When two worldviews collide.

[2PhiloVoid]

As you said, it's ancient anthropology, based on religious beliefs. Their idea of male and female is that it's binary. You are either one or the other.

It's also considered to be 'revelation' and 'prophetic utterance.'

However, even with that being the case, I think there is still plenty of room within Christian thought for the whole moral notion of empathy and compassion -- even love -- for those who suffer from various physical and psychological challenges, or even gender dysphorias.

And you will be treated as the one or the other in line with their religious beliefs (notwithstanding those who are 'androgynos'). But the Torah and the bible are not medical textbooks. So if you want to suggest that every jot and tittle as it is written must be accepted as being the last word on the matter then you are going to have some difficulty living in a modern society.

I don't suggest that every jot and tittle must be the last word on all ethical matters. Oh, good gracious, no! From what's reported about Jesus, it appears as if even He didn't go in for "every single" jot and tittle, at least not in a way way which legalistic religious thinkers of his time (and often in ours as well) would expect.

But yes, as for Christians having some difficulty living in modern society (or any society of any time for that matter), I assume they're be some social, political and ideological hiccups that Christians will just have to put up with and/or be jailed over. Let's not forget that there is some minimum of kick back from the World At Large that is to be expected. It goes with Jesus apparently saying something about the World having "hated Him" and His followers will have to expect the same. At least to some degree.

These books were written by people living 2,000 years ago with their current knowledge and their current social norms. If someone wants to live exactly as they did, then that will be their choice. But seriously, they would have to live outside what is considered to be society these day (the Amish give it a good go).

Meh. Being the Critical Realist that I am, I'll pass on that. There's no need to live like the Amish; I don't think they realize they live under the threat of the outside world. I wonder if they've ever heard of Oppeheimer or some piece of history called "The Cold War."

But people clearly and obviously don't follow every word in either document to the nth degree (with some rare exceptions), so pointing out one aspect of the bible and saying that we should all follow it without question doesn't a good argument make.

Which is to be expected since the Bible wasn't written and compiled to serve as a comprehensive answer book for every nuance of Human Life.

In fact, it simply highlights the hypocrisy of those calling for such an approach when they themselves clearly don't apply it to other sections of religious texts.

I don't think it's so much the hypocrisy as it is the ignorance of people, on all sides really, whether Left or Right, religious or non.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A criticism. I was really hoping for something of substance not an attack on someone else's ideas.

You're telling me the Postmodernists are the Siskel and Ebert of philosophy. They can be skipped entirely.

No, I didn't say that PM's are the Siskel and Eberts of philosophy. I only offered you what it is I think are the "big" ideas of post-modernists, not the whole ball of wax or the whole scope of all that they have conglomerately (and diversely) come up with.

Another criticism.

I didn't say I was a fan, now did I? I'm just pointing out the fact that, for the most part, all post-modernists do is take the essentials of Modernity and then stretch them and acclimate them to a more individualized, even atomized, level and apply that thinking to society.

No one said you or I have to agree with it. I know I don't on the whole. Do you think I could be a fan of Foucault?

I recall a philosophy teacher explaining that in his estimation, the greatest contribution of Postmodernists was the concept that language was socially constructed and therefore malleable to change.

I recall thinking...oh yeah, that's why I never quite get around to reading more philosophy.

There are different sectors of Philosophy, so your failure to discern this and thus impugn philosophy on the whole by equivocationg all of its discernible fields and sub-divisions doesn't look good on you, Ana.

The funny thing is that I know you don't actually disbelieve in Philosphy; it's just that you already have your own pragmatic adaptation of it that you've assumed and applied over and above all other competing views. We all do this. We all analyze the world and make evaluations about it, and we all subscribe to one philosophy or another. Some of us just do better than others in asking relevant questions about the reality we're all stuck in together. And some begin with Machiavelli in their evaluations about the world, while some others start with Niels Bohr, Sartre, Pascal or Jesus.

Funny right? A global movement that doesn't get along much internationally.

