The Proclamation and Rugby: Developments in the Latter as a Reality Check on the Former

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

My daughter’s solution is to stop having male/female sports and instead have divisions based on ability and weight.  Since they can now test muscle mass easily, that could be another. 

That might be possible, but from what I've read the only way to accurately measure muscle mass is through dissection.  There are a few different ways that we currently use to try to determine muscle mass but it sounds like all of them are based on different types of assumptions about the way a body might be put together based on weight/fat/etc. and none of them are believed to be completely accurate.

Maybe they are accurate enough to make it fair; it would be interesting to see studies on it.  It sounds like there's a high degree of error depending on who is doing the measuring, and that the outcomes of such measurements are also highly subjective, which might make things more volatile in high school sports, not less, though.  

[alter idem]

I think having mens and womens sports was working out just fine.  There was a reason for it, it wasn't broke and didn't need to be fixed.  With men playing in women's sports now, I don't see a reason for even having separate women's sports.  If they effectively destroy women's sports they should just discontinue them.  They can have men's sports and trangender sports. imo.

[strappinglad]

This seems like a case of straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel. Society wants to go into all sorts of contortions to accommodate a tiny group . 

14 minutes ago, alter idem said:

They can have men's sports and trangender sports. imo.

Once again, the women would get the short end of the stick." Politics ruins everything " ( must be why it is not allowed here . 😝 )

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

That might be possible, but from what I've read the only way to accurately measure muscle mass is through dissection.  There are a few different ways that we currently use to try to determine muscle mass but it sounds like all of them are based on different types of assumptions about the way a body might be put together based on weight/fat/etc. and none of them are believed to be completely accurate.

Maybe they are accurate enough to make it fair; it would be interesting to see studies on it.  It sounds like there's a high degree of error depending on who is doing the measuring, and that the outcomes of such measurements are also highly subjective, which might make things more volatile in high school sports, not less, though.  

That is a whole lot of effort in order to play a game. I think in this example there is a difference between intramural sports and university competitions. I have little interest in seeing, at best, mediocre college sports teams play, much less those who perform even less competitively.  

I would still go back to the norm without any interference from trans desires - I know that sounds harsh. However, I think it would be completely different if a trans individual played and was always at the bottom. I generally find that I am against the tail wagging the entire dog. Intramural sports should be open to everyone and competitive sports should be open to both male and female who are actually male and female from birth.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

There are a few different ways that we currently use to try to determine muscle mass but it sounds like all of them are based on different types of assumptions about the way a body might be put together based on weight/fat/etc. and none of them are believed to be completely accurate.

You are probably more accurate. It is not something I have researched and was just reporting on how my husband has report his weight loss efforts. The last few times he reported he has finally gone up in muscle mass. 
 

So would depend on how that is done. They may need to combine a few things. Since suppressing testosterone for 12 months doesn’t appear to have much effect on muscle mass, (and it is ridiculous to suppress it only to twice as high as higher end levels of women who have sexual anomalies, iirc the cut off level for women was at 5 units where now for transgender women it is 10 units for 12 months) etc. something besides that would need to be found...probably a combination of things. 

Edited September 30, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, alter idem said:

I think having mens and womens sports was working out just fine.  There was a reason for it, it wasn't broke and didn't need to be fixed.  With men playing in women's sports now, I don't see a reason for even having separate women's sports.  If they effectively destroy women's sports they should just discontinue them.  They can have men's sports and trangender sports. imo.

I think there is great benefit to having biological sex divided sports and physical activities, imo specially after seeing my younger brother and son bond with friends during these activities. There is a unique experience of working as sisters/brothers (using these in secular terms) that occurs,‘physical team work and competition can be a very positive arena for personal and social growth. (I do think the competition aspect has been carried to  very unhealthy limits though in some sports).

I also think there could be big benefits from having open sports as well, but much less so as a replacement. 
 

