transgenderism

[edwest2]

So, a Civil Union is what? It’s not marriage, so how does it work? Or is it just a rights package given the name “civil union”?

I think I wasn’t being clear earlier about the whole “prior to or instead of gay marriage” issues faced by gay persons. Right now, I can go to an attorney, draw up a will and give my next door neighbor all my possessions should I pass away. I could give someone ‘power of attorney’ or create another legal instrument to make sure my medical decisions/desires are carried out.

After working at a hospital for nearly 10 years, no one was barred from visiting anyone. One day, when I was hospitalized, a nun came to visit me. We hadn’t met before.

A lot of the reasons for gay marriage revolved around inheritance, medical issues and visitation in hospitals. I was told all the rules, and I never saw anyone turned away from visiting anyone.

Could I create a “civil union” with someone I was living with and we’re both heterosexual? That way, I would get all these rights automatically. I am not in any way, promoting this idea but putting it out there for consideration.

Ed

 

[Rau]

…Could I create a “civil union” with someone I was living with and we’re both heterosexual? That way, I would get all these rights automatically. I am not in any way, promoting this idea but putting it out there for consideration.

By virtue of the context in which they were proposed, they were marriage but under another name. Had the context been broader from the outset, and providing the reasonably required legal accommodations, it would not have faced such opposition. It’s also very unlikely it would have been accepted by gay advocates.

 

[edwest2]

By virtue of the context in which they were proposed, they were marriage but under another name. Had the context been broader from the outset, and providing the reasonably required legal accommodations, it would not have faced such opposition. It’s also very unlikely it would have been accepted by gay advocates.

Here’s the thing. Marriage, by definition, is not just any union. It is designed to produce the next generation of human beings in a committed, stable environment. Granted, some children are not being raised properly by parents for various reasons, but gay divorce is occurring. Custody issues for adopted children are occurring.

And this is not about a rights package. The opposition pointed out that a man and a woman have been having their own children since forever. Then gay persons want their unions to have a one to one equality with heterosexual marriage? On what grounds? Comparisons to black civil rights are not valid. I could marry a person of another race tomorrow. The fundamental math, if you will, is 2 men or 2 women does not equal 1 man and 1 woman.

I’m reading what gay advocates want and here’s the troubling part: LGBT becomes LGBTQ which becomes LGBTQI. With its own terminology. This isn’t stopping with Transgenders.

Ed

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

Whether or not the rights are similar to those in marriage is not the point. The point is that the relationship of two men (IMHO) can’t be marriage, nor should it deserve recognition and rights because it’s sexual. And if two men deserve a set of legal rights, then that’s fine by me. But I can’t imagine why it would be necessary to forbid siblings from the same thing, if it’s not because the relationship is understood to be sexual. And why does sex elevate the relationship of two men to something of special meaning to the State? The dishonesty is in pretending that two men in a sexual relationship is the same as marriage.

This argument is a distraction from the point, so in the interest of moving past it, let’s say for the sake of argument that I concede the point about the state having any interest in recognizing a relationship between two men (and two women I’ll assume though for some reason the focus is always on men).

Back to my point. Nothing was stopping legislators or voters from creating the type of legally recognized institution of the type needed by the siblings you’re referencing. Nothing. It could have been done. It wasn’t. Not only wasn’t it done, it was constitutionally banned in most of the states that passed such measures. Referendums supported by the Catholic Church could have stopped at constitutionally banning same sex marriage, but they didn’t stop there. And what was the motivation for taking such a sweeping motion? Anti-sibling sentiment? Can we have some honesty here? That’s what I’m asking for.

 

[Rau]

This argument is a distraction from the point, so in the interest of moving past it, let’s say for the sake of argument that I concede the point about the state having any interest in recognizing a relationship between two men (and two women I’ll assume though for some reason the focus is always on men).

Back to my point. Nothing was stopping legislators or voters from creating the type of legally recognized institution of the type needed by the siblings you’re referencing. Nothing. It could have been done. It wasn’t. Not only wasn’t it done, it was constitutionally banned in most of the states that passed such measures. Referendums supported by the Catholic Church could have stopped at constitutionally banning same sex marriage, but they didn’t stop there. And what was the motivation for taking such a sweeping motion? Anti-sibling sentiment? Can we have some honesty here? That’s what I’m asking for.

