Man to Man... or Woman

[Left Coast]

I just want to correct one thing here. Where did you read that I am against antibiotics? Did you read it, or did you assume it?
I suggest it's the latter.

You mentioned three things together in your last post to me: blood transfusion, antibiotics, and SRS. I know you're against 2 of the 3. I was indeed assuming you mentioned the third one because you feel similarly about it. If not, okay.

 

[nPeace]

No. You completely ruined the analogy.
The bomb is not supposed to harm anyone.
I really don't know why you went there.
The bomb is supposed to be dropped and no one is to get hurt.

What a truly bizarre analogy... one in which there are dropped bombs that aren't intended to hurt anyone. Can you provide an example of such a 'bomb'? If not, it's really not analogical to anything

‘Now I Am Become Death’: The Legacy of the First Nuclear Bomb Test
Nuclear weapons testing - Wikipedia

Why would that be required?
Are you saying that having an example will allow you to know that no one is hurt?
You don't know that anyone isn't being hurt. That's all that is required

I can only go by the example that YOU provided. And in THAT example, the ONLY person who was hurt was the person who made the choice. If you have an example of such a choice hurting SOMEONE ELSE, then provide it... don't just complain that I'm focusing on the ONLY EXAMPLE you came up with.

I'm not complaining. Why do you refer to a response as complaining?
I could do the same, but that makes no sense to me.

 

[nPeace]

You mentioned three things together in your last post to me: blood transfusion, antibiotics, and SRS. I know you're against 2 of the 3. I was indeed assuming you mentioned the third one because you feel similarly about it. If not, okay.

SRS? What's that, and where did I mention it?

 

[Left Coast]

SRS? What's that, and where did I mention it?

Sex reassignment surgery. Isn't that what we've been talking about?

 

[nPeace]

Sex reassignment surgery. Isn't that what we've been talking about?

Transitioning? Okay.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've had epilepsy near 20 years and counting. My doc said I probably know more about it than most...not because of the stats and intellect, but because I lived through it and found what works for me etc etc. Likewise, with gender identity. Maybe look at it differently it may give you sound perspective.

That exactly, and a million times over. To chime in, I can't compare much with seizures (Ive had one, and didnt even learn I wasn't supposed to drive until a few days before that restricted period ended), but I can say that really I'd rather not know all the stuff I do about sex and gender. I wish I could've had normal problems instead, and just live in ignorant bliss as to how very deeply our sense of gender is rooted, and how very deeply intimate our sense of gender is a very massive part of our identity. All the time Ive spent studying and learning and researching, thats a lot of time I could have been playing music, reading poems, or just taking a stroll. But instead that time was soent learning about people like David Reimer, who got to be a guinea pig on the hypothesis you can raise a boy to identify as a girl if started soon enough (you can't and he took his own life).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sex reassignment surgery. Isn't that what we've been talking about?

No. Transitioning involves way more than our genitals, and genital surgery isn't a goal for all (or not feasible).

 

[Left Coast]

No. Transitioning involves way more than our genitals, and genital surgery isn't a goal for all (or not feasible).

Agreed. SRS had specifically been brought up though, so I was addressing that. Of course you know I support trans people whether they undergo surgery or not.

 

[nPeace]

Feelings aren't facts. Feelings are feelings. They aren't wrong or right, they just are. There's no right way to feel about anything or anyone. That would be absurd. If I fall in love with someone and it's a person I can't have will you tell me my feelings are somehow wrong? Of course they're not. They're feelings.

Just as they are wrong thoughts, and actions, they are wrong feelings.
Feelings are associated with a reaction to a physical reality, or they may be associated with thoughts and intentions on the heart (which are real).
A person may not feel well - not a good feeling, and that signal triggered from the body, prompts the individual to seek out the doctor to find out what is wrong. His acting on his feelings sometimes saves his life.

A person may feel like getting drunk. Another may feel like taking their life, or someone else's. On the other hand they may feel like saving someone's life, or saving their own, by looking after their health - taking active measures to do so.

We may hear a person say, "I feel rotten." Or "I feel miserable, and depressed."
Who likes to feel this way? The fact that we don't means there is something wrong. It's not a right feeling.
The world and the things happening in the world, contribute to our not feeling well.
There are right and wrong feelings.

There are right and wrong actions too. That's why they lock people up, for acting on wrong feelings.

