenged. I think you need to account for that in your position.

If you can't see the difference between advocating for fundamental human rights, and trying to micro-manage other people's medical treatment according to your personal belief system, I think much of the point of this conversation is lost.

There's no fundamental human right being denied here. We have a situation where doctors are willingly abusing their authority knowing they will pay no significant price for it later....and the foolish who believe them.

I don't think the point of such advocacy should be about imposing a specifically Christian approach. If we can demonstrate harm in objective terms, great. If we can't, maybe we need to back off.

In objective terms? You're advocating for the sterilization and mutilation of children. Objectively. You believe, based on evidence of very low quality, this will not only help people...but no real long term negatives need consideration.

I think you should consider that the entire reason they target children is to solidify the idea that this is a condition one is born into....not merely a choice made at 18 or later. This validates the push for non-discrimination laws and everything else.

Well, first of all, I'd have to disagree with you about "the science." Not once, not ever (and I hold degrees in both science and theology) have I ever seen a Christian/conservative/traditional position on a divisive matter, where that view was in line with the best scientific understanding of the time. I'd include the issues you raise here.

If only the truth were that easy.

But no, just because positions align doesn't mean that position is Truth.

For people who "knew" that, there sure was a robust defence of it.

Firstly, no. The political issue is not just about treating gender dysphoria. It is just as much about protecting people from conversion therapy aimed at sexuality.

Conversion therapy?

Secondly, no. This is not about allowing treatment that is neither pharmacological nor surgical for people with gender dysphoria (that is understood as best practice, and is a given).

Conversion therapy is well defined and is a completely separate thing.

Misrepresenting the argument is, in itself, part of the problem.

There have been some isolated incidents of people whose care was not sufficiently carefully discerned.

Isolated is an accurate description. They receive threats from the trans advocacy community...a community they typically learn is all they have left. Speaking out would get you shunned.

Yet, in spite of this, I'm certain I could find more early transitioned who either detransition or severely regret transitioning and believe they have gone "too far"....than you would be able to find examples of "trans youth who killed themselves out of rejection from society".

But it is blatantly untrue to say that this is the experience of everyone seeking medical care. The very documents we've seen discussed in this thread lay out a much more complex picture.

But the worst thing about your response here, is that your question was, "How has the Christian voice done harm?" And when I put evidence in front of you, of very real and profound harm, you did not acknowledge it in any way. This is not an issue we should be dodging or avoiding!

Conversion therapy?

Apparently some want to control their medical treatment options, though.

If they were swarming to get conversion therapy would you speak out against it?

This is exactly what I mean by a lack of values. You seem to reject both conversion therapy and the Dutch model. You're advocating for the affirmative care model. Yet anyone advocating otherwise is somehow....immoral.

We don't even allow children to get a facial tattoo and would throw the tattoo artist in jail for doing such a thing to a child. Yet, a tattoo can be removed....in time, the damage undone. Compare that to the lie we are foisting upon children now. You can change from male to female....or female to male. A blatant lie.

In a world where people still face the death penalty in some places for being gay, I'm not really buying this.

If the people were anywhere near as judgmental of those cultures which killed people for being gay...one might be inclined to believe that there was some genuine concern for the alphabet people on this issue.

The most basic rights are being denied these people, and we're surprised when they want to advocate for their own safety and wellbeing?

It's easy to lose sight of the fact they aren't being denied any rights. Any time I point this out, without fail, the persuading the claim can't even list 1.

I suspect that the more hateful and disgusting the Christian/conservative side got, the more obvious it seemed to wider society that theirs was not the right side of the argument. I mean, when (for example) we saw Christian groups pour millions into the no campaign in the same-sex marriage plebiscite, coupled with truly foul propaganda suggesting that gay folks are all paedophiles and child abusers, why would anyone think that was the right way to treat this group of people?

I don't recall any propaganda that suggested that all gay people are pedophiles. That wasn't even an accusation that one could reasonably make back when gay people couldn't get married and they weren't able to live as openly gay.

However...ever since gay marriage passed into law and they can both identify as openly gay without being discriminated against.

Of course, part of the disconnect here is your claim that these are irrational ideas with no evidence. That's not true either.

Ah, so rules are great, as long as they're your rules.

The ideas aren't just irrational....they're contradictory.

 

[Ana the Ist]

One is a formal result of breach of employment conditions; the other is the organic response of the public to views they find repugnant.

Ok....well you can ask him yourself, but I'm almost certain that he was talking about the latter. I'm also not certain that I'd call the response "organic" which has a sort of implication that people aren't making a conscious decision to seek someone's punishment. Often the offending party will be targeted by a campaign to make the opinion go viral, then their place of employment is found once they are identified, then a coordinated effort to get them fired ensues. It's not so much "organic" as it is both deliberate and vindictive.

I'm old enough to remember when the worst people online were to trolls. People who said things they didn't genuinely believe to agitate others. Now, they seem quaint compared to the thought police of cancel culture. No group in my memory has so quickly shown they should be kept from any real power indefinitely. They can't even handle a tiny bit of power responsibly.

I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make here. I was challenging both the narrowness and rigidity of @stevevw's categories, and the need to have such categories at all. What's that got to do with an oppressor/oppressed dynamic, or the death penalty?

Really? Ok...take a deep breathe and zoom out a bit. Before you were on the whole "Christian/anti-Christian" @stevevw was talking about how the whole "woke" phenomenon...more generally what people recognize as a vast change in left wing politics....has come about and what might have caused it.

Like many Christians, he sees it as a falling away from the traditional judeo-christian values which had made up the sort of cultural norms of US and western society in general, for so long. Specifically, he seems to see it as tied to the moral norms and values of a society disappearing. I can understand that, and I think it's definitely a possibility, but it appears to be a strictly self serving power grab imo. I don't think the woke have any real moral values (despite constantly moralizing) and its simply their tactic for avoiding any real discussion of policy or factual reality. I listed the only thing I see consistently from the left that even remotely looks like a moral value. Even though @stevevw was asked for evidence regarding a topic....I could have told you beforehand that it would not matter if he spent every post piling on evidence of his position. The people he is arguing with don't care about evidence. #MeToo was fundamentally about believing women....regardless of the evidence or lack thereof. The endless claiming of systemic racism is a response to the lack of evidence of real racism. As adherents claimed...real racists hide their racism...but still act on it. The basic logical problem with that is not only does it assume guilt....but it leaves us no practical means for understanding when we have made progress fighting racism. One would think that less racism and evidence of it would be the biggest indication of racial progress....which is moral progress.

Apparently though...we will only have eradicated racism when non-white people are in positions of power. Even though that is already the case...apparently more power is needed for real progress to happen.

If you were, as you say, against these narrow and rigid categories as a rule....I don't think you'd be on the political left. Identity politics highlights rigid categories and tells people when they aren't acting black enough or feminist enough, etc.

