Manufacturing Transgender Kids

@sonship said
He Used To Be Trans—Here’s What He Wants Everyone To Know

Man raised transgender for over 40 years speaks of his recovery and regrets and warns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlRkLtKqSrY

Brave new scientific world or emerging nightmare dis-utopia ?

I watched the video and agree that a parent using drugs on a child is simply child abuse. Only when someone is an adult should that be done.
But, he states that he married and has 2 children. Clearly he was not using any female hormones during this time. It is extremely unlikely that he was being given female hormones during male adolescence as that usually leaves a male sterile.
He appears to be the victim of psychological abuse from his recounting of his childhood.
On the other hand it does, yet again, prove that gender identity is something we are all born with and cannot ultimately be altered permanently regardless of our environment.
I imagine he would have been even more screwed up if his parents had forced him to be a member of one of the many cults people here subscribe to.

It is interesting to note that very conservative Christians like James White and an Orthodox friend I have believe it is entirely possible for someone to be born with a medical condition that causes them to actually mentally be a different gender and to even on some chemical/biological level also mimic the opposite gender, and thus transitioning is appropriate.

James White has actually stated that "LGB" issues and "T" issues are incredibly different.

I've come to generally view that as accurate.

@philokalia said
It is interesting to note that very conservative Christians like James White and an Orthodox friend I have believe it is entirely possible for someone to be born with a medical condition that causes them to actually mentally be a different gender and to even on some chemical/biological level also mimic the opposite gender, and thus transitioning is appropriate.

James W ...[text shortened]... GB" issues and "T" issues are incredibly different.

I've come to generally view that as accurate.

Many who are "T" also have "L", "G", or "B" issues as well. Not all, mind you, so it's best to treat the individual as an individual and not as a group.

That leads directly to stereotyping.

@philokalia said
It is interesting to note that very conservative Christians like James White and an Orthodox friend I have believe it is entirely possible for someone to be born with a medical condition that causes them to actually mentally be a different gender and to even on some chemical/biological level also mimic the opposite gender, and thus transitioning is appropriate.

James W ...[text shortened]... GB" issues and "T" issues are incredibly different.

I've come to generally view that as accurate.

What any of these people or you "believe" means little in this matter. They are opinions of people who wish to pontificate about anything they wish. They have zero personal experience with this matter, yet try to give the impression that they know much about this matter.
I "believe" that most Christians are deluded fools, but that doesn't mean I am correct. (even though it is entirely possible I am correct).

@caissad4

You are involving in bigoted pontification yourself in saying these things.

"Evangelphobic" is an invented word I might use to describe your fear of allowing people of faith no right to voice an opinion.

@suzianne said
Many who are "T" also have "L", "G", or "B" issues as well. Not all, mind you, so it's best to treat the individual as an individual and not as a group.

That leads directly to stereotyping.

And, those issues about them would be separate from the T issue.

@caissad4 said
What any of these people or you "believe" means little in this matter. They are opinions of people who wish to pontificate about anything they wish. They have zero personal experience with this matter, yet try to give the impression that they know much about this matter.
I "believe" that most Christians are deluded fools, but that doesn't mean I am correct. (even though it is entirely possible I am correct).

Christians have doctrines about sexual ethics just like everyone else.

Every single person is entitled to their opinions on sexual ethics and the meaning of marriage.

What we believe means a lot in our context, right? If this is all so subjective, why is your context absolutely the supreme one here?

Moreover, personal experience isn't necessary to have a moral position on something.

@sonship said
@caissad4

You are involving in bigoted pontification yourself in saying these things.

"Evangelphobic" is an invented word I might use to describe your fear of allowing people of faith no right to voice an opinion.

When Christians say something about something that directly involves them, they are biased as Christians and their personal anecdotes are thus suspect and even more irrelevant.

And when they are not directly involved with something, it shifts to the notion that we are now hampered by a lack of personal experience.

@philokalia said
Christians have doctrines about sexual ethics just like everyone else.

Every single person is entitled to their opinions on sexual ethics and the meaning of marriage.

What we believe means a lot in our context, right? If this is all so subjective, why is your context absolutely the supreme one here?

Moreover, personal experience isn't necessary to have a moral position on something.

But personal experience does trump someone else just talking out their ass. It IS easy to have all these 'moral convictions' when you don't have the personal experience of having to deal with the bigotry.

@caissad4 said
What any of these people or you "believe" means little in this matter. They are opinions of people who wish to pontificate about anything they wish. They have zero personal experience with this matter, yet try to give the impression that they know much about this matter.
I "believe" that most Christians are deluded fools, but that doesn't mean I am correct. (even though it is entirely possible I am correct).

I get why you would think we are “deluded”, but why are we “fools”?

@suzianne said
But personal experience does trump someone else just talking out their ass. It IS easy to have all these 'moral convictions' when you don't have the personal experience of having to deal with the bigotry.

You are jumping a bit on this.

I have stated that there are sexual ethics of right & wrong.

What does the fact that some people are bigoted have to do with this?

It is like... you are implying that Christians should not have opinions on these things because bigotry exists? What is your position?

@philokalia said

Moreover, personal experience isn't necessary to have a moral position on something.

Not necessary, but sure does carry a lot of weight.

It is a lot easier to have a strong moral position on something that doesn't impact on you or your wellbeing directly. For example, imagine if you personally from a young age felt to the very core of your being that you were 'born in the wrong body' (in regards to your gender) would you still be so resolute in your moral position when it comes to this issue?

@philokalia said
To me, this doesn't actually make sense...

Even if it is not a disorder, as they say it is not, these people still feel that they are in the wrong body and require corrective surgeries and hormone therapy.

In my mind... If you are healthy, why would you need medicine?

If I told you that I need to take Prozac or another drug to feel contentme ...[text shortened]... torting the truth?

... It just doesn't make sense.

This is clearly a politicized definition.

Of course it doesn't make sense, if you assume that the outdated social convention of assigning gender based on organs must be right. We had this discussion with KellyJay before; he kept insisting that sexual organs define gender, so, of course, he couldn't get his mind round the idea that gender might collide with that outdated social convention.

What this decision means is that the world is gradually coming round to the idea that gender does not reduce to biology (sex organs). Of course it's a politicized decision, and rightly so. Humans are social/political animals, and precisely because gender does not reduce to biology, but has a social/political component with social/legal consequences, the decision is highly relevant and long overdue. What's unhealthy is the social stigma, not the condition itself, and this decision both reflects and is intended to accelerate a growing consciousness of that.

If Siamese twins could survive either connected or separated, and if the decision is made to separate them, that does not mean that while they were still connected there was something wrong or objectively unhealthy about them. Why need medicine, indeed?

@philokalia said
You are jumping a bit on this.

I have stated that there are sexual ethics of right & wrong.

What does the fact that some people are bigoted have to do with this?

It is like... you are implying that Christians should not have opinions on these things because bigotry exists? What is your position?

Why is it your business deciding the sexual ethics for someone else? Unless you've been there, you can't.

That makes your opinion that they are somehow 'deficient', just pure bigotry.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Not necessary, but sure does carry a lot of weight.

It is a lot easier to have a strong moral position on something that doesn't impact on you or your wellbeing directly. For example, imagine if you personally from a young age felt to the very core of your being that you were 'born in the wrong body' (in regards to your gender) would you still be so resolute in your moral position when it comes to this issue?

But the subjective experience of a person is irrelevant to the overall truth.

If I changed my opinion because I had feelings that were incongruent with what I believed to be objectively true, I would be a coward and a hypocrite, wouldn't I?