Being politically correct harms Transgenders?

[Stripe]

As if to be a voice of reason among the avalanche of public support, one medical doctor and psychologists comes out to say that transgender impulses are always more harmful than good, without bias as far as I can tell.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15145/
Dr. Paul McHugh reports in this article that transgenders are 23x's more likely to kill themselves than any other teen.

He further says we do them no favors to accommodate them rather than treat underlying favors because in so doing, we guarantee they have a high mortality and an unhappy life, akin to encouraging smokers to have 4 packs a day.

John Hopkins, where Dr. McHugh works and is a professor, he says, no longer offers transgender operations since 1970 because there is no benefit but rather, huge endangerment and problematic issues.

He challenged our society to not bow to media and hype as we celebrate the Emperor's new clothing, because in so doing, we are causing more harm than good.

A voice of reason, caring, and actual concern crying in the wilderness?

I wonder why it is that expert advice is always ignored in favor of supporting nonsense.

 

[Stripe]

First, though, let us address the basic assumption of the contemporary parade: the idea that exchange of one’s sex is possible. It, like the storied Emperor, is starkly, nakedly false. Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they “identify.” In that lies their problematic future.

Facts, good. :thumb:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I reckon if one of these guys who pretends to be on her side told her off, she might.

Nobody needs to pretend to be on her side Stripe. You've deflected away from everything salient by cutting posts in half and then joining in acting like a stupid third grader troll aka SOD. It's pathetic. Predictable but still pathetic.

 

[Stripe]

First, though, let us address the basic assumption of the contemporary parade: the idea that exchange of one’s sex is possible. It, like the storied Emperor, is starkly, nakedly false. Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they “identify.” In that lies their problematic future.

Darwinists hate dealing with facts.

 

[eider]

That is because I use the method of asking, "What would Jesus think these scriptures mean."

But that is subjective.
You decide what Jesus might think, rather than read and read again about what he did and what he said.
It looks to me as if you cherry-pick from God's laws and then 'spin' Jesus's reactions.

And your level of wary aggression towards simple questions is worrying.

 

[eider]

See, you aren't forcing your religion on anyone by holding such cretinous views, but what you support would be if such a totalitarian society could come about.

Which thankfully in the West it can't.

Agreed.
Two or three members on this thread do show that they would force their religion on others if they could.
The 'large rock' execution tells it all.
These attitudes seen here on this thread are as close to those of Sunni and Sh-ire Muslims as I have ever seen.
Real scary stuff.

 

[Stripe]

But that is subjective.

Nope. Jesus' words are written for anyone to read.

Two or three members on this thread do show that they would force their religion on others if they could.

Meanwhile, liberal morons actively "force their religion," having millions of regulations that back up their nonsense ideas.

The 'large rock' execution tells it all.

But not hanging?

These attitudes seen here on this thread are as close to those of Sunni and Sh-ire Muslims as I have ever seen. Real scary stuff.

You're a mind reader now?

 

[eider]

Nope. Jesus' words are written for anyone to read.

Well read them then! More about Jesus please, andv less about all those other writers!
But, 'Yes', your interpretations are yours, mate..... npt necessarily other Creeds and Churches'.

Meanwhile, liberal morons actively "force their religion," having millions of regulations that back up their nonsense ideas.

So go and do your soap box rant at them....... don't you bore me with your ideas about other groups.

But not hanging?

Slow painful public hangings? Like the crane hangings in Iran?
Now you begin to hold hands with Sharia law. And that would even terrify you, friend.
Careful what you wish for.

 

[Stripe]

More about Jesus please.

Matthew 18:6 "If anyone causes one of these little ones — those who believe in me — to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

But, 'Yes', your interpretations are yours.

What interpretations?

So go and do your soap box rant at them....... don't you bore me with your ideas about other groups.

:AMR:

Slow painful public hangings? Like the crane hangings in Iran?

Do they execute rapists after a proper trial?

 

[eider]

Matthew 18:6 "If anyone causes one of these little ones — those who believe in me — to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck ..........?

Try Mat 18:4..... Whoever shall humble himself as this little child.....

Now that is good guidance.....

 

[chrysostom]

Try Mat 18:4..... Whoever shall humble himself as this little child.....

Now that is good guidance.....

for sure

 

[Stripe]

Whoever shall humble himself as this little child.....

Now that is good guidance.....

Great. You should take it then. :thumb:

 

[genuineoriginal]

But that is subjective.
You decide what Jesus might think, rather than read and read again about what he did and what he said.

You have it backwards.
I read and read again what Jesus did and what He said, and use that to decide what Jesus would think about scripture.

It looks to me as if you cherry-pick from God's laws and then 'spin' Jesus's reactions.

Who gave the Law and what was His reason for doing so?

And your level of wary aggression towards simple questions is worrying.

:rotfl: :darwinsm:

 

[shagster01]

What would one of God's spokesmen do when confronted by a man in high heels? What do you think he would say to him? Or Peter when full of the Holy Spirit?