 

[stevevw]

Ok....well you can ask him yourself, but I'm almost certain that he was talking about the latter. I'm also not certain that I'd call the response "organic" which has a sort of implication that people aren't making a conscious decision to seek someone's punishment. Often the offending party will be targeted by a campaign to make the opinion go viral, then their place of employment is found once they are identified, then a coordinated effort to get them fired ensues. It's not so much "organic" as it is both deliberate and vindictive.

I'm old enough to remember when the worst people online were to trolls. People who said things they didn't genuinely believe to agitate others. Now, they seem quaint compared to the thought police of cancel culture. No group in my memory has so quickly shown they should be kept from any real power indefinitely. They can't even handle a tiny bit of power responsibly.



Really? Ok...take a deep breathe and zoom out a bit. Before you were on the whole "Christian/anti-Christian" @stevevw was talking about how the whole "woke" phenomenon...more generally what people recognize as a vast change in left wing politics....has come about and what might have caused it.

Like many Christians, he sees it as a falling away from the traditional judeo-christian values which had made up the sort of cultural norms of US and western society in general, for so long. Specifically, he seems to see it as tied to the moral norms and values of a society disappearing. I can understand that, and I think it's definitely a possibility, but it appears to be a strictly self serving power grab imo. I don't think the woke have any real moral values (despite constantly moralizing) and its simply their tactic for avoiding any real discussion of policy or factual reality. I listed the only thing I see consistently from the left that even remotely looks like a moral value. Even though @stevevw was asked for evidence regarding a topic....I could have told you beforehand that it would not matter if he spent every post piling on evidence of his position. The people he is arguing with don't care about evidence. #MeToo was fundamentally about believing women....regardless of the evidence or lack thereof. The endless claiming of systemic racism is a response to the lack of evidence of real racism. As adherents claimed...real racists hide their racism...but still act on it. The basic logical problem with that is not only does it assume guilt....but it leaves us no practical means for understanding when we have made progress fighting racism. One would think that less racism and evidence of it would be the biggest indication of racial progress....which is moral progress.

Apparently though...we will only have eradicated racism when non-white people are in positions of power. Even though that is already the case...apparently more power is needed for real progress to happen.

If you were, as you say, against these narrow and rigid categories as a rule....I don't think you'd be on the political left. Identity politics highlights rigid categories and tells people when they aren't acting black enough or feminist enough, etc.

Thankyou for articulating what I am trying to say. I haven't even mentioned race because thats another rabbit hole identity politics. That is why I am more interested in the bigger pictureafor society and how positions are being divisive to the point of violence on both sides. It has aspects of the bad side of the civil rights movement but on a wider scale I believe where its now about a multitude of identity groups fighting each other.

I believe that is the result of a new ideology that has creep up on society pretty fast, faster than any other movement in our history. That smacks not of natural progression and genuine concerns about Rights but seems more an ideological and cultural war. Whatever the cause the current secular attempt at creating a stable and well society is not working and needs to be addressed.

The issue is if it isn't it will only get worse and may well get to the point where people are being attacked. The concerning thing I many are seeing is that society is going mainstream with this ideology and now violence and descrimination in the name of identity Rights is seen as ok especially against women which is ironic because women have spent decades winning those Rights and now they are being wound back. Its actually regressing society not taking use towards a Utopia where we finally have peace and wellbeing.

 

[Paidiske]

There's no fundamental human right being denied here. We have a situation where doctors are willingly abusing their authority knowing they will pay no significant price for it later....and the foolish who believe them.

I don't agree that that's an accurate description of the situation.

In objective terms? You're advocating for the sterilization and mutilation of children.

No, I'm not. If I'm advocating for anything, specifically with regard to the treatment of transgendered people, it's a recognition that the debate is not a Christian/anti-Christian polarity. And that a specifically Christian worldview doesn't necessarily bring anything either unique or necessary to the table.

I think you should consider that the entire reason they target children is to solidify the idea that this is a condition one is born into....not merely a choice made at 18 or later.

As I understand it, people with gender dysphoria experience significant distress before the age of 18, and so treatment questions arise before the age of 18.

This validates the push for non-discrimination laws and everything else.

Makes sense to me. Why would we want transgendered folk being discriminated against on that basis?

Conversion therapy?

As an example of harm from Christians, yes.

If they were swarming to get conversion therapy would you speak out against it?

Conversion therapy is not medical treatment. It's both ineffective and harmful.

You seem to reject both conversion therapy and the Dutch model. You're advocating for the affirmative care model. Yet anyone advocating otherwise is somehow....immoral.

I am not actually advocating for any particular model (although I have my own, quite inexpert, opinions), so much as saying that the preference for this or that medical model is not a matter of a "Christian" approach.

It's easy to lose sight of the fact they aren't being denied any rights. Any time I point this out, without fail, the persuading the claim can't even list 1.

I was literally just before this speaking of the death penalty for homosexuality, which is in effect in some countries.

I don't recall any propaganda that suggested that all gay people are pedophiles. That wasn't even an accusation that one could reasonably make back when gay people couldn't get married and they weren't able to live as openly gay.

I saw it. Propaganda suggesting that allowing gay people to marry (and form families) meant handing children into abusive situations, that kind of thing. Perhaps it was circulating more freely in Christian circles. (I've searched and found some images, but they'd breach CF's rules to share. But the one I was particularly thinking of has text claiming that over 90% of children raised by gay parents are abused, along with a deeply offensive tagline).

The ideas aren't just irrational....they're contradictory.

I don't think it's that simple. We need to take into account the reality of people's lived experience, which is much more complex than just "they're irrational and deluded."

I'm also not certain that I'd call the response "organic" which has a sort of implication that people aren't making a conscious decision to seek someone's punishment.

What I meant by organic is that it's not driven by formal policies or the like.

I'm old enough to remember when the worst people online were to trolls. People who said things they didn't genuinely believe to agitate others. Now, they seem quaint compared to the thought police of cancel culture. No group in my memory has so quickly shown they should be kept from any real power indefinitely. They can't even handle a tiny bit of power responsibly.

I'm not a fan of social media pile-ons. I do agree that there's a discussion to be had, as a society, about how we respond to that kind of phenomonen. But I don't think that was what that part of the conversation (with another member) was really about.

Before you were on the whole "Christian/anti-Christian" @stevevw was talking about how the whole "woke" phenomenon...more generally what people recognize as a vast change in left wing politics....has come about and what might have caused it.

That's not quite what I was getting from his posts, to be honest.

Like many Christians, he sees it as a falling away from the traditional judeo-christian values which had made up the sort of cultural norms of US and western society in general, for so long. Specifically, he seems to see it as tied to the moral norms and values of a society disappearing. I can understand that, and I think it's definitely a possibility, but it appears to be a strictly self serving power grab imo.

