When two worldviews collide.

[Paidiske]

Yet when I dismiss a group of blatantly biased activists.....suddenly I need to address the evidence regardless?

But this is not about a group of activists. It's about the Australian standards of care. Either they are, or are not, appropriate, on their own merits.

1. Assessment of gender dysphoria. This typically is met by asking the child why they came to the clinic.

My bold. Where does it say that? Because that's not what I see in front of me in the document.

3. Telling the child that because they aren't exactly sure what will happen when they give them puberty blockers....they might not be able to have children.

That's not what "fertillity preservation counselling" and referral means.

Shall I continue?

Given that we're reading exactly the same text, and I don't think it means what you say it means, I'm not sure what the point of continuing would be.

That depends upon how gender dysphoria is diagnosed. Typically, it can be diagnosed in a short 15 minute conversation.

Gender Dysphoria: What It Is, Symptoms & Management - Australia Counselling Directory. "Gender dysphoria is diagnosed through a comprehensive evaluation by a mental health professional, such as a psychologist or psychiatrist. The diagnosis is made based on the presence of certain criteria outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)."

Oh look, there are criteria and everything.

I don't see how anyone would think it's ok for an 11yo to get themselves sterilized for life is acceptable.

Literally nobody is saying this, though. Treatment which would result in infertility is not offered at that age. Because some people may choose to go on to such treatment, it's appropriate to discuss fertility at this point.

I mean seriously....why is this ok in your eyes?

I think you're seriously misrepresenting what actually happens.

See the evidence above. I provided the full list.

And then claimed gender dysphoria could be diagnosed in a 15-minute consultation, which doesn't reflect how such a diagnosis is actually made.

You're advocating for destroying their ability to have children and the likelihood of anything resembling a normal healthy relationship with another adult.

No... that's not what I'm advocating. I'm advocating that Christian/conservative/traditional ideologues not see this as a battle to fight on ideological grounds.

Honestly, if you don't care about what options are available to children....that's fine. Stay out of the discussion. I think children are too vulnerable and too easily manipulated and harmed to see this as acceptable.

I care about what options are available to children. Which is why I'm arguing against Christian/whatever cultural warriors making children's bodies their battlefield. Children are too vulnerable indeed to be at their mercy.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No you don't. GPs diagnose mental health conditions routinely.

This is a clear misrepresentation. I'm sure I've linked to this already in this thread, but see here, particularly the section on "How is it determined that someone needs and is eligible for these procedures?"

Unless they do. GPs do engage in ongoing professional development, after all.

In case you missed this point the many times I made it, I am not advocating for any particular protocol or standard of care. I'm arguing against Christians/conservatives/whatever seeking to limit treatment options on an ideological basis. I'm happy to let the medical professionals work through medical issues.

Also....what do you mean "range of sources"? They listed WPATH....a group of perverts that cite websites where other perverts write child rape fanfiction....as a legit source of information for medical care.

Other than WPATH, you have clinicians who were going by WPATH's previous standards and cherry picked research.

You're free to defend them....I just pointed it out because you seemed unaware of the source of your standard of care.

 

[Paidiske]

Also....what do you mean "range of sources"?

Your own quote cited fifteen other sources, including articles in the journals Human Development, Pediatrics, Journal of Adolescent Health, Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Transgender Health, Journal of LGBT Issues in Counselling, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, European Journal of Endocrinology, Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and Bone, as well as other guidelines, clinical guides, and a report from the American Psychological Association.

Do you really expect me to believe that all of these sources are somehow held hostage by a "group of perverts"? That they're somehow dictating study findings and application on everything from clinical competence to bone density? That belongs in the conspiracy theories forum, really.

 

[stevevw]

Exactly. So we should be open to new ideas and new concepts. It's worth noting the author of that hymn was a 19th-century English Congregationalist, so his work demonstrates that some of the attitudes I'm arguing for have been part of a more "traditional" take on Christianity than perhaps your arguments have allowed for.

Yes those Truths have been around for a long time. I don't think the poem is saying be open to new ideas as far as human beliefs but rather be open to Gods Truth as it reveals itself in new situations. But Gods Truth remains the same. The last sentence in the poem suggests this when it says the Lord has yet more light and truth to break forth from his word. The basis is Gods Word and not human ideas of what light and truth represent. Its Gods Word that will reveal to us the Truth in new ande changing situations.

Well, that view might be the basis of a fairly apodictic approach to Christian ethics. But there are other schools of ethics, even in Christian thought; virtue ethics, basic human goods ethics, consequentialist ethics, and so on. There's a book by Samuel Wells called Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics which looks at how our ethical responses might be less like reading from a script, and more like developing a godly character which then expresses itself in new and varied situations. It's a concept worth thinking about.

I take a more simplistic view of ethics. I understand ethics and the ideas you mention, Kant (Deontology) was very influential so was Betham (Teology and Consequentialism) as was Nietzsche (God is dead). I think we are rational and moral beings and we have the capacity to do great good and evil unlike other creatures. We are all sinners and have knowledge of Gods laws written in our conscience so we know when somethings wrong.