A so called desire to rectify the injustice of wage theft that manifests as slave labor.

Which is one reason I'm not a fan of Communism or 90% of what various Marxists say.

That's an "accusation from the left"?

I'm an equal opportunity offender where Existentialism and Critical Realism are concerned

Especially if one wants to be taken seriously.

The question is: by whom do I need to be take seriously?

The great thing about Reality Proper rather than Reality Perceived is that is has a nasty way of biting those of us in the butt who are waiting for a Marxist liberator or other economic liberator to just make it all nice and even for everyone.

No. I think you might tell me though

Nah. You're a smart guy and I'm no Evangelical. You can look it up on your own and see.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah I don't think its obvious but I think we would be suprise how much Postmodernist thought has influenced thinking even down to everyday levels. In academia its seen when biological sex is denied. But in everyday circles its seen with how everything is relative and everything must include multiple interpretations or how words become the tool for whats true or real. This is a paradigm shift from even as recently as less than 50 years ago.

All which is why I'm not a relativist; I am skeptical though of various truth claims often found in the world on both the Left and the Right.

Not sure what you mean by "accusations that come from the Left".

Merely that some folks who identify as "Christian" have been utterly cruel to others.

PS: you've done it now Philovoid you have stepped into a thread that will suck you down a rabbit hole that could end up taking you anywhere and everywhere and you will never escape lol.

Actually, I've been exploring the Rabbit Hole for quite some time.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I can relate to that though I had a couple of old school teachers thank God that hadn't yet been cancelled.

Actually, I was being tongue-in-cheek. I was never under their influence, just their educational program. They failed with me because I had already taken a BA in Philosophy BEFORE I went into their graduate studies. They didn't quite know what to do with me because I'd never just jump into their preconceived socio-political [Marxist style] box. The closest I ever came to doing so was taking Pierre Bourdieau and adding him to a long list of philosophers who are my conglomerated influences (e.g. Pascal, Kierkegaard, and numerous, other more current Christian philosophers ...).

 

[stevevw]

Please give me a link whenever you are quoting an article. I like to see the whole thing, not a convenient summary. Saves me searching for it.

The expert (or one of them) is Dr. Marlene Gribble, a professor of nursing. And she has a reasonable argument that in some instances a gender neutral approach in medicine could, and I'll repeat could be a problem if it's inaccurate. 'Sex is NOT limited to male or female': Fury over WHO woke guidance

Ok I will link articles but I find they are dismissed anyway. Nevertheless Gribble is only one of many. Jenny Gamble was also mentioned in the same article. They are talking about research done in an article written by 11 colleges about the issue of de-coupling and denying sex and the effects this has on women and girls and they cite evdience of this already happening. So its not an "if its accurate" but that its happening right now as a consequence.

Effective Communication About Pregnancy, Birth, Lactation, Breastfeeding and Newborn Care: The Importance of Sexed Language

Frontiers | Effective Communication About Pregnancy, Birth, Lactation, Breastfeeding and Newborn Care: The Importance of Sexed Language

On 24 September 2021, The Lancet medical journal highlighted an article on its cover with a single sentence in large text; ‘Historically, the anatomy and phy...

www.frontiersin.org

What she isn't doing is questioning the concept of gender. How you could think that she was is beyond me. Perhaps you thought that a little cherry picking to an unlinked article would convince people that she was. But if you check the article it gives the same definition of gender as did the last two links I gave you.

Actually according to the paper she wrote above they were questioning gender in that a subjective sense of self can deny womens sex as a unique category. For example they explain the basis for gender identity and where it comes from.

Where the concept of gender identity is salient, desexing the language of female reproduction has emerged as an accommodation to remedy marginalization (10, 11). However, it needs to be kept in mind that pregnant and birthing women and new mothers and their infants have unique vulnerabilities and also require protection.

The concept of gender identity originated in the 1960s and was refined in the 1990s through a postmodern philosophy called Queer Theory (30). Central to Queer Theory are the twin propositions that both sex and gender are socially constructed (31, 32) and that gender is the more important of the two (3, 33)1.

