Transitioning teacher at St Francis de Sales episcopal school in Houston

15,420 Views | 220 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by Rongagin71
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

AGC said:


I'm glad you agree with me that we must help others navigate their decisions. There is wisdom with age that gets jettisoned otherwise. And to your next point, no, most often people don't understand what truly makes them happy. We have happiness in a moment and happiness in aggregate as the sum of choices. An example: the ironic paradox of how much freedom and choice modern women have relative to their great grandmothers, to pursue what makes them happy. Yet what we find is each successive generation is less happy.

According to your philosophy, we should ask them what they want and help them pursue it. Mine would be to ask their mothers and grandmothers what made them happy, and encourage a pursuit of that.

You would ask someone with body dysmorphia which limb they want cut off and help. I'd look at what they'd lose by doing so, and encourage them not to. Reality grounds us all and it is madness to fight it, no matter what the mind says about happiness. You can't be a tiger no matter what may make you happy, and the rest of society should not be burdened by your choices with the cost of healthcare and accommodation. The individual is not the building block of society.

Super late edit: as a Christian, happiness is not achievable apart from God. I should add that before I get to far. He is reality and existence.

I have a friend and coworker who came to the states from India about 10 years ago. As he has described to me, his family in India is very religious, but he follows a much less strict Hindu tradition. When he came to the states he struggled for some time and then again recently when his father passed and his mother has gotten very ill. He describes his beliefs as something that gives him a lot of strength and peace and something that helps him feel connected to his family.

Were I a Christian, would it be acceptable to be happy for him and be content that he has something in his life that gives him that peace? Or should I be distraught by him leaning into what I consider to be false belief?

Is there any value in the peace and connection that my friend feels?
What are reasonable limitations on assuming to know better than those that disagree with us?

Here is my hang-up with your post:
My friend believes something different from me. I could easily make the argument that believing in something that is false is never a positive. But I recognize that he does not believe it to be false and I recognize that it provides him with something positive in his life. The idea that I would tell him that I know better than him and that he ought to purse happiness in the exact same manner as me is not something I am comfortable with. It feels arrogant.

I see no issue with person 'A' navigating person 'B' toward what gives person 'A' happiness and peace and comfort. But if person 'A' is to demand that person 'B' follow the same path or is to diminish person 'B' for following a different path, then I worry that person 'A' is no longer primarily concerned with helping person 'B'. At what point is helping others navigate their decisions an altruistic exercise? And at what point is it an exercise in conceit?

Before objections are raised about comparisons between Hinduism and Transgenderism, I'm only trying to better understand your position on 'happiness' not achieved through Christianity.

Also, I never said anything about encouraging someone to cut off a limb. I don't think that is an honest account of a position I've taken.


I'd say we're conflating things of differing levels of gravity here. A materialist Hindu doesn't demand accommodation or affirmation in the same way: his religious practice is private and personal, not really lived out. Think Jordan Peterson toeing the line of theist each podcast before backing down. This isn't about gatekeeping everything that doesn't lead to ultimate happiness and unity with God.

As a friend you're not hands off, even if you disagree. We could go off on a tangent but yes, it's possible as a Christian to be friends with someone else and no, your ideas of happiness don't have to align for that, and no, you don't necessarily view everyone as a project you have to fix, and so on and so forth. Is there value to feeling peace? Might as well post the 'this is fine' meme. Obviously not if you feel peace and connection in the wrong circumstances, we often call that complacency.

The transgender argument is much closer to a spiritual argument because it rejects the empirical, verifiable world so many claim to preference, in favor of the ethereal (and materialists fall all over themselves for it every time).

Your limitations to knowledge are hard to engage with because you have a clear moral code you follow (changing with the times of course, as all men do, myself not excepted), all the while rejecting the ability to know better than others (or that they could know better, either). Best I can tell it's a, 'wherever you go there you are' type. Perhaps you can sum it up better. That's part of why we go in circles.

Cutting off a limb was simply to point out the difference in momentary or situational happiness and happiness in aggregate. A life well lived has its own happiness that cannot be quantified in a moment. Savvy?
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I did. They are not the same.
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is it possible to discuss something with this board without incurring judgment? I was under the impression we were to not get personal? If I present a side for discussion why rush to judgement that I have sold my soul to this or that and abandoned my faith?!

Let me rephrase it for you- I am reading that transgendered persons are NOT distinguishing between the mind and body. They have simply rejected the prior understanding that one simply has to look down to know their maleness or femaleness. Key to this understanding is that they distinguish between biological sex (assigned at birth) and gender (a social construct).

In fact they are seeking to align this mind-body self image through gender affirming procedures- some of which involve cosmetic surgery- most of which involves less intrusive methods- like testosterone or estrogen pills.

“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

Is it possible to discuss something with this board without incurring judgment? I was under the impression we were to not get personal? If I present a side for discussion why rush to judgement that I have sold my soul to this or that and abandoned my faith?!

Let me rephrase it for you- I am reading that transgendered persons are NOT distinguishing between the mind and body. They have simply rejected the prior understanding that one simply has to look down to know their maleness or femaleness. Key to this understanding is that they distinguish between biological sex (assigned at birth) and gender (a social construct).