There have always been those excluded from participating, sometimes this has been irrational (race), other times not (amateur sports not allowing professionals).  In this case, I see a number of problems created by allowing trans individuals to participate in their chosen sex category.  While there are many areas of discrimination where the level harm is high enough (housing, job, safety can be issues of life and death) protection and equal treatment should be mandated, sports are a voluntary activity and therefore should not be treated as automatic. Instead costs and benefits for everyone should be measured. I think the potential of harm done to the significantly larger number of biological women, both for safety (broken bones do have a huge negative impact on a professional athlete’s career...injury could destroy it or leave permanent damage) and for fairness in participating in an activity outweigh the benefit of enjoyment of participating and competing in a sport with others one emotionally and mentally identify with. It is not a matter of life or death to not be able to compete in a weightlifting or soccer event.  Playing in a sport is a luxury in the sense if we can live full lives without it, even if for some the absence would lower the quality of life. Injury is a risk all sports players need to accept if they want to play, but limiting that risk so as not to be more commonplace is intelligent and reasonable. 

I realize that there are biological women that through anomalies are given physical advantages and there have been questions in the past about whether this is fair and if they should be excluded for not being feminine enough. I do think there is a fundamental difference in how one behaves if one has as a child and youth and young adult played among males or females.  Kids learn how not to injure each other while playing as well as in sports when young. This behavior is probably pretty much instinctual by the time one hits adulthood and and it is likely difficult to alter it during fast paced, high intensity physical activity.  This may change over time if we start having more coed sports as youth, but at this point even with good intentions of trying not to injure others, I do think experience as a kid playing among boys and young men is going to make a difference  I think of how my niece required surgery because she snapped her leg just by jamming it into the ground to stop a fall when she lost her balance and this ridiculous injury was due to hormonal changes because she was pregnant and it seems to me we need to have respect for the limits biology puts on our bodies and not assume by adjusting chemistry even for a few years, that is somehow going to counteract how nature has been structuring the strengths and abilities since conception.

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by Calm

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I agree with Cal's post.  I think it's excellent, and that's why I repped it.  However, my question isn't really about who gets to decide.  I agree with you that it's medical professionals' job to provide patients with alternatives and with as much information about the benefits, drawbacks, risks, likelihood of success, and so on of each alternative, while, ultimately, the task of opting for any particular course of treatment rests with consumers.  Rather, my question, again, is: Regardless of how the decision is made, how far does the alter-the-body-to-protect-the-psyche-position go?

 

I think that your question can only be answered by the individual, not society.  I personally have zero desire to alter any part of my body.  I don't even like tattoos or piercings.  Should others be able to decide whether a person has a nose job or a breast implant or any other cosmetic  work done? I think I and others have zero say in those decisions others might make.  Those decisions are only between the patient the doctor that is willing to do the surgery.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I think that your question can only be answered by the individual, not society.  I personally have zero desire to alter any part of my body.  I don't even like tattoos or piercings.  Should others be able to decide whether a person has a nose job or a breast implant or any other cosmetic  work done? I think I and others have zero say in those decisions others might make.  Those decisions are only between the patient the doctor that is willing to do the surgery.

I don't like tattoos or piercings either.  They might look pretty cool ... on someone else.  (I've given my share of "Nice tat" compliments ... piercings, I don't get.)  [That is to say, I don't understand them. ])  You're right: Ultimately, it's the responsibility of the person, in consultation with hopefully-competent medical authority, to determine what medical treatment is indicated in that person's case, but, while I don't have any "hard" numbers, I think the incidence of "buyers remorse" is quite high.  This is what you, and your treating professional(s) think is the best course of action now: That might be true tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year.  Are you sure that will still be the case five years from now?  Ten?  Twenty?  Fifty?  It seems, in many cases, to be a permanent solution for what turns out to be a temporary problem.  Hell, if I had a dime for every time I felt like a nice game of Russian Roulette would solve my problems ... (No, I'm not going to do anything drastic.  Sigh.)

[Calm]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Those decisions are only between the patient the doctor that is willing to do the surgery.

Personally I think there should be a code of ethics establishing basic guidelines as I see no reason to not assume doctors can be as greedy as the next guy and therefore approve treatments that put money in their pocket without a corresponding benefit to the patient.  Still the doctors making medical decisions in conjunction with the patient, not politicians or insurance companies or lawyers as long as there is competence.

Unfortunately I think there has been a lot of politics and cultural influence on medical standards over the years rather than looking at the best science has to offer first and foremost and then seeing that in the context of the morality of the society the patient lives in.

Edited October 1, 2020 by Calm

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 9/29/2020 at 1:35 PM, smac97 said:

I think it might.  What was predominantly uncontroversial and beyond dispute in 1995 is hugely controversial and heavily disputed in 2020.