 

[nPeace]

I mentioned that the majority rules (say most people don't have gender dysphoria) doesn't determine what is right or wrong. It's like the more people have it (or other less common conditions) the more its normal or seen as disability (excused from being morally judged).

I'm still not getting how changing one's body if it doesn't hurt the person or others is wrong. Most people don't choose to do so especially since we don't have medical illnesses that promote as such, but still...

I'm not quite sure how it has to do with results of the law though.

You keep saying this "if it doesn't hurt the person or others". Yet, time and again it is evident that people do things without realizing the hurt involved, only to realize after.
So, why do you feel that starting with a presumption justifies an action?

I can't tell the difference. What's universal laws if they're not natural laws?

Okay. Let's go with your "natural" laws.
If natural laws are random, and subject to chanced occurrences, how do they become fixed, and unalterable, so that everything works according to, or based on those laws?

I don't know if natural (I mentioned natural if I'm not mistaken) and human laws are the same. I'm speaking more of how life is inherently sporadic. We put patterns to things because that's how our brain makes sense of the world and can intelligently guess how to move in it. Same with nature, the physical universe, and everything made up-energy.

I'm not sure I am getting you. Could you elaborate, and give example(s).

Reading your other convo, how is it wrong that someone transgender chooses with her doctor whether surgery etc would be the best option for them?

Hey. It's your choice of health care. Do I have to accept and agree with it?

How do those who detransition weaken the argument that the transition works for some people and not for others?

Works? Eating glass-bottle works for some. It certainly wouldn't work for me... They probably think that's a good argument too. It works for them so...

What is your position on what gender is and how people define themselves by gender?

I hope you are not saying you weren't following the conversation.
Perhaps I can put it in a nutshell. I do not believe in, agree with, nor follow this world's standards, or thinking - which are consistently in opposition to what I consider to be morally good, and right, as presented in the by the grand creator.
For example, the world says, I am an animal. I disagree.

Articles etc are fine but like religion, topics that have to do with identity, beliefs, self perception, culture, etc are highly personal. So it's best to get knowledge from the people who live with it not those who study it.

I've had epilepsy near 20 years and counting. My doc said I probably know more about it than most...not because of the stats and intellect, but because I lived through it and found what works for me etc etc. Likewise, with gender identity. Maybe look at it differently it may give you sound perspective.

I know people that have battled problems for longer than 20 years. When they took advice that some consider foolishness, their problems were solved - surprising to them.
If that is not sound perspective, I would be interested in hearing why you think not..
I don't seem to be hearing "what works for some may not work for others" anymore. I seem to be hearing, "Let's all conform to the new way of thinking, and put aside any religious thought, to the contrary."

It reminds me of what I heard some top Satanists say, about their agenda - put simply - "Eradicate Judeo-Christianity and it's values from society... permanently."

 

[Rival]

Just as they are wrong thoughts, and actions, they are wrong feelings.
Feelings are associated with a reaction to a physical reality, or they may be associated with thoughts and intentions on the heart (which are real).
A person may not feel well - not a good feeling, and that signal triggered from the body, prompts the individual to seek out the doctor to find out what is wrong. His acting on his feelings sometimes saves his life.

A person may feel like getting drunk. Another may feel like taking their life, or someone else's. On the other hand they may feel like saving someone's life, or saving their own, by looking after their health - taking active measures to do so.

We may hear a person say, "I feel rotten." Or "I feel miserable, and depressed."
Who likes to feel this way? The fact that we don't means there is something wrong. It's not a right feeling.
The world and the things happening in the world, contribute to our not feeling well.
There are right and wrong feelings.

There are right and wrong actions too. That's why they lock people up, for acting on wrong feelings.

It is only actions which we can deem wrong or right, not feelings or thoughts. Feelings or thoughts are not happening in the external world and the thinker/feeler has power over them. Feelings and thoughts are not judge-worthy- we cannot tell someone how he must think or feel; this is absurd and meddling with someone's own deepest psyche. Not liking something doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't like the feeling of many kinds of romantic interaction, they make me feel icky, but these feelings aren't wrong; they're just my subjective mental experience, and you can't tell someone that his or her mental experiences, feelings and perceptions are somehow wrong. What is defined as the 'right' way to feel? There can be no such thing. There's no 'right' way to feel about a situation or person. If I feel suicidal that's not a 'wrong' feeling, it's just a feeling, it can be neither wrong nor right - it's just how I feel.