But as sinful natured people we can also rationalise the Truth away and justify wrong by replacing Gods Truth with human ideas of morality which seems to have been the progression of secular ethical thinking. Wokism seems a product of the evolution of human ideas about morality. Wokism is basically stems from Postmodernist thinking which declares there is no Truth, objective reality or Grand Narratives and truth is Self Referential or Subjective/Relative.

Perhaps, and it certainly helped provide a foundation for feminist thought.

It wasn't just the basis for feminist thought as from a Feminist lens. It was a unifying lens that included everyone including race and slavery and the basis for Human Rights. So it had profound influence in a Pagan world.

However, my point was simply that Christian views about things like being made in God's image, and what it means to be male and female, have not been unchanged through our history. This is demonstrable by a fairly quick glance at our history, and the diversity of views held even today.

Yes a diversity of views has evolved today but that doesn't mean they are all the Truth. I am not sure whether your trying to make an arguement for morals being subjective and relative. The Truth that we are made in Gods Image was the basis for the US Declaration that all humans regardless of gender, race ect have inalienable rights that cannot be changed or taken away by governments and human ideas about those Rights equality being one.

That Truth has not really changed on this for a long time and is the basis for Human Rights. We knew those Truths before we encoded them and we see glimpses of them throughout our history as with Christianity regulating slavery and eventually abolishing it and bringing womens equality into the Roman Empire. Just because some may have diverse views that disagree with those Truths doesn't mean they are right. But part of Human Rights is to be able to disagree which relates to our God given free will. The problem I think is that the deisagreement and Critical theorizing has tuned into a complete rejection of any truth.

Really? I'm not being open and fair to point out that Christians throughout history have not all valued women as made in the image of God?

No you should point that out, that is part of standing up for the Truth and that is exactly what people do when they point out with issues in moedern society. I am saying don't let that wrong define Christian Truth. The best way to undermine Gods Truth is to edisguise it with a lie that looks like the Truth.

Here's a quote from Augustine of Hippo:
" . . woman was given to man, woman who was of small intelligence and who perhaps still lives more in accordance with the promptings of the inferior flesh than by superior reason. Is this why the apostle Paul does not attribute the image of God to her?”
De Genesi ad literam Book 11.42

Or the same Augustine:
". . . the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one.”
On the Trinity, 12.7.10

Here's Aquinas:
“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence. Such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes” (On the Generation of Animals 4.2).

Being "in the image of God" is not a matter of biology. God is not a biological being.

But it has practical implications for how we treat our boies and the bodies of others. I don't think you can seperate Gods Image from our personhood. We embody Gods Image and our bodies are a temple for God. When we defile our bodies we defile Gods Image.

There are good things about Western culture, but there are lots of problems too.

Such as. I think Western culture is the vessel for which God brough the Gospel in this fallen world. That has to be a good thing. We couled say the Roman Empire had a lot of problems as well but from it came the greatest Good that outshines all the problems. In some ways the entire World has problems in that regard but its Gods Truth and Light of the worled that has remained throughout time even when it has almost been exstinguished at times.

It does kind of undermine your claim, though, that we had a wonderful, well-ordered society based on these unchanging "truths" until five minutes ago, and then it all went to hell in a handbasket.

I am not saying that we had a wonderful world, remember the world had fallen and we have a tenedency to rebel against God rather than uphold his Law. Rather from the time of Christ we can see how Christianity was injected into the world and changed it gradually coming to Gods Truth. Yes humans have at times maybe more often than not gone away from that Truth including the Church but all along the way we have seen Christianity get back to its roots and survive as a driving force for societies to show Christ love in practical ways.

I should create a bingo card for these threads.

"We" must? Who's "we"? And why is that something "we" have to control?

We, are Christians and society to an extent if we are to have a stable and well society. Christians don't have to control society. they deidn't in the early days and they don't today. But they can certainly spread the Gospel of Truth to society and the world including in practical ways like exposing lies when they harm others. Like Christ said anyone who leads chiledren astray is in big trouble. So we should be concerned about societal ideas when it comes to children or anyone really as to what is best morally.

Really? Outside my marriage, to whom do my reproductive organs matter? Nobody else sees them (occasional medical checks aside), and they don't impinge on my work, my friendships, my hobbies. Likewise, outside my household, I don't see anyone else's reproductive organs, and which organs people have, doesn't impinge on my ability to work with them, engage socially with them, or even (shock horror) worship with them.
The range of contexts in which this actually matters is very small. It helps to keep that in perspective.

When you consider the traits that go along with reproduction its not a small matter.
A persons reproductive organs are a representation other traits like strength, genitalia, sexed brain, temperament, and other differences that matter. Your putting reproductive organs in a seperate category as though completely detached from the rest of the body. One big one that matters is womens reproductive rights at work. You cannot have reproductive rights if the 'Women' as a uique sex (thats the ability to get pregnant) is no longer a reality.

