A Pediatrician writes: How transgender ideology has infiltrated my field

[SuperLuigi]

Thorolfr;14762284]There are no examples in this article that demonstrate that gay people are “recruiting” children in the sense of making them gay or lesbian.

There is. It’s called post-modernism and it has very problematically infiltrated the GLBTQ community and is using them and their struggles in an attempt to destroy the Catholic Church and the West.

Don’t think for a single second this is just about allowing people to be who they are. It isn’t.

The example just show that children are being allowed to learn about the reality that gay people exist and that for people who turn out to be gay or lesbian, this is OK and that such people should be accepted.

Really? Then why can’t the orthodoxy of so-called gay “marriage” be questioned without rejection from polite society?

And how about your side of the political aisle accepting Milo Yiannapolous or even Dave Rubin? These guys can’t even get speaking gigs on West Coast college campuses.

Or how about Julie Bindel, a lesbian feminist, over the UK where GLBTQ groups prefer to hear from Islamic imams instead of her?

 

[Cherripeeps]

But even a majority of adults now believe that gay relationships and gay marriage are OK.

I want to point out, friend, that truth is not democratic. Truth is not defined by how many people believe a certain statement. In a world where most people believed that murdering one’s annoying neighbors is okay, this would not make murder a morally acceptable action in itself. It’d just be symptomatic of an entire society deceiving itself to justify a popular sin, as is the case with the pro-sodomy movement.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

That may also be why people are making up all of these ridiculous pronouns-----because they want all the worldly glory that goes along with being trans, without having surgery.

While it’s good they aren’t wiling to manipulate their bodies that much, it’s worth noting this is just another Western left-wing issue where the preachy loudmouths are unwilling to go the distance but expect to be treated as if they did.

I think it’s more than that - it’s a response to and rejection of the gender binary and the idea of a naturalized sex as opposed to a socially determined gender. Gender and sex are not distinct concepts, and gender is a social construct that is certainly based on biology - natural averages exist, but nature makes no distinction. Society makes a distinction based on how those natural averages interact with social relations. As much as liberals want to hold up the male-female binary, often by putting gender (as a totally ideological force distinct from anything material) on a spectrum between those two concepts, this is a falsehood. Though people have different biologies, naturalized sex does not really exist - nobody is actually male or female.

Really? Then why can’t the orthodoxy of so-called gay “marriage” be questioned without rejection from polite society?

Well any critique of gay marriage is viewed as an implication that you don’t accept homosexuality/homosexual people. I think a critique of marriage (including gay marriage) is warranted however, though from a radical perspective.

And how about your side of the political aisle accepting Milo Yiannapolous or even Dave Rubin? These guys can’t even get speaking gigs on West Coast college campuses.

I don’t see the relevance. This is such a non-argument. Milo and Dave Rubin are not excluded from giving talks on the basis that they are gay. Accepting gay people doesn’t mean being patronizingly supportive to them no matter what they say, do, or what kind of people they are.

 

[JimG]

Notwithstanding very rare genetic anomalies, every human individual is either male or female, a man or a woman, and one cannot be changed into the other. Every cell of one’s body proclaims a persons sex, having either XX or XY chromosomes. One can do mutilating surgery, but all the other cells of the body know better.

 

[JimG]

Why are elites making us say men are women?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Notwithstanding very rare genetic anomalies,

I mean you can’t really just ignore this. If you are telling me that two sexes exist, male and female, and your sex is determined by having a certain biology, how do you account for people that do not conform to this standard? They must be neither male or female. Historically when nature ignores our own societal standards in this way humans have tried to rectify nature, to force our own standards onto it. Intersex people might be assigned a sex, or people with micropenises might be raised female. This would often include the use of surgery. This is pretty telling - even nature itself is beholden to society’s strictures, and sometimes has to be rectified to fit our own societal standards.

every human individual is either male or female, a man or a woman, and one cannot be changed into the other. Every cell of one’s body proclaims a persons sex, having either XX or XY chromosomes. One can do mutilating surgery, but all the other cells of the body know better.

I accept that people have different biologies. I just don’t accept that this means the existence of a a binary naturalized sex. Being a woman means more than having certain chromosomes - the identity of man or woman has never simply been based on the chromosomes that one has. I accept that the ability to become pregnant, for example, has historically played a key role in developing the identity of “woman”, in society being split into those who reproduce the labour force and those who don’t. But this is a societal construct, not an identity determined by nature. Nature is without distinction, but becomes integrated into a certain social structure which takes natural averages and turns them into behavioural norms.

When it comes to gender and sex, true liberation would be liberation from gender and sex. It is possible to imagine a society in which man and woman do not exist, just human individuals with no gender or sexual identity imposed on them.

 

[JimG]

I mean you can’t really just ignore this. If you are telling me that two sexes exist, male and female, and your sex is determined by having a certain biology, how do you account for people that do not conform to this standard? They must be neither male or female. Historically when nature ignores our own societal standards in this way humans have tried to rectify nature, to force our own standards onto it. Intersex people might be assigned a sex, or people with micropenises might be raised female. This would often include the use of surgery. This is pretty telling - even nature itself is beholden to society’s strictures, and sometimes has to be rectified to fit our own societal standards.