Honestly, I don't think it's quite either of those things. Granted I'm not a political expert, but I would want to throw into the mix for consideration, the collapse in trust in institutions as a contributor to the public good (whether that's government, educational, media, religious, whatever type of institution), which has affected the left as profoundly (if differently) as it has the right. I'd also want to look at changes in technology and the ways we're able to engage and interact, and how that's shaped both the way people think, and the way they act in response. Insofar as it's about power, power has become more diffuse and less vested in institutions, but that doesn't necessarily mean the average person has any more power than they did before.

If you were, as you say, against these narrow and rigid categories as a rule....I don't think you'd be on the political left.

Insofar as I claim any particular political position, I would say I'm "on the left" in the sense that I'm not interested in either preserving the status quo, or returning to some (imagined) golden age of the past. We've never had a particularly "stable and well" society, so the forms of the past aren't the answer. I'm looking to the future and the potential for positive change as the focus for social improvement. That does not mean I neatly line up with any particular party or group's agenda for what that should look like.

 

[stevevw]

I might be tempted to observe that many people are both incredibly ignorant, and easily manipulated.

Yes but my interest is which position represents the incredibly ignorant, and easily manipulated. It seems we have two dinamically different worldviews and both are claiming to be the rational onee and are upholding Rights and moral truth.

We have many standards. Why is it not okay, in a new situation, for it to take time for standards to develop and be refined? After all, the church has had two millennia and we're still refining ours...

That suggests that the truth basis for standards have no objective basis and are merely created by humans. That is part of what I am saying is the deifference between secular and athiest views generally and Christians. Christians believe moral Truths have always existed and we are merely acknowledeging them through time. I think its more the case that the Church and the West have not developed or refined moral Truths themselves but have developede and refined how they can be applied to changing situations. Sometimes we move away from those Truths aned redeiscover them.

You keep making this argument that the traditional position has been long tested and found sound. It hasn't; in many ways, it's been long tested and found severely wanting, which is why it has been so robustly challenged. I think you need to account for that in your position.

The Traditional Truths I am talking about which happen to align with science and Christianity have long stood the test of time though they have been challenged and at times denied. For example 'we are made in Gods image male and female'. That has been pretty much the case throughout our history in science, Western belief and the Church and is only recently being challenged by the New Woke and Gender Ideology.

We have upheld the idea that we are createed in Gods image for millenia and it was a basic Truth foundation of Western culture including the US Declaration. We realized early that upholeding human dignity and worth haed to be based in a transcendent God and not fallible humans who couled justify denying therse inalienable rights and to which the UN HUman Rights were based on. Its only when we move away from this Truth that we begin to justify wrong in the name of human ideas of Rights.

If you can't see the difference between advocating for fundamental human rights, and trying to micro-manage other people's medical treatment according to your personal belief system, I think much of the point of this conversation is lost.

I think micro managing as you call it though I would call it supporting Human Rights because the Right health treatment is a Right. When have I advocated that Human Rights being based on my personal belief. Rather I have continually advocated for the truth, the facts and reality.

I don't think the point of such advocacy should be about imposing a specifically Christian approach. If we can demonstrate harm in objective terms, great. If we can't, maybe we need to back off.

Its not just Christain values but Western Values we have advocated for over many years based on deriving those Truths from a long history of living them out and they work.

Well, first of all, I'd have to disagree with you about "the science." Not once, not ever (and I hold degrees in both science and theology) have I ever seen a Christian/conservative/traditional position on a divisive matter, where that view was in line with the best scientific understanding of the time. I'd include the issues you raise here.

So what about God made them male and female which aligns with biological fact and lived reality of sex being male and female and that a person cannot change sex and become the opposite sex. What about the Christian Truth that we are all made in Gods image which aligns with Western values about human worth and dignity as the basis for Western nations Declarations and for UN Human Rights.

But no, just because positions align doesn't mean that position is Truth.

When positions align such as belief aligning with objective reality and lived reality we can pretty much be confident that its the Truth. Its when they don't align like when belief contradicts reality that we must be wary.

For people who "knew" that, there sure was a robust defence of it.

Yes they were motivated by personal greed and power. Money corrupts. Much of slavery was capitalism but in human commodity. It took a Christian stand that regardless of race and material justifications for slavery was against Gods Truth that all were created in His image and are all the same.

The Declaration of the US stated this Truth and so they were either living a lie by not upholding there own Declaration or they were living a lie in supporting slavery. Sure it took time for that to sink in and some resisted but the seed had been planted from that time where they could no longer justify slavery.

Firstly, no. The political issue is not just about treating gender dysphoria. It is just as much about protecting people from conversion therapy aimed at sexuality.

Yes but Gay or Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy (CT) has been outlawed. Yes there is a small minority who want to preserve Gay CT. Most of the objection is about alternative therapies for Gender Dysphioria and Gender Identity being classed as CT. The current law is unclear and that is what is causing the disagreement. To highlight this these questions need to be answered.

The Affirmative Trans Model states that a person with Trans or non Congruent gender Identity shoulde have their gendeer Identity Affirmed even to the point of them actually being in every way the opposite sex.

So the question is 'Are therapies that don't assume that the child is Trans and don't Affirm their gender identity or put them on a Transitional Therapy path as part of Affirming their Trans iedentity but rather take the approach of investigating other reasons such as being Gay, Autism or other Body Dismorphia for their GD regarded as CT.

Another question relating to Religious Freedom and Rights is " If a person who is GD and may or may not identify as Trans or Gender Non Conforming comes to a Christian or a Church and asks for prayers to help with their distress is that classed as CT.

If we are to get to the Truth I think its vital that these issues are clarified (thats the micro managing part) because though people think its trivial and making trouble when in fact by not clarifying these questions is what is causing the conflict and division in society. Some think even talking about this is being Transphobic but its not. Its simply getting at the Truth and the reality which will make a better society in the end.

Secondly, no. This is not about allowing treatment that is neither pharmacological nor surgical for people with gender dysphoria (that is understood as best practice, and is a given).

If your talking about Hormone Therapy and sex change surgery that is not a given and in fact has now been stopped as the preferred Treatment Model for the NHS and other Professional Organisations like the Royal Doctors, APA, Royal Academy of Pediatrians ect. The Trans Affirmative Model has been found to lack evidence and is risky and harmful.

Conversion therapy is well defined and is a completely separate thing.

I don't think it is, at least until some of the questions being proposed are answered. If its about not converting a persons gender identity to something other than their gender identity then that makes most conventional therapies like psychotherapy which helps to overcome trauma and allow a GNC person to align their identity to their nate sex. In fact the basic principle of psychology is to try aned align the mind to the body and not the body to the mins. So in some ways the entire practice of Psychology is CT.

Misrepresenting the argument is, in itself, part of the problem.

Exactly and that is why we have discussion and arguement to determine the truth.

There have been some isolated incidents of people whose care was not sufficiently carefully discerned.
But it is blatantly untrue to say that this is the experience of everyone seeking medical care. The very documents we've seen discussed in this thread lay out a much more complex picture.