This is an important destinction considering there is a raft of evdience that sex is objectively real and social constructions are subjective and have no objective basis. But bot the Postmodernist shift from only 20 od years ago where biological sex was the abjectively real thing and gender was a social construction. First came they are both a social contruction and now gender is more real than sex.

They also point out how denying the reaility of sex or deminishing its importances in favour of gender identity harms women, girls and children.
However, there appears to have been little consideration of the ethics of these changes, including the principles of avoiding harm and health maximization (46), or how they may impact on women and children's rights.

These include: decreasing overall inclusivity; dehumanizing; including people who should be excluded; being imprecise, inaccurate or misleading; and disembodying and undermining breastfeeding. In addition, avoidance of the term “mother” in its sexed sense, risks reducing recognition and the right to protection of the mother-infant dyad.

Numerous alternative terms for “women” and “mothers” involve references to body parts or physiological processes. Referring to individuals in this reduced, mechanistic way is commonly perceived as “othering” and dehumanizing (67).

Terms such as “parents” and “families” as replacements for “mothers” can inappropriately include fathers and other family members, thus diminishing and invisibilising women (75).

The change in meaning of “women” from a sexed term to a gender identity can also mean that those women who do not have a belief in gender identity as a concept do not see themselves reflected in the gendered use of “women.” Consequently, they may feel objectified by terms referring to processes like “birthing people” [e.g. (84)].

Describing the frequency of sex-specific conditions referring to people rather than women as the denominator means incidence may be misreported. Referring to “chests” rather than “breasts” is medically inaccurate. Desexed language can make it unclear who is being referred to.

Disembodies and Undermines Breastfeeding, deminishes and can unedermine the significance of the Word Mother

In the midst of the current move to desex language, we argue that if women and mothers are not named, it makes it more difficult to effectively advocate for them; “women” disappear into “people” and “mothers” disappear into “parents.”

We would argue that using “female” to describe a biologically male person with the gender identity of “woman” is inappropriate and that in order to accurately denote the sexes, “male” and female” should be retained as wholly sexed terms (109).

As far as these things actually happening they already are and the narrative is changing which will have an impact on womens, girls and childrens Rights and lead to harm.

it is being suggested that collection of data on gender identity should be prioritized over sex (145) or that data on sex should not be collected at all (33). There have been reports of ethics committees rejecting research applications that include a sex question (146).
This use of “gender” when meaning “sex,” while common, including by United Nations organizations, is contributing to confusion on what data is being collected or represented and more generally who is being advocated for.

an increasing encouragement, or requirement, to desex language by international organizations or funders based in the USA/the West may be experienced not only as confusing but also as cultural and linguistic imperialism (148, 149).

Highly regarded organizations like the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (40) and the Australian Department of Health (85) have made this error, and research containing this error has been published in the eminent New England Journal of Medicine (86).

I will seperate this part of the post as I think its an important issue on its own.

 

[stevevw]

All which is why I'm not a relativist; I am skeptical though of various truth claims often found in the world on both the Left and the Right.

Yes its good to have a bit of skepticism.

Merely that some folks who identify as "Christian" have been utterly cruel to others.

OK fair enough

Actually, I've been exploring the Rabbit Hole for quite some time.

Ah so you so are exploring the rabbit hole already. Be careful lol.

 

[stevevw]

It said nothing of the sort. I know because I have read the guidance. I know you haven't because you'd know it as well if you had. So now it's up to you to find the guide, download it and read through it to discover that yourself. Let me know when you are ready to retract that statement.

