Have you looked through this thread?Redstone said:
So…the chromosomes, the presence or absence of which determines sex (and its synonym, gender) don't change in the slightest during a "transition?"
Have you looked through this thread?Redstone said:
So…the chromosomes, the presence or absence of which determines sex (and its synonym, gender) don't change in the slightest during a "transition?"
Redstone said:
So…the chromosomes, the presence or absence of which determines sex (and its synonym, gender) don't change in the slightest during a "transition?"
This easily observable reality is consistently present across time and environment?
Physical anthropologists, looking at remains, would match sex / gender to such an objective reality?
Huh.
Quote:
chromosomes do not alone determine how a person expresses or comprehends sex or gender.
Quote:
Your argument rests on the perception of one problematic figure?
Quote:
This isn't how research and theories work. There's a wide body of literature on the differences between sex and gender.
Quote:
Nor can human experience be summed up simply in our chromosomes.
Redstone said:Quote:
Your argument rests on the perception of one problematic figure?
Gender as a malleable "social construct" came from where, given great currency via "academic validation" …. well, check it out.Quote:
This isn't how research and theories work. There's a wide body of literature on the differences between sex and gender.
Yes, of course - since 1955 in the context of this discussion here. And how'd that work out for Dr. Money's patients? Check it out.Quote:
Nor can human experience be summed up simply in our chromosomes.
Not the argument at all. A Catholic understanding of the human person wouldn't make such an argument either.
Quote:
Again, whether an early theorist was a bad person or not has zero bearing on the validity or modern development of the theory.
Quote:
And yes, your argument is, "well they have a Y chromosome so they are male and that's that.
I think we're done. You don't get it. A field of study is not defined by the abuses of one person. By your definition the entire field of psychology is an excuse to torture and abuse dogs, since that's what Pavlov did.Redstone said:Quote:
Again, whether an early theorist was a bad person or not has zero bearing on the validity or modern development of the theory.
Read about his many abuses, and the long cover ups. Read the article from the two "affirming" doctors. Make the extremely easy to make and very direct connection.
This all concerns the mental and physical health of children and adolescents - yes, including sterilization - and so it is FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from researchers acting badly yet with valid work.
Why? Because, as with Freud (another total fraud and liar) the work is INEXTRICABLY BOUND with their personal agendas.Quote:
And yes, your argument is, "well they have a Y chromosome so they are male and that's that.
Physically. Males have 1 Y chromosome and 1 X chromosome; females have 2 X chromosomes.
You deny this?
And, of course, this is not the entirety of the human person. I would recommend the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Quote:
A field of study is not defined by the abuses of one person.
Quote:
By your definition the entire field of psychology is an excuse to torture and abuse dogs, since that's what Pavlov did.
Redstone said:
Now, let me be more specific.
Beginning on Page 7 of this thread, there is advocacy for puberty blockers and hormone "therapy."
For whom?
CHILDREN.
Sterilizing?
READ ABOUT IT.
(The answer is quite often, yes.)
Such "therapy" is Satanic, and I mean that literally.
Redstone said:
It is not only wrong to mutilate and sterilize children, it is demonic. It is to participate in the worldly power of fallen angels.
I hope anyone who has ever done so repents, immediately.
Quote:
Your perspective harms people. It results in suicide or a lifetime of severe mental health crises.
Quote:
You don't care about the people
Quote:
you care about your religion.
Quote:
Bye.
You mean like the 60 year old woman that works next to me. She said she knew she was queer (her word) in the eighth grade.Sapper Redux said:LIB said:
God created an urge in me to have sex with as many hot looking women as possible. He also gave me an urge for self preservation. As a result of these two god-given urges, I don't let my wife know about all the women I'm sleeping around with.
#madethisway
I get so sick of these pathetic equivalencies. Sit down and talk to a transgendered or queer person about what they feel and how little self respect or self esteem many of them have because of attitudes like this.
You should try looking around with your eyes open. You'll get an entirely new perspective.Sapper Redux said:Redstone said:
Is "affirmation" helping those who suffer?
Not really, according to those once extremely-affirming doctors. And according to the many testimonies of regret among the "transitioned," which can be referenced in my earlier posts here.
Here's a novel concept: different people are going to need different things to help them because they are different. All I see from conservatives is a desire to shove LGBTQ people back into the closet and treat them as subhuman while saying they care.
I thought I was talking to Sapper. Huh?Ag_of_08 said:
My eyes have been open for years. I catch the brunt of the above "conservative" opinion regularly.
The reality is people preaching that mantra are not conservative, they're liberal authoritarians by action and creed, they're simply not preaching the secular liberalism of the modern party using the term.
I'm glad to see this post got back on the anti-trans/all trans people are mentally ill bandwagon quickly. Christians defending their bloody and wrathful God is always amusing, but never lasts long...... it's easy when everyone else just gets deemed evil.
Redstone said:
1). A child.
2). "complications from a very complex surgery"
All of my characterizations are fully accurate, including the word abuse.
Is this a portmanteau of testicle and hysterical?PacifistAg said:
testerical