If males can get pregnant and have everything else nate women have then there is no longer reproductive rights for nate women. Its been erased and replaced by a new category that includes men, the very opposite of Feminism.

Some of them do; most of them, in my experience, come down to inhabiting a society which treats men and women very differently.

Have you ever considered that some of the reasons why society treats males and females differently may have some basis in reality and not just human constructed. We may have many broad similarities but there are important differences that usually come out in issues that matter a lot. Like we can all be athletic well not all as we are becoming pretty inactive. But at the extreme ends which matters the most as it usually in work, sports a social setups like womens and mens spaces which are very personal and matter.

So at the extreme males are stronger and dominate sports ability and will more likely be in situations that demand strength such as in combat or the buildeing industry for example. Thats not saying that some women can also have strength but at the extreme I think you will find males are the strongest. Women will also have their ability in other areas that men are not as good at like in Human services. This matters because in a society that wants the best to survive we want to utilize those abilities.

The point, though, is that biology, sex and gender are not what it means to be in the image of God. The "image of God" is not about a sex binary.

What does the image of God represent then. How can we uphold this Truth and apply it in the world.

And by "trans ideology" you mean what, exactly?

Trans and Gender Ideology is an assumption and belief that there is no fixed nature to male and female but rather its human created. From this comes the belief that we can reconstruct or recreate human form ie males can be recreateed into female form not a mere copy but an actual female in every way to a nate female. This stems from Queer theory of the 90's which questions heterosexuality and Cis gender identities being the standard for society. Returning to your claim that reproeductive organs don't matter.

Part of Queer Theory is to erase sex altogther ie (sex is not a reality but socially constructed and gender is a reality) yet reproductive organs is a big part of ones Sex. There are Rights relating to Sex so if its a Right then it matters that we preseve the reality of our embodied sex.

I don't know whether you see the glaring irony of arguing against someone else's single worldview, while wanting to insist that everyone honour your take on "Truth."

But the Big difference here is that one (biological reality) is a fact of the world and Trans ideology is a belief about the world. We should uphold objective reality as we know that enforcing beliefs can get us into all sorts of problems. If someones worldview belief is that humans can be the opposite sex in reality then fine keep it to yourself. But don't push it on society like Trans ideology does. Its no better than when religious belief is pushed and causes just as much problems not the least that it defies objective reality.

There's some truth to this. I'd start by critiquing the way the industrial revolution has shaped our ideas about work, for a start. I don't think scapegoating some of society's most vulnerable people is really going to help tackle much of this in any constructive way, though. Nor - to come back around to my first post in this thread - is a bunch of Christians trying to exert power and control over the rest of society.

You keep saying Christians exerting power over society. I have only been pointing out how its important to stand up for the hard earn't Truths we have come to know in Western society and have proven their worth but not to enforce those Truths. Simply to have the Right to speak them an d preserve them.

But in today ideological thinking speaking those Truths is equated as trying to enforce those Truths which is not the case. That is the mind of the ideologue who sees the world as oppressor and victim and then throws out everything associated with their own history including the hard earn't Truths that got us to where we are today.

 

[stevevw]

What if - here's a thought - it's 90% of the 20% whose gender dysphoria persists, who go on to the next step?

I think what rjs330 is saying is that 85 to 90% of children who are gender dyphoric including those who identify as Trans gow out of it after puberty. But the Trans Affirmative aned Transitional Care Model regards kids with GD as being Trans and theres no growing out of it. Or at least they hate to aedmit this as it signals that Gender identity is not innate but rather a subjective feeling or belief due to being confused and deluded about ones identity as which happens with kids especially around puberty as pretty normal developement..

So the Trans care approach wants to Affirm these kids and because puberty brings out the opposite sex traits they want kids to start on puberty blockers before puberty to stop this. But if the apporach is to automatically assume that kids who display gender non congruent behaviour are Trans and should start Puberty blockers before puberty and 90% grow out of it after puberty then they haven't waited and watched to see whether this was the case.

That sets up a scenario where there could be some if not many who were not Trans being given life harming chemicals not to mention the harmful indoctrination that their biological sex, their embodied reality is not real but rather anything their feel is real. That seems to be the new reality that feelings are real and the rest doesn't matter.

The ironic thing and this is why its important to challenge this ideology on scientific grounds is that it is puberty itself that resolves GD in most kids but Trans care wants to stop the very thing that resolves the problem of GD for most kids. How can puberty resolve GD if its stopped. Even social Transitioning can be harmful if it sets a kid on the transitional path who wasn't Trans and is maybe Gay or Autistic or suffered trauma because many find it hard to get off and end up also having Hormone therapy.