In fact they are seeking to align this mind-body self image through gender affirming procedures- some of which involve cosmetic surgery- most of which involves less intrusive methods- like testosterone or estrogen pills.




Judgment? Personal? What? I don't understand how you got any of that from my post. If you don't understand what I'm asking that's fine.

How does one reject their own body as offering meaningful information about the mind but not treat it as distinct from the mind?
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ok, then I misunderstood the duality for me question.

However, I think I have presented how they rationalize this seemingly "duality" by working it from the mind to the body NOT the body to the mind.

They would say that the mind takes priority and the body conforms, so it would seem that they are seeking to be one in mind and body- even if the body is not biologically complete.

ETA: Pope Francis has come out against this "gender ideology" as he says seeks to cancel out our differences.
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

one MEEN Ag said:

PabloSerna said:

Zobel said:

She can go from being a flat-chested woman to a big-busted woman. She can't go from being a flat-chested woman to being a man.
By that logic, then a big-busted woman to a flat-chested woman is ok, right?
No this is not okay.
Why?
This was a middle school level joke that you teed up and didn't even realize it. Still haven't.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Saying something isn't the same isn't an answer. It's a yes or no question.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

Ok, then I misunderstood the duality for me question.

However, I think I have presented how they rationalize this seemingly "duality" by working it from the mind to the body NOT the body to the mind.

They would say that the mind takes priority and the body conforms, so it would seem that they are seeking to be one in mind and body- even if the body is not biologically complete.

ETA: Pope Francis has come out against this "gender ideology" as he says seeks to cancel out our differences.



You've sidestepped the question. Mind and body are unified and a complete experience. There is no you outside of your body as just a mind. That's part of what it means to be sacramental, it's participation in reality, there's a physical element to reality and to all of us, hence part of the importance of the incarnation. It doesn't matter which way you work: they're not separate, there can be no contradiction because there is only you.
Captain Pablo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

Ok, then I misunderstood the duality for me question.

However, I think I have presented how they rationalize this seemingly "duality" by working it from the mind to the body NOT the body to the mind.

They would say that the mind takes priority and the body conforms, so it would seem that they are seeking to be one in mind and body- even if the body is not biologically complete.

ETA: Pope Francis has come out against this "gender ideology" as he says seeks to cancel out our differences.



What does that mean? What differences is he seeking to "cancel out" and how is he going about doing it?
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

They are not seeking to have a sex- change operation. Gender affirming is along the lines of "-ness" as in maleness or femaleness.

I can recall a time when we had girls that we understood to be "tomboys" or boys that were "momma's boy"- all before they hit puberty it would seem.

If a person seeks to emphasize that aspect of themselves without changing their sex- why would some object?

It's not though. It's the belief that though born male, your gender is that of female (or other these days).

They by definition believe they can change their gender, either by just outright saying we need to call them a different gender or if they get surgery and take pills to look like the other gender.

The proof is in your second set of sentences.

Historically we've had no problem calling someone a momma's boy or tomgirl, etc...Now we are told that if someone is a momma's boy that may mean they are a female and should be referred to be she/her nouns. That is a material difference because we are now being told to lie to affirm someone's illness.

We should never do that.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pope is saying that modern "gender ideology" seeks to cancel out our differences (male and female) by disconnecting gender from biological sex. Gender in the RCC worldview is our "maleness" or "femaleness".

This is what he warning against.

He is right IMO.
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't know when it happened, but it did so in the past 10-15 years. Gender, according to some, is a "social construct" and not related to biological sex.

This, like many issues, becomes a war of words. I don't disagree with those that would draw the line, however, we have to maintain a dialogue or we will lose more than a few battles.
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
Captain Pablo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

Pope is saying that modern "gender ideology" seeks to cancel out our differences (male and female) by disconnecting gender from biological sex. Gender in the RCC worldview is our "maleness" or "femaleness".

This is what he warning against.

He is right IMO.


Seems like a no-brainer to me
Captain Pablo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

I don't know when it happened, but it did so in the past 10-15 years. Gender, according to some, is a "social construct" and not related to biological sex.

This, like many issues, becomes a war of words. I don't disagree with those that would draw the line, however, we have to maintain a dialogue or we will lose more than a few battles.


Good grief
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

I don't know when it happened, but it did so in the past 10-15 years. Gender, according to some, is a "social construct" and not related to biological sex.

This, like many issues, becomes a war of words. I don't disagree with those that would draw the line, however, we have to maintain a dialogue or we will lose more than a few battles.

It's not a war of words, but a war of man's ego, as it has always been.

Some have decided that they can play God and can alter God's creation.

With enough drugs and surgeries, man believes it can change "who" a person is that God created.

What is not is a war of words. Your side said that a man can become a woman. That a man cannot be feminine, but instead that's really a woman. Or a woman, who is masculine, is actually a man. That's a destruction of the concept of man and woman. There's a reason your side cannot define what a woman is.

So do we need to maintain dialogue? No we don't. Do we need to "study?" No we don't. The other side is in error. They are against God. There is no middle ground to be sought.