Many of the points made in The Proclamation seemed, at the time, axiomatic.  And yet here were are, 25 years later, having big debates about them, with all sorts of real-world ramifications arising from them.  

Hindsight being 20/20, the Proclamation now seems prescient.  It anticipated and addressed fundamental issues about family, gender, etc. that would end up becoming much more prominent in the future.  Whether that amounts to the Brethren being "prophetic" is, in the end, a question of faith.

Yes, it does not "necessarily lead" to that conclusion.  

But having The Proclamation as a benchmark has, for me, helped clarify fundamental issues that are, in the end, left to each individual to address.

I have a lot of compassion and sympathy for people who have gender dysphoria.

Thanks

-Smac

Indeed it was “Prophetic”, as it addressed much more than just marriage, for now, it is also addressing issues that are part of both the mainstream debate, and fringe arguments concerning “gender”, and the “Eternal Role”, it plays in “life“, and “life everlasting”. I think making clear and answering the questions, when all are raised in the “Eternities”, they will be raised into the gender to which they were born, eternally. This document is “Prophetic”, and is “Doctrine”, and should be made a part of our “Canon of Scriptures”. My 2 cents anyway.    

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Regardless of how the decision is made, how far does the alter-the-body-to-protect-the-psyche-position go?

[Kenngo1969]

I'm sure he has achieved an outward appearance that is entirely consistent with his internal self-image and, hence, now is perfectly contented, and will remain so for the (perhaps decades long) remainder of his mortal sojourn here on earth.  What more could anyone ask?  I congratulate him on having achieved those goals, and wish him well.

[alter idem]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

I think there is great benefit to having biological sex divided sports and physical activities, imo specially after seeing my younger brother and son bond with friends during these activities. There is a unique experience of working as sisters/brothers (using these in secular terms) that occurs,‘physical team work and competition can be a very positive arena for personal and social growth. (I do think the competition aspect has been carried to  very unhealthy limits though in some sports).

I also think there could be big benefits from having open sports as well, but much less so as a replacement. 
 

There have always been those excluded from participating, sometimes this has been irrational (race), other times not (amateur sports not allowing professionals).  In this case, I see a number of problems created by allowing trans individuals to participate in their chosen sex category.  While there are many areas of discrimination where the level harm is high enough (housing, job, safety can be issues of life and death) protection and equal treatment should be mandated, sports are a voluntary activity and therefore should not be treated as automatic. Instead costs and benefits for everyone should be measured. I think the potential of harm done to the significantly larger number of biological women, both for safety (broken bones do have a huge negative impact on a professional athlete’s career...injury could destroy it or leave permanent damage) and for fairness in participating in an activity outweigh the benefit of enjoyment of participating and competing in a sport with others one emotionally and mentally identify with. It is not a matter of life or death to not be able to compete in a weightlifting or soccer event.  Playing in a sport is a luxury in the sense if we can live full lives without it, even if for some the absence would lower the quality of life. Injury is a risk all sports players need to accept if they want to play, but limiting that risk so as not to be more commonplace is intelligent and reasonable. 

I realize that there are biological women that through anomalies are given physical advantages and there have been questions in the past about whether this is fair and if they should be excluded for not being feminine enough. I do think there is a fundamental difference in how one behaves if one has as a child and youth and young adult played among males or females.  Kids learn how not to injure each other while playing as well as in sports when young. This behavior is probably pretty much instinctual by the time one hits adulthood and and it is likely difficult to alter it during fast paced, high intensity physical activity.  This may change over time if we start having more coed sports as youth, but at this point even with good intentions of trying not to injure others, I do think experience as a kid playing among boys and young men is going to make a difference  I think of how my niece required surgery because she snapped her leg just by jamming it into the ground to stop a fall when she lost her balance and this ridiculous injury was due to hormonal changes because she was pregnant and it seems to me we need to have respect for the limits biology puts on our bodies and not assume by adjusting chemistry even for a few years, that is somehow going to counteract how nature has been structuring the strengths and abilities since conception.

 

I agree, absolutely.