But now it seems this ideology is spreading with Rainbow month which was originally designed for Gays but has been hijacked by Trans activists so that its becoming a family affair thus further indeoctrinating not just kids but society as a whole. Evidence shows that many kids have been rushed into Homone therapy. We are beginning to see regretters and destransitioners more often and I think we will end up finding that this will be another child abuse scandel in our history in the future. That is why many are standing up to this.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But this is not about a group of activists. It's about the Australian standards of care. Either they are, or are not, appropriate, on their own merits.

I was making a point about the dismissal of evidence on the grounds of bias.

I don't expect you to stop doing it....I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. The standards of care are written by a highly biased activist group.

If you're going to dismiss someone else's evidence on bias....you need to account for why it doesn't matter in regards to WPATH.

My bold. Where does it say that? Because that's not what I see in front of me in the document.

I'm saying that....I already know what the diagnosis of gender dysphoria requires....and it's not much more than saying they have gender dysphoria.

That's not what "fertillity preservation counselling" and referral means.

What do you think it means lol. Here it would cost tens of thousands to freeze an egg though I think sperm are probably cheaper. Regardless, not many 11yo children with that kind of cash laying around so....

What do you think it means?

Given that we're reading exactly the same text, and I don't think it means what you say it means, I'm not sure what the point of continuing would be.

Feel free to correct me or point out what I'm failing to consider.

This is the criteria for puberty blockers in Australia.

It includes, as you noted, "fertillity preservation counselling". Apparently, that's something the doctors think a child should hear before going on puberty blockers.

Go ahead and explain what that is and why it is required for puberty blockers to be prescribed. It seems highly likely they are related to infertility resulting from puberty blockers. If you disagree....let's hear why. No need to be shy.

Gender Dysphoria: What It Is, Symptoms & Management - Australia Counselling Directory. "Gender dysphoria is diagnosed through a comprehensive evaluation by a mental health professional, such as a psychologist or psychiatrist. The diagnosis is made based on the presence of certain criteria outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)."

Oh look, there are criteria and everything.

Oh noooooo! You got me there....let's look at that criteria.



A.
A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)

B.
A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)

C.
A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender

D.
A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s designated gender)

E.
A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s designated gender)

F.
A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s designated gender)


Ok...so a 11yo child walks into the gender clinic. The medical professionals ask why are you here today? The young boy says I feel like a girl and wish I looked like one and heard you can help. The medical professionals ask how long he's felt this way. He says a year.

That officially qualifies him as experiencing gender dysphoria. I was being generous when I said 15 minutes. This can be diagnosed under 5 minutes.

Then they start writing the prescription....just gotta mention that possibility of infertility.

Literally nobody is saying this, though.

How about the president of WPATH?

Wanna see "her" saying it? Did you miss the part where I mentioned that already?

Certainly you trust "her" expert opinion. WPATH writes that Standards of Care you think is such a good idea. The president of the organization that literally writes your standards of care said that.

Do you still think it's an honest organization?

Treatment which would result in infertility is not offered at that age.

Puberty blockers are offered at that age.

Again....I'm certain I can find the clip if you're too scared to see it yourself.

Because some people may choose to go on to such treatment, it's appropriate to discuss fertility at this point.

Puberty blockers affect fertillity. In what world are you living in where you imagine we're we're blocking puberty in boys, stopping the natural release of testosterone, and then replacing it with cross sex hormones and it doesn't affect fertillity or sexual function? What do you think happens?

Do you think these pills actually turn them into women?

I think you're seriously misrepresenting what actually happens.

Or you are entirely wrong.

And then claimed gender dysphoria could be diagnosed in a 15-minute consultation, which doesn't reflect how such a diagnosis is actually made.

I just listed the criteria. If 2 of those 6 feelings are claimed to be present for at least six months....that's a diagnosis.

No... that's not what I'm advocating. I'm advocating that Christian/conservative/traditional ideologues not see this as a battle to fight on ideological grounds.

I don't know what ideology finds it acceptable to sterilize children but I don't care if you're Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Pastafarian....I would hope anyone with any morals would see this as both evil and prevent it.

I care about what options are available to children.

I don't think you do....you don't seem aware of what is being done to children or what the effects are.

Which is why I'm arguing against Christian/whatever cultural warriors making children's bodies their battlefield.

I don't consider myself a cultural warrior for opposing those blindly ignorant or neglectfully stupid enough to support sterilization of children.

I simply have enough brains to ask....you're doing what to children?

Children are too vulnerable indeed to be at their mercy.

Then why are you a part of the church?

Trying to bring it down from the inside?

 

[Paidiske]

I don't think the poem is saying be open to new ideas as far as human beliefs but rather be open to Gods Truth as it reveals itself in new situations.

Are those always mutually exclusive categories? I would say no.

I've always read that hymn as celebrating the advance of human knowledge as a godly endeavour. This conversation made me do some digging, though, and apparently it was inspired by a farewell speech to the pilgrims about to set sail on the Mayflower. So there are some interesting historical ideas to ponder there.

But the point for me quoting it was really in the lines about not limiting our thinking "by notions of our day and sect, crude, partial and confined." Paradigms shift and we have to be open to new ideas and new possibilities.