You do not have the right to police people thoughts and feelings and tell them they are wrong or otherwise.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If natural laws are random, and subject to chanced occurrences, how do they become fixed, and unalterable, so that everything works according to, or based on those laws?

"God doesn't play with dice." The natural laws are not random. They work predictably well enough that Neptune was mathematically predicted to exist and then found to actually exist.

 

[nPeace]

It is only actions which we can deem wrong or right, not feelings or thoughts. Feelings or thoughts are not happening in the external world and the thinker/feeler has power over them. Feelings and thoughts are not judge-worthy- we cannot tell someone how he must think or feel; this is absurd and meddling with someone's own deepest psyche. Not liking something doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't like the feeling of many kinds of romantic interaction, they make me feel icky, but these feelings aren't wrong; they're just my subjective mental experience, and you can't tell someone that his or her mental experiences, feelings and perceptions are somehow wrong. What is defined as the 'right' way to feel? There can be no such thing. There's no 'right' way to feel about a situation or person. If I feel suicidal that's not a 'wrong' feeling, it's just a feeling, it can be neither wrong nor right - it's just how I feel.

There might be a misunderstanding here... I'm not sure, but I have the feeling that you may have in mind pain and suffering as not being right or wrong, as though it's some moral issue.

I am not focused on just that, and I am not looking at that aspect as a moral issue.
Though psychological pain, or mental suffering is bad, in the sense that there are signs of something being wrong physically, it has nothing to do with morals... but suffering is not normally viewed as good, or right, in the sense of feeling right.

I hope you understand what I am explaining here.

When someone is experiencing emotional distress either from a current or past situation that has affected his life to some degree, this is known as psychological pain. Unlike the pain a person might incur from a physical illness or trauma, psychological pain is a form of mental suffering. To many who are afflicted with this form of non-physical ailment, treatment from a qualified mental health expert may be recommended.

Many forms of psychological pain can lead to severe depression and, in some cases, suicidal tendencies if left untreated.
Source

Psychological pain - Wikipedia
Psychological pain, mental pain, or emotional pain is an unpleasant feeling (a suffering) of a psychological, non-physical origin.

Other descriptions of psychological pain are "a wide range of subjective experiences characterized as an awareness of negative changes in the self and in its functions accompanied by negative feelings", "a diffuse subjective experience ... differentiated from physical pain which is often localized and associated with noxious physical stimuli", and "a lasting, unsustainable, and unpleasant feeling resulting from negative appraisal of an inability or deficiency of the self."

The feelings mentioned here, are as a result of a physical reality, as I tried to explain earlier.

Feelings, in the other sense - thoughts and intentions of the heart, are explained in this article - Can feelings be wrong?, but are not limited to the article.

Can feelings actually be “right” or “wrong”?

I teach my clients that “It is okay to feel whatever you feel; whatever you feel is okay. However, that same feeling can also actually be inaccurate or misleading.”

Shutting down or denying an emotion is unhealthy and leads to depression and a host of other psychological and physical problems.

Experiencing an emotion does not directly cause a problem; the way you choose to react to the emotion and for how long you experience that emotion can potentially cause problems.


Choosing to accept the emotion as okay, and accepting that you are experiencing that particular emotion, does not imply that the feeling (emotion) is accurate or that it represents truth or reality.


Experiencing the feeling is not wrong. However, the feeling itself can be wrong in relation to reality. The feeling might be inaccurate, inappropriate or disproportionate in intensity to the situation or event.

I think one needs to understand what is meant by feelings and intentions of the heart, in order to grasp this concept.
If I feel up to it later, i will look for an article that might give a much more simplified explanation.

Someone gives their opinion in this article, which starts off with what you understand, but also includes some informative information, imo.

Our opinions differ, and that's understandable.

You do not have the right to police people thoughts and feelings and tell them they are wrong or otherwise.

Are you okay Rival?
I have the right to do whatever I want. Just as you have the right to tell me what you think I can and cannot do, and tell me I am wrong.

 

[nPeace]

"God doesn't play with dice." The natural laws are not random. They work predictably well enough that Neptune was mathematically predicted to exist and then found to actually exist.

