Finish the transgender argument

[KMC]

I was listening to an interview of a progressive who was all about how gender dysphoria needs to be a protected class. I almost fell off my chair when at the end to the intervies, he said that it was a mental problem.

Either he suddenly grasped the truth, or was so removed from reality that he did not see the connections to his prior comments.

Women’s competitive sports is already being turned upside down; I suspect that if the cases have not yet started, they soon will be, to attempt to bring a bit of reality to this progressive juggernaut fueled by emotions run amok.

I have listened to a number of debates on this topic, been in a number of debates, read some debates, etc. If I had to summarize a few key points from those arguing for “normalization” of gender dysphoria, it would be:

1. gender dysphoria is a normal for a small group of people and the people need protection from discrimination. This includes public accommodations (like being able to choose the restroom that aligns with your self-image), accommodation in sports, education of school children on the topic etc.
2. Racial dysphoria (“trans-racial” like Rachel Dolezal), Species Dysphoria (“trans-species” like Eva Medusa who identifies with reptiles) or those call themselves transabled (Like Jewel Shuping who blinded herself), according to those I debate with have mental issues.

So they (those I discuss the topic with) view gender dysphoria as not something to be treated by mental health professionals, but those who identify as trans-species, trans-racial, or trans-abled do need mental health assistance.

Seems to me that the humane and compassionate thing to do is to consider gender dysphoria as a mental health issue given the high level of suicides among those in that group:

New Study Reveals Shocking Rates of Attempted Suicide Among Trans Adolescents - Human Rights Campaign

 

[PJH_74]

Let’s back up a second here. Likely all of you here believe in an unseen God made of 3 “people”. You believe a man showed up raised dead people. We then killed him and he then let us off the hook for all the bad things we’ve done so long as we follow him. Our evidence of this is a pieced together book written in parts generation after the events. You believe a piece of bread and wine actually becomes God until you eat them. You believe an old man can pronounce what is moral or not.

How do you think an outsider sees this? You take it as a given that this is true even though you have never witnessed it. When it comes to gender identity, what is that? There are people who’s gender identity ranges within “accepted” ranges, tomboys and girly girls for example. I do not argue that there are of course different bodies for the purpose of reproduction. But gender behavior is a construction of society. Who cares if someone born with male genitalia wears a dress? Who cares if someone does or doesn’t want breasts? We have people doing extensive surgery out of pure vanity or trying to gain more social standing. People permanently change the colors of their skin. This does not necessarily affect the reproductive capacity of a person. What is happening is that we are obsessively bound to what one’s reproductive capacity means in society.

To echo some previous posts, sports indeed can be broken down by ability not sex. Did it occur to some here that breaking sport participation as we do now categorically and exceptionally limits the opportunities of some exceptional athletes?

 

[otjm]

I am no psychiatrist or psychologist, but in my limited understanding of reality, calling gender dysphoria normal is akin to calling schizophrenia normal. Just because it occurs among a group of people does not qualify it for the term “normal”; and that is one of the problems we have - defining words to encompass our world view.

“Transabled” - again, my view of reality; but if you purposely blind yourself, that is not “transabled” ; it is “physically blind”; and we can get to the issue of why one might do that to oneself through professional help. And professional help does not always work - as many professionals are all too aware. Ask any one of them who has worked with suicidal individuals, and found the patient committed suicide. The fact that individual made that choice does not make suicide “normal”.

Can everyone be helped? The short answer is “no” and that is going to upset a goodly number of people.

 

[JimG]

Did it occur to some here that breaking sport participation as we do now categorically and exceptionally limits the opportunities of some exceptional athletes?

Well, under the Equality Act, it will certainly limit the opportunities for women athletes, while enhancing opportunities for men who claim to be women.

 

[KMC]

Let’s back up a second here. Likely all of you here believe in an unseen God made of 3 “people”. You believe a man showed up raised dead people. We then killed him and he then let us off the hook for all the bad things we’ve done so long as we follow him. Our evidence of this is a pieced together book written in parts generation after the events. You believe a piece of bread and wine actually becomes God until you eat them. You believe an old man can pronounce what is moral or not.

Actually, not quite. The Gospel was transmitted by word of mouth long before there was a Bible. It boils down to the credibility of the eye witnesses, which by all accounts, seem to be trustworthy. So Scripture is important, but not without the Sacred Tradition (the oral transmission of the faith).

