Why is Bruce an Exception?

[Cow Poke]

Abby said, "Bruce Jenner is a lot of things, but for many of us, a girl he aint!"

Yes, I think he's confused.

You want to claim that wasn't about gender confusion specifically?

Yes. I think he's confused in general, and the gender confusion is where it really shows.

Go ahead. I'll get you a bigger shovel. Stop digging yourself in deeper trying to justify your dismissal of an honest question. That gets old really fast.

And this "I'm so much smarter than everybody else" act of yours gets old really fast, too. I know what I meant.

Frankly, I'm curious too. This ain't a "gotcha," either.

Yeah, I can tell by the kind and polite manner in which this post began.

[Bill the Cat]

[Abigail]

Abby said, "Bruce Jenner is a lot of things, but for many of us, a girl he aint!" You want to claim that wasn't about gender confusion specifically? Go ahead. I'll get you a bigger shovel. Stop digging yourself in deeper trying to justify your dismissal of an honest question. That gets old really fast.

Frankly, I'm curious too. This ain't a "gotcha," either. I'd imagine with some time and thought, I could construct an apologetic showing that the god that shows up in the bible wouldn't have created humans with built-in gender mismatches, even if I can't think of any offhand. Folks who think the bible comes from the one true God are going to find it just as hard to dismiss that as they find it hard to dismiss the Levitical denunciations of homosexuality.

Personally, I don't see much point arguing against folks sincere religious beliefs, so if there really are biblical principles involved, I'd like to know about them. On the other hand, otherwise, there's room to change some minds and make the world a bit safer for gays and transgenders. That's something worth pursuing for me.

I don't think people have to accept transgenderism in order to allow that transgenders (and gays since you have lumped them in this) should be free to go about their business free from harm like assault. Within reasonable boundaries I think we should be able to disapprove of one another's behaviour at some level and yet still be able to share the public square together so that we can interact at some level because of our common humanity. It is unfortunate that progressives have sold the line that we have to be affirming of the actions of others if we are to live side by side.

People like BJ have a lot more to them then their confused genderality. In his case he is an Olympic sportsman and has been married and fathered children. To me it doesn't sound like the picture fm93 is painting of someone in continual turmoil and distress. Even if it were proved to me that he did have such a distress I would still not agree that his present actions are the solution. I think that it is kinder not to pretend to be onboard as to affirming the behaviour of others if you really can't. If people want to get a sex changes (though it seems unclear if he has even done this but is just getting a few parts done like his top half - totally bizarre) ultimately that is their affair but I would never recommend that to someone and I would never encourage someone along on that path as I don't think it will lead to anything meaningful.

The Bible does speak of transformations, tho not of the sort as we see in BJ. Romans 12:2 reads:"And do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. From a Christian point of view we are supposed to be transformed towards being Christlike, not squeezed down to the fleshly things which are conformed to this present world.

[djbrock]

Abby said, "Bruce Jenner is a lot of things, but for many of us, a girl he aint!" You want to claim that wasn't about gender confusion specifically? Go ahead. I'll get you a bigger shovel. Stop digging yourself in deeper trying to justify your dismissal of an honest question. That gets old really fast.

Frankly, I'm curious too. This ain't a "gotcha," either. I'd imagine with some time and thought, I could construct an apologetic showing that the god that shows up in the bible wouldn't have created humans with built-in gender mismatches, even if I can't think of any offhand. Folks who think the bible comes from the one true God are going to find it just as hard to dismiss that as they find it hard to dismiss the Levitical denunciations of homosexuality.

You see, if people take the biblical story seriously, then humanity chose to rebel against God at the beginning. Ever since then there have been sinful proclivities within the species. So it is no surprise that we are "born" (if we are) with gender confusion; or we can be "taught" gender confusion. God allows us to struggle with our innate sinful impulses. They are evidence of our unholiness contrasted with His holiness. No one really argues that God sits around contemplating how He can insert imperfections into people's lives. That is just pop-theology nonsense. You are born human and that means you have innate sinful desires that draw you away from the perfection which God has in mind.

[Juvenal]

Yeah, I can tell by the kind and polite manner in which this post began.

Oh, sorry, did you find my calling you out as an ASS objectionable? Oh wait ... that was you ... giving me an excuse to hand you a biblical principle that takes no time at all to consider, and requires no hand waving either.