Great! So I'll repeat my question in line with your understanding ... Since the natural laws are not random, and subject to chanced occurrences (which by the way would rule out evolutionary ideas), how did they become fixed, and unalterable, so that everything works according to, or based on those laws?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You keep saying this "if it doesn't hurt the person or others". Yet, time and again it is evident that people do things without realizing the hurt involved, only to realize after.
So, why do you feel that starting with a presumption justifies an action?

Specifically with medical treatments there are always risks. So, the patient, doctor, and so forth make decisions together for the best interest and well-being of the person receiving the treatment. Of course there are X factors-some people don't know they hurt themselves or others but we're not talking about morals but what is medically necessary for the mental and physical wellbeing of people and their doctors who choose the best option of one treatment over another.

But regarding my question, how does this weaken the argument that some people do benefit from transitioning and other people do not?

Okay. Let's go with your "natural" laws.

If natural laws are random, and subject to chanced occurrences, how do they become fixed, and unalterable, so that everything works according to, or based on those laws

I'm not sure I am getting you. Could you elaborate, and give example(s).

They don't. Our human brains make patterns and habits for our survival.

Think of it like a scattered puzzle. When we are born, that's the basics of the world-a puzzle. As we age we learn to do things that works best for our human survival. (We learn how to put the puzzle pieces together so we can make sense of the would and how to move in it.) There is nothing inherently fixed, eternal, universal, so have you.

Think of coincidences and things that happen doing the day when you planned otherwise. Or "that-figures" movements. Life is random. Natural laws (like physics) govern how, say, neurons fire in a healthy brain but just because we deem "this is healthy/what it's supposed to be" doesn't make it any less normal than the random spark of a seizure. If everything was fixed there'd be no such things as cancers, seizures, etc.

I mean think of it. If we didn't have to call every other thing that deviates from the average a "disability, disorder, sin, whatever", we'd be more accepting of people for who they are, say they are, and want to be without seeing them as a margin of error.

Hey. It's your choice of health care. Do I have to accept and agree with it?

That doesn't answer the question though.

What is wrong with a transgender patient and doctors choosing surgery as the best option of gender dysphoria?

Works? Eating glass-bottle works for some. It certainly wouldn't work for me... They probably think that's a good argument too. It works for them so...

Deflecting the question here.

The arguments were that people who go through transitioning can be harmed from it and regret it and the other is that they tend to detransition...

How does this weaken the argument that some people benefit from transition treatment and others do not?

I hope you are not saying you weren't following the conversation.
Perhaps I can put it in a nutshell. I do not believe in, agree with, nor follow this world's standards, or thinking - which are consistently in opposition to what I consider to be morally good, and right, as presented in the by the grand creator. For example, the world says, I am an animal. I disagree.

I don't see you're an animal. I just don't know how you define gender in order to form sound disagreement without talking pass each other. If you don't have an idea of what gender is and how to explain why it's immoral to change one's body, you can disagree till the cows come home but that doesn't mean you understand the topic in which you have strong opinions against.

I know people that have battled problems for longer than 20 years. When they took advice that some consider foolishness, their problems were solved - surprising to them.
If that is not sound perspective, I would be interested in hearing why you think not..

I don't seem to be hearing "what works for some may not work for others" anymore. I seem to be hearing, "Let's all conform to the new way of thinking, and put aside any religious thought, to the contrary."

You're hearing the wrong thing-especially on this thread. We're talking about medical issues and treatments to help the wellbeing of patients due to physiological and physiological trauma and pain.

It really has nothing to do with public opinion.

Transgender has just as much opinion about these things than people who are not. So, it's not that-it's specific to medical options and how the patient, doctors, etc choose the right options congruent with their health and how it can help their wellbeing both physical and psychological.

Case in point: not all LGBTQ like PRIDE. Every one is unique.

It reminds me of what I heard some top Satanists say, about their agenda - put simply - "Eradicate Judeo-Christianity and it's values from society... permanently."

Shrugs. I hear a lot of things. If I took every word to heart based on my cultural biases, I'd be a hypocrite.

Wouldn't you say you get a better insight about gender and this issue from those who experienced it rather than those who form opinions and study about it?

 

[nPeace]

Specifically with medical treatments there are always risks. So, the patient, doctor, and so forth make decisions together for the best interest and well-being of the person receiving the treatment. Of course there are X factors-some people don't know they hurt themselves or others but we're not talking about morals but what is medically necessary for the mental and physical wellbeing of people and their doctors who choose the best option of one treatment over another.