Imo, it wasn't 'broke' and they shouldn't have tried to 'fix' it.  I believe sports should remain as they have been, and transgenders should not be playing in women's sports.  I feel that allowing transgenders to join women's sports essentially destroys women's sports.  I'm wondering what happened to all the feminists who were supposed to support and promote the interests of women, they all seem to have been silenced by their fear of speaking out and being labeled 'transphobic'.  But, if they don't start speaking up soon, women's sports will essentially be no more.

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm sure he has achieved an outward appearance that is entirely consistent with his internal self-image and, hence, now is perfectly contented, and will remain so for the (perhaps decades long) remainder of his mortal sojourn here on earth.  What more could anyone ask?  I congratulate him on having achieved those goals, and wish him well.

I think the guy looks hideous.  You probably think the guy looks hideous. Probably the vast majority of people think this guy looks hideous.  But he is an adult.  Does it really affect anyone other than the person that made the decision?  It is not like that look happened over night and was some drunkin impulsive decision.  There were steps he took over time to look like that.  He seems quite happy with the look.  

Who cares what he looks like enough to legally take away his right to look like what he wants to.  Does personal liberty have any value that is a higher issue than allowing this guy the right to look like that?  I am not defending his decisions.  I am defending his legal right to make those decisions.

 

[Kenngo1969]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think the guy looks hideous.  You probably think the guy looks hideous. Probably the vast majority of people think this guy looks hideous.  But he is an adult.  Does it really affect anyone other than the person that made the decision?  It is not like that look happened over night and was some drunkin impulsive decision.  There were steps he took over time to look like that.  He seems quite happy with the look.  

Who cares what he looks like enough to legally take away his right to look like what he wants to.  Does personal liberty have any value that is a higher issue than allowing this guy the right to look like that?  I am not defending his decisions.  I am defending his legal right to make those decisions.

 

Like I said, I'm sure he has achieved an outward appearance that is consistent with his inward self-image, and I wish him every happiness now that he'll look like that for the entirety of the remainder of his mortal sojourn on earth.

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think the guy looks hideous.  You probably think the guy looks hideous. Probably the vast majority of people think this guy looks hideous.  But he is an adult.  Does it really affect anyone other than the person that made the decision?  It is not like that look happened over night and was some drunkin impulsive decision.  There were steps he took over time to look like that.  He seems quite happy with the look.  

Who cares what he looks like enough to legally take away his right to look like what he wants to.  Does personal liberty have any value that is a higher issue than allowing this guy the right to look like that?  I am not defending his decisions.  I am defending his legal right to make those decisions.

 

Recently, a kindergarten teacher in France with a similar ascetic had to stop teaching kindergarten because he was too scary.  He was annoyed by it but accepted the decision.  I think that's the issue.  

Adults are largely free to do what they want to their appearance.  That doesn't mean that there won't be some negative consequences from those choices.  Accepting those consequences, rather than fighting for freedom of choice without consequences you don't like, is the mature thing to do. 

(And to clarify, i'm not saying that the mature choice is to not fight for legal rights.  I'm speaking outside of the legal aspect on life in general)

[Analytics]

On 9/29/2020 at 11:03 AM, smac97 said:

As I see it, a person cannot change their gender, any more than they can change their age (Stefoknee Wolscht), or their ancestry (Rachel Dolezal, Jessica Krug) or their species (Eva Tiamat Medusa).  To say this publicly is to risk being accused of "transphobia," which is a bit absurd since I neither hate nor fear people who struggle with gender dysphoria …...

 

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

What’s a bit ironic about this analysis is how materialistic it is. If somebody believed in dualism—that is, in the proposition that there is a spiritual aspect of ourselves that is beyond the physical body, then they should be open to the proposition that sometimes there is a mix-up in the alignment of the physical body and the spiritual body. For example, in the play Saturday’s Warrior, on the inside Pam is a dancer—that is what she loves to do more than anything. Yet her physical body doesn’t reflect that—for some unstated reason, she is paralyzed from the waste down and can’t dance. But the incongruity between her physical body and her spirit doesn’t mean that on the inside she really isn’t a dancer. 

Somebody who believes in spirits should be open to the possibility that through a quirk of the biology of this imperfect world, a female spirit could find herself trapped in a male’s body.

In contrast, it should be the materialists—that is, people who don’t believe in spirits—who should adamantly be declaring that somebody in a male body is a male on every level, end of story, full stop. 