Either God is the God of all creation or man is God and has the power to create and change what God has given.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgLiving06 said:

PabloSerna said:

I don't know when it happened, but it did so in the past 10-15 years. Gender, according to some, is a "social construct" and not related to biological sex.

This, like many issues, becomes a war of words. I don't disagree with those that would draw the line, however, we have to maintain a dialogue or we will lose more than a few battles.

It's not a war of words, but a war of man's ego, as it has always been.

Some have decided that they can play God and can alter God's creation.

With enough drugs and surgeries, man believes it can change "who" a person is that God created.

What is not is a war of words. Your side said that a man can become a woman. That a man cannot be feminine, but instead that's really a woman. Or a woman, who is masculine, is actually a man. That's a destruction of the concept of man and woman. There's a reason your side cannot define what a woman is.

So do we need to maintain dialogue? No we don't. Do we need to "study?" No we don't. The other side is in error. They are against God. There is no middle ground to be sought.

Either God is the God of all creation or man is God and has the power to create and change what God has given.

In summary:

You are 100% unequivocally right, we are wrong, you don't need to entertain and listen to other ideas, God is on your team, and there should be no compromise. Also, apparently we are the ones that have an ego problem. . . .

Surely I'm not the only one that finds this all concerning, right?
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

AgLiving06 said:

PabloSerna said:

I don't know when it happened, but it did so in the past 10-15 years. Gender, according to some, is a "social construct" and not related to biological sex.

This, like many issues, becomes a war of words. I don't disagree with those that would draw the line, however, we have to maintain a dialogue or we will lose more than a few battles.

It's not a war of words, but a war of man's ego, as it has always been.

Some have decided that they can play God and can alter God's creation.

With enough drugs and surgeries, man believes it can change "who" a person is that God created.

What is not is a war of words. Your side said that a man can become a woman. That a man cannot be feminine, but instead that's really a woman. Or a woman, who is masculine, is actually a man. That's a destruction of the concept of man and woman. There's a reason your side cannot define what a woman is.

So do we need to maintain dialogue? No we don't. Do we need to "study?" No we don't. The other side is in error. They are against God. There is no middle ground to be sought.

Either God is the God of all creation or man is God and has the power to create and change what God has given.

In summary:

You are 100% unequivocally right, we are wrong, you don't need to entertain and listen to other ideas, God is on your team, and there should be no compromise. Also, apparently we are the ones that have an ego problem. . . .

Surely I'm not the only one that finds this all concerning, right?
Let's forget about us and think about the people doing this to themselves.

Do you think they are mentally ill? Do you think transitioning is the best thing for them long term? That should be our biggest concern in my opinion. What advice do you give them that you feel is in their best interests?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

kurt vonnegut said:



In summary:

You are 100% unequivocally right, we are wrong, you don't need to entertain and listen to other ideas, God is on your team, and there should be no compromise. Also, apparently we are the ones that have an ego problem. . . .

Surely I'm not the only one that finds this all concerning, right?
Let's forget about us and think about the people doing this to themselves.

Do you think they are mentally ill? Do you think transitioning is the best thing for them long term? That should be our biggest concern in my opinion. What advice do you give them that you feel is in their best interests?
I think we've been over this. I don't make the assumption that I know what is best for all people at all times and I'm content giving people some higher level of autonomy. Its wonderful for you that you have infallible knowledge and can tell people what they 'ought' to do.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

dermdoc said:

kurt vonnegut said:



In summary:

You are 100% unequivocally right, we are wrong, you don't need to entertain and listen to other ideas, God is on your team, and there should be no compromise. Also, apparently we are the ones that have an ego problem. . . .

Surely I'm not the only one that finds this all concerning, right?
Let's forget about us and think about the people doing this to themselves.

Do you think they are mentally ill? Do you think transitioning is the best thing for them long term? That should be our biggest concern in my opinion. What advice do you give them that you feel is in their best interests?
I think we've been over this. I don't make the assumption that I know what is best for all people at all times and I'm content giving people some higher level of autonomy. Its wonderful for you that you have infallible knowledge and can tell people what they 'ought' to do.


Well. as a doctor, that is my job, isn't it? And never said I have infallible knowledge.

You do not tell your kids what they ought to do?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

AgLiving06 said:

PabloSerna said:

I don't know when it happened, but it did so in the past 10-15 years. Gender, according to some, is a "social construct" and not related to biological sex.

This, like many issues, becomes a war of words. I don't disagree with those that would draw the line, however, we have to maintain a dialogue or we will lose more than a few battles.

It's not a war of words, but a war of man's ego, as it has always been.

Some have decided that they can play God and can alter God's creation.

With enough drugs and surgeries, man believes it can change "who" a person is that God created.

What is not is a war of words. Your side said that a man can become a woman. That a man cannot be feminine, but instead that's really a woman. Or a woman, who is masculine, is actually a man. That's a destruction of the concept of man and woman. There's a reason your side cannot define what a woman is.