But regarding my question, how does this weaken the argument that some people do benefit from transitioning and other people do not?

You did not get the answer?

They don't. Our human brains make patterns and habits for our survival.

Think of it like a scattered puzzle. When we are born, that's the basics of the world-a puzzle. As we age we learn to do things that works best for our human survival. (We learn how to put the puzzle pieces together so we can make sense of the would and how to move in it.) There is nothing inherently fixed, eternal, universal, so have you.

Think of coincidences and things that happen doing the day when you planned otherwise. Or "that-figures" movements. Life is random. Natural laws (like physics) govern how, say, neurons fire in a healthy brain but just because we deem "this is healthy/what it's supposed to be" doesn't make it any less normal than the random spark of a seizure. If everything was fixed there'd be no such things as cancers, seizures, etc.

I mean think of it. If we didn't have to call every other thing that deviates from the average a "disability, disorder, sin, whatever", we'd be more accepting of people for who they are, say they are, and want to be without seeing them as a margin of error.

Are we referring to the same thing?
Scientific law - Wikipedia
Several general properties of scientific laws, particularly when referring to laws in physics, have been identified. They are:

True, at least within their regime of validity. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe.
Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.
Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them.
Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws),
Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations).
Generally conservative of quantity.[9]:59
Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time.
Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible.

That doesn't answer the question though.

What is wrong with a transgender patient and doctors choosing surgery as the best option of gender dysphoria?

Have you been reading the posts, in this thread... and that question has not been answered? I don't mean was the question not answered to your satisfaction, but was the question answered?

Deflecting the question here.

The arguments were that people who go through transitioning can be harmed from it and regret it and the other is that they tend to detransition...

How does this weaken the argument that some people benefit from transition treatment and others do not?

There were others, and looking at whether they weaken the argument or not, is not an issue... unless you think that the argument that eating glass is not weakened by the fact that it is not healthy and can lead to death. Do you?

I don't see you're an animal. I just don't know how you define gender in order to form sound disagreement without talking pass each other. If you don't have an idea of what gender is and how to explain why it's immoral to change one's body, you can disagree till the cows come home but that doesn't mean you understand the topic in which you have strong opinions against.

Do you think I don't understand?

You're hearing the wrong thing-especially on this thread. We're talking about medical issues and treatments to help the wellbeing of patients due to physiological and physiological trauma and pain.

It really has nothing to do with public opinion.

Transgender has just as much opinion about these things than people who are not. So, it's not that-it's specific to medical options and how the patient, doctors, etc choose the right options congruent with their health and how it can help their wellbeing both physical and psychological.

Case in point: not all LGBTQ like PRIDE. Every one is unique.

You never responded to the information I asked about, so I don't see how you can be talking about public opinion, since the references were not public opinion. I never posted anything about public opinion. Have you really been following the thread?

Shrugs. I hear a lot of things. If I took every word to heart based on my cultural biases, I'd be a hypocrite.

You said it.
So you think that everything that is said is taken to heart based on cultural biases? If no, why mention this?

Wouldn't you say you get a better insight about gender and this issue from those who experienced it rather than those who form opinions and study about it?

I take my information from sources that are reputable. Are you saying I should talk to a psychopath. in order to understand the mental state, rather than people who actually study these behaviors, and have experience in the field?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I appreciate your effort here and the attitude with which you addressed my concerns.

Very amicable and non-threatening.

I believe I try to be that way with most people - but when dealing with those who want to strip me of my basic rights - I get a little frayed and it shows.

That was not a reference to you.

Anyways - I mean no offense at all - because I appreciate your effort and I don’t want to stifle you - but I believe that you have made a lot of assumptions here and you’ve come to some illogical conclusions.

Basically - to me - the underlying premise of what you have said can be summed up as,

“The only reason you don’t agree with the “gender identity” narrative is because you have not been indoctrinated enough.”

I will get into that in more depth as I address your comments directly - but I want to first share my belief with you that I shared in my initial response to the OP - which has caused all of this “commotion”.

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I believe that all human beings are the literal spirit children of God and that our very spirits are engendered - male and female - making us His sons and daughters.