I can’t speak to whether any proposal other than marriage or civil union (marriage look alike) was on the table (or understood to be on the table). I do recall that one of the dioceses in the US has also stated that a general purpose legal framework that provided for 2 people to live together, share assets and generally provide mutual care is a reasonable thing.

The Church has not taken a vindictive position towards anyone.

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

I can’t speak to whether any proposal other than marriage or civil union (marriage look alike) was on the table (or understood to be on the table). I do recall that one of the dioceses in the US has also stated that a general purpose legal framework that provided for 2 people to live together, share assets and generally provide mutual care is a reasonable thing.

The Church has not taken a vindictive position towards anyone.

It’s understandable that you were not familiar with these referendums, but are you really suggesting that the Church did not do its homework on these measures and was ignorant of the consequences?

In states where domestic partnerships, civil unions, same sex marriage had ZERO and I do mean ZERO percent chance of being implemented due to the conservative makeup of the state, as one of my friends who lived in one of these states at the time said, “How can I see this as anything but a slap in the face…making it clear to me that I shouldn’t even dream of having any rights in this state.”

What choice was left but to fight the battle where they could? Do you really think the Supreme Court would have had as easy a time deciding on same sex marriage if an argument could have been made that gay people already had access to an institution that provided the rights they were seeking? Instead the court was faced with the fact that there was no chance in a majority of states that gay people would ever get any rights protecting their relationships without the court acting forcing change at the federal level.

How do you expect gay people to see these measures as anything but vindictive? Do you acknowledge that prejudice exists at all?

 

[Heather914]

I listed TWO categories

I had put you in the good category…

Should I take it back???

I am so sorry…I misread your post. Please forgive me!! I can be an airhead sometimes LOL

 

[edwest2]

It’s understandable that you were not familiar with these referendums, but are you really suggesting that the Church did not do its homework on these measures and was ignorant of the consequences?

In states where domestic partnerships, civil unions, same sex marriage had ZERO and I do mean ZERO percent chance of being implemented due to the conservative makeup of the state, as one of my friends who lived in one of these states at the time said, “How can I see this as anything but a slap in the face…making it clear to me that I shouldn’t even dream of having any rights in this state.”

What choice was left but to fight the battle where they could? Do you really think the Supreme Court would have had as easy a time deciding on same sex marriage if an argument could have been made that gay people already had access to an institution that provided the rights they were seeking? Instead the court was faced with the fact that there was no chance in a majority of states that gay people would ever get any rights protecting their relationships without the court acting forcing change at the federal level.

How do you expect gay people to see these measures as anything but vindictive? Do you acknowledge that prejudice exists at all?

History shows that gay people had been studied for years by the APA who concluded that they had a disorder. As a group of academics, they performed their studies and published their results. What was the public in general supposed to think? The APA was lying? Then, in 1973, after being spoken against by gay activists who did not accept their findings, a vote was held. Homosexuality was removed as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Gay people were free to live how they wanted but this vote is still in dispute.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

The diagnosis change for Transgenderism, or Gender Identity Disorder, occurred under similar circumstances. LGBT activists had lobbied the APA for years to make the change which was made in the DSM 5. Lobbying to change a diagnosis is neither scientific or rational.

Ed

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

History shows that gay people had been studied for years by the APA who concluded that they had a disorder. As a group of academics, they performed their studies and published their results. What was the public in general supposed to think? The APA was lying? Then, in 1973, after being spoken against by gay activists who did not accept their findings, a vote was held. Homosexuality was removed as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Gay people were free to live how they wanted but this vote is still in dispute.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

The diagnosis change for Transgenderism, or Gender Identity Disorder, occurred under similar circumstances. LGBT activists had lobbied the APA for years to make the change which was made in the DSM 5. Lobbying to change a diagnosis is neither scientific or rational.

