Teacher: Christian faith prohibits treating transgendered students with respect and dignity

[Curious George]

Biology is consistent. Our feelings are not.

I agree that biology is consistent. I do not think we are discussing biology's consistency.

My view is internally consistent, not yours.

Lol. I am certain you think so.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All I am claiming is that the hormonal and surgical treatments are not appropriate.

Yet researchers, doctors, psychiatrists, psychologist, and therapists all say it is appropriate. That's collectively way more research into the subject than all of us here combined.

I will always dispute the concept of metaphysical subjectivism.

There is no "metaphysical subjectivity" found in these studies. Rather, to the contrary, the examinations of the brains of transgender people is rather concretely objective.

Again, the word "best" is completely subjective.

There are actually a number of numerical based evaluations used in mental health to obtain objective measurements, and a number of different evaluations to allow clinicians and researchers to have a pretty good picture, that is numerically represented, to reduce the subjective nature.

I'm sure the schizophrenic would feel a lot better too if you told him that the lamp was actually talking to him and he should listen to what all the voices said.

Schizophrenics decline, and tremendously so, in their ability to function in their daily living if you let them go on believing their delusions are real. Transgender people, when they accept themselves and follow a medically recommended treatment, they improve in their functioning.

I would love it if all that they did didn't affect me at all, but even if it didn't I would speak out against these treatments because they are harmful.

Medicine and research do not agree with you. Of course no medical procedure is without risks, but how arrogant must one be to think it their place to step between a patient and doctor, especially when all they have are subjective opinions that do not match objective measures discovered through decades of research?
And lets be honest, it only effects you because you let it. You could ignore it, because it doesn't effect you, like so many other people do. But, instead you take it upon yourself to allow yourself to be bothered by it.

 

[Curious George]

I have already made my position quite clear.

Feel free to read my previous posts.

I have. I found your posts wanting. Perhaps you can link to a specific post where you believe that you adequately defined men and women.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Biology is consistent.

If that were true evolution would never happen. Nor would cancer.

 

[SomeRandom]

You misunderstand my position. I never said that transgenderism is a new phenomenon or anything like that.

I am fully aware of the fact that this and other delusions have existed throughout human history and that varying cultures have had different views about them.

Funny, that’s what atheists have been saying of religion for centuries. I haven’t really seen that many try to ban religion. And even when it happens, atheists still decry it.
No offence, but it seems to me that they can follow the golden rule a lot better than some self proclaimed followers of Lord Jesus.

I’m not well versed in the study of transgenderism as a whole, so I can’t comment one way or another as to whether or not it is some “delusion.” But I won’t take your word as authoritive on the matter. I hope you don’t mind.

What I actually said was, "This idea that poison and mutilation is the appropriate thing to do for transgender people is very new and very much influenced by political powers that be."

My claim is that what is "new" is the idea that hormonal treatment and surgery are the "appropriate thing to do" and that this decision was reached via the influence of political pressure.
.

Prove it.

Sex is not actually a precise science, so to speak. As anyone with even a mere passing familiarity of Biology will readily tell you.
And just because it’s new doesn’t mean it’s some political move. I know Americans and even some Brits and Aussies are unhealthily obsessed with politics these days, but science could not care less. It just reports it’s findings. We can literally scan for this using actual technology, you are aware of this, right? Sometimes we have to wait for technology to become sophisticated enough to find better conclusions. Like waiting for microscopes to figure out what bacteria was. Remember penicillin and vaccines were once brand new inventions. So was the theory of gravity or Newton’s Laws of Physics. You can’t dismiss something in science just because it’s new. You’d have to literally toss out all of science if you do that.

I am aware of the creation of the concept of "gender" to fit their theories.

Actually the concept of gender in its modern incarnation comes from feminist theory and was coined in 1945. Pretty sure transgendered people were not even legal back then. Hell did people even know of their existence during the 40s?
The word is obviously a lot older, but was used differently.
With new information we can figure out why certain abnormalities (for lack of a better term) exist. Again you can’t just chuck out a “new” concept just because it’s new. Science relies on new information to build a better understanding of real life phenomenon. Otherwise we would have stopped our understanding of the universe with Copernicus or earlier even.

If changing the body to match the mind's perception were beneficial then we would see a massive decline in suicide rate, but we don't.

Appeasing the delusions of the mentally ill does them no favors.
.

