The Trans Movement Just Hit Home.......

[Stewy]

(05-06-2023, 12:10 PM)Dill Wrote: If you are addressing me, and talking about Jesus, then "looney" doesn't really describe my attitude.

I think Jesus was an intinerant "teacher" who distilled Essene and other Jewish teachings into an ethical code still worthy of emulation. 

In the generations after his crucifixion, he was deified in stages, first by his own followers, and then Gentiles who syncretistically mixed Hellenistic conceptions of divinity, the soul, and immortality with Jesus teachings, which kept the Jewish focus on individual responsibility and a deity with extensive interest in how humans behaved. 

These teachings also included the notion of equality in heaven, a foundation for eventually making equality on this earth a goal. So the Hellenization of Jesus' teachings in a Roman world was a crucial point in so-called "Western Civilization." 

So my attitude towards Christianity in general is not hostile. C. has been used for good and bad, and I'd be lying if said Jesus teachings were not valued by me and generally worthy of personal aspiration. But like all religions, it is adapted to whatever historical society that absorbs it.
Charlemagne set out on yearly "jihads" to convert pagans, killing them if they did not convert. I attribute that to emerging feudal organization in what would become modern France and the lowlands. Lutherinism became the established church of Nazi Germany.  That's not because Jesus teachings or Christianity are intrinsically "NAZI." When my father gave ex-convicts a chance to earn some money painting our house or my mother gave a hungry beggar a sandwich, that was more expression of Jesus teachings. (My father was a minister and a missionary, if you didn't know.)

So I guess you could say I do care about ethics and history (materialist history), and don't see Jesus as a "looney." In ethical terms, I judge Christians in my life by the same standards I judge everyone else. Some Christians may be bad and misled by politicians and bad pastors, but rarely do I see Christianity as a "cause" of that behavior. I do see Christian behavior in peacemakers. (Same for Islam, by the way.) 

Also, I am an atheist for sure, but I find many atheists lack any kind of historical understanding of religion, especially where they make beliefs a matter of
individual psychology.  

It was more of a general response.  And my own philosophies.  Thank you for your perspective.

[KillerGoose]

(05-05-2023, 09:34 PM)Stewy Wrote: Peoples Christianity is supposed to be between them and God.  As a Christian there are VERY few real rules (All the Catholic stuff comes from man, not God).  The rules are Obey, Repent, Live your Life as he (Christ) did.  The problem with much of Christian history because so much of the world didn't want to do 1 and there fore not do 2, they went to war to force 1 & 2, thus violating #3.  It is my personal belief that those who have waged war to further religion, will face the wrath of God.

Finally The Bible tells us that Jesus will preside in judgement for all, thus why Christians speak of everyone.  It's part of the belief system.

But tell me this.....if you do not believe in any God......why do you care what guy said?  Just another looney religious nut, right?  Ignore and move on.

The only part I want to respond to is the bolded. I want to clarify that what he said didn't make me angry, or frustrated, or anything else. I didn't have an emotional reaction to what he said. I think it is important to engage people on their beliefs and what they say. Sometimes, you'll get the response that guyofthetiger gave me (I.E. nothing) but sometimes you'll get discussions like you and I are having or even more than that and I think those can be valuable. Different perspectives and ideas are valuable to personal growth, or have been for me. There have been plenty of times where I have engaged someone and came away from the conversation saying "I never knew that". I hope I have been able to do the same for other people. This is especially true in a forum like P&R where the whole point is to engage in what is hopefully an intellectual discussion about politics and religion. I don't think that you or guyofthetiger or anyone else on here is a looney religious nut, at least not from what I have observed. 

[Arturo Bandini]

(05-05-2023, 10:50 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: Is he not speaking to the general audience when he says "If you do things against the Word of God, expect consequences"? Or, hell, even beyond that - just posts on a public forum. Perhaps you have a different interpretation and that's fine, but this is also a person who has a history of being "in your face" about faith on this very forum, telling at least one poster that he will be going to Hell. He has told another poster that when Satan became a fallen angel, he took many other angels with him including "several of them just like you." 