So do we need to maintain dialogue? No we don't. Do we need to "study?" No we don't. The other side is in error. They are against God. There is no middle ground to be sought.

Either God is the God of all creation or man is God and has the power to create and change what God has given.

In summary:

You are 100% unequivocally right, we are wrong, you don't need to entertain and listen to other ideas, God is on your team, and there should be no compromise. Also, apparently we are the ones that have an ego problem. . . .

Surely I'm not the only one that finds this all concerning, right?


He's talking to someone who claims Christ so it's not said in a vacuum.

If humility rather than doubt is your approach to knowledge, then what he posited is easily reconcilable and reasonable. You're not you outside of your body is the null hypothesis.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A larger question is that if there is no absolute right or wrong, how can I as a doc give anyone advice that I think is "good" for them
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

kurt vonnegut said:

dermdoc said:

kurt vonnegut said:



In summary:

You are 100% unequivocally right, we are wrong, you don't need to entertain and listen to other ideas, God is on your team, and there should be no compromise. Also, apparently we are the ones that have an ego problem. . . .

Surely I'm not the only one that finds this all concerning, right?
Let's forget about us and think about the people doing this to themselves.

Do you think they are mentally ill? Do you think transitioning is the best thing for them long term? That should be our biggest concern in my opinion. What advice do you give them that you feel is in their best interests?
I think we've been over this. I don't make the assumption that I know what is best for all people at all times and I'm content giving people some higher level of autonomy. Its wonderful for you that you have infallible knowledge and can tell people what they 'ought' to do.
Well. as a doctor, that is my job, isn't it? And never said I have infallible knowledge.

You do not tell your kids what they ought to do?

If I had a serious medical concern, I would be inclined to see multiple doctors and get multiple opinions and recommendations. And once I've gathered this information and listened to the advice of multiple professionals, I would make a decision based on what I think is best for me. Your medical degree and license does not overrule the fact that its still a personal decision. Personally, I would discard any doctor who gave me medical advice in the form of:

Quote:

So do we need to maintain dialogue? No we don't. Do we need to "study?" No we don't. The other side is in error. They are against God. There is no middle ground to be sought.


Unless you entertain the possibility of being wrong, then what would you call it if not infallibility?

Yes, I tell my kids what they ought to do. And when they are all grown up, I'll stop telling them what they 'ought' to do. I'll still offer my opinion, but its no longer my decision.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

A larger question is that if there is no absolute right or wrong, how can I as a doc give anyone advice that I think is "good" for them

This is super easy . . . . you say "It is my professional opinion that it would be best to have that mole removed." instead of "It is a fact that you must have that mole removed and any contradictory opinions are simply objectively wrong and against God."

My guess is that you offer advice to patients all the time in the form of 'here is what I think is best. . . . .' - which is inherently a subjective statement.
Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

dermdoc said:

kurt vonnegut said:

dermdoc said:

kurt vonnegut said:



In summary:

You are 100% unequivocally right, we are wrong, you don't need to entertain and listen to other ideas, God is on your team, and there should be no compromise. Also, apparently we are the ones that have an ego problem. . . .

Surely I'm not the only one that finds this all concerning, right?
Let's forget about us and think about the people doing this to themselves.

Do you think they are mentally ill? Do you think transitioning is the best thing for them long term? That should be our biggest concern in my opinion. What advice do you give them that you feel is in their best interests?
I think we've been over this. I don't make the assumption that I know what is best for all people at all times and I'm content giving people some higher level of autonomy. Its wonderful for you that you have infallible knowledge and can tell people what they 'ought' to do.
Well. as a doctor, that is my job, isn't it? And never said I have infallible knowledge.

You do not tell your kids what they ought to do?

If I had a serious medical concern, I would be inclined to see multiple doctors and get multiple opinions and recommendations. And once I've gathered this information and listened to the advice of multiple professionals, I would make a decision based on what I think is best for me. Your medical degree and license does not overrule the fact that its still a personal decision. Personally, I would discard any doctor who gave me medical advice in the form of:

Quote:

So do we need to maintain dialogue? No we don't. Do we need to "study?" No we don't. The other side is in error. They are against God. There is no middle ground to be sought.


Unless you entertain the possibility of being wrong, then what would you call it if not infallibility?

Yes, I tell my kids what they ought to do. And when they are all grown up, I'll stop telling them what they 'ought' to do. I'll still offer my opinion, but its no longer my decision.



To entertain the possibility of being wrong is an acknowledgement of objective truth anyway. If you go to the ER because your arm was severed and all 5 doctors told you that in their opinion your arm was in perfect working order, that's wrong. There can be differences in opinion about what the best course of action is, but all their recommendations should be in furtherance of curing whatever malady. We should all agree there IS something WRONG that needs to be cured. We know when a body is unhealthy because we know what it means to be healthy. Once you start calling healthy people sick and sick people healthy, that's bad.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bob Lee said:

kurt vonnegut said:

dermdoc said:

kurt vonnegut said:

dermdoc said:

kurt vonnegut said:



In summary:

You are 100% unequivocally right, we are wrong, you don't need to entertain and listen to other ideas, God is on your team, and there should be no compromise. Also, apparently we are the ones that have an ego problem. . . .