Well if the religious would stop demonising them as mentally ill and delusional and just let them live their lives in peace, making their own decisions, perhaps we would see a more accurate reflection of the success of surgery? Just a thought.
And back to the golden rule, would you like me to describe the Church as appeasing the delusions of mentally ill? Because I could just claim that believing in a magical sky daddy who can be communicated with through telapathy (prayer) sounds pretty delusional to some. Should we abolish churches now?
No, that would restrict people’s freedom and choice. So let the transgendered people have their choices, their freedom and treat them with respect if you expect the same from society. Does that sound fair at all?

(Disclaimer, I do not actually think religion is delusional. I was merely playing devil’s advocate.)

Of course. And just as necessary. It should not be covered by the tax payer.

To be fair, the Church enjoys an unfair tax free exemption, even though one could argue they are not rendering unto Ceaser by doing so. So as long as the Church gets special treatment, I fail to see why such exemptions shouldn’t be granted to others

Recommended by those swayed by politics.

Prove it.
Last I checked it was recommended by mental health professionals in multiple countries. What would be the net gain for multiple countries, some of whom are not even technically allies, to push this, politically speaking?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Biology is consistent. Our feelings are not.

My view is internally consistent, not yours.

Absolutely false. You seem to be quite under-educated with respect to how biology actually works!

One of the worst mistakes you made, is the presumption that it's 100% this or 100% that, without anything in-between the two. In the case of Gender? You'd be wrong: we have countless examples that it's a spectrum between one extreme and the other, with few examples hard at either end. The majority of people are somewhere away from either end, and many find themselves in the middle. And that's just the physical manifestation.

And that completely ignores the mental aspect. So, really, you need at least two axis, one for the physical and one for the mental/emotional.

This isn't rocket science, and it's old information, been around for decades.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Would you mind sharing where I made a religious argument?.

100% of your "arguments" (such as they are) are strictly based on religion. Not biology.

Biology isn't that cut-and-dried. See my previous post.

You can't claim that I did so unless you can quote me..

See your religious claim below.

Also, would you consider me a "bigot" if I claimed to disagree with those who believe that the Earth is flat?.

Rabbit Trail.

I need no further proof that this has turned into a political issue (rather than a scientific one) because my opponents turn to identity politics in their attempt to "win" the argument..

Rabbit Trail.

Whether I am a bigot or not is irrelevant to the biological fact that a man cannot become a woman and vice versa..

Aaaaaand there it is: Your 100% RELIGIOUS claim, one that is not at all supported by any biology, at any accredited University, anywhere.

You are using RELIGION to define "man" and "woman" here- and 100% ignoring biology, which is dirty, messy, NEVER-EVER 100% this and 0% that. Ever.

Really? I was unaware.

The rest of the world believes that our feelings can alter physical reality?

That sounds more like an opinion than a fact to me.

Care to explain how the world and I differ?

See above. Your religious zeal notwithstanding.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are using RELIGION to define "man" and "woman" here- and 100% ignoring biology, which is dirty, messy, NEVER-EVER 100% this and 0% that. Ever.

I find this religious argument to be most curious. They claim their is either male or female, because "god made them male and female," but they fail to acknowledge the Bible also states there are eunuchs, who are acknowledged as eunuchs and forbidden from entering the Tabernacle of the Lord, because they are not considered men but rather something else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I spoke from a purely biological standpoint.

Do you dispute this fact?

I certainly dispute it. There's nothing in a "biological standpoint" that says that someone who's genetically or phenotypically male must be a boy or man.

Genetic sex, phentoypic sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation are all distinct things. When you try to argue that it's "wrong" to have some combination of sex and gender identity, you're making an assertion that's entirely based on your person beliefs and values, not biology or evidence of any kind.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I find this religious argument to be most curious. They claim their is either male or female, because "god made them male and female," but they fail to acknowledge the Bible also states there are eunuchs, who are acknowledged as eunuchs and forbidden from entering the Tabernacle of the Lord, because they are not considered men but rather something else.

Also in the Epistles, Paul unambiguously says that in heaven there will be no man or woman.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Also in the Epistles, Paul unambiguously says that in heaven there will be no man or woman.

Yeah, I mean, where do they get the idea there is only man and woman? God made Adam and Eve that way, but very clearly and obviously he made room in his rules to address a third, and then as you brought up, allegedly according to Paul do away with it all in the end anyways (and, really, seriously, what kind of miserable existence would that be?).