Therefore - my opinion concerning “gender” revolves around that concept. The Family: A Proclamation to the World states,

“Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

The Family Proclamation

I share this with the hope that it will help you understand where I am coming from and one of my main reasons for why I cannot accept the “gender identity” narrative.

I would need to deny my own religious beliefs - and I will not do that - even if there were compelling scientific evidence - which there is not.

I also believe that everyone - including myself - is free to believe what they would and to share their opinions whenever and with whomever they want.

Before I begin I warn you that I operate in a rather brusque manner - not with the intent to offend - but to save time, effort and with the hopes of being clear.

It took me awhile to get used to the word too since I'm not transgender.

A person does not gain any special insight or ability in understanding the “gender identity” narrative by being transgender.

That would be like claiming only black people have the insight or ability to understand racism.

Most of the transgender people I know don’t even buy into the narrative. They just do what they believe is best for them.

I grew up and went to University in Southern California - I have become very familiar with the “gender identity” narrative during that time - most of the people who tried to convince me of the truthfulness of this narrative were not themselves transgender.

This narrative is not new to me. I have had considerable time to understand it and reject it.

We (people in general) do have environmental, religious, and cultural biases with people who are the minority.

People of every ilk - be they the majority or the minority - have preconceived notions about everyone.

It’s not a one-way street.

Best we can do is learn from the differences so we wont see people in a negative light no matter how much we-and I mean we-try to justify it as "but I'm not being mean to 'the person'" type of thing.

I don’t believe I have been “mean” on this thread - but operated from a position of justified indignation.

The bulk of my contentions have not even been about transgenderism or the “gender identity” narrative - but about my right to have and share my opinion.

If those who I have engaged with on this thread respected my right to share my opinion and had no desire to rob me of my rights - our conversation would be just peachy.

I cannot view hypocritical people - who share their own opinion while maintaining that others shouldn’t - in anything but a “negative light”.

Then when you add their tendency to call me names and accuse me of committing crimes...

I also just cannot agree with the “gender identity” narrative and sharing my opinion and relevant facts to explain my reasons for doing so is not being “mean” IMHO.

If (play along since I'm making a point) I extracted all of the external parts that make you visibly a male or female, what about "you" can you determine that you're still who you are despite how you look and have?

I would still consider myself to be a son of God - therefore male - because I believe that my spirit is male.

Not to mention the genetics.

Who are you as a male or female that your "identity" is not defined by whether you have a penis or vagina?

I cannot believe that our biological sex is separated from our identity.

I also have seen no evidence that anyone should.

I said that not you.

Thank you for clarifying.

I'm sure Saint and other transgender know they still have their biological organs and chromosomes that make them male or female by their "biological sex."

You couldn’t tell from what has been said in this thread.

I have been told that since I cannot know exactly which appendage is present - then I cannot make any claim about which appendage cannot be present.

Which defies reason.

I don’t think we should talk about this any more because it has become a subject of moderation and I wouldn’t want to bother the administrators again.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

The issue is about the gender not what's between their legs.

I see no distinction between ones “gender” and biological sex - so I would claim that our “gender” is determined by our physicality - not our perception.

So - if a male were to lose his penis - and if that fact made him feel like less-than-a-man - he would still be male - though he would have my pity.

Poor guy.

You'd have to understand (or be willing to take interest) what gender is first to get it.

This is a statement that assumes that I just don’t get it or that I have no interest in getting it.

I believe that I do get it and because I get it I am able (and willing) to cut through what I consider to be the BS and get to the heart of the issue.

And I refuse to use terms or engage in speech that I do not agree with.

...biological sex I meant not gender. Sex is the external. Gender is internal/identity. I wish I could find it. Saint did a great explanation on what gender is in relation to chromosomes etc. Years ago though.

I’m sure I’ve heard it all before and I know that I would find it wanting.

I have seen no reason to distinguish “gender identity” from biological sex.

I can't speak for saint, but think of it this way. In general men grow beards as they age and into puberty, and women do not. It's a male trait due to biology of the human body. Later in life women grow hair on their chin and over their lips but its not part of their genetic make up. So, one can say beard is evidence for male.

The same could be said of having a penis and it would be an even more “gender-specific” example.

I just think my joke was funnier and more relevant.

@Saint Frankenstein is biologically a female (sex, organs, chromosomes etc) and by gender-His Identity is male. We are defined by our identities not by our sex. So, he Is a male.

I cannot in good conscience agree with that.