How do you think an outsider sees this? You take it as a given that this is true even though you have never witnessed it.

There are many events in history you accept to be true, and yet you didn’t witness them either. You accept them to be true based on the trustworthiness of the witnesses and / or the accounts they left behind.

What is happening is that we are obsessively bound to what one’s reproductive capacity means in society.

No. People are obsessive about reality. Men and women’s differences go beyond genitals. one example:

How Men's Brains Are Wired Differently than Women's | Scientific American

Men and women are also complimentary. I give my children qualities my wife cannot, and my wife gives my children qualities I cannot.

To echo some previous posts, sports indeed can be broken down by ability not sex. Did it occur to some here that breaking sport participation as we do now categorically and exceptionally limits the opportunities of some exceptional athletes?

Eliminating sex based sports categories will negatively impact women, based on their immutable characteristics and genetics. How many women, who take hormones to look like men, actually do so to compete in men’s sports? Name one female athlete who became exceptional after taking drugs to identify as a man? Interesting how the only “exceptional” athletes to benefit by “sex change” are those who have XY chromosomes but want to compete against those with XX chromosomes? Allowing men who think they’re women, but in REALITY are men, is not fair to women who in REALITY are women.

If you are interested in fairness, then categories should be based on the chromosomes you were born with. If you “feel” you are a woman trapped in a man’s body, you are in REALITY a man who THINKS he’s a woman. Compete with the body and chromosomes you were born with.

 

[Inquisitor85]

Well how do you deal with fact that at least one cisgender athlete is currently banned from all women’s competition to “protect the integrity of women’s sport”, I think this is a rabbit hole to steer well clear of.

 

[Sunbreak]

I’m not so sure that gender dysphoria isn’t a choice on some level. I have a niece who decided at a young age that she was really a boy. She made that decision at age 3 and when asked a few years later why she thought she was a boy she said because she wanted to wear a specific shirt and was told it was a boy’s shirt. Because of that, she said she decided that she would never wear girl clothes again. So, in her case it seems like because she had some mixed up reasoning (I have to be a boy to wear boy clothes) that she decided she would be a boy.

 

[PJH_74]

No. People are obsessive about reality. Men and women’s differences go beyond genitals. one example:

Have you considered a distribution of behavior? Sure those born with a male or female body do fall into a certain set of behavioral characteristics, but that does not make them exclusive, just more likely.

Eliminating sex based sports categories will negatively impact women, based on their immutable characteristics and genetics.

That makes no sense, it is not immutable that all women cannot compete with men on an equal playing field. Are women more likely to have less strength or be smaller? Sure, but there are some that are just as formidable of an athlete as a man. Some sports or positions are not as reliant on strength or size also. There are also men for whom playing on a men’s team is exclusionary. This idea is embedded in wresting for example. People, men and women, deserve to compete based on their talents not the size of their bodies.

pointless / pȯint-ləs / adj.

Definition of pointless:

1 : devoid of meaning : SENSELESS
a pointless remark
2 : devoid of effectiveness : FLAT
pointless attempts to be funny

Well how do you deal with fact that at least one cisgender athlete is currently banned from all women’s competition to “protect the integrity of women’s sport”

You may be referring to Caster Semenya. She produces more testosterone than “normal” women because she is intersexed. She has a demonstrably natural biological situation, yet the only answer is to force her to conform to arbitrary hormonal levels or compete directly with men. This is where the topic of ability based sport vs biological size and strength meets reality. I don’t have a specific answer for her situation, but banning her because of who she is is not an answer…

 

[KMC]

Have you considered a distribution of behavior? Sure those born with a male or female body do fall into a certain set of behavioral characteristics, but that does not make them exclusive, just more likely.

This would be quite subjective. Objective standards would be more fair, thus I prefer the XX/XY categories.

That makes no sense, it is not immutable that all women cannot compete with men on an equal playing field. Are women more likely to have less strength or be smaller? Sure, but there are some that are just as formidable of an athlete as a man. Some sports or positions are not as reliant on strength or size also. There are also men for whom playing on a men’s team is exclusionary. This idea is embedded in wresting for example. People, men and women, deserve to compete based on their talents not the size of their bodies.

If we went your route, we would not see Serena Williams in the final of any pro tournament if she had to compete against men. She can certainly beat me and a host of other men, but she would never win a pro tournament playing against top men tennis players.