Seriously, if the entire Affirmative care Model has been deemed to lack scientific evidence and has potential risks and harms then every child who has been treated in Gender Clinics, socially Transitionede at school and where-ever else this ideology has infiltrated there will be potential causalties by the fact that they were subject to a Therapy approach that hade no basis.

This could end up as another child abuse scandel except this time by the Woke Religion. The Scandinavians who were the pioneers and leaders in Trans and Gender Rights have abandoned the Trans model approach in Finland as they know its unscientific and more about ideology and harmful.

Finland prioritizes psychotherapy over hormones, and rejects surgeries for gender-dysphoric minors
One Year Since Finland Broke with WPATH "Standards of Care"

On a societal level we know its also caused harm. Look at Womens Rights for example and how they are being erased by this ideology and even attacked for being what is basically objective reality a women. Its absolutely crazy that this is happening after women have already fought for their Rights from men they are once again being denied their Rights by men except this time they are posing as women. Women now have penises. Do you really believe this is reality.

 

[Paidiske]

That suggests that the truth basis for standards have no objective basis and are merely created by humans.

It suggests that we learn over time.

Like the words of the hymn say:
We limit not the truth of God
to our poor reach of mind,
to notions of our day and sect,
crude, partial and confined:
no, let a new and better hope
within our hearts be stirred:
the Lord has yet more light and truth
to break forth from his word.

Christians believe moral Truths have always existed and we are merely acknowledeging them through time.

That's one view; I wouldn't say it's a universal Christian approach.

The Traditional Truths I am talking about which happen to align with science and Christianity have long stood the test of time though they have been challenged and at times denied. For example 'we are made in Gods image male and female'. That has been pretty much the case throughout our history in science, Western belief and the Church and is only recently being challenged by the New Woke and Gender Ideology.

No, that is not what has been held throughout our history. For a very long time, people (including Christians) believed that women were defective, poorly developed males. You see that in Aristotle, picked up and echoed by later thinkers. Even today you will find, on this very site, people arguing that men, specifically, are made in God's image and women are not.

This is what I mean when I say that your argument about "traditional truths" doesn't stand up to an examination of what people actually thought and wrote, through our history.

Its only when we move away from this Truth that we begin to justify wrong in the name of human ideas of Rights.

While I agree with you that when we lose sight of the truth that every human person is made in God's image, we get into trouble. But this is not about biology, or sexed bodies. I'd suggest we need to take a step back and ask more thoughtfully what it means to be made "in the image of God."

I think micro managing as you call it though I would call it supporting Human Rights because the Right health treatment is a Right.

So is being able to make one's own decisions about one's medical treatment.

Its not just Christain values but Western Values we have advocated for over many years based on deriving those Truths from a long history of living them out and they work.

Again, no... our history is not that shining.

So what about God made them male and female which aligns with biological fact and lived reality of sex being male and female and that a person cannot change sex and become the opposite sex.

Sure, male and female bodies are a reality. Also a reality are the people who - to put it crudely - have brains that don't match their body, due to their particular development. Can a person change sex, biologically? No. But can they be given the grace to make medical decisions, and navigate society, in ways which make life most tolerable for them? Yes. Should this pose any particular problem to anybody else? Aside from certain very particular situations, not really. Astonishingly, for the vast majority of interactions I have with other human beings, what reproductive organs they have simply do not matter at all.

What about the Christian Truth that we are all made in Gods image which aligns with Western values about human worth and dignity as the basis for Western nations Declarations and for UN Human Rights.

Fantastic. So transgendered people are also made in God's image. Let's honour them for the rational, creative, relational* people they are created to be, just like their Creator.

*Rationality, creativity and relationality all being characteristics of God which we, being made in God's image, share.

Yes but Gay or Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy (CT) has been outlawed.

Not everywhere. We're still waiting for that legal change in NSW. And the usual suspects are out making the usual blatantly dishonest arguments against it.

The current law is unclear and that is what is causing the disagreement.

I'm not a legal expert, but I'm prepared to believe the law needs further work. That's okay. It's still good that conversion therapy be banned.

So the question is 'Are therapies that don't assume that the child is Trans and don't Affirm their gender identity or put them on a Transitional Therapy path as part of Affirming their Trans iedentity but rather take the approach of investigating other reasons such as being Gay, Autism or other Body Dismorphia for their GD regarded as CT.

And the answer is, no, not assuming a gender identity, and exploring contributing factors to someone's gender dysphoria, are not conversion therapy. Since conversion therapy is an attempt to change someone's sexuality or gender identity, and not making assumptions, and exploring possible contributing factors, are not such an attempt.

Another question relating to Religious Freedom and Rights is " If a person who is GD and may or may not identify as Trans or Gender Non Conforming comes to a Christian or a Church and asks for prayers to help with their distress is that classed as CT.

If you pray in a direct attempt to change their sexuality or gender identity, yes it is conversion therapy. Fortunately, such direct attempts are not good pastoral practice, so avoiding them should not be a problem.

If we are to get to the Truth I think its vital that these issues are clarified

Honestly, being reasonably familiar with the Victorian legislation, the two issues you've raised above aren't unclear at all.

in fact by not clarifying these questions is what is causing the conflict and division in society.

No, that's really not what's causing the division and conflict. Clarifying the details of application a particular state law is not the heart of the issue here. I think far more people are affronted by the idea that conversion therapy is being called into question at all.

If your talking about Hormone Therapy and sex change surgery that is not a given and in fact has now been stopped as the preferred Treatment Model for the NHS and other Professional Organisations like the Royal Doctors, APA, Royal Academy of Pediatrians ect. The Trans Affirmative Model has been found to lack evidence and is risky and harmful.

What I was trying to say is that it is a given that different therapeutic approaches will be considered, in light of the particular experiences and needs of each patient. This is not a "one-size-fits-all" kind of situation.

I don't think it is, at least until some of the questions being proposed are answered.

Having read the Victorian legislation (which I understand to be pretty standard compared to other places with such legislation), it's very clear to me. Which bit is not clear to you?

If its about not converting a persons gender identity to something other than their gender identity then that makes most conventional therapies like psychotherapy which helps to overcome trauma and allow a GNC person to align their identity to their nate sex.

The difference is, if someone undertakes psychotherapy, and in the course of that therapy decides to identify as the gender aligned with their biological sex, that's fine. The goal of the psychotherapy is not to make that identification change happen. It's the attempt to make the change happen that makes something conversion therapy.

In fact the basic principle of psychology is to try aned align the mind to the body and not the body to the mins.

Not at all. But one of the foundational ethical principles of psychotherapy is autonomy: "Each client, as an autonomous person, has freedom of choice and responsibility for decision-making and behavior. The concepts of unconditional worth and tolerance for individual differences reflect therapists’ respect for clients to make their own decisions."

So in some ways the entire practice of Psychology is CT.

This is a grave misunderstanding of both psychology, and conversion therapy.

On a societal level we know its also caused harm. Look at Womens Rights for example and how they are being erased by this ideology and even attacked for being what is basically objective reality a women.