Surely I'm not the only one that finds this all concerning, right?
Let's forget about us and think about the people doing this to themselves.

Do you think they are mentally ill? Do you think transitioning is the best thing for them long term? That should be our biggest concern in my opinion. What advice do you give them that you feel is in their best interests?
I think we've been over this. I don't make the assumption that I know what is best for all people at all times and I'm content giving people some higher level of autonomy. Its wonderful for you that you have infallible knowledge and can tell people what they 'ought' to do.
Well. as a doctor, that is my job, isn't it? And never said I have infallible knowledge.

You do not tell your kids what they ought to do?

If I had a serious medical concern, I would be inclined to see multiple doctors and get multiple opinions and recommendations. And once I've gathered this information and listened to the advice of multiple professionals, I would make a decision based on what I think is best for me. Your medical degree and license does not overrule the fact that its still a personal decision. Personally, I would discard any doctor who gave me medical advice in the form of:

Quote:

So do we need to maintain dialogue? No we don't. Do we need to "study?" No we don't. The other side is in error. They are against God. There is no middle ground to be sought.


Unless you entertain the possibility of being wrong, then what would you call it if not infallibility?

Yes, I tell my kids what they ought to do. And when they are all grown up, I'll stop telling them what they 'ought' to do. I'll still offer my opinion, but its no longer my decision.



To entertain the possibility of being wrong is an acknowledgement of objective truth anyway. If you go to the ER because your arm was severed and all 5 doctors told you that in their opinion your arm was in perfect working order, that's wrong. There can be differences in opinion about what the best course of action is, but all their recommendations should be in furtherance of curing whatever malady. We should all agree there IS something WRONG that needs to be cured. We know when a body is unhealthy because we know what it means to be healthy. Once you start calling healthy people sick and sick people healthy, that's bad.
Romans 1 sums this up nicely. There is nothing new under the sun.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201&version=NIV
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Captain Pablo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Are we still arguing over whether gender is related to biological sex?


kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bob Lee said:


To entertain the possibility of being wrong is an acknowledgement of objective truth anyway. If you go to the ER because your arm was severed and all 5 doctors told you that in their opinion your arm was in perfect working order, that's wrong. There can be differences in opinion about what the best course of action is, but all their recommendations should be in furtherance of curing whatever malady. We should all agree there IS something WRONG that needs to be cured. We know when a body is unhealthy because we know what it means to be healthy. Once you start calling healthy people sick and sick people healthy, that's bad.

If the claim is "Value 'x' is objectively good and value 'y' is objectively bad." Then entertaining the possibility of being wrong is only acknowledging that your value system can be objectively right or wrong. . . . not that value systems must be cosmically / universally objective.

In other words, the objective truth about reality could be that value systems are simply subjective. At least, that is how I see it and I'm open to being wrong.

My position with gender dysphoria is that the dysphoria is a condition in need of resolution. We disagree on the acceptable range and types of resolution. But, its not my desire to encourage dysphoria as a goal. Nor is it my position to define an objective goal that everyone must pursue.

--------------

Lets say you went to the ER with a severed arm and all 5 doctors acknowledged the problem. Some of the doctors say they would not reattach your arm and that you would need a prosthetic while the other 2 doctors said they felt they could reattach the arm but it would be somewhat limited or have potential for long-term complications. We all agree that there is a problem and that resolution is needed. But, what is the objectively correct solution?

Now, lets say that it is my personal religious belief that prosthetic limbs are mockery of the human form created by the God that I worship. How do you feel about me telling you that you must choose to have your arm reattached even though it may cause you complications later in life? Wouldn't you want to decide for yourself?



dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

Bob Lee said:


To entertain the possibility of being wrong is an acknowledgement of objective truth anyway. If you go to the ER because your arm was severed and all 5 doctors told you that in their opinion your arm was in perfect working order, that's wrong. There can be differences in opinion about what the best course of action is, but all their recommendations should be in furtherance of curing whatever malady. We should all agree there IS something WRONG that needs to be cured. We know when a body is unhealthy because we know what it means to be healthy. Once you start calling healthy people sick and sick people healthy, that's bad.

If the claim is "Value 'x' is objectively good and value 'y' is objectively bad." Then entertaining the possibility of being wrong is only acknowledging that your value system can be objectively right or wrong. . . . not that value systems must be cosmically / universally objective.

In other words, the objective truth about reality could be that value systems are simply subjective. At least, that is how I see it and I'm open to being wrong.

My position with gender dysphoria is that the dysphoria is a condition in need of resolution. We disagree on the acceptable range and types of resolution. But, its not my desire to encourage dysphoria as a goal. Nor is it my position to define an objective goal that everyone must pursue.

--------------

Lets say you went to the ER with a severed arm and all 5 doctors acknowledged the problem. Some of the doctors say they would not reattach your arm and that you would need a prosthetic while the other 2 doctors said they felt they could reattach the arm but it would be somewhat limited or have potential for long-term complications. We all agree that there is a problem and that resolution is needed. But, what is the objectively correct solution?