Edited October 1, 2020 by Analytics

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I think the guy looks hideous.  You probably think the guy looks hideous. Probably the vast majority of people think this guy looks hideous.  But he is an adult.  Does it really affect anyone other than the person that made the decision?  It is not like that look happened over night and was some drunkin impulsive decision.  There were steps he took over time to look like that.  He seems quite happy with the look.  

Who cares what he looks like enough to legally take away his right to look like what he wants to.  Does personal liberty have any value that is a higher issue than allowing this guy the right to look like that?  I am not defending his decisions.  I am defending his legal right to make those decisions.

 

Where does personal choice end when an individual is emotionally ill or psychologically damaged?  If such an individual wants to drive their car into the concrete support columns on an interstate, should they be allowed to do so? How about those people who jump into a lions display at a zoo and then are attacked? Should personal choice ever be hindered or prevented?  

Why do we spend so much money assisting those individuals who would like to commit suicide?  Isn't that a personal choice?  

It seems to me that we all know that we have some truly deranged humans in the world. Instead of allowing them individuals to so whatever they choose, we prevent some individuals from doing so and yet allow others to destroy their lives and continue to live in a deranged world of their own creation. 

Sometimes I think some of us need a good, quick kick in the backside to help us wake up to our own stupidity in order to return to a life that leads to a higher degree of satisfaction and, hopefully, happiness.  

[Kenngo1969]

21 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

... It seems to me that we all know that we have some truly deranged humans in the world. Instead of allowing them individuals to so whatever they choose, we prevent some individuals from doing so and yet allow others to destroy their lives and continue to live in a deranged world of their own creation. 

Sometimes I think some of us need a good, quick kick in the backside to help us wake up to our own stupidity in order to return to a life that leads to a higher degree of satisfaction and, hopefully, happiness.  

I think the line that society attempts to draw ... sometimes indistinctly, sometimes arbitrarily, sometimes crookedly, and so on, since society is composed of human beings, and human beings are prone to draw lines with those kinds of imperfections ... is how much of an impact the person's behavior has on someone else.  If the guy in the picture Nehor posted earlier in the thread wants to make himself look like that, certainly, he can.  Provided the picture is genuine (and I have no reason to believe that it isn't), the picture is proof, not only that someone can do that, but that he has done so. 

Are we likely to see the guy teaching kindergarteners in elementary school, even if he has decided that teaching young children is his very reason for being?  Is he likely to be hired as a maitre'd in a local upscale restaurant?  I hope to heck not, and I'm sure I'm not alone.  Is he likely to lose any suit he would file against the school or against the restaurant?  I believe he would under current precedent, but, in recent decades, the trend has been leading in a direction where, eventually, courts will say, in essence, "Yes, we know that this gentleman's appearance is a concern to any establishment whose proprietors may feel that it has a certain image to uphold (an image which is at odds with the gentleman's appearance), but he has a right to employment in his chosen field and to avoid invidious discrimination at the hands of particular employers ..."

So, yes, he has a right to do what he wants to do with his appearance, and yes, currently, employers have a right to refuse to hire him because of his appearance ... for the time being.  How long will that last?   Part of the problem is that conditions and behaviors that most reasonable people (even laypeople) would say, plainly, are indicative of mental illness, long ago, we started saying, "Meh!  If s/he's not a danger to self or others, s/he has a right to eat out of trashcans, to sleep among refuse, to live on the street, to crawl into a bottle," and so on and so forth.

That's a difficult genie to put back into the bottle.

[Storm Rider]

39 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I think the line that society attempts to draw ... sometimes indistinctly, sometimes arbitrarily, sometimes crookedly, and so on, since society is composed of human beings, and human beings are prone to draw lines with those kinds of imperfections ... is how much of an impact the person's behavior has on someone else.  If the guy in the picture Nehor posted earlier in the thread wants to make himself look like that, certainly, he can.  Provided the picture is genuine (and I have no reason to believe that it isn't), the picture is proof, not only that someone can do that, but that he has done so. 