There are a few, very narrow, situations where there are issues to be worked out. In general, women's rights are not being erased, though.

Women now have penises. Do you really believe this is reality.

I believe that there are some people whose brains don't match their bodies, in terms of sexed development, who deserve the best we can muster in treating them with grace and kindness. And I believe that we, as a society, can do better in that than we have hitherto.

Denying their existence is not really a good start.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thankyou for articulating what I am trying to say.

No thanks needed @stevevw. I don't recall if you ever weighed in on any of this stuff before but it's been rather quiet on my side of the argument...with few taking any position they might get fired for.

Seeing someone else oppose it, even if we don't necessarily agree on it's exact nature or causes...we agree it's divisive and bad for our nation....and I'll gladly help out when I can. I don't know if you saw the post where the current president of WPATH is literally taking a completely new position on trans affirming care despite being a very vocal opponent of it in the past. My guess is that WPATH couldn't do what they normally do to such a person (because they're both a well recognized surgical expert and transgender also) and slander them as a bigot or non-expert....so they bought this person's loyalty.


I feel like that's a good person to quote since we can literally observe their opinion change once the wealth and prestige of being president of WPATH was handed to them. One moment they're pointing out that puberty blockers are resulting in permanent damage to anyone born male nearly 100% of the time....then the next moment they claim you're never too young for puberty blockers. One moment they complain that underdeveloped genitalia leaves a surgeon with fewer and riskier options....the next moment, who cares? Who says that surgeons should have any say in this?

WPATH is quite literally the advocacy group that pretends to be the leader in trans medical care....but sadly, their research is highly flawed (they once used a eunuch fetishism site as a source) and they are packed to the gills with trans medical professionals which might be indicative of bias....

I think that it would be a mistake to allow them to determine their own care and base it off their own research. There's an obvious conflict of interest there.

I haven't even mentioned race because thats another rabbit hole identity politics. That is why I am more interested in the bigger pictureafor society and how positions are being divisive to the point of violence on both sides. It has aspects of the bad side of the civil rights movement but on a wider scale I believe where its now about a multitude of identity groups fighting each other.

Well the left only remains a coalition as long as it agrees on and recognizes an enemy on the right. The Muslims may gladly join or lead women's march...but they like this trans stuff less than the Christians seem to. A lot of black people feel used and forgotten after seeing BLM make off with millions, Democrats getting elected, and their neighborhoods now rampant with violence and too few police, big retailers closing down and moving, and migrants moved into a catered hotel room to work the few jobs being created. I've never seen so many black people say they wish they still had Trump in office....

If you've already seen some of those Chicago townhall meetings, you know what I mean.

I believe that is the result of a new ideology that has creep up on society pretty fast, faster than any other movement in our history. That smacks not of natural progression and genuine concerns about Rights but seems more an ideological and cultural war.

There's little doubt that it had considerable corporate and federal assistance....but that's waning fast. I hate to repeat myself on another thread....but I genuinely thought the ability for boycotts to affect change was gone. Budweiser proved me wrong...and fast. How did the right manage to get so good at protests so fast? The White House is confirming stories about UFOs now in hopes no one notices their president took a 5 million dollar bribe from Burisma.

Whatever the cause the current secular attempt at creating a stable and well society is not working and needs to be addressed.

This is a power grab...it may seem like it's about morals. It's not. It's just a power grab. Our history has been redwashed and our people made ignorant of the history of the 1900s.

The issue is if it isn't it will only get worse and may well get to the point where people are being attacked.

I've long said that people need to be careful about what they support. People might tolerate the teacher talking about gender....but when their 11 yo daughter is dating Doug the 35yo bachelor down the street....people can become violent.

The concerning thing I many are seeing is that society is going mainstream with this ideology and now violence and descrimination in the name of identity Rights is seen as ok especially against women which is ironic because women have spent decades winning those Rights and now they are being wound back. Its actually regressing society not taking use towards a Utopia where we finally have peace and wellbeing.

I'd like to tell you that here at least....in the US....the DEI stuff is getting rolled back in corporations. It's proven to be nothing more than a costly boondoggle that causes more problems than it could hope to solve. The women's rights thing seems like it's going to be a tougher fight.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't agree that that's an accurate description of the situation.

I don't expect you would.

No, I'm not. If I'm advocating for anything, specifically with regard to the treatment of transgendered people, it's a recognition that the debate is not a Christian/anti-Christian polarity. And that a specifically Christian worldview doesn't necessarily bring anything either unique or necessary to the table.

Ok.

As I understand it, people with gender dysphoria experience significant distress before the age of 18, and so treatment questions arise before the age of 18.

You don't need to experience any gender dysphoria under the affirmative care model to receive treatment.

Nor are they claiming that transgendered people are necessarily experiencing something which is immutable.

Makes sense to me. Why would we want transgendered folk being discriminated against on that basis?

It matters if we're discussing a choice or immutable characteristic.

As an example of harm from Christians, yes.

Right.

Conversion therapy is not medical treatment. It's both ineffective and harmful.

Early childhood transitioning, which often involves wearing opposite sex clothing, adopting new names, and the people around this child playing along....is not medical treatment either. That's closer to conversion therapy.

I am not actually advocating for any particular model (although I have my own, quite inexpert, opinions), so much as saying that the preference for this or that medical model is not a matter of a "Christian" approach.

I was literally just before this speaking of the death penalty for homosexuality, which is in effect in some countries.

Ok...and that has nothing to do with our countries. Perhaps if this were spoken of more often, could demonstrate the difference between their nations and ours where the lgbtq community has all the same rights as everyone else.

I saw it. Propaganda suggesting that allowing gay people to marry (and form families) meant handing children into abusive situations, that kind of thing. Perhaps it was circulating more freely in Christian circles. (I've searched and found some images, but they'd breach CF's rules to share. But the one I was particularly thinking of has text claiming that over 90% of children raised by gay parents are abused, along with a deeply offensive tagline).

I agree that back when you saw those things it was based on nothing factual.

Since we've had years of people who are able to openly identify as lgbtq, we actually now have data on what percentage of the child sex abuser category they make up. Early estimates are around 20%....despite only making up 5% of the population, and 5% is the high estimate.

That's not a reason to consider them all offenders....but when they are more than 5 times as likely as a straight person to commit that crime, perhaps that's where the negative stereotype comes from.

I don't think it's that simple. We need to take into account the reality of people's lived experience, which is much more complex than just "they're irrational and deluded."

I mentioned this aspect of the new woke religion in a previous post. The idea that this group of "oppressed" have access to some magical truth or knowledge that the rest of us don't have...frequently referred to as "lived experience" or "my truth" etc...and how it is treated as sacrosanct and unquestionable dogma.

I recall you being an adherent to this new belief from a conversation long ago. I asked if you believed that black people had some ability to identify racism that white people lacked....or if their "lived experience" made them a sort of expert in your eyes in a way white people were not nor could not be. I'm paraphrasing of course but I recall you responding in the affirmative.