Now, lets say that it is my personal religious belief that prosthetic limbs are mockery of the human form created by the God that I worship. How do you feel about me telling you that you must choose to have your arm reattached even though it may cause you complications later in life? Wouldn't you want to decide for yourself?






To me, that is totally different than cutting perfectly working organs you were born with.
That is mental illness.
Your case is not.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

Bob Lee said:


To entertain the possibility of being wrong is an acknowledgement of objective truth anyway. If you go to the ER because your arm was severed and all 5 doctors told you that in their opinion your arm was in perfect working order, that's wrong. There can be differences in opinion about what the best course of action is, but all their recommendations should be in furtherance of curing whatever malady. We should all agree there IS something WRONG that needs to be cured. We know when a body is unhealthy because we know what it means to be healthy. Once you start calling healthy people sick and sick people healthy, that's bad.

If the claim is "Value 'x' is objectively good and value 'y' is objectively bad." Then entertaining the possibility of being wrong is only acknowledging that your value system can be objectively right or wrong. . . . not that value systems must be cosmically / universally objective.

In other words, the objective truth about reality could be that value systems are simply subjective. At least, that is how I see it and I'm open to being wrong.

My position with gender dysphoria is that the dysphoria is a condition in need of resolution. We disagree on the acceptable range and types of resolution. But, its not my desire to encourage dysphoria as a goal. Nor is it my position to define an objective goal that everyone must pursue.

--------------

Lets say you went to the ER with a severed arm and all 5 doctors acknowledged the problem. Some of the doctors say they would not reattach your arm and that you would need a prosthetic while the other 2 doctors said they felt they could reattach the arm but it would be somewhat limited or have potential for long-term complications. We all agree that there is a problem and that resolution is needed. But, what is the objectively correct solution?

Now, lets say that it is my personal religious belief that prosthetic limbs are mockery of the human form created by the God that I worship. How do you feel about me telling you that you must choose to have your arm reattached even though it may cause you complications later in life? Wouldn't you want to decide for yourself?





But we should all agree in the case of your chipped tooth, that the tooth is chipped. If you did nothing, no one would think your tooth is supposed to be chipped.

In the case of the treatment options for the arm, all 5 doctors can correctly diagnose that there's not an arm where there should be an arm. If one of the doctors claims you weren't supposed to have an arm, we can know that guy is a delusional crazy person.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kurt vonnegut said:

Bob Lee said:


To entertain the possibility of being wrong is an acknowledgement of objective truth anyway. If you go to the ER because your arm was severed and all 5 doctors told you that in their opinion your arm was in perfect working order, that's wrong. There can be differences in opinion about what the best course of action is, but all their recommendations should be in furtherance of curing whatever malady. We should all agree there IS something WRONG that needs to be cured. We know when a body is unhealthy because we know what it means to be healthy. Once you start calling healthy people sick and sick people healthy, that's bad.

If the claim is "Value 'x' is objectively good and value 'y' is objectively bad." Then entertaining the possibility of being wrong is only acknowledging that your value system can be objectively right or wrong. . . . not that value systems must be cosmically / universally objective.

In other words, the objective truth about reality could be that value systems are simply subjective. At least, that is how I see it and I'm open to being wrong.

My position with gender dysphoria is that the dysphoria is a condition in need of resolution. We disagree on the acceptable range and types of resolution. But, its not my desire to encourage dysphoria as a goal. Nor is it my position to define an objective goal that everyone must pursue.

--------------

Lets say you went to the ER with a severed arm and all 5 doctors acknowledged the problem. Some of the doctors say they would not reattach your arm and that you would need a prosthetic while the other 2 doctors said they felt they could reattach the arm but it would be somewhat limited or have potential for long-term complications. We all agree that there is a problem and that resolution is needed. But, what is the objectively correct solution?

Now, lets say that it is my personal religious belief that prosthetic limbs are mockery of the human form created by the God that I worship. How do you feel about me telling you that you must choose to have your arm reattached even though it may cause you complications later in life? Wouldn't you want to decide for yourself?





Two primary problems.

You want to avoid objective truth as a concept. We as a society cannot operate in that way. If we cannot objectively agree that a man cannot become a woman, then there's no middle ground. Objective standards matter. You seemingly realize this is a problem so you immediately went to the "I don't presume to know x or y" because you know when objective standards are applied, there's truly a right and wrong.

But further, your analogies to medical stuff have both been insufficient and wrong.

First, lets talk removing a mole. We can gladly concede that there could be subjectivity around removing a mole. Maybe a doctor things it's cancerous, and maybe another says it's not. What removing the mole does not do is lead to the conclusion that with the removal of the mole, you're suddenly a different person.

Which leads to the second issue above. The proper analogy would be for someone to go to a doctor and say their arm, that is attached to their body, isn't meant to be attached to their body. We of course diagnose this the same way we used to diagnose gender dysmorphia as an illness.

So for your analogy to work with transgenderism, you need to say that a person goes to 5 doctors and says, this is not my arm. Objectively they can all agree that is your arm. It's attached naturally, blood flows, etc. Then you have another doctor come up and say "well if he says that's not his arm, we should probably remove it because he says that's not his arm."