We are defined by the totality of our being - not simply our perception of self.

And our identity cannot be separate from our biological sex.

....but if you want to understand it to form a sound opinion, you have to take some interest in it rather than judge it outright as wrong.

You not only assume that my opinion is not “sound” - simply because I disagree with the narrative - but you also assume that I have no empathy or interest in learning the perspective of others.

Not to mention that assumption that I am the type of person who would make a snap judgment - without due consideration - simply based on the fact that I disagree.

That would be like me claiming that people have an unsound opinion, no interest and made a snap judgment simply because they disagree with me about God.

They couldn’t have just come to a different conclusion than me?

I have discussed this issue for many years and have long since gotten to the point where I believe I can judge it for myself.

I see no reason to agree with the narrative.

The assumption that the only reason I would disagree with it is because I lack understanding, empathy or am ignorant is offensive.

How come it is not possible - to you - for me to have simply come to a different conclusion?

That is a disconcerting and potentially disturbing stance to take.

It’s starting to feel a lot like 1984 up in here.

It's better to have a difference of opinion on things you know than what you don't.

You assume that because I do not agree then I must be ignorant.

“The only reason you don’t agree with the “gender identity” narrative is because you have not been indoctrinated enough.”

2+2=5!

Start with gender (your identity as male or female) and branch from there.

Thank you - but I am content with my position on this issue.

I mean, it confuses me too but I know as a woman I'm not defined by my sex.

You confuse my unwillingness to accept the nuances of the “gender identity” narrative - as well as my refusal to use terms and speech I don’t agree with - as confusion.

I understand it - I just do not agree with it. I cannot agree with it.

Not only have I seen no reason to agree - but to agree would require me to deny my own religious beliefs - which I believe the Holy Spirit has confirmed to me to be true.

It is entirely possible that my belief that our spirits our engendered is just as strong - if not more so - than transgender individuals believing they are members of the opposing “gender”.

And my sharing my opinion about “gender” is not an attempt to convince anyone - unlike members of the forum on this thread.

They are asking me to deny my religious beliefs - while I am not asking them to deny any aspect of themselves - just let me share my opinion when asked without molestation.

Also - it is my opinion that if a concept is confusing even after studying it - it is usually not true.

I'm sure you're not defined by your genitals either?

No one said that anyone was “defined” by their genitalia.

If - however - you want to make a physical comparison between your “maleness” and mine - don’t get upset if the subject of my...um…”manhood” is brought up as well as your lack of a...um…”manhood”.

If you are married, did your husband or wife marry you because of your genitals or was there an inner connection that he or she knew who you were without taking off your clothes?

I’d hope that it would be a combination of both as well as other relevant factors.

I am a man and I would not want to marry a woman who did not find me attractive or who was only attracted to other women.

That would not be the start of a relationship I would want to be in or a healthy relationship in general IMHO.

(Trying to make it a bit more personal so you get my point. Trying to prove others wrong would mean you'd have to know them in order to make a sound disagreement. Since you know yourself more, what defines you as male or female?)

I reject the idea that you need to know someone at all in order to discuss your beliefs or biological facts.

It is my opinion that I am male because God formed me as such and that my spirit is male.

That’s not even to mention genetics.

I have yet to see any evidence or reasonable argument that disputes my opinion and biological facts.

It's not an easy question but I know many nontrangender can probably answer it if they think about it.

I understand that not everyone copes with objective reality as easily as I do.

I hope they find solace in the fact that I struggle with other things that they themselves would find easy.

Thank you for your time and patience.

I look forward to hearing your response.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

You said he doesn't have a penis thus he's not a man.

I don't recall saying this.

I said that a person who was born a biological female does not have a penis.

Thus it follows a man who had to have a full penectomy for cancer, by that standard, is not a kan because he doesn't have a penis. This person too can show you a beard, but not a penis. By your standard that you applied to Frank this hypothetical man is not a man according to you.

No - because my "standard" is purely on biological lines.

A biological man will always be a man - whether or not he keeps his penis.

Poor guy.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

By that standard I'll just denounce everything you post as illegitimate. Seem fair? Does that arrangement seem equitable enough we can just assume youll be acquiescent and just move on when I upfront reject the Bible and anti-trans sources as invalid?

I never claimed that anything was illegitimate.

I'm just not about to assume that every source is legitimate.