Absent an absolute authority, who is to say what anything is.

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

In my example, the investigator was using a Catholic version of Ash's "four legs."

Which is materially distinguishable from Ash's Stool.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Substitute Pope for Prophet, and you are at the same place.

I think there are substantial differences.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

My point is to criticize the self-serving nature of the stool, where the legs were chosen to stack the deck against objectively evaluating the most fundamental and pertinent questions.

Baloney.  There is no way to "objectively evaluate" these "fundamental and pertinent questions."

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Use Ash's stool to avoid questioning Mormonism.

I have said nothing like this.  At all.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Use a Catholic version to avoid questioning Catholicism.

Or this.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Design whatever stool you want to rationalize the beliefs you want to rationalize. 

Thanks!  I will.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

"Forcing" is a synonym for the "a lot of social pressure" you asserted.

Not really.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

You are mocking people who uses gender identity terms in a modern way.

I am not.  I am making a serious point and critiquing the falsehoods that are creeping into society via, inter alia, the radical re-definition of basic words and phrases.

For example, equivocations about the meaning of "woman" abound.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I was critiquing Orwellianisms:

These are not examples of an attitude of or a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, disinformation, denial of truth (doublethink). It has nothing to do with being Orwellian.

That is exactly what someone seeking to justify Orwellianisms would say.  

They have everything to do with Orwellianism:

Quote

"Orwellian" is an adjective describing a situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It denotes an attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, disinformation, denial of truth (doublethink), and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson"—a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments.

Most of this is happening, in varying degrees, right now. 

"Draconia control?"  Yep.  Some jurisdictions are criminalizing "pronouns."  Private individuals are being punished for resisting compelled speech.  Speech codes, "diversity statements," and such are requiring people to choose between their conscience and their job, their career, etc.

"Propaganda?"  You bet.  Sexual grooming and exploitation of children is cecoming more and more common.  We are saturated with "Pride Month" messaging:

"Denial of truth?"  Oh, my, yes.  Men can menstruate.  Women can have penises.  Meanwhile, nobody on your side of the fence can calmly and credibly address the simple question, "What is a woman?"

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

If you think this is astute, it just illustrates an exceedingly superficial understanding of the issues.

Insults in lieu of substance.  "If you don't agree with me, you are stupid."

Got it.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

If you actually listened to the people you are mocking rather than caricatures of them from the right-wing media, you'd know that an actual glossary of relevant words would include  the words sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, cisgender, transgender, nonbinary, agender, gender-expansive, gender transition, gender dysphoria, sexual orientation, and intersex. You would also know that the vocabulary list adds precision and insight into the issues.

These are sowing confusion and falsehood, and do nothing regarding "precision."

You and yours are just making this stuff up as you go along.  You are radically re-defining terms that have real and important definitions in social, political, legal, and medical/mental contexts.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Please read a primer on the subject.

I'm familiar with all this stuff.  I just don't accept much of it.  Again, you and yours are just making this stuff up.  And worse, you are seeing to shove it down the throats of everyone else, with threats and insults and bullyings.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Consider the following definitions:

• Sex refers to a person's biological status and is typically assigned at birth, usually on the basis of external anatomy. Sex is typically categorized as male, female or intersex.
• Gender is often defined as a social construct of norms, behaviors and roles that varies between societies and over time. Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary.
• Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither or both. Unlike gender expression, gender identity is not outwardly visible to others. For most people, gender identity aligns with the sex assigned at birth, the American Psychological Association notes. For transgender people, gender identity differs in varying degrees from the sex assigned at birth.

What is Orwellian about using several words in precise ways to describe different things?

Because "woman" needs to have a quantifiable meaning.  It can't mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.  There are real social and legal and other consequences that arise when we fabricate, conflate, and equivocate as you and yours are doing.

Because what you and yours are selling is packed with all sorts of falsehoods.  A biological male is not a woman.  He can "identify" as whatever he wants, but as soon as he insists that others go along with that falsehood, then we need to resist.

Stefoknee Wolscht, an adult biological male, can "identify" as a perennial six-year-old girl, but that is not the truth.  When people like you use threats and coercion to compel others to go along with falsehoods, then we need to resist.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

You are mocking transgender people and everyone who uses a modern vocabulary of gender identity.