Forgive me if I don't give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his messaging. Even aside from that, I just generally reject the idea that he is only speaking in an isolated box. 

I didn't take it personnally. If Hell is full of angels 'just like you' it means that I am an angel ! That's positive :)

[samhain]

(05-05-2023, 10:27 AM)Stewy Wrote: Notice how he started with "I'm personally".  He's speaking of himself and how he handles things.

He wasn't speaking to you, nor anyone else really about what they should do or how they should handle it.  He was telling you how HE handles it and perhaps giving advice to those like him.  As I am the same faith as he and have the same attitude, it might be good to know that this stance from a Christian is rather rare as many prefer to "get in your face" especially on the internet.  My stance is to lead by example, live a life for God and if others choose a different path that is their choice.

I respect your take but disagree on two points.  Most individuals of his ilk don't prescribe advice strictly to individuals of their belief system.  If you were in a debate and asked him if he thought that only those who believed as he does will face consequences from his God, then I'd bet a lot of money that he's say no.  Using the word perhaps in your reply makes you not technically wrong.  The spirit of his post is what it is regardless of the actual letter.  The historical nature of his responses supports that much, at least.  

I'd also surmise that the true intent of the post is more self-congratulatory that benevolent.  He's giving a personal situation as an example, then using it as a means to dismiss the personal situations and resulting beliefs/feelings/actions of anyone who disagrees. 

 I care little about the semantics laid out in my first paragraph.  Dude can believe whatever he wants about his God, himself, and how it all relates to the rest of humanity.  

I will say though, the intent I laid out in the second point is significantly more absurd to me on a forum full of people who don't really know each other, and thusly can claim whatever they want about personal experience and how it applies to the way others should or shouldn't be living their lives.  It assumes his experience and the negative impact of it is equal to or worse than any other person's experience.  It also assumes that  we are impacted identically by all negative experiences.  It's a position that can only be correct in a vacuum.  It's more or less saying that what anyone else views as significant or impactful can be dismissed because he says he overcame something he felt was impactful to an unquantified degree.  

Extreme example: I get told I have stage 4 cancer. I say, "well that sucks, but I guess I'll need treatment. if that doesn't work, I worry for my wife and son and who will provide for them financially." His response is one-size fits all here, so I'd guess he'd recommend that I just do some churchy crap and stop worrying, because it worked for him in a completely unrelated but negative scenario. Extreme? Sure. But applicable.

[GMDino]

Figured this was as good a place as any for this.

A little description about why even though people are seeing more and talking more about transgenders it's not a "growing problem", its just people becoming more aware or what was always hidden away and people who hid away feeling more secure in coming out.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-09-2023, 08:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: Figured this was as good a place as any for this.

A little description about why even though people are seeing more and talking more about transgenders it's not a "growing problem", its just people becoming more aware or what was always hidden away and people who hid away feeling more secure in coming out.

It is a growing problem though.

Nobody was trying to convince children that they were left handed when they were actually right handed. Or that they had two left hands and not a right one. Or that their hands are actually their feet and their feet are actually their hands.

That would skew things a bit don't you think?

There also weren't a bunch of legislative battles about left handed people and pronouns they can be called or what bathrooms they can use.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2023, 10:56 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: It is a growing problem though.

Nobody was trying to convince children that they were left handed when they were actually right handed. Or that they had two left hands and not a right one. Or that their hands are actually their feet and their feet are actually their hands.

That would skew things a bit don't you think?

There also weren't a bunch of legislative battles about left handed people and pronouns they can be called or what bathrooms they can use.

We had people beating lefties hands so they would write the "correct" way. 

