Transgenderism, with an Emphasis on Children

[carpedm9587]

I just did. This redefinition of sexuality isn't just being weaponized against Christians, but against homosexuals too.

Exactly how has the “redefinition of sexuality” (which is not what is happening, but set that aside), been “weaponized against Christians?”

Now this is how I know you've drank the Kool-Aid. If a man is married to a transwoman he is in a homosexual relationship by definition. This is the kind of redefining of reality that I'm warning you about, but you've apparently already just accepted it. You have become as detached from reality as the Flat Earthers that you disdain so much.

First, “drank the koolaid” is a pejorative, implying following a leader without thought or reflection. If that is what/who you think I am, why bother with conversation? Just “kick the dust of
your sandals” and move on.

And no, if a man is married to a trans woman, one who has had GRS, he is not a homosexual “by definition.” You are defining yourself to a conclusion. A transwoman is female internally, and has had the surgery to align the exterior with the interior. They remain female genetically only. And more than one heterosexual man has fallen in love with a transwoman without ever being attracted to someone who is both internally (cognitively) and externally (physiologically) male. They are simply not the same thing, despite your insistence that they are. You are badly begging the question.

[Diogenes]

Here is where we disagree. HRT and SRS are not based on "gender = sex." If they were, they would be the default for all transpeople.

What planet do you live one as HRT (including puberty blocking) is the main "treatment"?

At the other end are those who are
rendered miserable by the disconnect between their gender identity and their sexual identity, and want them to be aligned. Wanting them to be aligned does not mean they are the same: one is an external reality and the other an internal one. I can see your sex (generally) and read it in your genetic code. I cannot see or read (yet) your gender.

You say it best when you say:

Of COURSE HRT and SRS cannot change gender.

If they cannot change gender, they can only change sex expression.

That is the entire point. It is a tool for aligning the exterior (as best we can today) with the interior.

Aligning an external sex expression with an deluded interior sense of sex since you have admitted HRT and SRS can in change gender.

Or it's coming out of the woodwork for the same reason black people stood up for themselves, women stood up for themselves, and gay people stood up for themselves: people eventually get tired of being denigrated, repressed, and shunned.

Why then do shows aimed at preschoolers have animals with double mastectomy scars?

Umm... no. First, innoculation is never 100%, so the lower you drive the transmission rate in a population the safer everyone is.

First, in regard to Covid, that particular lie was peddled. Second, he transmission rate would be reduced by the people who voluntarily were inoculated who would also have symptomatic relief.

Second, there are always some in any given society who CANNOT be innoculated. They are often the most vulnerable (i.e., the elderly, the very young, the very ill, etc.). Innoculation protects them as well.

Then let them isolate themselves.

And we can eliminate exploitation in cosmetic care by eliminating cosmetic care. We can eliminate exploitation in oncology by eliminating oncology. We can eliminate the exploitation of travelers by prohibiting travel. Your approach makes no sense to me. Some one is bad - so you deny their victim access to the service in question?

Trying to gaslight is a bad look. If adults want to with informed consent chemically and physically mutilate themselves, then fine. Why are you so opposed to informed consent?

Absolutely true. The issue is the disconnect between sex and gender identity.

Since HRT and SRS cannot change gender, there no reason for such to be prescribed as "treatment" as they cannot "treat" gender.

And worth revisiting - as it appears to be a major part of the current disconnect on the subject.

Even still "gender" is based on aggregates regarding sex. But as we've seen, the issue is a deluded sense is sex.

Either I misspoke - or you misread. They believe themselves to be a gender that does not align with their external sex. That's not the same thing.

HRT and SRS necessarily disagree.

Which is the point being made by transgendered persons: it does not HAVE to be predicated on sex. It simply has been historically, leaving transgendered persons out in the cold.

Attempting to conform to secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex disagrees, necessary.

Oh my. I can only say that yourlast sentence is about as demeaning and disparaging a comment about transpeople as I have heard. I have no response.

Requiring constant affirmation to the point of cultural authoritarianism seems rather narcissistic.

Are you suggesting that the entire experience of the feminine and the masculine is non-existent? Really?

As they attempt to essentialize biology, yes. Have you not heard the quote "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman"?

Both tend though to drift to accentuating sexual dimorphism both physically and behaviorally. It's strange evolutionary psychology is jettisoned when it comes to the issue of "gender". Again, girl monkeys prefer dolls for a reason.

Again...wow. You are taking this to extremes I simply have no response for, in much the same way I have no response for flat earthers and young earth creationists. When someone is that far out on the limb, sometimes, there is just nothing left to do but let them be there.

I think what trans people go through is psychologically extreme. The constant paranoia and anxiety regarding if they pass must be extreme. How is it "extreme" to believe that "trans" people are conscious their physical body, their mentation, and constant attempt to change their physical body? I can understand why they need constant love-bombing as their soma. Nothing will change the fact of their sex.

So just "buck up and deal with it?" That's your expert, counseling advice?

Resiliency is a good thing, no? Would you give ipecac to someone with an eating disorder? Would you blind a person who thought they should be blind? Would you amputate someone who thought they shouldn't have legs?

I would narcissism is a large factor. Issues over sexual orientation are probably also involved. An effeminate guy doesn't make him a woman. Tomboys aren't men. If anything, "transgenders" confuses gender and sex too much to the point gender=sex hence the purpose of HRT and SRS.

ETA: Dio, while I find the exchanges interesting, I simply cannot keep up with the sheer volume. You appear to have copious amounts of time to respond, but I have other things to fill my day and other people here I am interested in responding to. I will be checking each morning and spending no more than an hour responding to all. It is likely I will fall behind.