I am not.  I actually have much compassion and sympathy for transgender folks.  Gender Dysphoria is a very difficult thing, and becomes more so when folks like to encourage the falsehoods baked into it.  

"What is a woman" really deserves a fair treatment, and I'm not seeing it.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

"What is a woman?" is not a question we should need to ask...

I totally agree.

No, I don't think you do.  For you and yours, "Woman" means . . . whatever you want it to mean.  

You and yours are re-defining terms in a quintessentially Orwellian way.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Yet it is the anti-transgender crowd such as  Marsha Blackburn (R) who are asking it! The problem with that bad-faith question is that in the context of gender identity, it is an ambiguous question. 

Nope.

Abraham Lincoln once asked an audience how many legs a dog has if you count the tail as a leg. When they answered 'five,' Lincoln told them that the answer was four. The fact that you called the tail a leg did not make it a leg."

You and yours are calling the tail a leg.  And worse, your side is seeking to punish anyone who resists that falsehood.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Who said they can't "identify" as Black?

So you would be okay with Rachel Dolezal applying for a scholarship earmarked for "Black" applicants?

Folks like you regularly rail against the Church to dispute subjective things that we believe to be "true," but which we cannot empirically demonstrate.  And yet you seem to be quite willing to affirm empirically testable falsehoods like Stefoknee Wolscht being a six-year-old girl, Eva Tiamat Medusa being a lizard, Joseph Backholm being a six-foot-five Chinese woman, and so on.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

When somebody says they "identify as a woman", they are saying their internal sense of being is that of a woman.

This is wildly, flagrantly false.  Lia Thomas is not just talking about his/her "internal sense of being is that of a woman."  He is saying he is a woman, such that he can compete against other women.

There are real social and legal consequences to you and yours radicially re-defining terms, equivocating, and so on.  

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

They aren't making a comment about their biology--they are making a comment about how they feel on the inside. 

Bull.  "Trans women are women."  "Men can menstruate."  "Women can have penises."  These are statements of fact.  Of biology.

And they are false.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

If you think it is wrong for Lia Thomas or Caitlynn Jenner to feel on the inside like they are women, and you think it is wrong for somebody else to feel on the inside like they are black, a six-year old girl, a "reptile/dragon," a wolf, or anything else, why isn't it wrong for you to feel like you are a child of God?

Because unlike you and yours, I am not trying to coerce and bully and insult anyone else into accepting what I believe.

Thanks,

-Smac

[InCognitus]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Same question.  Who is being ridiculed here?

I had COVID recently in Utah, and the T-Shirt example in your post looks very much like some of the questions on the COVID contact tracing questionnaire I received in e-mail shortly after testing positive for COVID.  This is an actual screen shot from the Utah survey.  

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Weird.  I said "there is nowhere near the symmetry you seem to be implying" as regarding "social pressure."  And from that you ask about "any social pressure from religion and conservative families."

Very weird.

Yes, there are such social pressures.  But again, there is nowhere near the symmetry you seem to be implying.

I can.  I do.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why is that weird?  I think that is a very common and more influential pressure, and my question was intended as a figure of speech to highlight the commonality of it - with roots deeper.  
 

I would estimate that there are FAR more in the closet due to these pressures than there are those who are faking trans/gay due to opposing social pressures.  

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Why is that weird?  

Because it gets tiresome to see folks like you ignore what I have said, revise/reword/distort what I have said, and then respond to the distorted version.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think that is a very common and more influential pressure, and my question was intended as a figure of speech to highlight the commonality of it - with roots deeper.  

I don't know what you are saying here.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

I would estimate that there are FAR more in the closet due to these pressures than there are those who are faking trans/gay due to opposing social pressures.  

I reject the notion of sexual preference/orientation as an identity.  Historically speaking, this is a brand-new concept.  I am, instead, increasingly persuaded by the sentiments summarized by our own Hamba Tuhan here:

Quote

I have a PhD in history, so my approach is certainly shaped by that. I don't have children of my own, but I have long worked with young men and young missionaries and have taught them the following facts that are fully supported by historical and anthropological research:

• the concept of fixed, gendered sexual identities (both hetero- and homo-) is a late 19th-century social construct that has no historical precedent and, despite 150 years of Western colonisation of the imagination, these still haven't become natural categories across all cultures
• same-sex sexual behaviour has been ubiquitous since the beginning of recorded history (along with opposite-sex and other behaviours too numerous to list), though it has been framed in a dizzying number of ways across both time and space, with some cultures (for example, many Melanesian ones) having once required it as part of normal human development
• it is perfectly normal to experience various kinds of attractions to both males and females
• it is also perfectly normal not to be attracted to an entire class of people; for example, a male does not have to be attracted to females as a class, and to be honest, this can make living the Law of Chastity much easier!
• whilst some cultures offer very narrow gender stereotypes, there are actually an infinite number of ways to be a righteous man or woman
• the one constant is that all these things are fluid because humans are dynamic

To which I add the following:

• God, aware that sexuality is powerful, has provided guidelines to keep us safe and happy and help us to become most like Him
• we are currently in a historically unique time that presents a number of complications for Saints, so don't worry if you feel confused at times
• you are going to screw up in one or more areas of the Law of Chastity; I know because I have done the same
• don't panic when you find yourself in a headspace that doesn't fully match your eternal desires; this is a perfectly normal part of discipleship, which is why we have so many scriptures about it
• NEVER listen to someone who wants to place you in a box and keep you there; the whole point of the gospel is to free us from such limitations
• wherever you are in this process, I love you, and you are important to me
• it is essential that we are all nice to each other since we're all works in progress
• remember that perception is reality, so when people believe things about themselves that aren't true, those things are true to them at that point in time; try to be someone people might listen to when they're ready to shift their perceptions

I've had several young men and at least one former missionary thank me for taking this approach with them. They report feeling empowered by knowing the truth.

Sexual feelings, preferences, etc. are varied, ephemeral, fluid, and so on.  Hence the value, for me, of the Restored Gospel.  It teaches us to constrain our thoughts and behaviors to the parameters the Lord has established.  Everyone has some sexual ethics, but it is helpful to have an external and consistent set of standards to aspire to, as opposed to ethics that are self-authored (and hence susceptible to self-prescribed revisions or abandonment for pretty much any reason, or no reason at all).

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Because it gets tiresome to see folks like you ignore what I have said, revise/reword/distort what I have said, and then respond to the distorted version.

I don't know what you are saying here.

I reject the notion of sexual preference/orientation as an identity.  Historically speaking, this is a brand-new concept.  I am, instead, increasingly persuaded by the sentiments summarized by our own Hamba Tuhan here:

Sexual feelings, preferences, etc. are varied, ephemeral, fluid, and so on.  Hence the value, for me, of the Restored Gospel.  It teaches us to constrain our thoughts and behaviors to the parameters the Lord has established.  Everyone has some sexual ethics, but it is helpful to have an external and consistent set of standards to aspire to, as opposed to ethics that are self-authored (and hence susceptible to self-prescribed revisions or abandonment for pretty much any reason, or no reason at all).

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, I am aware how you feel - you “reject…”.  There are millions of others like you who act as a counterbalance of social pressure.  Such pressure may not be portrayed as much in the media, but it is more influential to those who are close to you and has deeper historical roots.  You are underestimating the social pressure that you and others like you have on society - that is what I am saying. 

Edited June 22, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Because it gets tiresome to see folks like you ignore what I have said, revise/reword/distort what I have said, and then respond to the distorted version.

Except that wasn’t what I was doing.  I tried to explain but you didn’t understand by acknowledging “I don’t know what you are saying here.”  So, perhaps it is better to try to seek understanding before making accusations.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Because it gets tiresome to see folks like you ignore what I have said, revise/reword/distort what I have said, and then respond to the distorted version.

We all do that with every word spoken, including the phrase "folks like you" which is now seen as derogatory/racist/sexist/ageist/ homophobic and probably lots of other naughty things.

Language itself is flawed.   Can't win for losing.  It's got to get out of one brain unflawed and perfectly interpreted by the other brain 

Best wishes on THAT one!

 

 

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Obehave said:

If you can make all of that stop, I would appreciate it.  I get tired of that too, especially when it happens after I have tried to make my message very easy to understand.. 

The simplest explanation of what is now my general point of view about everything was the Rorty quote in my signature.

I saw that, and saw Einstein vs Bohr, the Copenhagen view, William James back to Kant's synthetic a priori, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and much more so simply stated that ANYONE could get it all it one or two short sentences that could not possibly be misinterpreted!!

10 years on this board and maybe 2 or 3 have gotten it.  It changes apologetics forever, but no one sees it.  