Then I asked you about a hypothetical where you were in charge of employees in some capacity and a black employee came to you with an accusation of racism against a white employee and the white employee denying it happened. Obviously, the question was asked to see if you could judge such things fairly, on the basis of evidence, or if you now held beliefs which ensured you would be biased in favor of some over others.

I don't recall if you ever answered or how you answered....but I don't want to dig up the discussion just to prove a point.

If you genuinely believe that certain people are above scrutiny and have special knowledge regarding certain issues because of their "lived experiences"....there's no evidence I can present which would convince you otherwise. It's magical thinking in every sense of the concept.

What I meant when I said they were irrational and contradictory was something provable. There's multiple claims made by trans activists that are inherently contradictory. Here's an example...

1. Children who are trans are born trans and know it at a very early age. They experience this problem as a part of their identity because they are born this way.

2. Trans people can realize they are trans at any point in their life....and then change gender back again to the one they were "assigned at birth" or something else entirely....at any other point in their lives. Simply put, gender can change, and change back, and change again at any time and this should not be questioned.

These two positions are both claimed to be true by the trans activists. One claims that the condition is an immutable characteristic which one is born with. The other claims gender is a fluid and changing part of identity which can be completely different from one moment to the next....as if it's something merely chosen.

I can provide evidence that they take both positions easily....if you believe that they only advocate for one position, just say so, I'll provide examples of experts claiming that the other position is true.

Yet it cannot be both. It's either something chosen and changeable or something immutable.

What I meant by organic is that it's not driven by formal policies or the like.

I'm not a fan of social media pile-ons. I do agree that there's a discussion to be had, as a society, about how we respond to that kind of phenomonen. But I don't think that was what that part of the conversation (with another member) was really about.

Are you familiar with the cliche "my right to throw a punch ends where your nose begins"?

That's not quite what I was getting from his posts, to be honest.

Honestly, I don't think it's quite either of those things. Granted I'm not a political expert, but I would want to throw into the mix for consideration, the collapse in trust in institutions as a contributor to the public good (whether that's government, educational, media, religious, whatever type of institution), which has affected the left as profoundly (if differently) as it has the right.

I'm not certain that contradicts either of our explanations. When I claim that it's a self serving power grab....and point out to your that trans people aren't denied any rights....you replied that they are killed in some foreign countries for being lgbtq. I don't know if you thought that was a good response but your inability to name a right they are denied in the US proves my point.

Atheists and apostates are also killed in some of those same nations. That doesn't mean I'm denied any rights here.

I'd also want to look at changes in technology and the ways we're able to engage and interact, and how that's shaped both the way people think, and the way they act in response. Insofar as it's about power, power has become more diffuse and less vested in institutions, but that doesn't necessarily mean the average person has any more power than they did before.

In the context I was speaking of....power equates to wealth and political influence. That seems to be the only metric of power this new religion recognizes....and they flat out deny most other ways power manifests. It is the power they claim they are owed. If one points out the power of a mob of online charlatans acting as the thought police (and the very real results of that power) they often deny it exists....and tell you that cancel culture is either not a real thing or simply a coincidence of so many people being offended by the same thing....an organic sort of consequence that isn't a deliberate attempt to punish or otherwise harm anyone.

Insofar as I claim any particular political position, I would say I'm "on the left" in the sense that I'm not interested in either preserving the status quo, or returning to some (imagined) golden age of the past.

It sounds as if you think the current situation is bad, and little different from how it was in the past... which was likewise bad.

We've never had a particularly "stable and well" society, so the forms of the past aren't the answer.

This confirms the above. A very negative view of our western societies.

I'm looking to the future and the potential for positive change as the focus for social improvement. That does not mean I neatly line up with any particular party or group's agenda for what that should look like.

In fact, I bet if I asked, you wouldn't have any plans for what improvement would look like nor would you have any solutions for whatever problems you perceive....

Yet if I were to ask you if you saw a group of people standing in the way of your better society....you would have little trouble identifying them.

I think it would be better if we lived in a society where people weren't judged by things like their sexual orientation or skin color. Would you agree with that?

 

[Paidiske]

I recall you being an adherent to this new belief from a conversation long ago. I asked if you believed that black people had some ability to identify racism that white people lacked....or if their "lived experience" made them a sort of expert in your eyes in a way white people were not nor could not be. I'm paraphrasing of course but I recall you responding in the affirmative.

Then I asked you about a hypothetical where you were in charge of employees in some capacity and a black employee came to you with an accusation of racism against a white employee and the white employee denying it happened. Obviously, the question was asked to see if you could judge such things fairly, on the basis of evidence, or if you now held beliefs which ensured you would be biased in favor of some over others.

I don't recall if you ever answered or how you answered....but I don't want to dig up the discussion just to prove a point.

If you genuinely believe that certain people are above scrutiny and have special knowledge regarding certain issues because of their "lived experiences"....there's no evidence I can present which would convince you otherwise. It's magical thinking in every sense of the concept.

It's not a matter of being "above scrutiny," but recognising that even subjective experience is an important source of knowledge (and, dare I say, wisdom). It's quite possible to say something racist without even realising it.

It's also possible for people to experience their own bodies in different ways. I have no reason to believe that the experience of being in the "wrong body" is somehow not real; and plenty of reason to believe the people I've known who've shared that experience with me.

What I meant when I said they were irrational and contradictory was something provable. There's multiple claims made by trans activists that are inherently contradictory. Here's an example...

1. Children who are trans are born trans and know it at a very early age. They experience this problem as a part of their identity because they are born this way.

2. Trans people can realize they are trans at any point in their life....and then change gender back again to the one they were "assigned at birth" or something else entirely....at any other point in their lives. Simply put, gender can change, and change back, and change again at any time and this should not be questioned.

These two positions are both claimed to be true by the trans activists. One claims that the condition is sn immutable characteristic which one is born with. The other claims gender is a fluid and changing part of identity which can be completely different from one moment to the next....as if it's something merely chosen.

I can provide evidence that they take both positions easily....if you believe that they only advocate for one position, just say so, I'll provide examples of experts claiming that the other position is true.

Yet it cannot be both. It's either something chosen and changeable or something immutable.

The way I would make sense of that is that different people have different experiences, and we need to allow for that. I am also aware, particularly with older people who have significant trauma around their own sense of identity, that it might take them time to work through what they've experienced and find adequate language for it, or a fitting way to express their sense of their identity.

When I claim that it's a self serving power grab....and point out to your that trans people aren't denied any rights....you replied that they are killed in some foreign countries for being lgbtq. I don't know if you thought that was a good response but your inability to name a right they are denied in the US proves my point.

I'm not familiar enough with the minutiae of American law (and I think it would differ by state?) to know the landscape with regards to rights there. I am familiar enough with the situation here to know that trans people here often face difficulties around their gender being legally recognised, for a start.