Can you show me where in the Bible it says high heels are only to be worn by women?

 

[Derf]

Thank you for your straight reply.
I read the whole post with care, but have to admit that I did not read the whole of the one before. TLDR means 'too long didn't read'!

I see 'sin' as I think Jesus saw it. I see it differently to most Christians.
All of the 613 OT laws were perfect for strengthening and protecting the Israelites. For instance the forbidding of shellfish as food. If you look up 'shellfish poison paralysis' you will see how easy it would have been for a whole mass of people to die in an afternoon! Every single law was there to strengthen community, protect from illness etc. In a world where 65 people own more wealth than 50% of the world we could do with a return of many of the laws that are there.
I still wonder what caused that kid to be paralysed on Capernaum. But after his cure, Jesus told him that his sin was forgiven. See? Any sin could lead to sickness. Jesus did not talk about sin and evil like Paul did.
The OT laws protected from sickness, and that is why folks needed to be chaste, or sickness could rage through the whole tribe, and disaster.
But today, at last, we can protect folks a bit better?

I acknowledge your answer.... The fact that we cannot agree should not make us enemies though

Hi Eider,
My apologies both for my slow response and for the long responses--I have a problem with long-windedness sometimes.

I appreciate your definition of "sin", at least in terms of the OT laws of Moses, which were handed down from God. I have gout flare-ups, which are also caused sometimes by shellfish (certainly of lesser concern than your example, but painful enough to incapacitate me at times).

And in light of your definition of "sin", what about transvestitism was so harmful back then that it needed to be prohibited? Surely you wouldn't expect some overwhelming disease to come upon the people due to wearing the wrong clothes, would you?

And I can ask the same thing about homosexuality: what about it back then was so dangerous for the people that those that participated were to be stoned? Apparently you think that homosexuals back then carried some kind of dread disease that if left alive, it would spread to the rest of the people, yes?

That being your theory, what do you think changed by the time Jesus came that made it ok to allow the practice in the nation--where it didn't endanger other people anymore?

I hope, too that we can be friends, as that is the best way for us to compare ideas, and hopefully find the better ones. But if we are basing the goodness of laws on our own understanding, and not on the greater understanding of God, we run the risk of missing important information about the effects of sin. Surely we would not have autonomously come up with the idea that the tree of knowledge of good and evil would be bad to eat from, would we?

 

[eider]

Who gave the Law and what was His reason for doing so?:

To strengthen the Israelites, protect them from sicknesses and to support every member.
To break any of the 613 could lead to sickness, disharmony or insecurity.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Agreed.
Two or three members on this thread do show that they would force their religion on others if they could.
The 'large rock' execution tells it all.
These attitudes seen here on this thread are as close to those of Sunni and Sh-ire Muslims as I have ever seen.
Real scary stuff.

That's religious extremism for you. The "Christian" sort is just as bonkers and barbaric as the militant Islamic variety, not that 'Christian fundamentalists' like it when it's pointed out. The good thing is this particular minority group of nutcases have no chance of ever having these laws enacted.

 

[eider]

Hi Eider,
My apologies both for my slow response and for the long responses--I have a problem with long-windedness sometimes.

I appreciate your definition of "sin", at least in terms of the OT laws of Moses, which were handed down from God. I have gout flare-ups, which are also caused sometimes by shellfish (certainly of lesser concern than your example, but painful enough to incapacitate me at times).

And in light of your definition of "sin", what about transvestitism was so harmful back then that it needed to be prohibited? Surely you wouldn't expect some overwhelming disease to come upon the people due to wearing the wrong clothes, would you?

And I can ask the same thing about homosexuality: what about it back then was so dangerous for the people that those that participated were to be stoned? Apparently you think that homosexuals back then carried some kind of dread disease that if left alive, it would spread to the rest of the people, yes?

That being your theory, what do you think changed by the time Jesus came that made it ok to allow the practice in the nation--where it didn't endanger other people anymore?

I hope, too that we can be friends, as that is the best way for us to compare ideas, and hopefully find the better ones. But if we are basing the goodness of laws on our own understanding, and not on the greater understanding of God, we run the risk of missing important information about the effects of sin. Surely we would not have autonomously come up with the idea that the tree of knowledge of good and evil would be bad to eat from, would we?

Please give me a day.
I need to write my reply, then precis it down.
I've got a lot to offer towards a reply.....
Thankyou for your interest.....

 

[genuineoriginal]

To strengthen the Israelites, protect them from sicknesses and to support every member.
To break any of the 613 could lead to sickness, disharmony or insecurity.

You seem to be looking at the laws as if each one is only for the protection of individuals.
I see the laws with punishment specified for breaking them as protection of the society as a whole.

 

[Stripe]

That's religious extremism for you. The "Christian" sort is just as bonkers and barbaric as the militant Islamic variety, not that 'Christian fundamentalists' like it when it's pointed out. The good thing is this particular minority group of nutcases have no chance of ever having these laws enacted.

What is it with you and false accusations?

Do you think that if you spew enough of them, you will win an argument?