Ed

Did you know that when you sample men in psychiatric care for incidence rate of mental illness it is sampling biased? Likewise, when you sample men in locations they go to to hook up for number of sexual partners this also produces an enormous amount of bias. Maybe we should survey men at brothels to see how often men screw prostitutes? Perhaps survey sex addicts anonymous for rates of men cheating on significant others?

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

History shows that gay people had been studied for years by the APA who concluded that they had a disorder. As a group of academics, they performed their studies and published their results. What was the public in general supposed to think? The APA was lying? Then, in 1973, after being spoken against by gay activists who did not accept their findings, a vote was held. Homosexuality was removed as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Gay people were free to live how they wanted but this vote is still in dispute.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

The diagnosis change for Transgenderism, or Gender Identity Disorder, occurred under similar circumstances. LGBT activists had lobbied the APA for years to make the change which was made in the DSM 5. Lobbying to change a diagnosis is neither scientific or rational.

Ed

So any change made to the DSM or ICD or any other resource used for diagnosis is indicative of a lie!!! Will you be blood letting the next time you get an infection? Or are you suggesting that doctors who used to engage in the practice were lying? If the APA has been lying since 1973, can we really trust that children now diagnosed with autism aren’t really schizophrenic?

You’d like to go back the days when homosexuals were considered sociopaths and child predators? You’d like homosexuality to be outlawed (as it used to be)? You’d like gay people to be prevented from teaching in schools? Or you would just like the DSM to be changed back to the pre-lie era without any of the social implications?

I’m sorry, but it’s very hard for me to take seriously your responses to my posts. It’s not likely I’ll be responding in the future.

 

[Rau]

It’s understandable that you were not familiar with these referendums, but are you really suggesting that the Church did not do its homework on these measures and was ignorant of the consequences?

In states where domestic partnerships, civil unions, same sex marriage had ZERO and I do mean ZERO percent chance of being implemented due to the conservative makeup of the state, as one of my friends who lived in one of these states at the time said, “How can I see this as anything but a slap in the face…making it clear to me that I shouldn’t even dream of having any rights in this state.”

What choice was left but to fight the battle where they could? Do you really think the Supreme Court would have had as easy a time deciding on same sex marriage if an argument could have been made that gay people already had access to an institution that provided the rights they were seeking? Instead the court was faced with the fact that there was no chance in a majority of states that gay people would ever get any rights protecting their relationships without the court acting forcing change at the federal level.

How do you expect gay people to see these measures as anything but vindictive? Do you acknowledge that prejudice exists at all?

Civil unions exist in much of the world. They are widely rejected by gay advocates as 2nd class (because they are not “marriage”). We no longer hear much of a call for legal rights (which are delivered by civil unions and in some jurisdictions even in gay defacto relationships) but for “equality”. So, no I don’t think it was a matter of courts saying “darn it, there’s just no choice, the conservatives leave us no choice but to redefine marriage”.

 

[Rau]

So any change made to the DSM or ICD or any other resource used for diagnosis is indicative of a lie!!! Will you be blood letting the next time you get an infection? Or are you suggesting that doctors who used to engage in the practice were lying? If the APA has been lying since 1973, can we really trust that children now diagnosed with autism aren’t really schizophrenic?

It should be remembered that:

• the cause of homosexuality is unknown;
• there’s no widely accepted treatment;
• large numbers of people who experience it don’t seek treatment;
• those experiencing it aren’t a danger to themselves or others and can function in society (though marriage and children are impeded)

As a pragmatic matter, one can understand why one might remove such a condition from the DSM.

Unfortunately, it’s removal is taken by some to be a statement that everything is fine and normal, and by implication, the behaviours associated with it are fine and normal and to be accommodated by society. Some may even link the demands for “marriage equality” to the change to the DSM.

For me, the lie is in all the conclusions drawn from the fact of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM.

 

[pnewton]

Science has been increasingly showing that sex is a lot less binary than commonly thought.

You know I have been an opponent of all things transgender, but I think what you are saying is important. In almost every way possible, males can be feminine, and females masculine. Particular in the teens, this can be a source of ridicule and pressure to conform. I just wish we would not have gone down the road of switching genders, but simply excepting the natural statistical overlap.