I accept that people have different biologies. I just don’t accept that this means the existence of a a binary naturalized sex. Being a woman means more than having certain chromosomes - the identity of man or woman has never simply been based on the chromosomes that one has. I accept that the ability to become pregnant, for example, has historically played a key role in developing the identity of “woman”, in society being split into those who reproduce the labour force and those who don’t. But this is a societal construct, not an identity determined by nature. Nature is without distinction, but becomes integrated into a certain social structure which takes natural averages and turns them into behavioural norms.

When it comes to gender and sex, true liberation would be liberation from gender and sex. It is possible to imagine a society in which man and woman do not exist, just human individuals with no gender or sexual identity imposed on them.

Genetic anomalies are rare, but they do occur, just as other genetic disorders occur. One can be born with certain genetic disorders, including those relating to sex chromosomes. They are medical disorders. Even in those cases, an attempt must be made to determine which sex is intended and to try to correct the situation as much as possible. Even there, the choice is binary. Should the patient be treated as male or female?

Accept it or not, sex is binary. When a child is born, one asks whether it is a boy or girl. There is no third choice. The answer is usually obvious anatomically, and also obvious genetically.

“The ability to become pregnant, for example, has historically played a key role in developing the identity of “woman.” I agree with you there. Men have no womb. Women do. Another binary situation.

When it comes to gender and sex, true liberation would be liberation from gender and sex. It is possible to imagine a society in which man and woman do not exist, just human individuals with no gender or sexual identity imposed on them.

It is possible to imagine such a society. But it would not be a society of human beings. (I recall an Isaac Asimov novel about a race which comprised three sexes. Reproduction required one of each sex. But they were not human beings either.)

Reality always prevails.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Regular Atheist;14768656]I think it’s more than that - it’s a response to and rejection of the gender binary and the idea of a naturalized sex as opposed to a socially determined gender. Gender and sex are not distinct concepts, and gender is a social construct that is certainly based on biology - natural averages exist, but nature makes no distinction. Society makes a distinction based on how those natural averages interact with social relations. As much as liberals want to hold up the male-female binary, often by putting gender (as a totally ideological force distinct from anything material) on a spectrum between those two concepts, this is a falsehood. Though people have different biologies, naturalized sex does not really exist - nobody is actually male or female.

I guess it’s just a coincide that we are supposedly figuring this all out now, huh?

The whole idea of this nonsense is based on Tumblr emotions, not reason or logic. Really, I would expect from an atheist than to just accept the blog ramblings of the A+ crowd.

It’s also rooted in cultural Marxism that is anti-free speech and part of the plan of the post-modernists to destroy the nuclear family.

Well any critique of gay marriage is viewed as an implication that you don’t accept homosexuality/homosexual people.

Such an implication would be a strawman argument.

I think a critique of marriage (including gay marriage) is warranted however, though from a radical perspective.

I don’t see the relevance.

Since identity politics is so important to the left, I would think that excluding someone who is gay would be homophobic by their own standards.

But I think you already knew that and so have to adjust the goal posts as follows:

This is such a non-argument. Milo and Dave Rubin are not excluded from giving talks on the basis that they are gay.

Doesn’t matter. Violates their rights to free speech if they can’t speak at a college campus.

Accepting gay people doesn’t mean being patronizingly supportive to them no matter what they say, do, or what kind of people they are.

Even when it comes to marriage?

Just as long as they follow the SJW left-wing dogma and carry the water for them.

 

[SuperLuigi]

But even a majority of adults now believe that gay relationships and gay marriage are OK.

Argumentum ad populum

 

[SuperLuigi]

Regular Atheist;14768814]I mean you can’t really just ignore this. If you are telling me that two sexes exist, male and female, and your sex is determined by having a certain biology, how do you account for people that do not conform to this standard?

Natural anomalies. Not the same thing as people making up new genders on the internet.

They must be neither male or female. Historically when nature ignores our own societal standards in this way humans have tried to rectify nature, to force our own standards onto it. Intersex people might be assigned a sex, or people with micropenises might be raised female. This would often include the use of surgery. This is pretty telling - even nature itself is beholden to society’s strictures, and sometimes has to be rectified to fit our own societal standards.

What we have here is a classic argument made by leftists that suggest all of society must change to accommodate the feelings of currently popular, preferred groups.

I accept that people have different biologies. I just don’t accept that this means the existence of a a binary naturalized sex

.

Then you deny science.

Being a woman means more than having certain chromosomes - the identity of man or woman has never simply been based on the chromosomes that one has.

No, it really doesn’t.

I accept that the ability to become pregnant, for example, has historically played a key role in developing the identity of “woman”, in society being split into those who reproduce the labour force and those who don’t. But this is a societal construct, not an identity determined by nature. Nature is without distinction, but becomes integrated into a certain social structure which takes natural averages and turns them into behavioural norms.

Pregnancy is a biological function, not a social construct. Really, your relativism is getting absurd. Just look at the excuses you have to go in order to run hard cover for the left.

When it comes to gender and sex, true liberation would be liberation from gender and sex. It is possible to imagine a society in which man and woman do not exist, just human individuals with no gender or sexual identity imposed on them.

It’s really not considering this is being driven by post-modernism and false truths like “every time I have a new feeling, it’s a new gender”.

You’re trying to force fit logic to a current social trend that is cool in some circles, and we both know it.