This was mentioned in the article I linked here

Dr David Bell explains how last year WHO’s abortion-care guidance called for babies to ‘be killed up until the moment they emerge from the birth canal, without delay, whenever a pregnant woman requests it’. It recommends abortions be available on request and advises against ‘gestational age limits’. This is both a bureaucratic and a moral overreach. Only the governments concerned have the right and responsibility to make decisions on policy parameters between pro-choice and pro-life advocates.
The Woke Health Organisation? | The Spectator Australia

and reflected in WHO's guidlines here

WHO recommends against regulations that restrict abortion by grounds:
abortion should be made available on the request of the pregnant woman/girl/person

WHO recommends against regulation that prohibits abortion through gestational limits

Law & policy Recommendation 3: Gestational age limits (2.2.3) - Abortion care guideline
https://www.ipas.org/wp-content/upl...022-WHO-Abortion-Care-Guideline-IALWHOE22.pdf

And some advice. If you quote an article or quote what someone said in an article, then link to it so we can see the context. If someone makes a claim about something (such as that guide) but doesn't quote it, then the claim is worthless unless it can be shown that the guide actually says what the claim is. So if you want to repeat the claim then you're going to have to check it yourself. Let me know whèn you have done so.

Yeah sorry I get a bit lazy sometimes. I use to attach links to just about everything I said, habbit from uni but then I seen how after doing all the hard work of reaeach people just dismissed it, didn't even bother to offer a critique. So as I gathered a library of references I began not to link ref as I knew the data was there. I wanted to first see how people responded. Plus the fact that some people said you have to use your own arguements rather that others.

 

[rjs330]

Christians are known to do that kind of thing.

As you likely know, too, the Romans two-thousand years ago accused Christians of sedition against Caesar. For some odd reason, Christians tend to keep thinking that "Jesus is Lord!!!," rather than Caesar... or even the WHO.

I know, I know. These are strange times in which we live, with strange religious people holding strange opinions.

Yes and in the whole transgenderism ideology it's not just the Christians involved. The left often likes to just think it's only the Christians who are in opposition to this. It's their way of helping to dismiss the arguments against it. It's often the "you're just a Christian who opposition is based on your Christian faith and beliefs." Then they can dismiss any argument you make.

However there are MANY who are against this ideology, particularly for children, who are not Christians. They are scientists, councilors, researchers, psychologists, therapists etc. They have come to realize the scientific basis for this is extremely lacking. The research is garbage and there is zero research to show that transitioning a child even socially is a good thing.

Even societies who have previously embraced the methodology of dealing with trans kids proposed and distributed by transactivist organizations have totally backed away from that. WHO apparently is late to the party and hasn't gotten the memo.
I mean even the Dutch who were strong on this have moved far from their previous positions. Yet leftists want to dismiss all of that and simply focus on, "you are a Christian so what you say is irrelevant because it's only based upon your belief system."

I know it's been used against me. Even when I have never mentioned God or the Bible in my posts of opposition.

 

[rjs330]

That there is a spectrum of gender is a given. From your Schwarzenegger to Audrey Hepburn. From the most masculine to the most feminine. And there isn't a point where it crosses from one sex to the other. There is overlap. Obviously. Any denial of that is a denial of reality. Whether one has a religious belief or not.

You are talking behaviors and preferences and not gender. If gender really is a spectrum then how can someone be born in the wrong body? Because you just stated it's an overlap. Meaning there really isn't a male and female gender but we are all both in so e fashion. That means those who wish to transition from one gender to another or trying to be male or female. And your ideology is saying there isn't because there isn't any place you where you cross over. Which causes the transgender person serious problems. If they can't crossover from one gender to another then why all the drugs and surgeries? They are trying to crossover from one gender to another.

Often the statement is made, I feel like a girl or feel like a boy. How is that possible. How do they know what boy or girl feels like? Gender is fluid as they say or gender is an overlap. There is no reason to transition at all. Just be yourself. After all as you claim there is not point where you crossover. You can't be male or female.bevauae there is no such thing. At least that where your argument leads.

 

[rjs330]

However, even with that being the case, I think there is still plenty of room within Christian thought for the whole moral notion of empathy and compassion -- even love -- for those who suffer from various physical and psychological challenges, or even gender dysphorias.