We all are sinners and have knowledge of Gods laws written in our conscience so we know when somethings wrong.

I wouldn't agree about that, actually. Conscience forms over time, and can be imperfect or even wrong; and that's before we consider issues such as neurotic guilt. One of the biggest pastoral problems for Christians is misplaced guilt.

So it had profound influence in a Pagan world.

It had profound influence in a supposedly Christian world. And that's still a work in progress.

Yes a diversity of views has evolved today bit that doesn't mean they are all the Truth.

No, that's not my point. My point is that even within the treasure-store of "traditional" ideas and resources, there's been a diversity of views. And they weren't all Truth either, so it's dangerous to kind of revere them simply for having been around a long time.

I am not sure whether your trying to make an arguement for morals being subjective and relative.

No, I'm trying to make an argument that there isn't a sound, well-tested, historically-proven, generally-agreed-upon, "Truth" of human nature from which we have only recently deviated.

I am saying don't let that wrong define Christian Truth.

It doesn't. But you can't claim that the traditional Christian "Truth" was therefore some utopia of equality. If anything, it's been a progressive cause to discover ever more depth to the truth of what it means to be in the image of God!

But it has practical implications for how we treat our boies and the bodies of others. I don't think you can seperate Gods Image from our personhood. We embody Gods Image and our bodies are a temple for God. When we defile our bodies we defile Gods Image.

Oh, no no no. There are good reasons to argue for treating our bodies well, but being made in the image of God isn't one of them. The image of God is not about embodiment, because God (incarnation aside) is not embodied! And, most particularly relevant to this discussion, the image of God is not about a reproductive binary.

Such as.

Political participation (or lack thereof), management of climate change (causes and responses), access to health care, poverty and economic exploitation, warfare and response to refugees, and on and on we could go.

I think Western culture is the vessel for which God brough the Gospel in this fallen world.

We could argue about whether first-century Judaism counts as "western," but that aside, seeing our culture as special just because we've had a long history of Christianity is really dangerous. It would seem to promote overlooking our flaws and failings, rather than facing them honestly.

I am not saying that we had a wonderful world, remember the world had fallen and we have a tenedency to rebel against God rather than uphold his Law.

I remember all too well. Which suggests that attitudes passed down within that culture might also be flawed.

We, are Christians and society to an extent if we are to have a stable and well society.

Sorry, I don't agree that Christians should be controlling other people's medical treatment. That would be the opposite of a "well society."

So we should be concerned about societal ideas when it comes to children or anyone really as to what is best morally.

And we should be prepared to make our moral arguments on their merits, and let others either accept them, or not.

A persons reproductive organs are a representation other traits like strength, genitalia, sexed brain, temperament, and other differences that matter.

Oh, no, no you don't. I'm not going to buy a line that temperament is determined by sex. Or even strength. If those differences matter, measure them directly, don't take sex as a proxy for them.

One big one that matters is womens reproductive rights at work. You cannot have reproductive rights if the 'Women' as a uique sex (thats the ability to get pregnant) is no longer a reality.

Really? I can't have maternity leave if transwomen exist? Why on earth not? Surely maternity leave is predicated on being pregnant.

Have you ever considered that some of the reasons why society treats males and females differently may have some basis in reality and not just human constructed.

Yeah, I figured this line of argument was probably underpinning some of the objections. Sexist to the core.

On the whole, though, I don't buy it. On the nature-nurture argument for socialisation, I'm pretty strongly on the nurture end.

But at the extreme ends which matters the most

Actually, I disagree. I think what matters most is the vast area of overlap. I'm sure I've posted this image for you before, but just in case you've forgotten, a normal distribution of most traits which differ by sex looks like this:

Sure, there's a bit of difference at the extremes. But the vast majority of people aren't at those extremes for any given trait. The story here isn't our differences; it's that most men and most women inhabit the same range of variation for most traits.

What does the image of God represent then. How can we uphold this Truth and apply it in the world.

I gave you three traits commonly considered to be important to what it means to be in the image of God; relationality, rationality and creativity. None of which are sexed or gendered. But all of which can be celebrated and nurtured in all people.

Trans and Gender Ideology is an assumption and belief that there is no fixed nature to male and female but rather its human created. From this comes the belief that we can reconstruct or recreate human form ie males can be recreateed into female form not a mere copy but an actual female in every way to a nate female.

That's not actually what I understand trans people (or activists) to be saying. They understand that biological differences persist. What I think they're looking for is acceptance into the social category (which is not quite the same thing).

But the Big difference here is that one (biological reality) is a fact of the worled and Trans ideology is a belief about the world. We should uphold objective reality as we know that enforcing beliefs can get us into all sorts of problems.

As far as I can see, understanding the difference between biological categories and social categories, and being able to see them as separate, goes a long way to resolving any issue here. Social categories, after all, are arbitrary and can be changed.

You keep saying Christians exerting power over society.

