When our 'identity' is subjective...

[Crucible]

we know from many sources including the Bible that LGBT people have always been with us

Gays, and no instance where a person has ever thought they were actually a women in a male's body. It has everything to wit the fact that it is magical thinking, and so ridiculously convenient that it's hard to believe you all got duped into it in the first place.
Well actually, not so hard to believe. You all didn't even legitimately take homosexuality off the roster of mental illnesses- you forced it to be and pulled the same crap you're doing with transgenders now

and we've observed many aspects of different sexualities in nature

No we haven't. Two best friend male penguins at a zoo doesn't count. Sexual anarchy due to rank carnality doesn't count.

Those are not 'aspects', it's simply you all just wanting to believe something different out of what you see.

 

[kmoney]

I think we generate contexts all the time...but in this instance I'd say the creation of context (as opposed to a recognition of fact regardless of what we do with the fact) is mostly on the side of those who came up with the notion of gender identity, as if gender was a subjective value, something we decide upon, and not an operation of biology. We are born to a sex. Within the parameters of that sex we've constructed all sorts of contextual social niceties and expectations. A lot of that is pure invention. We aren't obliged to conform. We consent to it.

To say to yourself, "I think I'm a woman. I will conform my physical reality, to the extent possible, to that belief," is to mutilate yourself not out of necessity, but because you've first accepted the subjective context that defines what your sex must be and how it must function.

This has been one of my main questions/complaints about the gender identity issue. It feels like they are just bending to gender stereotypes. Which seems odd because I think progressives generally want to break stereotypes, not support people in their conformity to them, to what society thinks you must be. What defines 'male' and what defines 'female' that causes people to think they're something other than their biological sex? I just don't understand it. :idunno:

 

[Interplanner]

This has been one of my main questions/complaints about the gender identity issue. It feels like they are just bending to gender stereotypes. Which seems odd because I think progressives generally want to break stereotypes, not support people in their conformity to them, to what society thinks you must be. What defines 'male' and what defines 'female' that causes people to think they're something other than their biological sex? I just don't understand it. :idunno:

There is much more 'research' and material on how male and female are different than at any other time in history. But the problem of the Left is that they seem born to do nothing but overthrow such differences. The issue is the result of the position of the Left. The reason the Left is doing this one is that it is supposedly the last objective (biological) proof of Genesis, with which it has been at war since the mid 1800s. All it needs is to convince the public that the STATE defines things like this, and Genesis (the Bible) is relegated to myth and / or fantasy.

So, beyond, the GI issue lies the US Constitution and its unbending declaration that the State does not source such things; they are here because the world was created by the Creator that way. If we lose that, we lose everything.

 

[kmoney]

In one way, transgender people could be more acceptable to conservative or fundamentalist Christians because they might be attempting to live according to traditional gender roles, but they think something got mixed up between their physical sex and their gender. In a fallen world could that not be a possibility? :idunno: Progressives, secularists, and liberal Christians wouldn't want to frame it in those terms but perhaps there is room for common ground concerning the end goal.

 

[Town Heretic]

That's the difference between gender and sex.

Then we wouldn't need to cobble "identity" to it, though I agree there's a distinction in the secondary definitions that account for the separation, in part. Sex being given the power of a verb removed its consideration as a means of expression in polite society and the secondary considerations of social expectations relating to sexual distinction on the biological level express there. So it's not a point where we're far removed, but I'd say the reason for the cobbling is because the notion of identity differs from that usage, by which I mean gender on the secondary level is about those roles and expectations relating to the psychological manifestations of biology coupled with cultural conditioning. It's not about how you see yourself, but about what we expect to see in you. That's the reason for the new phrase, to my mind, to distinguish a new animal, the individual's response to those expectations.

And, again, I think the problem is that the response is founded in a mistake. It accepts the external expectations as the context for self-definition even in rejection.

Nevertheless, just as you can't necessarily choose the type of personality that you have, you also can't necessarily chose a gender expression that conforms to the expectations that other people have, and for that matter, why should you be expected to?

That's a wide tent of a question, but in the simplest approach I think I noted in my last that we have free will on the point. The problem with much of the debate is the conformity in foundation that leads to an expression of rebellion, usually manifested in the sort of conduct that invites confrontation, instead of adopting whatever internal metric and understanding suits the individual within the framework of rights.

This has been one of my main questions/complaints about the gender identity issue. It feels like they are just bending to gender stereotypes. Which seems odd because I think progressives generally want to break stereotypes, not support people in their conformity to them, to what society thinks you must be. What defines 'male' and what defines 'female' that causes people to think they're something other than their biological sex? I just don't understand it. :idunno:

That's a bit of what I was trying to get at with my first and with the above. :thumb:

 

[patrick jane]

Town Heretic is the Bomb !!