Even then though, it doesn't work. Yes he's an amputee now by definition, but that's a description of his physical characteristic.

So are you claiming that to be a woman is simply to have physical characteristics? I hope not. Being a woman or man, is so much more than an outward physical traits. A woman, can be an amputee or not, same for a man. That doesn't change who they are.

So what your arguments boil down to is that we can through surgery and pills, under change the physical appearance of a person and thereby change their gender. It's about as shallow and egotistical as we can get. To think we can play God, because that's all it is in the end. Thinking we have total control over ourselves.

dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgLiving06 said:

kurt vonnegut said:

Bob Lee said:


To entertain the possibility of being wrong is an acknowledgement of objective truth anyway. If you go to the ER because your arm was severed and all 5 doctors told you that in their opinion your arm was in perfect working order, that's wrong. There can be differences in opinion about what the best course of action is, but all their recommendations should be in furtherance of curing whatever malady. We should all agree there IS something WRONG that needs to be cured. We know when a body is unhealthy because we know what it means to be healthy. Once you start calling healthy people sick and sick people healthy, that's bad.

If the claim is "Value 'x' is objectively good and value 'y' is objectively bad." Then entertaining the possibility of being wrong is only acknowledging that your value system can be objectively right or wrong. . . . not that value systems must be cosmically / universally objective.

In other words, the objective truth about reality could be that value systems are simply subjective. At least, that is how I see it and I'm open to being wrong.

My position with gender dysphoria is that the dysphoria is a condition in need of resolution. We disagree on the acceptable range and types of resolution. But, its not my desire to encourage dysphoria as a goal. Nor is it my position to define an objective goal that everyone must pursue.

--------------

Lets say you went to the ER with a severed arm and all 5 doctors acknowledged the problem. Some of the doctors say they would not reattach your arm and that you would need a prosthetic while the other 2 doctors said they felt they could reattach the arm but it would be somewhat limited or have potential for long-term complications. We all agree that there is a problem and that resolution is needed. But, what is the objectively correct solution?

Now, lets say that it is my personal religious belief that prosthetic limbs are mockery of the human form created by the God that I worship. How do you feel about me telling you that you must choose to have your arm reattached even though it may cause you complications later in life? Wouldn't you want to decide for yourself?





Two primary problems.

You want to avoid objective truth as a concept. We as a society cannot operate in that way. If we cannot objectively agree that a man cannot become a woman, then there's no middle ground. Objective standards matter. You seemingly realize this is a problem so you immediately went to the "I don't presume to know x or y" because you know when objective standards are applied, there's truly a right and wrong.

But further, your analogies to medical stuff have both been insufficient and wrong.

First, lets talk removing a mole. We can gladly concede that there could be subjectivity around removing a mole. Maybe a doctor things it's cancerous, and maybe another says it's not. What removing the mole does not do is lead to the conclusion that with the removal of the mole, you're suddenly a different person.

Which leads to the second issue above. The proper analogy would be for someone to go to a doctor and say their arm, that is attached to their body, isn't meant to be attached to their body. We of course diagnose this the same way we used to diagnose gender dysmorphia as an illness.

So for your analogy to work with transgenderism, you need to say that a person goes to 5 doctors and says, this is not my arm. Objectively they can all agree that is your arm. It's attached naturally, blood flows, etc. Then you have another doctor come up and say "well if he says that's not his arm, we should probably remove it because he says that's not his arm."

Even then though, it doesn't work. Yes he's an amputee now by definition, but that's a description of his physical characteristic.

So are you claiming that to be a woman is simply to have physical characteristics? I hope not. Being a woman or man, is so much more than an outward physical traits. A woman, can be an amputee or not, same for a man. That doesn't change who they are.

So what your arguments boil down to is that we can through surgery and pills, under change the physical appearance of a person and thereby change their gender. It's about as shallow and egotistical as we can get. To think we can play God, because that's all it is in the end. Thinking we have total control over ourselves.


Good post. And body dysmorphia has long been recognized as mental illness.

And should we not tell a schizophrenic they are mentally ill?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgLiving06 said:



Two primary problems.

You want to avoid objective truth as a concept. We as a society cannot operate in that way. If we cannot objectively agree that a man cannot become a woman, then there's no middle ground. Objective standards matter. You seemingly realize this is a problem so you immediately went to the "I don't presume to know x or y" because you know when objective standards are applied, there's truly a right and wrong.

But further, your analogies to medical stuff have both been insufficient and wrong.

First, lets talk removing a mole. We can gladly concede that there could be subjectivity around removing a mole. Maybe a doctor things it's cancerous, and maybe another says it's not. What removing the mole does not do is lead to the conclusion that with the removal of the mole, you're suddenly a different person.

Which leads to the second issue above. The proper analogy would be for someone to go to a doctor and say their arm, that is attached to their body, isn't meant to be attached to their body. We of course diagnose this the same way we used to diagnose gender dysmorphia as an illness.