Are we likely to see the guy teaching kindergarteners in elementary school, even if he has decided that teaching young children is his very reason for being?  Is he likely to be hired as a maitre'd in a local upscale restaurant?  I hope to heck not, and I'm sure I'm not alone.  Is he likely to lose any suit he would file against the school or against the restaurant?  I believe he would under current precedent, but, in recent decades, the trend has been leading in a direction where, eventually, courts will say, in essence, "Yes, we know that this gentleman's appearance is a concern to any establishment whose proprietors may feel that it has a certain image to uphold (an image which is at odds with the gentleman's appearance), but he has a right to employment in his chosen field and to avoid invidious discrimination at the hands of particular employers ..."

So, yes, he has a right to do what he wants to do with his appearance, and yes, currently, employers have a right to refuse to hire him because of his appearance ... for the time being.  How long will that last?   Part of the problem is that conditions and behaviors that most reasonable people (even laypeople) would say, plainly, are indicative of mental illness, long ago, we started saying, "Meh!  If s/he's not a danger to self or others, s/he has a right to eat out of trashcans, to sleep among refuse, to live on the street, to crawl into a bottle," and so on and so forth.

That's a difficult genie to put back into the bottle.

I appreciate most of your points, but having lived in Seattle - a city I loved - it has been harmed by transients/homeless. Seattle has a strong bullhorn for those against homeless, but it does not just want food and temporary housing, but a wide range of things.

I always felt that IF society was serious about the homeless then it should be outlawed preventing anyone from being homeless. We should care for those who have simply hit a bad spot temporarily. For those who are homeless, and will remain homeless, then take them off the street and send them to self-sustaining living communities that teach individuals how to work, educate them, provide mental services for the rest of their lives or until such time as they are ready to reenter society as a productive citizen. 

As far as the individual in pictured. There should be consequences to such choices. Society must say, you have chosen to completely mess your life and have been warned. There will be no social services UNLESS they come from your own labor. Specifically, you got a job in the freak show, earned a living, and now can draw Social Security at the appropriate time. No, we don't offer you unemployment, welfare, or any other compensation due to your choices. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I think the guy looks hideous.  You probably think the guy looks hideous. Probably the vast majority of people think this guy looks hideous.  But he is an adult.  Does it really affect anyone other than the person that made the decision?  It is not like that look happened over night and was some drunkin impulsive decision.  There were steps he took over time to look like that.  He seems quite happy with the look.  

Who cares what he looks like enough to legally take away his right to look like what he wants to.  Does personal liberty have any value that is a higher issue than allowing this guy the right to look like that?  I am not defending his decisions.  I am defending his legal right to make those decisions.

 

I wasn’t suggesting we should stop her. I was asked how far we go and I was showing how far we go even if your dream is to be Smaug.

[The Nehor]

53 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I appreciate most of your points, but having lived in Seattle - a city I loved - it has been harmed by transients/homeless. Seattle has a strong bullhorn for those against homeless, but it does not just want food and temporary housing, but a wide range of things.

I always felt that IF society was serious about the homeless then it should be outlawed preventing anyone from being homeless. We should care for those who have simply hit a bad spot temporarily. For those who are homeless, and will remain homeless, then take them off the street and send them to self-sustaining living communities that teach individuals how to work, educate them, provide mental services for the rest of their lives or until such time as they are ready to reenter society as a productive citizen. 

As far as the individual in pictured. There should be consequences to such choices. Society must say, you have chosen to completely mess your life and have been warned. There will be no social services UNLESS they come from your own labor. Specifically, you got a job in the freak show, earned a living, and now can draw Social Security at the appropriate time. No, we don't offer you unemployment, welfare, or any other compensation due to your choices. 

 

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Where does personal choice end when an individual is emotionally ill or psychologically damaged?

Is this a case where the question and answer are the same? As I understand it, psychology has long wrestled with what is pathological and what is normal variation. In some ways, the real debate over homosexuality began in the '70s when homosexuality was first declassified as a mental illness in some places by some professional organizations. Some of the transgender debate is still over whether or not being transgender is pathological or a normal variation.

For that matter, some physical ailments suffer from similar difficulties. From what I understand, some in the deaf community would prefer that we stop trying to "cure" people of deafness (with implants and/or other treatments/technologies) because they don't believe that deafness is an illness to be cured.

I don't know the answer, but it seems that this is the main question we as a society need to answer as it pertains to transgender individuals (and others). It seems unethical to fail to offer treatment to someone who is legitimately sick. However, it also seems unethical to insist on treating someone for an illness that really isn't an illness. It seems like a big part of our debate is trying to figure out what to do in that muddy middle ground.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

What’s a bit ironic about this analysis is how materialistic it is.