Reap what you sow, weasel.

[Cow Poke]

Oh, sorry, did you find my calling you out as an ASS objectionable? Oh wait ... that was you ... giving me an excuse to hand you a biblical principle that takes no time at all to consider, and requires no hand waving either.

Reap what you sow, weasel.

Must have been another bad day in class.

[fm93]

To me it doesn't sound like the picture fm93 is painting of someone in continual turmoil and distress.

To be clear, I'm not trying to paint a picture so much as report a picture that Jenner painted in the interview. That is, Jenner is the one who first painted a picture of having undergone turmoil and distress.

[Cow Poke]

To be clear, I'm not trying to paint a picture so much as report a picture that Jenner painted in the interview. That is, Jenner is the one who first painted a picture of having undergone turmoil and distress.

You magnified that like a zillion times, fm.... you really overshot the runway on that one.

[Adrift]

I don't understand why people are quibbling about whether or not Jenner suffered turmoil and distress over the years. I'm certain that he did, as many people suffering from severe psychosis often do. The real issue is the enablement, which for every other psychological disorder is considered harmful to the patient.

[hamster]

Gender dysphoria is real and is sometimes so severe that young people kill themselves rather than put up with it. I sympathize with people with that disorder but I am not convinced that trying to transform them physically through medical mutilation is a good way to treat it. There seem to be conflicting reports

The review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham's aggressive research intelligence facility (Arif) found no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective. . . Chris Hyde, the director of Arif, said: "There is a huge uncertainty over whether changing someone's sex is a good or a bad thing. While no doubt great care is taken to ensure that appropriate patients undergo gender reassignment, there's still a large number of people who have the surgery but remain traumatised - often to the point of committing suicide."

There are people who just have a bizarre fetish/perversion for pretending to be the other sex but they're not the same people as those with gender dysphoria

[djbrock]

In fact, people who do mutilate their bodies have poorer outcomes and higher suicide rates than those who do not. That is why it has ceased to be used as a treatment by hospitals.

[Rushing Jaws]

A better analogy would involve the opposite--you're wearing a layer of uncomfortable clothes (a full-body costume of a cartoon sports mascot, for instance) that's somehow become jammed where the costume head attaches to the costume body, so you can't take them off. You feel almost constant discomfort due to the itchy fabric and hot, humid conditions inside the costume, and everyone who notices you sees you only as a giant grinning cartoon character, while you know that your external appearance doesn't match your internal sense of self. The notion of being trapped forever inside a full-body costume leads you to feel distress. You could undergo therapy to try to convince your mind that you are literally that mascot, but that doesn't work. Finally, someone manages to free up the jammed part, allowing you to step out of the costume and physically reveal your internal self.

## Both good posts. Anti-liberalism, however right it may be, does not prevent people sounding (to quote "1066 and All That") "Right but Repulsive". Being intellectually correct is no good at all, if it is divorced from pastoral sympathy. What is needed is an approach that enables Christians both to be correct, and to identify themselves with those they are correcting. No stand-offish approach of being in the right, but distant and unsympathetic, is going to be persuasive. If we "put people right", or rather, go about trying to do so, we must let them know that we are on their side. How one is to do this, I have no idea; but I think it is essential, otherwise one comes off as hard and preachy 😦 To be objectively correct is not enough - what one says has to be appropriated as correct as well. It has to be internalised by the hearer.

[Rushing Jaws]

In fact, people who do mutilate their bodies have poorer outcomes and higher suicide rates than those who do not. That is why it has ceased to be used as a treatment by hospitals.

## That decisiom sounds as if it is inspired by pragmatism, rather by appreciation of bodily integrity as a good. Pragmatism is a poor foundation for Christian ethics.

[djbrock]

## That decisiom sounds as if it is inspired by pragmatism, rather by appreciation of bodily integrity as a good. Pragmatism is a poor foundation for Christian ethics.

Let's see: do surgery knowing more patients will die that if you don't do surgery. No thanks.

[fm93]

In fact, people who do mutilate their bodies have poorer outcomes and higher suicide rates than those who do not. That is why it has ceased to be used as a treatment by hospitals.

No one said that surgeries always make things better, but where are these numbers alleging that there are higher suicide rates and poorer outcomes?