Well, yes. Because as far as I can tell, you're arguing for a worldview you describe as Christian, to be the ordering principle for society.

I have only been pointing out how its important to stand up for the hard earn't Truths we have come to know in Western society and have proven their worth but not to enforce those Truths. Simply to have the Right to speak them an d preserve them.

And you have that right. So that's not an issue.

But in today ideological thinking speaking those Truths is equated as trying to enforce those Truths which is not the case.

Oh, so you would like to make a statement of your worldview and then leave it to others how they receive that? Go right ahead. Write a book, start a podcast, whatever you like. I must say, that's not quite the impression I'd gathered so far in the thread, that that was all you wanted. Since, after all, there's nothing preventing you from doing so.

 

[Paidiske]

The standards of care are written by a highly biased activist group.

No, they weren't. They were written by a group of staff at the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne.

I'm saying that....I already know what the diagnosis of gender dysphoria requires....and it's not much more than saying they have gender dysphoria.

Well, that's not what I've seen in real life. Or what I see reflected in the documentation. So... I don't agree with you on that.

What do you think it means lol.

"Counselling" doesn't mean uttering one sentence then rushing on. Funnily enough, there are principles of care for that, too.

Ok...so a 11yo child walks into the gender clinic. The medical professionals ask why are you here today? The young boy says I feel like a girl and wish I looked like one and heard you can help. The medical professionals ask how long he's felt this way. He says a year.

That officially qualifies him as experiencing gender dysphoria. I was being generous when I said 15 minutes. This can be diagnosed under 5 minutes.
Then they start writing the prescription....just gotta mention that possibility of infertility.

That is not a comprehensive assessment, which is what the standards of care require.

Do you still think it's an honest organization?

I don't know very much about WPATH, and frankly, I don't care. What I care about is what is actually happening on the ground, in clinics. And either by their own documented standards, or by the anecdotal evidence of people I know in real life, what is actually happening does not match the hyperbole you're putting out there. Kids aren't being diagnosed in fifteen minutes. People aren't having sterilising treatments at 11. The reality is much more complex, and more cautious, than the picture being painted here.

Puberty blockers are offered at that age.

Sure. They're not a sterilising treatment, so let's not misrepresent them.

Puberty blockers affect fertillity. In what world are you living in where you imagine we're we're blocking puberty in boys, stopping the natural release of testosterone, and then replacing it with cross sex hormones and it doesn't affect fertillity or sexual function?

Nuh-uh. Those are two separate things. Puberty blockers are one thing; they're a lot like a contraceptive implant for women, they're not permanent. They're a pause in development.

Cross-sex hormone treatment is a separate thing, usually started years later.

Do you think these pills actually turn them into women?

Given I've used contraceptive implants very similar to puberty blockers in girls (in fact, some contraceptive implants are sometimes used as a puberty blocker), I think I've got a better idea than most men what they do and how they work.

I don't know what ideology finds it acceptable to sterilize children but I don't care if you're Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Pastafarian....I would hope anyone with any morals would see this as both evil and prevent it.

Once more, with feeling... nobody is advocating sterilising children.

Then why are you a part of the church?

Trying to bring it down from the inside?

I'm a part of the church, but that doesn't mean I feel I have much common cause with some of the fundamentalist, science-rejecting, evolution-denying, flat-earther, conspiracy-theory-believing, sexist, homophobic, racist, nationalist nutcases and ignoramuses (ignorami?) who would be all too happy to be on the frontlines of this kind of culture war. There's plenty of crazy Christian fringe whose worldview has nothing in common with the sane Christian mainstream.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm a part of the church, but that doesn't mean I feel I have much common cause with some of the fundamentalist, science-rejecting, evolution-denying, flat-earther, conspiracy-theory-believing, sexist, homophobic, racist, nationalist nutcases and ignoramuses (ignorami?) who would be all too happy to be on the frontlines of this kind of culture war. There's plenty of crazy Christian fringe whose worldview has nothing in common with the sane Christian mainstream.

I like ignoranti myself. And as you used ten characteristics, maybe we could use that as a basis to suggest that, for example, someone scores 7 on the Ignoranti Scale (or even the Paidiske Scale). I think it might need to be logarithmic though as racism for example must be considered a serious problem whereas evolution denial is rarely more than an amusing forum sideline.

 

[Paidiske]

I was just venting. If we wanted to be systematic about it, I could come up with a more comprehensive list than that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let me add that a third worldview which tries to reconcile these two. In that world view there is indeed God who created and designed for a purpose. But part of that purpose is human growth and spiritual development. And that requires human empowerment, free will, self determination, much like a child needs to learn to make his or her own decisions and choices, choosing the life that is right for him or her rather than the parents' plan.

When a child is born with a cleft palate or any other physical abnormality, we often have no problem with surgical correction. we take it upon ourselves to change the way God created that child.

9 out of 10 children with cleft lips die from the abnormality.