Call me crazy, but I can appreciate women athletes playing to the maximum of their potential, but the only way the average top female athlete can compete in basketball, baseball, track, soccer, hockey, football, rugby, etc. would be to play against mediocre men. I want to see Serena Williams vs Venus Williams, not Serena Williams vs Joe Nobody. You will NEVER see Serena vs Roger Federer.

Will there be a woman who might compete against men in one of those sports? Possibly. But it would be a token athlete, and 99%+ of the rest of top women athletes would not be able to play professionally.

You may be referring to Caster Semenya. She produces more testosterone than “normal” women because she is intersexed. She has a demonstrably natural biological situation, yet the only answer is to force her to conform to arbitrary hormonal level or compete directly with men. This is where the topic of ability based sport vs biological size and strength meets reality. I don’t have a specific answer for her situation, but banning her because of who she is is not an answer…

Caster Semenya unfortunately falls outside of XX/XY. She is literally in a 3rd category, and it would be unfair for her to compete against XX females. We could go your route and have her compete against the males…you good with that?

 

[PJH_74]

This would be quite subjective. Objective standards would be more fair, thus I prefer the XX/XY categories.

That’s not even realistic. There are more chromosomal combinations than that. While we’re dwelling here, there’s androgen insensitivity syndrome where in its most advanced cases produces a XX individual that does not react to testosterone and has outward female genitalia but no reproductive organs.

Call me crazy, but I can appreciate women athletes playing…

Financially and exposure wise, the world does not care in many sports.

My friend, you are making a synonym out of gender and sex. Sex is generally defined by genitalia and genetics, but the many variations of Intersex people provide many natural, God given examples of how this binary is not comprehensive. So while society may be moving towards sex being changeable via surgery, the English Definition of gender has not changed as gender is not defined exclusively by a person’s sex.

You don’t have to like people changing their “sex”. But people seeking to live in an alternative gender identity don’t always change their “sex”. Having/not having breasts, beards, body hair, vocal octave, body size, etc. do not define sex, these are secondary features. I can objectively see you rejecting “sex” as changeable, but what you are experiencing is an evolution of the gender roles for what a person born as “male” or “female” can express. Female people currently enjoy a slightly wider range of gender expression e.g. “girly girls” or “tomboys”; males are more restricted. You likely already accept this variation in gender identity.

I’m not under any delusion that I’ve changed your opinion much, but the meaning of words is specific. I won’t even ask you to accept transgender as real, but you should to come to terms with people who are Intersexed and their place in society. This is a real, incontrovertible example of how “sex” isn’t cut and dried. If God is to allow this, what does this say about our construct of gender roles?

 

[ZMystiCat]

I give up. I’ll just let this borrowed image do the talking:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Honestly, this thread is really starting to remind me of a few years ago when I started seriously thinking about and addressing my own dysphoria. Finding Christians who understood the issue was a rarity, and even more rare was finding Christians who understood and gave the matter serious thought.

While I did eventually find Catholicism in part because of it, that was more in spite of anything I read. Otherwise, the experience did more to turn me away simply because it felt like no Christian was willing to invest in understanding or properly thinking about what people with gender dysphoria go through.

 

[KMC]

KMC:

This would be quite subjective. Objective standards would be more fair, thus I prefer the XX/XY categories.

That’s not even realistic. There are more chromosomal combinations than that. While we’re dwelling here, there’s androgen insensitivity syndrome where in its most advanced cases produces a XX individual that does not react to testosterone and has outward female genitalia but no reproductive organs.

99+ plus of the world is made up of XX/XY. An objective standard is quite simple: Either you are an XX, or you compete in the XY category.

You avoided an earlier question that is relevant, considering your eagerness to have non-XX people compete against women (XX). Why not have Caster Semenya compete against men? Why not have all non-XX people compete against the men?

 

[KMC]

KMC:

Call me crazy, but I can appreciate women athletes playing…

Financially and exposure wise, the world does not care in many sports.

I’m willing to bet all of the women playing in the World Cup, WNBA, LPGA, WTA would disagree, and all of the parents with girls playing in the various sports.

 

[KMC]

While I did eventually find Catholicism in part because of it, that was more in spite of anything I read. Otherwise, the experience did more to turn me away simply because it felt like no Christian was willing to invest in understanding or properly thinking about what people with gender dysphoria go through.