I really appreciate this thought process. What is often missed is the reason we do oppose this IS out compassion and empathy for those involved. They ARE suffering from various psychological challenges that are most likely not related to gender at all. They cling to it in order to seek and answer and relief for their distress. Others may suffer directly from dysphoria which also in a mental health issue. We want them helped and not ushered into something that will utterly change their entire existence when they do not really need that. Especially where children a

But yes, as for Christians having some difficulty living in modern society (or any society of any time for that matter), I assume they're be some social, political and ideological hiccups that Christians will just have to put up with and/or be jailed over. Let's not forget that there is some minimum of kick back from the World At Large that is to be expected. It goes with Jesus apparently saying something about the World having "hated Him" and His followers will have to expect the same. At least to some degree.

Absolutely.

Meh. Being the Critical Realist that I am, I'll pass on that. There's no need to live like the Amish; I don't think they realize they live under the threat of the outside world. I wonder if they've ever heard of Oppeheimer or some piece of history called "The Cold War."

We are realists as well. After all Paul did state that we have to live in the world we are handed. Jesus never told us to live only in the "ancient days" or old times or whatever.

We live within the times we are in. But as believers we understand that God's truth transends time. It's not tied to 2000+ years ago.

Which is to be expected since the Bible wasn't written and compiled to serve as a comprehensive answer book for every nuance of Human Life.

Correct.

I don't think it's so much the hypocrisy as it is the ignorance of people, on all sides really, whether Left or Right, religious or non.

Yes much ignorance at times.

 

[rjs330]

How can you just sum up what I said in two sentences. I wish I was so simple.

Us too lol.

Ana is very good at that. I often wish I was as good at boiling things down like he does.

 

[Bradskii]

In traditional misogynistic view, women wash the dishes; in a fair view, both men and women wash the dishes; in post-modern transgenderism view, whoever washes the dishes is a woman, including some helpless dudes like me who wash their own dishes. But just because I wash my dishes doesn't mean I'm actually a woman who needs "gender affirming medical care". An individual's biological sex doesn't have to conform to what they do in society. And yes, indeed there are androgynos people, such as those with AIS (androgen insensitivity syndrome), commonly known as intersex, but that's just an anolomy, it's an exception, not the rule. And on a molecular level, such people are genetically male with XY chromosomes, but appear as female due to androgen insensitivity, that doesn't make the "binary" an outdated ancient anthropology.

In fact, this transgenderism has nothing to do with science, it's cultural marxism aiming to create another "oppressed" focus group for divide and conquer, also such people must rely on hormone drugs for the rest of their lives, which effectively put them under the bondage of Big Pharma; then it is weaponized to target at people of faith, whoever dares to uphold the word of God and challenge this demonic cult is being accused of spreading "hate speech" and ruthlessly persecuted. That's the ulterior motive, it's all about politics.

Thanks for your opinion, Jon.

 

[friend of]

And there isn't a point where it crosses from one sex to the other

It's called genitalia

 

[Wings like Eagles]

In traditional misogynistic view, women wash the dishes; in a fair view, both men and women wash the dishes; in post-modern transgenderism view, whoever washes the dishes is a woman, including some helpless dudes like me who wash their own dishes. But just because I wash my dishes doesn't mean I'm actually a woman who needs "gender affirming medical care". An individual's biological sex doesn't have to conform to what they do in society. And yes, indeed there are androgynos people, such as those with AIS (androgen insensitivity syndrome), commonly known as intersex, but that's just an anolomy, it's an exception, not the rule. And on a molecular level, such people are genetically male with XY chromosomes, but appear as female due to androgen insensitivity, that doesn't make the "binary" an outdated ancient anthropology.

In fact, this transgenderism has nothing to do with science, it's cultural marxism aiming to create another "oppressed" focus group for divide and conquer, also such people must rely on hormone drugs for the rest of their lives, which effectively put them under the bondage of Big Pharma; then it is weaponized to target at people of faith, whoever dares to uphold the word of God and challenge this demonic cult is being accused of spreading "hate speech" and ruthlessly persecuted. That's the ulterior motive, it's all about politics.

Well said!

