TxAgPreacher said:
kurt vonnegut said:
TxAgPreacher said:
kurt vonnegut said:
TxAgPreacher said:
To get us back on topic, the point behind the discussion on objective truth, was to point out that some thing are objectively bad, and some are objectively good. We have those siding with moral relativism, postmodernism, and queer theory(even if they didn't realize it), and those who believe that there is evidence for why traditional values objectively, and scientifically give better outcomes. I got this view from God's word, but it is confirmed by science, and is repeatable, and verifiable. The same cannot be said for Transitioning. The outcomes are horrible. Transsexualism is bad for society and we don't want it pushed. Obviously we believe traditional values are good.
This is the impasse of the whole discussion, and why we go round and round.
It is my position that the question of whether 'x' is moral or not is NOT a scientific question. Do you agree or disagree?
As far as evaluating values based on their outcome, I don't believe you have addressed the fact that different people have different definitions of what their desired outcome is. Apologies if I missed it.
Answer the questions, and I'll engage.
Quote:
Quote:
You answer the question, is slavery objectively bad?
Man its like pulling teeth. These people refuse to make any statement of truth. Is transsexualism good, or even ok? If so on what basis? Why is it ok? Is it harmful?
The follow-up is, do traditional values give the best outcomes?
What is a woman? What is transsexualism?
As I understand it. Note that I don't claim expertise. My 7, 5, and 2 year old's know what a woman is. You don't need to be an expert. This subjectivism only causes problems, and overcomplicates, and leads to madness, and bad outcomes.
Female is a term denoting a distinct biological sex. Adult human female. It is an objective fact xx chromosomes. So are "transwomen" women?
Woman is a term relating to gender generally associated with the female sex. I reject this idea. It has no bases in fact. It is in fact a social construct made up to muddy the waters of biological sex.
I'm not going to define transsexualism because I have never once used it in this thread. If its a term you wish to introduce, then I think you need to define it. I don't think you can
I'm not being uncivil by pointing out a refusal to answer a simple questions. I find it very weasley, and telling. I also find it telling that you only halfheartedly tried to answer one question out of the eight, and one of the least important ones at that. I didn't rank order them, and you don't know where I'm going with this so that's fine. I don't expect you to read my mind. What it tells me is that your fundamental rejection of even basic truths precludes you from being able to identify simple truth's, and to make proper conclusions about morality. Rape is always bad. I offered these two questions because at least its a starting point, and because eventually its gets to the point that "transwomen" are not real women, and that the transgender ideology is counterfactual.
If you don't want to define transsexualism then fine. I don't want to quarrel about words. For the sake of argument when you read transsexualism just replace it with transgenderism. I even use the term "gender roles" accommodatively, although I reject the concept of gender separated from sex entirely. That is off topic so lets set it aside.
I'm still waiting on this because they are FAR more important to the argument.
Quote:
You answer the question, is slavery objectively bad?
Man its like pulling teeth. These people refuse to make any statement of truth. Is transsexualism good, or even ok? If so on what basis? Why is it ok? Is it harmful?
The follow-up is, do traditional values give the best outcomes?
Is "transgenderism" when put into practice good? Ok? Bad?
Are traditional values when put into practice good? Ok? Bad?
Which produces better outcomes? Because they are not even close even subjectively.
This will probably be a long one:
Biologically, humans are distinctly male or female. Perhaps there are some very rare exceptions or mutations, but that isn't what we are discussing here. I recognize the two distinct biological sexes and I do believe that they are important. For example, I do not support trans women competing in female sports because there is a biological difference that violates the intention behind separate male / female sports.
Whether introducing a more nuanced definition to 'woman' or 'gender' is necessary or not is a difficult question for me to answer. This is me acknowledging my own ignorance and my own intellectual or experience-related short comings. I don't experience gender dysphoria, so its difficult for me to relate. Is a trans woman a woman? I don't know. There is a part of me that just really doesn't care - except for where it has potential to affect someone directly - like the sports example.
I can define transsexualism. I choose not to because its not a term I've used or that has been part of any of my arguments. In all fairness, you have to admit that its not fair to force me to define a term that you are using and no one else is. If I use a term that needs defining, then I should be prepared to define it. If I can swap it out for the word transgender moving forward, then I will.