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

Civil unions exist in much of the world. They are widely rejected by gay advocates as 2nd class (because they are not “marriage”). We no longer hear much of a call for legal rights (which are delivered by civil unions and in some jurisdictions even in gay defacto relationships) but for “equality”. So, no I don’t think it was a matter of courts saying “darn it, there’s just no choice, the conservatives leave us no choice but to redefine marriage”.

Have you broadened the discussion to civil unions and courts around the world to avoid considering the specific situation in which gay people found themselves in the U.S.? Or perhaps you are just unaware of the history of this struggle in the U.S., which would be understandable.

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

It should be remembered that:

• the cause of homosexuality is unknown;
• there’s no widely accepted treatment;
• large numbers of people who experience it don’t seek treatment;
• those experiencing it aren’t a danger to themselves or others and can function in society (though marriage and children are impeded)

As a pragmatic matter, one can understand why one might remove such a condition from the DSM.

Unfortunately, it’s removal is taken by some to be a statement that everything is fine and normal, and by implication, the behaviours associated with it are fine and normal and to be accommodated by society. Some may even link the demands for “marriage equality” to the change to the DSM.

For me, the lie is in all the conclusions drawn from the fact of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM.

I don’t completely disagree with you, but what I don’t think you acknowledge is that it works in the other direction too. Do you think that the days when gay people were considered sociopaths and child predators by the APA had no impact on the way they were treated in society?

 

[Rau]

Have you broadened the discussion to civil unions and courts around the world to avoid considering the specific situation in which gay people found themselves in the U.S.? Or perhaps you are just unaware of the history of this struggle in the U.S., which would be understandable.

I am not American, and don’t know the specific US history. However, the experience of what has transpired elsewhere in the world suggests the call for marriage for persons of the same sex would not have been avoided by the availability of other options. And there can be no surprise that the Church could not condone State endorsement of marriage-equivalents for same sex persons. This is neither vindictive nor prejudiced.

 

[Rau]

I don’t completely disagree with you, but what I don’t think you acknowledge is that it works in the other direction too. Do you think that the days when gay people were considered sociopaths and child predators by the APA had no impact on the way they were treated in society?

I’ve no doubt that people have been unjustly treated. People should be treated justly. We can agree on that and hold diametrically opposite views on matters such as SSM, and what is, or is not, unjust discrimination.

The inclusion of homosexuality in the DSM (or in some other list of “conditions” by some other branch of medicine) certainly does not need to amount to, or lead to, unjust treatment of those concerned.

 

[BornInMarch]

It comes down to whether you are a mind that has a body or a body that has a mind.

MRI scans on transgender individuals showed their brain behaving like the gender they identify with rather than the one they were born with (i.e. a transgender man’s brain operates like a woman’s brain).

You could say that the mind is ill and needs correcting, or you could say that the body is wrong and should be modified to suit the needs of the mind.

 

[Rau]

It comes down to whether you are a mind that has a body or a body that has a mind.

MRI scans on transgender individuals showed their brain behaving like the gender they identify with rather than the one they were born with (i.e. a transgender man’s brain operates like a woman’s brain).

You could say that the mind is ill and needs correcting, or you could say that the body is wrong and should be modified to suit the needs of the mind.

It is not as symmetric as you might think. The genetic sex is specified in the DNA of every cell, and that was determined at the moment of conception. What “should be” is thus reflected in all the cells of the body, and cannot be changed.

Whatever goes awry (and gives rise to gender dysphoria) happens subsequent to the genetic sex (as reflected in the DNA of the cells of our body) having been determined. By and large, the body (though perhaps not the brain) of the person suffering gender dysphoria has developed according to the genetic sex determined at conception.

 

[Rosebud77]

The whole thing confuses me mightily. When I was young i danced in pantomimes etc, and of course in that tradition men dress as women and vice versa ( in case the young ones are not familiar with this tradition, the Prince is in fact a woman and the Old mother a man… This goes way way back into ancient traditions.

Just a total confusion