Transgender Madness Update

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would support therapy, but I don’t see how bodily mutilation is useful.
 
Words do make a difference. If you, and others, are going to call sex-reassignment surgery “bodily mutilation,” of course it isn’t useful or a good thing.

Likewise, there are those who call ritual male circumcision bodily mutilation. The latter term makes the ritual seem like abusive behavior rather than a religious ceremony.
 
Last edited:
Good points. One of the issues here is how much our biology defines who we are and how much our psychology defines who we are. And it doesn’t end there for we are also spiritual beings. In psychology, we have concepts such as chronological age and functional age. The former indicates our calendar years, whereas the latter indicates how we function compared to others who are the same chronological age. For example, a 40-year-old may be psychologically and socially closer to a 30-year-old or closer to a 50-year-old compared to other, more typical 40-year-olds. Not only may they physically appear younger or older, but they may also have more or fewer life experiences and may have cognitive processes (thinking, memory, learning, decision-making, problem-solving, reasoning) nearer to those of a typical 30- or 50-year-old. What makes this even more complicated are the cultural variations from one culture to another, as well as the historical variations within a given culture.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn’t think of circumcision as bodily mutilation; but removing the entire organ would be something else entirely. In any case it seems that many men who identify themselves as women and even transition still tend to keep their genitals intact. Yet they still consider themselves women? I also recall the case of a woman who transitioned to male but kept her uterus because she thought she might want to bear a child someday. I think these are matters for therapy, not surgery.
 
It appears the post you responded to has been deleted. Apparently I should have used “male reproductive organ”, and “female reproductive organ”. I wasn’t aware that the two words I used were inappropriate cuss words (but then again, English isn’t my native language), nor did I notice that a previous post had been edited because of these words until now, when I tried to locate the post in question.

At any rate, I don’t have much more to add to this discussion, and even what I do add may be deleted at somebody’s whim who’s probably not very sympathetic to my line of argumentation in the first place, so I think it is time I retreat to a forum for practicing Buddhists, where I at least understand the rules.

Best wishes.
 
anon99031074 said:
words[…]are abstractions[…]“man” and “woman”. I am not denying that such terms are useful, but they are human constructs and can be changed/modified as humans see fit.
Click to expand...
This is technically true.
Think of the many other words/phrases which we can redefine however we want.
“consent”
“human”
“person”
“marriage”
“bachelor”
“monogamy”
“truth”

But where does this leave logic and epistemology?
The law of excluded middle?
 
Last edited:
I had not seen this blog before. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
 
etcustodiatte said:
Are you unable to use search engines? There’s a wealth of evidence in every unbiased psychological report on transgenderism.
Click to expand...
Is your answer to that quite reasonable question: ‘Go look it up yourself’ ?

You’ve made a statement - I think that you’re obliged to back it up.
 
I was looking for reputable sources that showed that unacceptance wasn’t a cause of suicide. Couldn’t find any.
 
etcustodiatte said:
Is there a reason sources are only required when something doesn’t agree with your own views?
Click to expand...
Well, yes. Isn’t that obvious? If you stated something with which I agree then I would have reason for that agreement. Prior knowledge in most cases. If you say something that I find difficulty in agreeing with then it obviously contradicts my current understanding of the matter.

In which case you can enlighten me. Not just by saying it’s so, but by showing me why you believe it to be so.

‘This has been debunked…’ doesn’t cut the mustard I’m afraid. We would prefer: 'This has been dubunked…as the following article/blog/opinion piece/web site/fortune cookie/goat’s entrails illustrates.

So in your own time…
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top