 

[wellwisher]

I certainly dispute it. There's nothing in a "biological standpoint" that says that someone who's genetically or phenotypically male must be a boy or man.

Genetic sex, phentoypic sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation are all distinct things. When you try to argue that it's "wrong" to have some combination of sex and gender identity, you're making an assertion that's entirely based on your person beliefs and values, not biology or evidence of any kind.

If you look at things like drug addiction, where people become overly attached to drugs, nobody is born this way, yet the drive to get drugs looks like it is driven by an instinct. The drive to do drugs is as least as strong as the inner drive of the transexual. Some of the drugs used by addicts, are very new, and there is no time for an internal genetic change, to make one a genetic based addict to a new designer drug. Something else is at work besides the DNA.

Humans can become addicted to all types of things from drugs, to food, to games, to sex, to clothes, to gender identity, etc., What appears to be behind all these addictions and obsessions could be described as a placeholder subroutine, which allow one to make a choice that fills in the variables, of the subroutine, to get a generic obsession type output. The output also contains a mask or surface affect, dependent on the input variables.

The analogy is like on the internet, such as sport score pages, where the score page is composed of fixed tables, that are set up as places holders for data. As the latest sports scores come in, the place holder data is refreshed by the server; active server pages or ASP. Depending on the data added to the table, will impact how the sports betters and fans will behave.

The brain appears to generate a generic subroutine, with placeholders, into which the ego can fill in and update data, which drives the subroutine. It is not natural; DNA, but it is of epigenetic origin, molded by choice and free will. It also appears to be connected to the pleasure principle. Pleasure is the wind that sails this boat.

Many religions do not accept any over indulgence from this placeholder subroutine, no matter what parameters you add to the subroutine. Most religions will accept moderation, which is about using the subroutine, but in a way, that it does not become a habit or obsession. Religion is more about natural instinct and DNA.

The Catholic Church allowed Halloween and Mardi Gras as two days for alternate identity variables to be added to the subroutine placeholder table. This exercise the use of subroutine but limits obsession. The Christmas and Holiday season is for obsession variables connected to food and drink. This subroutine is not new but was historically regulated, since it can fool the mind if taken too far. It was assumed from Satan, and may be connected to taboo and law. Taboo and Law point out what is not good thereby inducing curiosity of choice.

 

[Shad]

Also in the Epistles, Paul unambiguously says that in heaven there will be no man or woman.

This is subjective. Alternatively it is about equality as it references ethic and social status.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

This is subjective. Alternatively it is about equality as it references ethic and social status.

If everyone was of the same (non)gender, I think that would promote equality.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

If you look at things like drug addiction, where people become overly attached to drugs, nobody is born this way, y

Sorry to be the guy with the inconvenient facts The Genetics of Addiction - Is Addiction a Disease?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Humans can become addicted to all types of things from drugs, to food, to games, to sex, to clothes, to gender identity, etc.,

Here's a tip for you. If you thinks it's all just some "addiction" and weird stuff, start living, presenting, and behaving as a woman. Do it for a month and let us know how you feel about it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you look at things like drug addiction, where people become overly attached to drugs, nobody is born this way, yet the drive to get drugs looks like it is driven by an instinct. The drive to do drugs is as least as strong as the inner drive of the transexual. Some of the drugs used by addicts, are very new, and there is no time for an internal genetic change, to make one a genetic based addict to a new designer drug. Something else is at work besides the DNA.

Humans can become addicted to all types of things from drugs, to food, to games, to sex, to clothes, to gender identity, etc., What appears to be behind all these addictions and obsessions could be described as a placeholder subroutine, which allow one to make a choice that fills in the variables, of the subroutine, to get a generic obsession type output. The output also contains a mask or surface affect, dependent on the input variables.

The analogy is like on the internet, such as sport score pages, where the score page is composed of fixed tables, that are set up as places holders for data. As the latest sports scores come in, the place holder data is refreshed by the server; active server pages or ASP. Depending on the data added to the table, will impact how the sports betters and fans will behave.

The brain appears to generate a generic subroutine, with placeholders, into which the ego can fill in and update data, which drives the subroutine. It is not natural; DNA, but it is of epigenetic origin, molded by choice and free will. It also appears to be connected to the pleasure principle. Pleasure is the wind that sails this boat.