No one is trying to convince anyone that they are trans.  More people, who probably already questioned on their own, are seeing that they are not alone as more of that group become public.  But they were always there...just hidden away.  Like left handed people, like gay people.  Sure there were a few in the public, but once it was okay in the mainstream everyone noticed it.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-10-2023, 11:18 AM)GMDino Wrote: We had people beating lefties hands so they would write the "correct" way. 

No one is trying to convince anyone that they are trans.  More people, who probably already questioned on their own, are seeing that they are not alone as more of that group become public.  But they were always there...just hidden away.  Like left handed people, like gay people.  Sure there were a few in the public, but once it was okay in the mainstream everyone noticed it.

They actually are though. Questioning is part of how the convincing starts. Those who "know" already "know". If there was no questioning then there wouldn't be much convincing going on. To affirm the belief that you can be the opposite gender is in and of itself an attempt to convince even if not directly stating that to an individual.

And that is actually a bigger part of the problem than directly convincing someone. Children are heavily susceptible to believing anything that anyone tells them. So, when you introduce kids to the idea that they can be whatever they want, well then naturally kids are going to start questioning their own reality. That's why I don't buy this argument that it's the same as left handed people being accepted. 

Nobody had to have the idea of being left handed or right handed introduced to them to decide whether they were left handed or right handed. They just are. It's not debatable.

Likewise, you can say gay people don't need to be introduced to being gay to question whether they're gay or not. They just are.

However, the idea of a male being a female and a female being a male is a highly debatable topic. and those who don't already "feel" like the opposite sex might be more inclined to think about being the opposite sex because of the idea being introduced to them.

But that's not all. You also have to consider the fact that social media is prevelant and a lot of young people (and even adults) get caught up in popularity contests and latch on to things that might seem "trendy and cool" and that draws into question the authenticity of one's "transition" thus skewing things even further.

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2023, 01:05 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: They actually are though. Questioning is part of how the convincing starts. Those who "know" already "know". If there was no questioning then there wouldn't be much convincing going on. To affirm the belief that you can be the opposite gender is in and of itself an attempt to convince even if not directly stating that to an individual.

It's not a belief. It's a scientific understanding. Teaching the current scientific understanding isn't trying to convince anyone of a belief.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-10-2023, 01:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's not a belief. It's a scientific understanding. Teaching the current scientific understanding isn't trying to convince anyone of a belief.

It is though. What proof is there that someone is "born in the wrong body"?

[*Nately120*]

(05-10-2023, 01:26 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: It is though. What proof is there that someone is "born in the wrong body"?

Political rhetoric doesn't follow the scientific method, so it's up to you to prove that people are never born in the wrong body.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-10-2023, 02:20 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Political rhetoric doesn't follow the scientific method, so it's up to you to prove that people are never born in the wrong body.

I'm Darth Vader.

Prove to me I'm not.

[*Nately120*]

(05-10-2023, 02:29 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I'm Darth Vader.

Prove to me I'm not.

I'm aware of the fallacy of expecting someone to prove a negative.  I'd love to debate this, but I'm not in the mood for it since I'm currently dealing with the news that I can't prove getting the covid vaccine won't "give me cancer eventually."

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-10-2023, 02:32 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm aware of the fallacy of expecting someone to prove a negative.  I'd love to debate this, but I'm not in the mood for it since I'm currently dealing with the news that I can't prove getting the covid vaccine won't "give me cancer eventually."

My point is that until I can prove that I'm Darth Vader, I can't expect society to change for me. Why? Because it's my belief that I'm Darth Vader. There's nothing proving that I am Darth Vader.

So when someone tells me "I'm a man" or "I'm a woman" and I say "prove it" and their proof is their feelings, well.......

[*Nately120*]

(05-10-2023, 02:56 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: My point is that until I can prove that I'm Darth Vader, I can't expect society to change for me. Why? Because it's my belief that I'm Darth Vader. There's nothing proving that I am Darth Vader.

So when someone tells me "I'm a man" or "I'm a woman" and I say "prove it" and their proof is their feelings, well.......