Transgenderism isn't fatal.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If there is another person in history you think has had more impact on the world besides Jesus Christ, who would you submit is that person?
It doesn't matter to me east or west, north or south. I would like to compare that person to Christ.

That's not what she said. She rejected the claim (as I would) that Christianity is the basis of Western values. (What ever the "West" is. I mean, most of the place people claim as central to Western Civilization aren't even in the Western hemisphere.) Her comments weren't about the relative influence of Jesus of Nazareth to any other specific person at all.

There is more to "Western Civ" than Christianity (like Greek and Roman philosophy and culture; the Enlightenment; the 12-bar blues) and it can be seen in Western and non-Western societies with a strong Christian element.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Then you know that they allow puberty blockers in some circumstances. When the case dictates that they do. When each case is considered on it's merits.

So what we have now is you saying that we should listen to these people. They are doing it right. They are setting a good example. I'm not inclined to disagree. So let's use them as an example of correct procedures.

The thing is, now you've dug up information, by experts, who you say we should trust, your response to that, to the very people you quote, 'I don't agree with them'.

Can your position be any more nonsensical?

WPATH accused England, Sweden, and basically anyone else who dropped their affirmative care model for the Dutch model of "gatekeeping" access to puberty blockers and HRT by limiting access so much they've nearly banned their use....


So despite your claims of having the same guidelines, it seems WPATH disagrees rather strenuously.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your own quote cited fifteen other sources, including articles in the journals Human Development, Pediatrics, Journal of Adolescent Health, Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Transgender Health, Journal of LGBT Issues in Counselling, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, European Journal of Endocrinology, Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and Bone, as well as other guidelines, clinical guides, and a report from the American Psychological Association.

When a scientific journal is cited its because, I'm assuming, it has research in the journal cited. Would you like to start going through each citation and seeing if they were funded or the researchers were members of WPATH?

Do you really expect me to believe that all of these sources are somehow held hostage by a "group of perverts"? That they're somehow dictating study findings and application on everything from clinical competence to bone density? That belongs in the conspiracy theories forum, really.

It sounds crazy right? It would require some sort of social climate wherein you could hurl accusations of transphobia or bigotry at their peers and cost them their reputations or jobs....like a sort of "culture" that "cancels" anyone who disagrees with its poorly formed opinions. It would require that at least....and I doubt anyone has even suggested such a thing exists.


As someone who never believed the wet market narrative and immediately pointed out the obvious cover up in play when certain emails were released and is now essentially vindicated for what others have called the belief in "conspiracy theories"....if you need help identifying the difference between a conspiracy theory and just a very real possibility of a group of degenerates working together, just ask. I'll gladly explain.

 

[partinobodycular]

If there is another person in history you think has had more impact on the world besides Jesus Christ, who would you submit is that person?

Well based on the number of descendants alone I'd have to go with Genghis Khan. In which case the score is 16 million to zero.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

9 out of 10 children with cleft lips die from the abnormality.

Transgenderism isn't fatal.

But suicide is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, they weren't. They were written by a group of staff at the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne.

I recall coming across the explanation of initial drafts, sent where and to whom, and then edited again by WPATH and resubmitted, etc. I can probably find it again if you like....but they absolutely did effectively author your standards of care.

Well, that's not what I've seen in real life. Or what I see reflected in the documentation. So... I don't agree with you on that.

I listed the requirements for diagnosis from the link you provided. It's quite literally "have you felt two of these things frequently in the past 6 months".

Things like the "desire" to look like the opposite gender.

Honestly, if it takes longer than 20 minutes to diagnose I'd find a better doctor

"Counselling" doesn't mean uttering one sentence then rushing on. Funnily enough, there are principles of care for that, too.

You're making a semantic argument....not a substantive one. I've already conceded they'll mention the infertility resulting from puberty blockers. If you think the 3rd criteria refers to something else... spit it out already.

That is not a comprehensive assessment, which is what the standards of care require.

I don't recall any comprehensive assessment being listed in those 4 criteria for puberty blockers. I could have forgotten though...which one includes a comprehensive assessment?

I don't know very much about WPATH, and frankly, I don't care.

You should.

What I care about is what is actually happening on the ground, in clinics.

Something you seem oblivious of.

And either by their own documented standards, or by the anecdotal evidence of people I know in real life, what is actually happening does not match the hyperbole you're putting out there.

We've gone over this....the standards of care for puberty blockers are a short conversation....and a desire for puberty blockers.

As for your anecdotes...perhaps they are the rare outliers and not the typical experience.

Kids aren't being diagnosed in fifteen minutes. People aren't having sterilising treatments at 11. The reality is much more complex, and more cautious, than the picture being painted here.

I offered evidence of my claims (the one that you said literally no one says and I replied that I'd heard it from the president of WPATH).

I can't make you watch evidence....and I can understand why you don't want to see it. You're whole belief regarding the topic would fall apart. The organization that writes your standards of care has a president who openly admitted to the effects of puberty blockers. If you want to continue believing that you're doing some sort of good....you really shouldn't ask to see that evidence.