Transgender definition - denoting or relating to a person whose gender identity does not correspond with the sex registered to them at birth. I stole that from dictionary.com. But, I think its a perfectly adequate definition.
Before I move onto your other questions - I want to talk about why I said a part of my just really doesn't care. Lets assume that you are correct that transgenderism is a lie and that there is no distinction between biological sex and gender. It doesn't change how I treat someone that claims to be transgender. As an example - if an adult man wants to identify as a woman, dress like a woman, wear make up, have surgeries, and take estrogen . . . why is that my business? Culturally, unlike some other places, I think many Americans have a sort of inherent distrust of government control and a fervent demand for the right to our own individuality. We demand that government stay out of our business. Clearly its something I've taken to heart.
So, if a man wants to call himself a woman. Okay. I don't know if I agree or not. I see multiple sides of the argument. And I think my inability to empathize with gender dysphoria makes it hard for me to understand it. But, if it doesn't affect me, then 'you do you'.
If you want to get into questions about under age persons, bathrooms and health insurance responsibilities and sports and other questions that arise, we can get into those questions. I believe that I'm less 'radical' than perhaps you think I am. But questions about basic rights, basic allowances to participate and contribute to society, to practice their ideology, etc. there is no compromise as far as I am concerned. The truth or fiction of transgenderism is irrelevant, to me, in whether a trans persons deserves the same basic human dignity. Period.
Is slavery objectively bad? Short answer: No. Longer answer: Whether objective morals handed down from God exist or not is an objective question. The answer is yes or no and is not subject to opinion. That said, I am unconvinced that God given objecive morals exist or that there would be any way for any of us to understand them without subjective lenses anyway. So, while God given objective morals might exist, pragmatically speaking, my personal beliefs effectively assume they do not.
Is Transgenderism good? Or Okay? Without a belief in an objective morality handed from God, all I can offer is my opinion. I think that perhaps transgenderism is neither good nor bad. It may be the equivalent of asking if green eyes is good or bad or okay? Green eyes are not good or bad or okay. They just are. Its just something that happens.
Is it harmful? My wife has a good friend that she grew up with who is trans. I've known them for probably 20 years. Not super well, but well enough. For this person, I don't think transitioning has been harmful. They are, as far as I can tell, well adjusted and happy and productive. And their transition and lifestyle does not inhibit me from anything I wish to do or believe or say in my life. Of course this is anecdotal. I can think of places where harm can be done here. For example, I am not in favor of allowing transitions at certain younger ages. But, I definitely don't see transgenderism as wholesale harmful.
Do traditional values give the best outcomes? I believe I've answered this question. It may not be an answer you find satisfactory, but I'm telling you that it is my sincere answer to the question. Reposting that response here:
Quote:
Using science to validate moral and value statements means you aren't using science. Nevertheless, I'm open to exploring what I think you mean with this statement.
First, I think we need to ask a question to identify the objectives that determine 'best outcome'. What is the metric being used? Is it mental health, physical health, level of education, wealth, material success, how often someone prays, how many followers they have on twitter? And then I think we need to ask if there are other family arrangements that can also result in desired outcomes. I think that questions like this are important to ask because we may have different definitions of what the best outcome is. Even amongst Christians, I would bet that you will find variation in answers to these questions.
I don't think this is a dodge. If you've define 'best outcome' as the outcome that most promotes and follows Christian values. . . . . then yes, traditional Christian values offer the best outcome. But, surely you see that the logic here is circular.
If I define 'best outcome' in terms of happiness or contentment or fulfillment, then there may be different values that offer the best result. At a minimum, people are different and may require different value inputs in order to achieve the 'best outcome' for that person.
Quote:
Is "transgenderism" when put into practice good? Ok? Bad?
Are traditional values when put into practice good? Ok? Bad?
Which produces better outcomes? Because they are not even close even subjectively.
I believe that I've covered these sufficiently above. If you disagree, let me know and I'll expand.
I have answered your questions to the best of my ability. If I've missed something please let me know and I'll be happy to respond to it.