The Kingdom of God is within, not "out there" and analogies pretending to understand God's mechanics miss everything by a mile.

Language is a brick wall I guess 

Or this is the wrong venue

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I came close to rejecting that notion, too, but now I accept it as how that person identifies his or her self even if that is not how I see him or her. 

I am indifferent to people who want to "identify" as things they are not, up to the point at which they demand, under threat (whether it be legal threats or just plain ol' bullying/insults), that I ratify, accept and go along with that identity.

"Live and let live" is not in the vocabulary of a lot of these folks.

12 minutes ago, Obehave said:

A man identifying himself as a woman, for example, is still a man who identifies himself as a woman.

The question for me then becomes: Should I identify him as a woman now because he would like me to do that?

I'm not going to answer that here, but I think I know what I should do.

The questions go beyond simple acquiescence or go-along-to-get-along-ness.

Should we as a society let Lia Thomas, a biological male, compete in women's sports?  With all the biological advantages he has?  Should UPenn require his teammates to share a locker room with him?

Should we as a society let incarcerated biological males who "identify" as women be transferred to women's prisons?

And how, as a legal matter, can we stop at gender?  There does not seem to be any limiting principle.  Can a fifteen year old "identify" as a 25-year-old and, on that basis, buy and consumer alcohol?  If not, why not?

Can a person of northern European extraction "identify" as a Native American when applying for scholarships earmarked for Native American applicants?  If not, why not?

Can a person "identify" as the biological child of a billionaire and then, at the billionaire's death, claim an inheritance?  If not, why not?

There are all sorts of things in play here, far more than individuals and their subjective feelings.  When these false notions regarding "identity" intersect with the law, then the consequences become much more serious, and it becomes more difficult to simply wave these consequences away as being somebody else's problem.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

So, to clarify: do you believe that a spirit of one sex could be born in a body which is unequivocally of the other sex?

Suppose we could answer that, which we can't.

What would be the purpose of having such an answer?

How would an answer change the LDS path/paradigm, given that the answer is unknowable?

Edited June 22, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If not, why not?

Because the laws of men prohibit it, an entirely different answer, possibly, than the way God sees it.

But who knows? 

THAT depends on testimony.

[MiserereNobis]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

23 hours ago, Analytics said:

In my example, the investigator was using a Catholic version of Ash's "four legs."

Which is materially distinguishable from Ash's Stool.

23 hours ago, Analytics said:

Substitute Pope for Prophet, and you are at the same place.

I think there are substantial differences.

The three "official" legs of Catholicism are scripture, the magisterium (the pope and bishops in communion with him), tradition. I say these are official because they are officially taught in catechisms, etc.

I'm guessing Ash's stool is not officially taught by general authorities, but correct me if I'm wrong.

The official legs do not contain reason and personal revelation, but that doesn't mean they are not part of Catholicism. Catholicism explicitly teaches that reason will lead you to truth and to God, and that God reveals Himself to humans. From the Catechism:

Quote

50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation. Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

Catholicism also explicitly accepts personal revelation (though sometimes the meaning behind the word "revelation" is lost in translation between our faith traditions). Catholics readily experience and accept personal revelation from God. In fact, we have no problem discussing visions, angelic visitations, miracles, etc.

Except for Joseph Smith, I don't think there is much substantial difference between LDS prophets and Catholic popes. I've posted on this before, because it interests me. The words used may be different, but the function is pretty much the same. Both claim to be representatives of Christ on earth, to have the priesthood power of Christ to bind and loose, to lead Christ's church, to protect divine truth, and to receive "revelation" (again, sometimes lost in translation) to do so. When declaring the most recent dogma in the 1950s, the pope explicitly used the word revelation.

I don't mean to derail from the gender discussion, but I wanted to clarify the Catholic position here and make sure no one had the wrong impression.

[Analytics]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

These are sowing confusion and falsehood, and do nothing regarding "precision."

Could you elaborate? For example, the first definition I offered was this:

• Sex refers to a person's biological status and is typically assigned at birth, usually on the basis of external anatomy. Sex is typically categorized as male, female or intersex.

How, specifically, does that sow confusion and falsehood? Do you disagree and think the word "sex" doesn't pertain to biological status, isn't assigned at birth, and isn't usually made on the bases of external anatomy?