 

[PureX]

I think we generate contexts all the time...but in this instance I'd say the creation of context (as opposed to a recognition of fact regardless of what we do with the fact) is mostly on the side of those who came up with the notion of gender identity, as if gender was a subjective value, something we decide upon, and not an operation of biology. We are born to a sex. Within the parameters of that sex we've constructed all sorts of contextual social niceties and expectations. A lot of that is pure invention. We aren't obliged to conform. We consent to it.

To say to yourself, "I think I'm a woman. I will conform my physical reality, to the extent possible, to that belief," is to mutilate yourself not out of necessity, but because you've first accepted the subjective context that defines what your sex must be and how it must function.

Which to my mind would indicate just how powerful and overwhelming self-image is, relative to biological form.

The question then becomes: are these biologically contradictory self-images something that the rest of us should abide, or are they something we should be trying to "correct" in some way? As an example, if someone believed they were a dog, even though they are biologically a human, we would consider this an anomaly that needs to be "corrected", if possible. Not something that human society should be trying to accommodate. Yet humans born with male genitalia who believe they are women is being proposed as an anomaly that human society should be trying to accommodate. And the question is why? How is this anomaly determined to be reasonable enough to accommodate, while other similar self-image anomalies would not be?

Granted, my analogy is extremely disparate in terms of numbers of humans representing such anomalies. (Is there a human, anywhere, who actually believes they are a dog? I doubt it.) But it serves as a way of illuminating the actual logical question regarding such social accommodation of irrational self-image.

My own feeling is that because there are examples of such gender contradictory self-image in every culture in every time throughout history, that there is more than just a psychological cause. I believe there is also a biological component involved. Which does separate these anomalies from those that are purely psychological and therefor considered "insane".

I also feel that there is little actual danger involved for someone with a gender contradictory self-image compared to the danger involved for other psychological self-image anomalies (with the exception of self-mutilation, which does not seem a significant issue).

So I'm inclined to see no reason why society should not accommodate these particular anomalies. As I believe it's healthy for us as a whole to practice at accommodating those who are more rare and unusual, among us. Variety is always better than conformity in large groups, and adaptability is a very important characteristic for any society to practice and maintain.

 

[Town Heretic]

My own feeling is that because there are examples of such gender contradictory self-image in every culture in every time throughout history, that there is more than just a psychological cause. I believe there is also a biological component involved. Which does separate these anomalies from those that are purely psychological and therefor considered "insane".

I also feel that there is little actual danger involved for someone with a gender contradictory self-image compared to the danger involved for other psychological self-image anomalies (with the exception of self-mutilation).

So I'm inclined to see no reason why society should not accommodate these anomalies. As I believe it's healthy for us as a whole to practice at accommodating those who are more unusual, among us. Adaptability is a very important characteristic for any society to practice and maintain.

We're mostly in agreement until this part. Or, I'm far less settled that there's no danger. There's a danger, I think, in social cohesion posed by eliminating the notion of standard and expectation where those serve a larger social structure...Outside of religious considerations, my concern goes to both my prior point about adoption (both in context for resistance to and the expression that "rebellion" must then necessarily take on an expression that seems more a capitulation in foundation than resistance to the norm) of standards and the notion that society is obliged to obliterate the point of norms to accommodate people who may or may not simply be mentally ill...I don't think we need to lack compassion, but I don't know that our compassion should become conflated with the idea of a social (not legal) equality of standard. Seems a bit off the point and value of having any standard at all.

 

[PureX]

We're mostly in agreement until this part. Or, I'm far less settled that there's no danger. There's a danger, I think, in social cohesion posed by eliminating the notion of standard and expectation where those serve a larger social structure...Outside of religious considerations, my concern goes to both my prior point about adoption (both in context for resistance to and the expression that "rebellion" must then necessarily take on an expression that seems more a capitulation in foundation than resistance to the norm) of standards and the notion that society is obliged to obliterate the point of norms to accommodate people who may or may not simply be mentally ill...I don't think we need to lack compassion, but I don't know that our compassion should become conflated with the idea of a social (not legal) equality of standard. Seems a bit off the point and value of having any standard at all.

This is exactly why it's important that we DO make ourselves accommodate the anomalies among us. Innate conservatives hate the idea of accommodating any sort of change, but that's exactly why we need to practice at accommodating change: because the ability and the willingness to accommodate and adapt to change is an elemental necessity for any healthy society. We cannot advance in peaceful times, nor adapt in turbulent times, if we allow ourselves to become too rigid.

In instances where no immediate or foreseeable threat is clear, we should choose to make ourselves accommodate each other's "anomalies" for the sake not just of tolerance and individual freedom, but for the practice it affords us at accepting and adapting to social change.

 

[rexlunae]

In one way, transgender people could be more acceptable to conservative or fundamentalist Christians because they might be attempting to live according to traditional gender roles, but they think something got mixed up between their physical sex and their gender. In a fallen world could that not be a possibility? :idunno: Progressives, secularists, and liberal Christians wouldn't want to frame it in those terms but perhaps there is room for common ground concerning the end goal.

