Being politically correct harms Transgenders?

[Nick M]

The opposite of whatever you would say.

Let's check on the defender of sexual perverts.

Deuteronomy 22

5 “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.

And, shame on you Patrick Jane.

 

[annabenedetti]

Let's check on the defender of sexual perverts.

Deuteronomy 22

5 “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.

Check on what? What I'm wearing? The "defender of sexual perverts" uniform, apparently: jeans, black boots, and a gray pullover sweater.

And, shame on you Patrick Jane.

What, he needs your approval for his posts?

 

[annabenedetti]

Interestingly, some of them like Jenner if I remember and am citing the article correctly, still are attracted only to women, which is why Dr. McHugh recommends we not cave to pop-psychology.

I'd rather you'd answered my post to you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Let's check on the defender of sexual perverts.

Deuteronomy 22

5 “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.

And, shame on you Patrick Jane.

So what garments should a woman not wear in your oh so valued and completely respected opinion Nicky?

Trousers? Jeans? Anything approaching a T shirt?

I would say your intellect is akin to a girls' blouse but then the garment itself would have a higher IQ...

lain:

 

[annabenedetti]

It's easier to tar them all with the same brush; then you don't have to wade through a whole lot of unpleasantry trying to figure out what it is.

:freak:

I sure hope you aren't still pretending you're a rational person.

 

[Lon]

I'd rather you'd answered my post to you.

Not much to respond to there? Much of it was agreement other than thinking the doctor was biased. However, you wound up, as far as I assess, capitulating a lot of his points if even you thought he was a bit biased.

I don't doubt that people who have spent years, even decades struggling with their sexual identity have higher rates of depression and other disorders.

Then this also left me thinking there was naught to respond to:

Just a few thoughts out of many I had, but I'm out of time for now.

Note the article is from just last year so I'm assuming the doctor is up to par concerning his detractors.

He is seeing your advocacy for giving-in to their whims as anti-productive and actually ill-willed pop-psych and indulgence.

 

[annabenedetti]

Not much to respond to there? Much of it was agreement other than thinking the doctor was biased. However, you wound up, as far as I assess, capitulating a lot of his points if even you thought he was a bit biased.

On what did I capitulate, other than recognizing what any professional would, which is that there are typically higher rates of depression and related disorders among people who are struggling with their sexual identity than there are in the general population?

He is seeing your advocacy for giving-in to their whims as anti-productive and actually ill-willed pop-psych and indulgence.

For what, exactly, am I advocating? And your dismissal of their issues as "whim" and therapeutic treatments as "indulgence" tells me that you don't really know much other than you found an expert voice whose bias allows you to confirm your own.

 

[Lon]

On what did I capitulate, other than recognizing what any professional would, which is that there are typically higher rates of depression and related disorders among people who are struggling with their sexual identity than there are in the general population?

Yes, but even and especially in countries that are accepting and encouraging them. I went to 3 sites that are pro-gay, pro-transgender and these had very little in the way of clear and/or substantial rebuttal. They simply said he was antiquated or biased like you. This man has been studying this his whole academic life. I can't take such a feeble response with anything but a teaspoon of salt. As a Christian, believing scripture is correct, I have to also believe he must/necessarily be right, not biased.

For what, exactly, am I advocating? And your dismissal of their issues as "whim" and therapeutic treatments as "indulgence" tells me that you don't really know much other than you found an expert voice whose bias allows you to confirm your own.

I've had more than a few courses on psychology and sociology. I know, in point of fact, the current movement is moving ahead at a rapid speed with little to no substantive work. Pop-culture, pop-psych, entertainment industry affecting perception, and a rejection of biblical principles indeed does have me biased, if you'd call it that. We are currently 'experimenting' with children concerning how they will fare among gay parents. Not a lick of data drives that. It is completely pop-psych, media-driven, and politically driven, and imho, unconscionable. We don't 'wait and see' with children. Such is our society. A rejection of God's principles and a general rejection of all of our values will result in more riots and demonstrations in streets.

 

[Derf]

It's not okay to assume that all transgenders are gay.

It's not okay to force your religious beliefs on people who don't share them.

Seems to me that all transgenders are gay at one point in the process, either before or after. Or maybe bi-.

From which religious text did you get your morals, that you can make such absolute moral statements: "It's not okay to force your religious beliefs on people who don't share them."? You can't really force your religious beliefs on people that do share them, after all, so the only ones left to force them on are the ones that don't share them--like you are doing.