Ok, well you're free to believe that.  I don't know what I think about trans people but I live in the USA and not Iran, so I realize I may have to just live with society changing yet again.  Stuff changes. 

[GMDino]

(05-10-2023, 02:56 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: My point is that until I can prove that I'm Darth Vader, I can't expect society to change for me. Why? Because it's my belief that I'm Darth Vader. There's nothing proving that I am Darth Vader.

So when someone tells me "I'm a man" or "I'm a woman" and I say "prove it" and their proof is their feelings, well.......

You could walk around dressed as Vader and people would smile and wave.

You could tell people  you believe you ARE Vader and people would be concerned because he is a fictional character...but if you aren't hurting anyone it's your life.  

But if you dressed like a female and told you people you were a female they'd probably be curious as to why but shrug because it's your life and you aren't hurting anyone.

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2023, 01:26 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: It is though. What proof is there that someone is "born in the wrong body"?

I mean, we could just review the plethora of literature available that discusses the differences between sex, gender, and sexual orientation and how they do not necessarily match with each other.

Carr, C. L. (2005). Tomboyism or lesbianism? Beyond sex/gender/sexual conflation. Sex Roles, 53, 119-131.

Diamond, M. (2004). Sex, gender, and identity over the years: a changing perspective. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics, 13(3), 591-607.

Eckert, P. (1989). The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. Language variation and change, 1(3), 245-267.

Gould, M. (1977). Toward a sociological theory of gender and sex. The American Sociologist, 182-189.

Hartung, C. M., & Lefler, E. K. (2019). Sex and gender in psychopathology: DSM–5 and beyond. Psychological bulletin, 145(4), 390.

Korabik, K. (1999). Sex and gender in the new millennium. Handbook of gender and work, 3-16.

Lips, H. M. (2020). Sex and gender: An introduction. Waveland Press.

McDermott, R., & Hatemi, P. (2011). Distinguishing Sex and Gender. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44(1), 89-92. doi:10.1017/S1049096510001939

Sanday, P. R., & Goodenough, R. G. (Eds.). (1990). Beyond the second sex: New directions in the anthropology of gender. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Thatcher, A. (2011). God, sex, and gender: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons.

Van Anders, S. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via sexual configurations theory. Archives of sexual behavior, 44, 1177-1213.

Here is less than 1% of the literature I could pull that discusses the differences between sex, gender, and sexual orientation. It dates back over 40 years where the sciences have been recognizing this. 

[Dill]

(05-10-2023, 01:05 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: And that is actually a bigger part of the problem than directly convincing someone. Children are heavily susceptible to believing anything that anyone tells them. So, when you introduce kids to the idea that they can be whatever they want, well then naturally kids are going to start questioning their own reality. That's why I don't buy this argument that it's the same as left handed people being accepted. 

Nobody had to have the idea of being left handed or right handed introduced to them to decide whether they were left handed or right handed. They just are. It's not debatable.

Likewise, you can say gay people don't need to be introduced to being gay to question whether they're gay or not. They just are.

Is the argument that people don't know/wonder whether they are "born in the wrong body" 

until someone introduces the idea to them? 

This reminds me of earlier arguments against the recognition of gay rights.

[*Nately120*]

(05-10-2023, 03:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I mean, we could just review the plethora of literature available that discusses the differences between sex, gender, and sexual orientation and how they do not necessarily match with each other.

I'm on it!

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-10-2023, 04:00 PM)Dill Wrote: Is the argument that people don't know/wonder whether they are "born in the wrong body" 

until someone introduces the idea to them? 

This reminds me of earlier arguments against the recognition of gay rights.

No. The argument is that not all people who question their gender came to those questions on their own. Dino was pointing to how there's more trans people now because it's more accepted. I don't necessarily disagree with that.

My disagreement is in the organic nature of it all. I don't believe trans people are on the rise because they're all crawling out of the woods. The artificial push of the belief itself is changing the way people think, especially adolescent minds, and as a result you will see more trans people "coming out"