I don't know about Christians, but in Iran, homosexuality is a capital offense, but there's nothing illegal about being trans including the law recognizing sex changes, so some gay people have chosen to have SRS as a way of accommodating their sexuality. It's a poor solution, but that's essentially what you're suggesting. Of course, since some people who are trans are also gay within their identified gender, it doesn't work for everyone, and gay people who have a strong gender identification aren't going to be very happy living as the opposite gender.

 

[rexlunae]

This has been one of my main questions/complaints about the gender identity issue. It feels like they are just bending to gender stereotypes. Which seems odd because I think progressives generally want to break stereotypes, not support people in their conformity to them, to what society thinks you must be. What defines 'male' and what defines 'female' that causes people to think they're something other than their biological sex? I just don't understand it. :idunno:

While I think it's true that there are some stereotypes that should be resisted because they are harmful, I think it's a fool's errand to try to abolish all of them. It simply won't happen. And I don't think the solution to trans identification is to try to make trans people immune to the opinions of other people, or indeed themselves, which is going to always needlessly put the burden on them. So, while I think that we should always try to be open-minded where we can, I don't think that it is a solution to the problem at hand.

 

[rexlunae]

Then we wouldn't need to cobble "identity" to it,

It's not a cobbling. Identity is what determines gender, as with many social conventions. Likewise, I'm not an atheist because of some objective biological reality about me. I'm an atheist (as you're a Christian) because I identify as one.

And, again, I think the problem is that the response is founded in a mistake. It accepts the external expectations as the context for self-definition even in rejection.

Well, those expectations aren't exclusively external. That may be where they originate in many cases, but we internalize them, and respond to them, and integrate them into ourselves. We all rise to meet the expectations of other people to some extent, and its important that those expectations are flexible enough to accommodate the individual where it's possible to do so. I don't think we can reasonably ask trans people to be emotionally stand-alone more than any other person.

 

[PureX]

We all rise to meet the expectations of other people to some extent, and its important that those expectations are flexible enough to accommodate the individual where it's possible to do so. I don't think we can reasonably ask trans people to be emotionally stand-alone more than any other person.

And not just because it's morally just to do so, but because it's socially healthy to do so. (To my thinking, these two ideals are 'part-and-parcel'.)

 

[rexlunae]

Gays, and no instance where a person has ever thought they were actually a women in a male's body.

Not so clearly or in so many words, but there are various comments about men who are effeminate or similar. These seem to me like potential references to gender non-conformity without a very clear understanding.

It has everything to wit the fact that it is magical thinking, and so ridiculously convenient that it's hard to believe you all got duped into it in the first place.

Come again?

Well actually, not so hard to believe. You all didn't even legitimately take homosexuality off the roster of mental illnesses- you forced it to be and pulled the same crap you're doing with transgenders now

What are you talking about?

No we haven't. Two best friend male penguins at a zoo doesn't count. Sexual anarchy due to rank carnality doesn't count.

That's what we call a "Just-so" story.

 

[ok doser]

You literally just made that up, and it wouldn't matter if he did, as it wouldn't change the fact that sexual contact with children is still a crime regardless of the identification of the person doing it.

it's a crime for two eight year olds to have sexual contact?

 

[Crucible]

it's a crime for two eight year olds to have sexual contact?

I'm not sure the Bible touches base on that specifically, but I'm sure it is nonetheless a sin by reasonable deduction.

It's against canon law to marry a girl under 14 or a boy under 16.
Actually, now that I think about it, it is sinful for a girl not yet blossomed to have sex (started periods).

 

[kmoney]

I don't know about Christians, but in Iran, homosexuality is a capital offense, but there's nothing illegal about being trans including the law recognizing sex changes, so some gay people have chosen to have SRS as a way of accommodating their sexuality. It's a poor solution, but that's essentially what you're suggesting. Of course, since some people who are trans are also gay within their identified gender, it doesn't work for everyone, and gay people who have a strong gender identification aren't going to be very happy living as the opposite gender.

I wasn't suggesting that. I wasn't putting transgenders and gays in the same box or saying that gay people should switch gender and then live as a straight person. I imagine that transgender people feel the way they do because of more than only sexual attraction. I was attempting to contrast transgender people and gay people from a conservative Christian viewpoint. Though, that line of reasoning could be used to produce a 'solution' for gay people, as you say.

 

[rexlunae]

it's a crime for two eight year olds to have sexual contact?

Depends on the jurisdiction, but generally it's a crime for an adult to have sexual contact with a child.

 

[ok doser]

Depends on the jurisdiction, but generally it's a crime for an adult to have sexual contact with a child.

how do you define "an adult"?

if the adult in question chooses to identity himself as an eight year old, how does the law refute that?

 

[rexlunae]

how do you define "an adult"?

if the adult in question chooses to identity himself as an eight year old, how does the law refute that?

Age isn't a matter of self-identification.