Fortunately, we force our religious beliefs on murderers all the time, and they don't share those beliefs. And they force their religious beliefs on their victims, who don't share their beliefs.

Maybe murderers need a new PR campaign: "Transethical" has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

Maybe Jerry Sandusky is available for PR manager.

 

[annabenedetti]

Yes, but even and especially in countries that are accepting and encouraging them. I went to 3 sites that are pro-gay, pro-transgender and these had very little in the way of clear and/or substantial rebuttal. They simply said he was antiquated or biased like you. This man has been studying this his whole academic life. I can't take such a feeble response with anything but a teaspoon of salt. As a Christian, believing scripture is correct, I have to also believe he must/necessarily be right, not biased.

He's biased. You just can't see it because, well... you have the same bias.

I've had more than a few courses on psychology and sociology. I know, in point of fact, the current movement is moving ahead at a rapid speed with little to no substantive work. Pop-culture, pop-psych, entertainment industry affecting perception, and a rejection of biblical principles indeed does have me biased, if you'd call it that. We are currently 'experimenting' with children concerning how they will fare among gay parents. Not a lick of data drives that. It is completely pop-psych, media-driven, and politically driven, and imho, unconscionable. We don't 'wait and see' with children. Such is our society. A rejection of God's principles and a general rejection of all of our values will result in more riots and demonstrations in streets.

A few classes don't make you an expert, just a person with an opinion. Which is fine, that's what we're all offering here - opinions. As for the rest you're overstating all over the place. No wonder you like what he has to say.

 

[annabenedetti]

Seems to me that all transgenders are gay at one point in the process, either before or after. Or maybe bi-.

From which religious text did you get your morals, that you can make such absolute moral statements: "It's not okay to force your religious beliefs on people who don't share them."? You can't really force your religious beliefs on people that do share them, after all, so the only ones left to force them on are the ones that don't share them--like you are doing.

Fortunately, we force our religious beliefs on murderers all the time, and they don't share those beliefs. And they force their religious beliefs on their victims, who don't share their beliefs.

Maybe murderers need a new PR campaign: "Transethical" has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

Maybe Jerry Sandusky is available for PR manager.

The Constitution protects us from people who would otherwise force their religious beliefs on people who don't share them. This isn't a theocracy.

I don't happen to believe homosexuals should be stoned to death, for example. There are people at TOL who think they should be.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You quote the old laws of the bible.

When Paul wrote this, only the Old Testament was considered to be scripture:

2 Timothy 3:16 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:​

Is the law I quoted profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, or instruction in righteousness?

Deuteronomy 22:5 5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.​

Sure it is.

It is profitable for the Christian church to have a doctrine that prohibits cross-dressing.
It is profitable for the Christian church to reprove and correct members that cross-dress.
It is profitable for the Christian church to instruct its members that cross-dressing is not righteous.

So, what is your problem?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Your suggestions as to the existence of lgbtqia conditions is most odd. These sexualities have always existed.
Where I live they are all protected by law, thank God.

At least we know which god you are thanking and what that god did.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.​

On the other hand, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who sent His only Son, Jesus, said this:

Leviticus 20:13 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.​

And Jesus said this:

Luke 13:3 3 [JESUS] I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.[/JESUS]​

 

[genuineoriginal]

The Constitution protects us from people who would otherwise force their religious beliefs on people who don't share them.

No, the first Amendment of the Constitution protects people so they can hold their religious beliefs and practice their religion without interference from the government.

 

[Derf]

The Constitution protects us from people who would otherwise force their religious beliefs on people who don't share them. This isn't a theocracy.

I don't happen to believe homosexuals should be stoned to death, for example. There are people at TOL who think they should be.

I won't (can't?) force you to think one way or the other. But that doesn't change the need to have something more fixed for a standard of right and wrong than mere whims. We look for a presidential candidate that actually promises something when they run for office--not because we don't care whether they believe in lying or not, but because we actually think that what they say is something they will try to do.

Thus, they have set up a standard for their presidency by which we can judge them. But that judgment is a judgment of truthfulness--did they really do what they said they were going to do? or not? Why do we care whether they told the truth or not? Why do we care whether someone murders or not? Why do we care whether someone rapes a child or not? Isn't that just forcing our religious beliefs on others who don't share them?

The Constitution protects us from people that have no morals--whose religious views are that they can do whatever they want to do and won't be judged for it. Like King George. Someone's religious views have to win in the end. I'd like it to be the ones that were provided from the hand of God, rather than from the mind of man.