It sounds as if you think the current situation is bad, and little different from how it was in the past... which was likewise bad.

I'd say it's a work in progress. Things are less bad now than they used to be, but we've got a long way to go.

In fact, I bet if I asked, you wouldn't have any plans for what improvement would look like nor would you have any solutions for whatever problems you perceive....

Actually, I have a bunch, although they're way off topic for this thread. Most of my top priorities would be about dealing with the underlying causes of preventable deaths.

Yet if I were to ask you if you saw a group of people standing in the way of your better society....you would have little trouble identifying them.

Quite probably. I'd be looking at those profiting from large corporations making their squillions from the exploitation and misery of ordinary people, for a start.

I think it would be better if we lived in a society where people weren't judged by things like their sexual orientation or skin color. Would you agree with that?

Indeed. Which makes me very suspicious of reifying a conservative/traditional approach where disadvantage on that kind of basis was routine.

And let me add that I don't trust those folks pushing for a "traditional" approach, to somehow be champions of women's rights. It's a convenient talking point against trans people, but when push comes to shove, that conservative/traditional/"Christian" movement doesn't have the equality of women at heart.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure, male and female bodies are a reality. Also a reality are the people who - to put it crudely - have brains that don't match their body, due to their particular development. Can a person change sex, biologically? No.

This is an interesting set of beliefs about the topic which might cause one to make some assumptions, such as....

1. You probably don't stay up to date on the arguments being made by the left/trans activists. For example, there is already a shift from saying that sex is a matter of biological fact to saying that it's actually...a spectrum with a wide degree variance. Therefore, we shouldn't assume anyone's sex and instead allow them to choose. If this sounds a lot like the left's description of gender...I'd agree...and suggest that perhaps there's no real difference between sex and gender at all, but rather gender was a concept that was hijacked by activists for their own self serving purposes. If you doubt this....just Google "is sex binary" and you'll find plenty of articles making the new argument alongside those making the old argument which you have stated above.

2. You haven't given much thought to the sports issue. The entire reason for different sports categories is fair competition. We separate men and women's sports because it would be unfair to compete against each other. We separate featherweight boxers from light heavyweight boxers for the exact same reason...fair competition. We separate the fastest runners of the 200m sprint from the slower runners by categorizing them into different "heats" based on previous running times.

Basically every category of sport exists for this purpose. Why then, would it matter if someone had a "female brain" in a male body? It shouldn't be an issue....nor was it. Lia Thomas wasn't denied the opportunity to compete in swimming because Lia Thomas is transgendered. Lia Thomas did compete in swimming....against the men....as we would expect fair competition.

The claim that Lia Thomas was somehow denied a right is intellectually dishonest and a bad faith argument.

Astonishingly, for the vast majority of interactions I have with other human beings, what reproductive organs they have simply do not matter at all.

Indeed, and this is part of what has advanced their agenda so well. You won't ever face a problem resulting from their demands.....so it's easy to support their demands. That's the wrong way to consider what sort of rules and laws we should have. Instead....try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is confronted with the issue.

If you haven't noticed....nearly every complaint is the result of someone confronted with the consequences of acquiescence to the trans activists.

 

[Paidiske]

This is an interesting set of beliefs about the topic which might cause one to make some assumptions, such as....

1. You probably don't stay up to date on the arguments being made by the left/trans activists.

I dabble. I wouldn't say I'm across every detail of every discussion.

For example, there is already a shift from saying that sex is a matter of biological fact to saying that it's actually...a spectrum with a wide degree variance.

This is not really a new argument. Judith Butler was arguing something similar in the early 90s, that we have imposed a sex binary as an artificial construct onto a much more complex biological reality.

And I'm willing to concede that there's something to that, while at the same time thinking that most of the time, the artificial binary works well enough for most of us that it's a useful construct nonetheless.

2. You haven't given much thought to the sports issue.

I think the sports issue is a niche issue. Sports can work this out on a case-by-case basis. It's just not that big a deal.

If you haven't noticed....nearly every complaint is the result of someone confronted with the consequences of acquiescence to the trans activists.

I think there are arguments to be had around single sex spaces, for example. But I also think that with a bit of good will and creativity we can work that out. Working out how to handle changing rooms or prisons or refuges doesn't have to be some kind of reason to take an all-or-nothing approach to dealing with trans people.

 

[rjs330]

They are not a professional body representing medical experts in their field. They are a selection of just a few hundred doctors acting as an advocacy group. From here: Anti-Trans Doctor Group Leaks 10,000 Confidential Files

Many of the College’s most radical views target transgender people, and in particular, transgender youth. The leak, which had been indexed by Google, includes volumes of literature crafted specifically to influence relationships between practicing pediatricians, parents, and their children. It includes reams of marketing material the College aims to distribute widely among public school officials. This includes pushing schools to adopt junk science painting transgender youth as carriers of a pathological disorder, one that’s capable of spontaneously causing others–à la the dancing plague–to adopt similar thoughts and behaviors.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in discussing anything these people have to say. Period. That you are using them to further your arguments says more about you than the matter at hand.

This is why you cannot be reasoned with. You see people doctors ne professionals that are concerned and have a differing opinions on the efficacy of transgenderism are labeled as an advocacy group by you. And those groups supporting transgenderism are all experts in their field and are in no way an advocacy group.

Yet who are ones standing to make the money here? Who are the ones who stand to benefit from this? Not just money wise but professionally and personally? Why it's the pro trans groups.

What are they doing? Well you have been shown over and over again what they are doing. It's all in the open. Full indoctrination and grooming and influence upon the education system, doctors and society itself. But hey they are not in any way involved in advocacy. No way. And if course nothing they have done has caused the 400% increase in transgender kids or anything.

Yes I'm sure those doctors are advocating to stop this nonsense. Good for them. We need more of them and more women to stand up against the trans activists out there. They are advocating to stop the indoctrination and grooming that's going on.

And if course your source is completely unbiased.

Let's just agree shall we that whatever groups or people you listen to are no less advocates than anyone on our side. Let's not pretend they are not ideologues who are actively promoting the mutilation and sterilization of kids.

 

[rjs330]

They are an advocacy group for promoting Christian morality as opposed to what is best for patients. I have therefore zero interest in any of their opinions.

The first three I covered. The next two (not 3 as I said - my bad) were either written by Cretella or quoted her significantly. The next is behind a paywall and the the Endocrine Society link is 7 years out of date.

Then what we need is comprehensive, scientifically based guide to best procedure. Such as this one: Standards of Care - WPATH World Professional Association for Transgender Health

Let me know what objections you have with it.

WPATH is nothing more than a radical leftist activist organization. You can't trust a thing they do.

 

[Bradskii]

This is why you cannot be reasoned with. You see people doctors ne professionals that are concerned and have a differing opinions on the efficacy of transgenderism are labeled as an advocacy group by you.