You are a human being made in the image and likeness of God. (Imago Dei = you have a body with physical powers and a soul with intellect and will, and a capacity to know God. Similitudo Dei = with grace you can have the Trinity indwell in your soul)

“Gender Dysphoria” is not a 100% defined exact science…much is supposition, and up to debate.

Good Christians can and should debate this topic, with charity.

 

[PJH_74]

It was idiots then. Dictionaries only update definitions when the word meanings evolve. Here are a few to chew on.

 

[ZMystiCat]

I can’t tell if this is you intentionally missing the point or if you just don’t get it that much. Seriously, what do you think people mean when they say “gender” and “gender identity”?

I never said that you were. I was saying that you didn’t seem to understand the subject matter you were talking about.

“Gender Dysphoria” is not a 100% defined exact science…much is supposition, and up to debate.

I never said that it was. I don’t think anyone would say that gender dysphoria is fully understood on a biological level.

However, when Christians fall into the “people choosing gender [identity]” argument, then it often just shows how little they know of even the most fundamental basics of the discussion. That’s what I was taking issue with, because it gives the impression that:

1. The Christian opposition is based on ignorance.
2. That Christians care so little about the people and their experiences that they won’t even try to understand them.

 

[KMC]

KMC:

“Gender Dysphoria” is not a 100% defined exact science…much is supposition, and up to debate.

I never said that it was. I don’t think anyone would say that gender dysphoria is fully understood on a biological level.

However, when Christians fall into the “people choosing gender [identity]” argument, then it often just shows how little they know of even the most fundamental basics of the discussion. That’s what I was taking issue with, because it gives the impression that:

1. The Christian opposition is based on ignorance.
2. That Christians care so little about the people and their experiences that they won’t even try to understand them.

That’s a pretty broad brush, and I’m not sure what you mean by “Christian opposition”. Do you mean Christian opposition from a theological perspective?

If so, which denomination? From a Catholic perspective, there is much on this topic on the National Catholic Bioethics Center’s website: https://www.ncbcenter.org/resources/information-topic/gender-identity/

If you mean, “there are a lot of Christians who oppose the issue based on ignorance or lack of caring”…might be true for some, but not for others. IMHO, I think most of the “opposition” is to legislative proposals, or proposals by governing bodies (like a sports organizations) that treat the topic of gender dysphoria as an exact science to which any kind of opposition to said proposals constitutes bigotry of some kind. First, here is where I have support for those with gender dysphoria:
A) They are children of God, and should be treated as such
B) I believe, especially given the high rate of suicide, that we need to better understand it, and get those who have it mental health treatment

My opposition would be against things like:

1. Allowing athletes with non-XX chromosomes to compete against those athletes with XX chromosomes, giving them an unfair advantage. Here is one such example:
   Transgender Texas wrestler wins second high school girls title
2. Giving CHILDREN drugs to alter their natural development. You admit gender dysphoria is not fully understood on a biological level. I agree with you. I hope you would agree with me that giving children drugs to stunt their biological development in line with the genetics they were born with is child abuse. I have no idea why the same people who aggressively state they opposition to conversion therapy would think “sex change” (which is a misnomer) surgeries are OK.
3. The denial of reality. I actually had a conversation with someone who implied I was a bit close-minded (even bigoted) for wanting my son to marry a biological girl. To summarize a long conversation, they felt that a “transgender female” was no different than XX female. This is an absolute denial of reality.

I’m not looking to be hurtful (see points A and B above), but if people think debate and opposition to legislative proposals (etc) based on feelings and not fact is hurtful, I’m sorry, I can’t help that.

 

[PJH_74]

Bossman? You presume my sex. Either way, lovers of Shakespearean plays and the King James Bible love their 500 year old English. Thou hast, through copious personal explorations and soulful self-reflection, have obtained my eternal blessing to display your dissatisfaction with the world using 90s English. God bless.

 

[PJH_74]

I have been trying. But part of your thesis here is to negate an officially recognized evolution of a word such as to negate anything transgender. If the word is not gender, another one would take its place. English speakers have settled on gender not the crazy liberal morons you are ranting about. There is no further discussion here as you are married to this idea and as such there is nothing else productive to do with my time on this one.

 

[PJH_74]

Then we are doomed, note section 3b. Now I’m done with this little definition chat.