 

[ok doser]

The Constitution protects us from people who would otherwise force their religious beliefs on people who don't share them.

my religious beliefs tell me that it's wrong for innocent children to be murdered in the womb

my religious beliefs tell me that it's wrong to molest and abuse children

my religious beliefs tell me that it's wrong to rape women

my religious beliefs tell me that it's wrong to steal, to lie, to commit adultery...



other people don't share those beliefs


according to you, i shouldn't force my beliefs on them :kookoo:

 

[Rusha]

What, he needs your approval for his posts?

:chuckle: Especially since he didn't even post in this thread.

 

[Lon]

He's biased. You just can't see it because, well... you have the same bias.

We can play the assertion game, but such is often wrong. In this case, it shows what the classes were actually teaching when I earned my degree.

A few classes don't make you an expert, just a person with an opinion. Which is fine, that's what we're all offering here - opinions. As for the rest you're overstating all over the place. No wonder you like what he has to say.

Nursing and psychology are two different degrees so this will quickly become worse as far as wild and flying speculation. I genuinely assess political polarization rather than reasoned voices pervading today. I talked with a clinical psychologist about this topic and she agreed and gave some credence to the call back from the political and pop-psych fringe as well. Media will not cover this. I'd like to believe I'm far from easily duped. I am not really influenced without a LOT of weighing of facts. This I do know: God is not mocked, a man/woman reaps what they sow without question. An attempt to skirt is seldom the correct answer. Jerry Garcia got a reprieve with an organ transplant but such is the exception rather than the rule.

Whatever the disagreement or agreement, my greatest concern is not the bias, it is rather what is best for people, and not by any stretch or necessity giving in to whim vs what is best. I don't want to be the fool at the early end of a life that claimed 'at least they were happy.' Destroying oneself and living to only 50 is not my idea of what that entails. I was flat out amazed to see that Glaad targets 'family' counselors and 'family' advocates for spite and malice. How in the WORLD can a gay be against family? They couldn't exist without one. Afterwards, sure, but it is completely foreign to who we are (not exactly my target, but they were pouncing upon this article as well in addition to the others. I is completely counter-intuitive).

If my actual and good values make me biased, I must say, I have to keep them, regardless of what I'd consider foreign and alien sentiments against our very selves.

 

[annabenedetti]

We can play the assertion game, but such is often wrong. In this case, it shows what the classes were actually teaching when I earned my degree.

Unless my memory is wrong, you don't have a degree in psychology.

Nursing and psychology are two different degrees so this will quickly become worse as far as wild and flying speculation.

No idea what you mean by that unless you're a nurse. I thought you were a history teacher?

I genuinely assess political polarization rather than reasoned voices pervading today. I talked with a clinical psychologist about this topic and she agreed and gave some credence to the call back from the political and pop-psych fringe as well.

You say assertion, I say anecdote.

Media will not cover this. I'd like to believe I'm far from easily duped. I am not really influenced without a LOT of weighing of facts. This I do know: God is not mocked, a man/woman reaps what they sow without question. An attempt to skirt is seldom the correct answer. Jerry Garcia got a reprieve with an organ transplant but such is the exception rather than the rule.

How did we arrive at Jerry Garcia?

Whatever the disagreement or agreement, my greatest concern is not the bias, it is rather what is best for people, and not by any stretch or necessity giving in to whim vs what is best. I don't want to be the fool at the early end of a life that claimed 'at least they were happy.' Destroying oneself and living to only 50 is not my idea of what that entails. I was flat out amazed to see that Glaad targets 'family' counselors and 'family' advocates for spite and malice. How in the WORLD can a gay be against family? They couldn't exist without one. Afterwards, sure, but it is completely foreign to who we are (not exactly my target, but they were pouncing upon this article as well in addition to the others. I is completely counter-intuitive).

If my actual and good values make me biased, I must say, I have to keep them, regardless of what I'd consider foreign and alien sentiments against our very selves.

I assume you posted the OP for discussion, and I'm doing my part. Bias is an important consideration, and it's important in this consideration. You found someone who supports your bias, that's fine - but I'm going to point out that bias for the record, if nothing else. The coercive kind of therapy advocated by the likes of aCW will do more harm than good to an individual, family isn't necessarily equipped to be involved in counseling, and not all counselors are qualified. I can only imagine the pressures brought to bear on a young person in such a situation... I'm reminded of the really heartbreaking video on youtube of the young man who comes out to his family and the abuse he receives from them as a result. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[annabenedetti]

There's some cussing in the video.

I'm wondering what family counseling would be like in this situation. Much more complex than what you seem to think.