Many religions do not accept any over indulgence from this placeholder subroutine, no matter what parameters you add to the subroutine. Most religions will accept moderation, which is about using the subroutine, but in a way, that it does not become a habit or obsession. Religion is more about natural instinct and DNA.

The Catholic Church allowed Halloween and Mardi Gras as two days for alternate identity variables to be added to the subroutine placeholder table. This exercise the use of subroutine but limits obsession. The Christmas and Holiday season is for obsession variables connected to food and drink. This subroutine is not new but was historically regulated, since it can fool the mind if taken too far. It was assumed from Satan, and may be connected to taboo and law. Taboo and Law point out what is not good thereby inducing curiosity of choice.

Why on Earth are you comparing gender identity to addiction?

 

[Prestor John]

Irony: You enjoy a Tax Haven to practice your brand of religion, even though it's hateful (and harmful) to a significant fraction of the population.

All religions that meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code are tax exempt.

If you don't like it, change the law, but the LDS Church bears no fault for following the law.

The LDS Church is not hateful and is not harmful to anyone.

Without which, it's unlikely yours would still be around, if it had to pay it's fair share of taxes (like any other entertainment industry does now).

Wah. T.T

But you deny medical help to people who would otherwise be desperately depressed, because **you** think it's ... icky or something.

How do you consider it "help" when the suicide rate int he transgender community remains unchanged after surgery?

How is that helpful?

How is it helpful to set these people toward a goal they can never achieve?

How do you spell "hypocrite" again?

How about "ignorant" or "bigoted"?

 

[Prestor John]

I agree that biology is consistent. I do not think we are discussing biology's consistency.

That is what I am discussing.

Lol. I am certain you think so.

Obviously, which is why I said so.

How are these attempts by you to add anything to this discussion?

 

[Prestor John]

Yet researchers, doctors, psychiatrists, psychologist, and therapists all say it is appropriate. That's collectively way more research into the subject than all of us here combined.

Yet, that doesn't make them right.

Theories made by the "collective" are being combated and disproved all the time.

My disagreeing with them does not make me stupid or a bad person.

There is no "metaphysical subjectivity" found in these studies. Rather, to the contrary, the examinations of the brains of transgender people is rather concretely objective.

Could you please point out these studies on that link you shared with me.

It reads like a religious tract. A lot of information, but nothing proving anything definitively.

Just point to the part where it proves that an altered brain chemistry makes a man into a woman or how that idea is somehow not metaphysical subjectivity.

There are actually a number of numerical based evaluations used in mental health to obtain objective measurements, and a number of different evaluations to allow clinicians and researchers to have a pretty good picture, that is numerically represented, to reduce the subjective nature.

Mind sharing any of these numbers?

You like referencing evidence, but you don't directly share them.

Schizophrenics decline, and tremendously so, in their ability to function in their daily living if you let them go on believing their delusions are real. Transgender people, when they accept themselves and follow a medically recommended treatment, they improve in their functioning.

Yet the suicide rate remainns unchanged.

Medicine and research do not agree with you.

You mean to say, "Certain members in the field of medicine and their research do not agree with you."

The idea that all medical professionals and their research agree with you is just not true.

Of course no medical procedure is without risks, but how arrogant must one be to think it their place to step between a patient and doctor, especially when all they have are subjective opinions that do not match objective measures discovered through decades of research?

You must not be reading my posts if you believe that I have been saying that I have the right to stand between a patient and their doctor.

I never claimed to have that right or authority.

What I have said, however, is that I remain unconvinced that these "transition" treatments are healthy or necessary and that I should not be forced to help fund them.

So, you can do whatever you want to you with your doctor, but if I and others disagree with it, you should pay for it all yourself.

And lets be honest, it only effects you because you let it.

Tell that to this teacher that got fired or to Canada for fining or imprisoning people if they "misgender" someone.

You could ignore it, because it doesn't effect you, like so many other people do.

The same could be said to you about my disagreement about this.

However, it is impossible to "ignore" any of this today because you and others like you demand that everyone else pretend that you are the sex that you claim to be.

First you altered our language, but that wasn't enough, at least for this teacher - because they wanted him to believe it too.

But, instead you take it upon yourself to allow yourself to be bothered by it.

I don't believe feelings should alter facts.

There are only the two genders. Male and female. And to which gender you are a member of is determined at birth by a casual visual inspection.

You cannot change your gender just like you cannot change your race or age.