I wouldn't worry about that too much. I don't have as much time on my hands as you think I do and the exchanges are becoming rather milquetoast as ideological capture is becoming rather apparent. You've been a good chap though, I'll admit that.

If you can't understand that HRT and SRS are necessarily predicated on sex identity and not "gender" then there's not much that's going to change in the exchanges. I would agree that "sex" and "gender" are not interchangeably (with the implied Quinian sense of salve veritate) but they are not divorced from each other. There are still biological aspects as well as socio-normative (again biologically based) aspects.

fin

Ps I should point out though that you may not know that my faith tag only recently change (less than a year). I would have said the same things here prior to my conversion. It would be on the safe side to read most my posting without reading religious or theistic belief into them.


I'll admit I do post with assumed undercurrents which is mainly due my background and that does lead to confusion.

[Cerebrum123]

Exactly how has the “redefinition of sexuality” (which is not what is happening, but set that aside), been “weaponized against Christians?”

I've already explained the issue. Homosexuality and heterosexuality, as in attraction to the same or opposite sex respectively, are not based on "gender". In both definitions the "gender identity" is irrelevant to what those terms mean.

First, “drank the koolaid” is a pejorative, implying following a leader without thought or reflection. If that is what/who you think I am, why bother with conversation? Just “kick the dust of your sandals” and move on.

I say that you've "drank the koolaid" because you've done exactly as you describe. I'm just pointing out what you've become and why. I'm moving on after this post.

And no, if a man is married to a trans woman, one who has had GRS, he is not a homosexual “by definition.” You are defining yourself to a conclusion. A transwoman is female internally, and has had the surgery to align the exterior with the interior. They remain female genetically only. And more than one heterosexual man has fallen in love with a transwoman without ever being attracted to someone who is both internally (cognitively) and externally (physiologically) male. They are simply not the same thing, despite your insistence that they are. You are badly begging the question.

You are now conflating sex and gender, something you deride others for. Homosexuality means attraction to someone of the same sex, not someone of the same gender. Heterosexuality is attraction to someone of the opposite sex, not the opposite gender. GAS does not change someone's sex, that's not possible and even trans activists admit this. So, a man who marries a transwoman is in a homosexual relationship by the definition of the terms involved. There is no begging the question, there is only accepting the reality of the terms and the reality of what biological sex is. It appears you are so detached from reality that even Flat Earthers are more reasonable. At least they don't try to redefine "flat" or "round" in order to win without actually addressing the claims.

[seer]

It appears you are so detached from reality that even Flat Earthers are more reasonable. At least they don't try to redefine "flat" or "round" in order to win without actually addressing the claims.

[carpedm9587]

What planet do you live one as HRT (including puberty blocking) is the main "treatment"?

You say it best when you say:

If they cannot change gender, they can only change sex expression....[snip]

Sorry, Dio. I cannot keep pace with the ever increasing length of the responses. If you want to pick one or two things to focus on, I'll respond. Otherwise, I'll leave this to you.

Feel free to declare a win, if that is your preference.

[carpedm9587]

I've already explained the issue. Homosexuality and heterosexuality, as in attraction to the same or opposite sex respectively, are not based on "gender". In both definitions the "gender identity" is irrelevant to what those terms mean.

That does not answer my question. I asked you how changing views of sex/gender and sexuality are being "weaponized" against Christians. That was your statement.

I say that you've "drank the koolaid" because you've done exactly as you describe. I'm just pointing out what you've become and why. I'm moving on after this post.

I have no idea what this means. What have I done that is "exactly as I've described?" The term "drank the koolaid" arises from the Jonestown Massacre and refers to someone who blindly follows whatever is being dished out, without investigation or thought. If that is what you think of me, then it would seem that discussion would be pointless, no? I would not waste my time with someone uninterested in investigating the facts and educating themselves.

You are now conflating sex and gender, something you deride others for. Homosexuality means attraction to someone of the same sex, not someone of the same gender. Heterosexuality is attraction to someone of the opposite sex, not the opposite gender. GAS does not change someone's sex, that's not possible and even trans activists admit this. So, a man who marries a transwoman is in a homosexual relationship by the definition of the terms involved. There is no begging the question, there is only accepting the reality of the terms and the reality of what biological sex is. It appears you are so detached from reality that even Flat Earthers are more reasonable. At least they don't try to redefine "flat" or "round" in order to win without actually addressing the claims.

In a binary world of male/female, Cerebrum, your comment would be correct. In the more complex world of male/female/hybrid and man/woman/non-binary, the reality is not so simple. We do not have language, yet, to capture the wealth of relationships that emerge from a more complex view of reality. So I let people define themselves. The man/male I know, who married a transwoman, has no interest in either men or males. He is attracted to women/females. His trans wife is now anatomically female and a woman by gender. Her male genetic assignment is invisible to anyone without an electron microscope or a DNA test kit. She cannot have children, but then again a LOT of women cannot have children. She does not have periods, but the same is true of a lot of women. The husband is not homosexual by any classic definition. He considers himself heterosexual - so I accept his definition.

If his transwife had NOT had GAS, then the situation would be more complex, and the case for his being attracted to males would be stronger.

Perhaps we need to expand the language to include homogender, homosexual, heterogender, heterosexual, agender, bigender, asexual, bisexual. Perhaps then we could actually see the complexity of sexual and gender relationships, but even then we would lack terms for the range of trans-experiences. Is a transwoman who is content to dress and act the part different from a transwoman who has had GAS? Clearly, the answer should be yes.

Meanwhile, It does not affect me one whit to accept him for what he tells me, even if the language is imprecise because our language is now in a state of flux. I know what he is saying. Why does it affect you? Why is it necessary for you to call him a "homosexual" if he does not identify as such?