So for your analogy to work with transgenderism, you need to say that a person goes to 5 doctors and says, this is not my arm. Objectively they can all agree that is your arm. It's attached naturally, blood flows, etc. Then you have another doctor come up and say "well if he says that's not his arm, we should probably remove it because he says that's not his arm."

Even then though, it doesn't work. Yes he's an amputee now by definition, but that's a description of his physical characteristic.

So are you claiming that to be a woman is simply to have physical characteristics? I hope not. Being a woman or man, is so much more than an outward physical traits. A woman, can be an amputee or not, same for a man. That doesn't change who they are.

So what your arguments boil down to is that we can through surgery and pills, under change the physical appearance of a person and thereby change their gender. It's about as shallow and egotistical as we can get. To think we can play God, because that's all it is in the end. Thinking we have total control over ourselves.

I'm avoiding objective truth in the context of some universal or God-given concept because I don't think its verifiable. You are correct that societies need objective standards to operate, but in all cases, those standards are set up by people.

These man made objective standards can be useful. For example, as a society we set objective 'rights' and 'wrongs' around behavior where it concerns safety for people and property. But, there are other instances where our society does not establish objective standards. As a society, have we decided that eating pork is objectively wrong? No, of course not. Some individuals may hold that belief while others do not, but there is no established and enforced objective societal standard about the rightness or wrongness of eating pork. It is permissible to either eat pork or abstain from it. This is sorta a 'middle ground' where people agree to disagree and respect each other's decision to eat or not eat pork.

I went with the severed arm analogy because that was what Bob used. If you think its an insufficient analogy, thats between you two.

If a better analogy is one where a person wishes to remove their own arm, then we can go with that. In the case of a person who feels that they have been wrongly armed and wish to remove an arm, why would you oppose permitting them to go through with that procedure? (For the record, I'm not saying we should remove their arm - but, I want to understand your reasoning).

No, I haven't supported the position that being a woman is simply a matter of physical characteristics. Nor have I taken the position that we can, with surgery and pills, change a persons' appearance and gender. Rather, I've taken the position that this issue (to some extent) can fall under the category of not needing defined societal 'right' and 'wrong'.

I say 'to some extent', because I think there are places where standards are needed. For example, I don't think a trans woman should be permitted to compete in women's sports. I think doing so fundamentally undermines the reason why men's and women's sports are separated. But, as it relates to how someone thinks of themselves or whether they want to change how they look, I still say its not my business.

I understand why you might think of someone affirming their gender dysphoria as 'playing God' and why you see that as arrogant. But, I would say that to presume that one speaks for God and that it is their place to inflict God's will onto others is far more arrogant.

If God doesn't want people to take hormone pills and get surgeries, then maybe He should say something. I'll listen to God.
Captain Pablo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What about kids? You ok with laws prohibiting surgical and chemical gender affirmation procedures on kids under 18?

Also, you say it's none of your business. And Serna says nobody is asking for approval. But that's not true, is it? What about adverse employment or academic consequences for not referring to biological males as "she, her, woman, etc". Seems like your side is MAKING it everyone's business, with consequences for non-compliance

What about that, huh?
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Captain Pablo said:

What about kids? You ok with laws prohibiting surgical and chemical gender affirmation procedures on kids under 18?

Also, you say it's none of your business. And Serna says nobody is asking for approval. But that's not true, is it? What about adverse employment or academic consequences for not referring to biological males as "she, her, woman, etc". Seems like your side is MAKING it everyone's business, with consequences for non-compliance

What about that, huh?

I'm totally in favor of limitations on hormone treatment and procedures for kids below a certain age. 18 seems reasonable. I expect there could be debate about the nuts and bolts of those prohibitions, which is fine.

Its not my intention to force anyone to use pronouns they disagree with. And schools and companies should not be punished for using the 'wrong' pronoun unless its done for the purposes of harassment or to antagonize. What is wrong with they / them? I understand why the pronoun debate matters to both sides, but it also feels like both sides are being a bit stubborn.

Captain Pablo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

Captain Pablo said:

What about kids? You ok with laws prohibiting surgical and chemical gender affirmation procedures on kids under 18?

Also, you say it's none of your business. And Serna says nobody is asking for approval. But that's not true, is it? What about adverse employment or academic consequences for not referring to biological males as "she, her, woman, etc". Seems like your side is MAKING it everyone's business, with consequences for non-compliance

What about that, huh?

I'm totally in favor of limitations on hormone treatment and procedures for kids below a certain age. 18 seems reasonable. I expect there could be debate about the nuts and bolts of those prohibitions, which is fine.

Its not my intention to force anyone to use pronouns they disagree with. And schools and companies should not be punished for using the 'wrong' pronoun unless its done for the purposes of harassment or to antagonize. What is wrong with they / them? I understand why the pronoun debate matters to both sides, but it also feels like both sides are being a bit stubborn.




"They/them" referring to an individual isn't even friggin' English, is one problem

Also, even if it is English, the problem is punishment for not playing the COMPULSORY game of referring to someone as something they're not.

The whole live and let live, they just want to live their lives and be happy, nobody is insisting on approval, etc that your side uses is a lie
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.