 

[Bradskii]

It's also considered to be 'revelation' and 'prophetic utterance.'

We would obviously disagree with that.

However, even with that being the case, I think there is still plenty of room within Christian thought for the whole moral notion of empathy and compassion -- even love -- for those who suffer from various physical and psychological challenges, or even gender dysphorias.

You've seen enough of the comments in threads like this to know that there's a significant shortfall in that.

But yes, as for Christians having some difficulty living in modern society (or any society of any time for that matter), I assume they're be some social, political and ideological hiccups that Christians will just have to put up with and/or be jailed over. Let's not forget that there is some minimum of kick back from the World At Large that is to be expected. It goes with Jesus apparently saying something about the World having "hated Him" and His followers will have to expect the same. At least to some degree.

Which comes in handy when someone tells you that you are wrong. 'Ah, but Jesus said I could expect that happening. So I must be right.'

I don't think it's so much the hypocrisy as it is the ignorance of people, on all sides really, whether Left or Right, religious or non.

If you have people denying that gender even exists, if you have people linking to articles that they think back up their position but actually define the very concept they are trying to deny, then it's not ignorance. If you have people saying that gender is determined by your genitalia then it's not ignorance. There is a gargantuan amount of information out there about gender so appealing to ignorance is not an available excuse. It's a denial.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok I will link articles but I find they are dismissed anyway. Nevertheless Gribble is only one of many. Jenny Gamble was also mentioned in the same article. They are talking about research done in an article written by 11 colleges about the issue of de-coupling and denying sex and the effects this has on women and girls and they cite evdience of this already happening.

All they were arguing about was the terminology being used which might cause problems in a medical sense. That was plainly obvious. There were NOT denying that gender exists, which was the reason you posted the link in response to the two I gave which defined it. And what did we find? Another two definitions of gender which exactly matched the ones I gave you.

Rather than giving evidence that it doesn't exist, you actually presented evidence that it does. Now you have 4 examples of a definition for gender, could you tell me exactly what part of it with which you have a problem?

 

[Bradskii]

This was mentioned in the article I linked here

Which didn't in any way reflect the WHO's guidelines.

and reflected in WHO's guidlines here

WHO recommends against regulations that restrict abortion by grounds:
abortion should be made available on the request of the pregnant woman/girl/person

WHO recommends against regulation that prohibits abortion through gestational limits

Law & policy Recommendation 3: Gestational age limits (2.2.3) - Abortion care guideline
https://www.ipas.org/wp-content/upl...022-WHO-Abortion-Care-Guideline-IALWHOE22.pdf

Which said absolutely nothing about 'babies to ‘be killed up until the moment they emerge from the birth canal, without delay, whenever a pregnant woman requests it’.

If you can't distinguish between what is obviously gross hyperbole and the actual facts of the matter then you'll be spending a lot of time backtracking on your comments and wasting everyone's time.

Yeah sorry I get a bit lazy sometimes. I use to attach links to just about everything I said, habbit from uni but then I seen how after doing all the hard work of reaeach people just dismissed it, didn't even bother to offer a critique. So as I gathered a library of references I began not to link ref as I knew the data was there. I wanted to first see how people responded. Plus the fact that some people said you have to use your own arguements rather that others.

You weren't using your own arguments in either case in the last two posts. You were using those of other people. In the first instance, when the article was read in it's entirety, it was obvious that you hadn't understood what the article was about. In the second, you took what was said without any checking whatsoever.

 

[Bradskii]

You are talking behaviors and preferences and not gender.

We know you don't accept it exists. Why waste a whole post confirming that yet again.

 

[rjs330]

We know you don't accept it exists. Why waste a whole post confirming that yet again.

There you go again spreading disinformation. It's not an accident or misunderstanding anymore. It's deliberate now.

 

[Bradskii]

There you go again spreading disinformation. It's not an accident or misunderstanding anymore. It's deliberate now.

Pull the other one...

I've never denied gender exists. I've said there are two. Male and female. Gender is the same thing as sex.