I would also suggest you not look into why WPATH had hired a new president either...since the previous one decided to resign. They could no longer in good conscious support the organization in its efforts which that president began to believe were harmful to children and stifled rational discourse in favor of fervent activism. Basically, upon realizing that no one else cared about the harm they were doing to children and advocated hiding it from the public....they resigned.

Sure. They're not a sterilising treatment, so let's not misrepresent them.

How do you know? What do you think the fertility discussion is about?

Nuh-uh. Those are two separate things. Puberty blockers are one thing; they're a lot like a contraceptive implant for women, they're not permanent. They're a pause in development.

Right. If taken longer than a very short time....little permanent changes occur. If taken for years....significant permanent changes occur.

Cross-sex hormone treatment is a separate thing, usually started years later.

If puberty blockers aren't ceased long before then....the damage is likely permanent and near 100%.

Given I've used contraceptive implants very similar to puberty blockers in girls (in fact, some contraceptive implants are sometimes used as a puberty blocker), I think I've got a better idea than most men what they do and how they work.

Puberty blockers aren't contraceptives.

Once more, with feeling... nobody is advocating sterilising children.

I offered evidence. Why not hear it from the president of WPATH? They are possibly the most experienced surgeon in trans medicine in either of our countries. I bet they would know lol.

I'm a part of the church, but that doesn't mean I feel I have much common cause with some of the fundamentalist, science-rejecting, evolution-denying, flat-earther, conspiracy-theory-believing, sexist, homophobic, racist, nationalist nutcases and ignoramuses (ignorami?) who would be all too happy to be on the frontlines of this kind of culture war. There's plenty of crazy Christian fringe whose worldview has nothing in common with the sane Christian mainstream.

I get it....they've been wrong in the past so it feels safe to bet they're wrong about this. That's not a path to truth. As my father once told me....even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes. Truth isn't identified by group characteristics or a group's track record in regards to truth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But suicide is.

Lots of causes for suicide. If that was the issue here....you'd have a point. As it stands, there's no evidence of some trans youth suicide epidemic.

 

[Paidiske]

When a scientific journal is cited its because, I'm assuming, it has research in the journal cited. Would you like to start going through each citation and seeing if they were funded or the researchers were members of WPATH?

No. Feel free, though, if you have nothing better to do today.

You're making a semantic argument....not a substantive one. I've already conceded they'll mention the infertility resulting from puberty blockers. If you think the 3rd criteria refers to something else... spit it out already.

It refers to counselling. Which is a process of exploring possibilities, feelings, values, goals, and so on. Not a bumper-sticker disclaimer.

I don't recall any comprehensive assessment being listed in those 4 criteria for puberty blockers.

When you look at what's actually involved in diagnosis, it involves a comprehensive assessment to exclude other causes for dysphoria, and so on.

We've gone over this....the standards of care for puberty blockers are a short conversation....and a desire for puberty blockers.

I don't accept that claim. That's not what I see in the standards of care, and it's not what I see happening in real life.

As for your anecdotes...perhaps they are the rare outliers and not the typical experience.

And maybe the Australian healthcare landscape is healthier than you claim.

How do you know? What do you think the fertility discussion is about?

Given that people who start puberty blockers may go on to cross-sex hormones, it's appropriate to discuss fertility options before starting them.

Puberty blockers aren't contraceptives.

Some contraceptive implants are used as puberty blockers. Particularly for girls, they're extremely similar, and sometimes literally the same thing.

I offered evidence.

The standard of evidence I'll accept is a protocol or standard of care which says "x treatment (which is likely to result in infertility) is recommended from the age of 11." I haven't seen that yet. Puberty blockers on their own, don't result in infertility after the use of them is ceased (it can take up to a year for normal fertility to return, according to this; which is also a valuable exploration of what fertility counselling might involve). Not some claim that some person once said something.

I get it....they've been wrong in the past so it feels safe to bet they're wrong about this.

Not actually my point. You asked why I stayed in the church if I so vehemently disagreed. My point is that there isn't one Christian position on these things, and that some of us may consider the positions of others to be quite comprehensively discredited. I'm not at variance with my church on this.

 

[oikonomia]

That's not what she said. She rejected the claim (as I would) that Christianity is the basis of Western values.

I understood that.
I was still interested in anyone making more of an impact on human history.

(What ever the "West" is. I mean, most of the place people claim as central to Western Civilization aren't even in the Western hemisphere.) Her comments weren't about the relative influence of Jesus of Nazareth to any other specific person at all.

There is more to "Western Civ" than Christianity (like Greek and Roman philosophy and culture; the Enlightenment; the 12-bar blues) and it can be seen in Western and non-Western societies with a strong Christian element.

Sure. There are other influences on Western culture.

I think the dividing of history into BC and AD was a way of saying, "Since this person Jesus has lived, things will never be the same."

I also think a bottom line in all this is that eventually we all will put our trust in somebody.