"Materialism" = 

Quote

1. excessively concerned with physical comforts or the acquisition of wealth and material possessions, rather than with spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values.
2. adhering to the philosophy of materialism, a theory that regards matter as constituting the universe and all its phenomena.

I'm assuming you are referring to the second definition, yes?

If so, I don't understand the irony, since Latter-day Saint doctrine is "materialistic" in a sense:

Quote

In the twentieth century, atomic theory has embodied a number of fundamental nuclear particles and powerful mathematical theories. Some, falling outside human intuition, account for properties of matter newly discovered in this century. Concepts have led to the development of unified quantum mechanical and quantum dynamic theories for both matter and light. The conservation law of Lavoisier has been extended to include all equivalent forms of matter and energy and still constitutes one of the primary pillars of modern science.

It is significant that the teachings of the restored gospel on the eternal nature of physical matter, along with a parallel in the spiritual realm, embody these conservation principles. These are key statements: "The elements are eternal" (D&C 93:33). "The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, etc., had their existence in an elementary state, from eternity" (Joseph Smith, in HC 3:387).

Addressing the issue of creation ex nihilo, Joseph Smith asserted in one of his final sermons: "Now, the word create…does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos-chaotic matter, which is element…. Element had an existence from the time [God] had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end" (HC 6:308-309).

Extending the concept of the eternal nature of matter to the substance of spirit, Joseph Smith revealed, "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter" (D&C 131:7-8).

Hmm.

Quote

If somebody believed in dualism—that is, in the proposition that there is a spiritual aspect of ourselves that is beyond the physical body, then they should be open to the proposition that sometimes there is a mix-up in the alignment of the physical body and the spiritual body.

First, I'm not sure how you arrive at the "should" here.

Second, the author of the "mix-up" would, in your view, be...?

Third, is "mix-up" a euphemism for "error?"  It seems like it.

Fourth, the proposition that "there is a mix-up in the alignment of the physical body and the individual's mental perception of it" is perhaps a nuanced revision of your point that I could accept.  Can you?

Fifth, I'm not sure what this has to do with "materialism."

Quote

For example, in the play Saturday’s Warrior, on the inside Pam is a dancer—that is what she loves to do more than anything. Yet her physical body doesn’t reflect that—for some unstated reason, she is paralyzed from the waste down and can’t dance. But the incongruity between her physical body and her spirit doesn’t mean that on the inside she really isn’t a dancer. 

First, I have serious reservations about taking any doctrinal cues from Saturday's Warrior.

Second, Pam's paralysis is not a "mix-up."

Third, "dancing" is conduct, and is nothing like "an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

Fourth, I'm still not sure what this has to do with "materialism."

Quote

Somebody who believes in spirits should be open to the possibility that through a quirk of the biology of this imperfect world, a female spirit could find herself trapped in a male’s body.

First, I'm again not sure how you arrive at the "should" here.

Second, do you likewise think that "through a quirk of biology of this imperfect world" a wolf's spirit could "find herself trapped" in a human body?  If not, why not?  If gender is malleable, why not species?  

Third, do you likewise think that "through a quirk of biology of this imperfect world" a spirit could experience multiple mortal probations?

Fourth, is anything you are telling us here we "should" be open to at all tethered to the doctrines of the Restored Gospel?  Or are you just making things up as you go along?

Quote

In contrast, it should be the materialists—that is, people who don’t believe in spirits—who should adamantly be declaring that somebody in a male body is a male on every level, end of story, full stop. 

Ah.  So by "materialism" you are referring to "a philosophical system which regards matter as the only reality in the world…denies the existence of God and the soul."

My analysis contemplates "the existence of God and the soul," yet you are calling it "materialistic."  That's sort of odd.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 1, 2020 by smac97

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

don't know the answer, but it seems that this is the main question we as a society need to answer as it pertains to transgender individuals (and others). It seems unethical to fail to offer treatment to someone who is legitimately sick. However, it also seems unethical to insist on treating someone for an illness that really isn't an illness. It seems like a big part of our debate is trying to figure out what to do in that muddy middle ground

Can’t give you a point yet, so stating this is very well put.