They are not an association representing a medical body of professionals. It was set up purely as an advocacy group and has remained just that - an advocacy group. The association representing pediatricians is the American Accademy of Pediatrics. It has in excess of 67,000 members.The American College of Pediatricians was set up to advocate against trans rights plus gay rights and abortion. They have a few hundred members.

If you want expert unbiased medical opinion then I think the choice is obvious.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's not a matter of being "above scrutiny,"

When I say "above scrutiny" I mean that someone is starting from the position of assuming someone is correct because of whatever superficial characteristics they possess. In this example, it's assuming that the black person is correct....because they are a black person.

Since no one can prove a negative, this puts the white person in this example in a nearly impossible position whereby they've already been judged guilty.

but recognising that even subjective experience is an important source of knowledge (and, dare I say, wisdom). It's quite possible to say something racist without even realising it.

See above. Plenty of people on this very forum believe a black person has special knowledge of the truth regarding issues of racism....because they are black. We have no idea what anyone's subjective experience is....nor can we know this....since the possibility of dishonesty is always present.

Therefore, assuming someone's "lived experience" let alone their ability to discern truth is greater than someone else....because they are black....is itself a racist statement/belief....although I sincerely doubt you realize it.

It's also possible for people to experience their own bodies in different ways. I have no reason to believe that the experience of being in the "wrong body" is somehow not real; and plenty of reason to believe the people I've known who've shared that experience with me.

Well you're resting this very belief upon certain assumptions. For example, the assumption that such a feeling even exists....and the assumption that there can be such a thing as "the wrong body" in any objective sense of the word.

It's nice that you believe the things you were told....but certainly, reasons exist to not believe them or approach them more skeptically.

The way I would make sense of that is that different people have different experiences, and we need to allow for that.

I think I do allow for that....quite likely more than you do. I don't assume anyone's lived experiences based upon the superficial characteristics of their appearance.

I am also aware, particularly with older people who have significant trauma around their own sense of identity, that it might take them time to work through what they've experienced and find adequate language for it, or a fitting way to express their sense of their identity.

If someone is "old" by which I mean well into adulthood and still struggling with their "identity" they have, imo, wasted their lives or otherwise made extremely poor choices.

There's plenty of time to sort out those issues while young....and lacking any real trauma (frontline combat in war for example or repeated sexual abuse from a parent throughout childhood) I have a hard time finding a significant amount of sympathy for those who simply had to deal with others being less than pleasant to them.

I'm not familiar enough with the minutiae of American law (and I think it would differ by state?) to know the landscape with regards to rights there. I am familiar enough with the situation here to know that trans people here often face difficulties around their gender being legally recognised, for a start.

What do you mean "legally recognized"?

Our lawmakers are struggling with simply explaining what a woman or man is.....so I'm doubtful of any such lawmakers attempting to craft any legal statutes around words they cannot define.

However, I'll explain the situation as best as I can understand it.

We passed Constitutional amendments, a very difficult thing to do, to make it illegal to discriminate against certain immutable characteristics like skin color/race, ethnicity, religious beliefs (which are an interesting category) and sexual orientation. This is a very difficult thing to do....and just as difficult to undo.

President Biden, upon entering office, issued an executive order (a sort of presidential decree or guideline for legal interpretation of certain laws). This executive order was regarding gender identity (although it was already illegal to discriminate against men or women for being men or women) and it was for the purpose of extending these discrimination protections to transgendered people. Essentially, it declared gender identity to be a matter of personal perception....aka, whatever someone feels like they are, they are. This as you may notice....is starkly different from the other characteristics.

So why does this matter? It's not really a legitimate way of altering an amendment. If you want to change it, there's debates and votes to have and it won't likely pass.

What this means in practical terms is....states can effectively ignore this executive order and pass laws against it. If it was a legitimate alteration to the amendment....they would lose a legal challenge from Washington. If it was a reasonable interpretation of the law....there's a slim chance that the SCOTUS would rule in their favor....but if they ruled against it, they would basically shoot any future possibilities for that in the foot.

The same thing holds true for a lot of what this administration wishes to do. You may recall an attempt to hand out loans and relief funds to black farmers and black farmers only. The white farmers rightly fought this as discrimination....and rather than get a ruling from the SCOTUS that would put an end to any future hopes of racialized wealth redistribution, the administration dropped the case and the white farmers won.

To do what they want to do....the left needs to repeal the civil rights amendment against discrimination they fought so hard to get in place. The ultra progressive California tried to do this...and the public voted against it.

I'd sympathize...but I'm against institutional racism.

I'd say it's a work in progress. Things are less bad now than they used to be, but we've got a long way to go.

A long way to go to what? What is the end goal?

Actually, I have a bunch, although they're way off topic for this thread. Most of my top priorities would be about dealing with the underlying causes of preventable deaths.

We don't have to go into it....just give me an example.

Quite probably. I'd be looking at those profiting from large corporations making their squillions from the exploitation and misery of ordinary people, for a start.

This used to be a central position on left
...around the early 2000s we had a whole "Occupy Wall Street" thing that focused on wealth inequality, the shrinking middle class, etc. We learned a couple of things there....1. The left forgot how to protest. They had no specific demands, no suggested solutions, no leadership. 2. Without the media support they typically enjoyed, they looked disorganized and foolish.

Indeed. Which makes me very suspicious of reifying a conservative/traditional approach where disadvantage on that kind of basis was routine.

Well that concept...of a world where we don't judge people by those racial and sexual characteristics....is called "colorblindness". It's the goal spoken of in MLKs "I have a dream speech" and it is currently rejected as not only undesirable by the left....but entirely impossible. The left currently wants everyone to be judged by these things....and negatively if you're white or male or straight or Christian.

And let me add that I don't trust those folks pushing for a "traditional" approach, to somehow be champions of women's rights.

What's the traditional approach?

It's a convenient talking point against trans people, but when push comes to shove, that conservative/traditional/"Christian" movement doesn't have the equality of women at heart.

I don't know what they have at heart. I don't claim to. They seem to have accepted women in the workplace without much difficulty....and they even stomached abortion being legal for decades in the appropriate manner. They protested, debated, lobbied, voted.....but they didn't ever decide their opponents needed to be silenced or extra judicially punished. Yes... there were a few extremists who crossed that line....but they were overwhelmingly condemned by the larger Christian community.

It would be good to see the left handle this reversal of fortune as well as they did.

 

[Ana the Ist]

They are not an association representing a medical body of professionals. It was set up purely as an advocacy group and has remained just that - an advocacy group. The association representing pediatricians is the American Accademy of Pediatrics. It has in excess of 67,000 members.The American College of Pediatricians was set up to advocate against trans rights plus gay rights and abortion. They have a few hundred members.

Those members aren't medical professionals?

If you want expert unbiased medical opinion then I think the choice is obvious.

Unbiased isn't an organization getting advice from the people who have the most at stake and arguably the biggest bias. I'm pretty sure that the AAP is getting their advice from WPATH.