It seems to be really, really, important to you for "my side" to be unwilling to answer questions about this. What I see is that you are unwilling to listen to any answer that is given or to appreciate any nuance that may actually exist. Word often have multiple definitions, and people who are interested in communicating try to understand the ways the words are used. 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

You and yours are just making this stuff up as you go along. 

CFR. 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

You are radically re-defining terms that have real and important definitions in social, political, legal, and medical/mental contexts.

CFR. What term did I radically redefine? 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm familiar with all this stuff.  I just don't accept much of it.  Again, you and yours are just making this stuff up.  And worse, you are seeing to shove it down the throats of everyone else, with threats and insults and bullyings.

The glossary I offered you wasn't stuffed down your throat. There were no threats. No bullying. The purpose of the glossary, as published by a respected news organization, is "to help people communicate accurately and respectfully with one another." You come across as being adamantly opposed to respectful communication on this issue.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Because what you and yours are selling is packed with all sorts of falsehoods.  A biological male is not a woman.  He can "identify" as whatever he wants, but as soon as he insists that others go along with that falsehood, then we need to resist.

All "me and mine" are suggesting is that we try to have empathy for each other and treat each other with respect. And that is what you are resisting.

You sound just like the radical Christian who says, "a Mormon can pretend he is a Christian if he wants, but as soon as he insists that others go along with that falsehood, then we need to resist!"

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

"What is a woman" really deserves a fair treatment, and I'm not seeing it.

I'm certainly not seeing it in your memes.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, I don't think you do.  For you and yours, "Woman" means . . . whatever you want it to mean.  

CFR. I presented you with a glossary of what these terms mean (for your convenience, here is a link). Where did "me and mine" say "woman means whatever you want it to mean."?

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

So you would be okay with Rachel Dolezal applying for a scholarship earmarked for "Black" applicants?

Personally, I don't really care. Presuming Ms. Dolezal was honest about the way in which she is "black" (i.e. if she honestly disclosed that she was born in Montana to white parents of European descent, but self-identifies as black), then I don't care if she applies for the scholarship or not. 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Folks like you regularly rail against the Church to dispute subjective things that we believe to be "true," but which we cannot empirically demonstrate.  And yet you seem to be quite willing to affirm empirically testable falsehoods like Stefoknee Wolscht being a six-year-old girl, Eva Tiamat Medusa being a lizard, Joseph Backholm being a six-foot-five Chinese woman, and so on.

CFR that I or anybody like me affirm anything of the sort.

 

[In response to me saying, "When somebody says they "identify as a woman", they are saying their internal sense of being is that of a woman..." ]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

 This is wildly, flagrantly false.  

What makes you an authority on what they mean when they talk about gender identification?  In my last post, I presented you with a well-thought out, internally consistent glossary that was prepared by NPR with help from GLAAD, the National Center for Transgender Equality, the Trans Journalists Association, NLGJA: The Association of LGBTQ Journalists, Human Rights Campaign, InterAct and the American Psychological Association. According to that resource:

• Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither or both. Unlike gender expression, gender identity is not outwardly visible to others.
  For most people, gender identity aligns with the sex assigned at birth, the American Psychological Association notes. For transgender people, gender identity differs in varying degrees from the sex assigned at birth.

That's what "gender identity" means to people who use that term. 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

There are real social and legal consequences to you and yours radicially re-defining terms, equivocating, and so on.  

Bull.  "Trans women are women."  "Men can menstruate."  "Women can have penises."  These are statements of fact.  Of biology.

I wasn't talking about "biological facts." I was talking about what the term "gender identity" means by the people who use that term.

Again, why do you insist they mean something by "gender identity" other than the definition given by NPR? 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Because unlike you and yours, I am not trying to coerce and bully and insult anyone else into accepting what I believe.

You are adamantly unwilling to look at these issues with empathy and nuance, and insist that the phrase "gender identity" must have precisely the same definition as  "biological sex." You deliberately equivocate between these words and ideas, and use that equivocation as the basis for your "astute" memes. In reality, your "astute" memes are bigoted.  

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Analytics

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

In your mind is it possible for anyone to disagree with your position while you feel they have considered your position with empathy and nuance?

Yes, of course.

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

  I believe I have considered your position with empathy and nuance and I still believe your position is wrong.

A man who identifies as a woman is still a man who identifies as a woman, so I still see that man as a man.  With empathy I can believe that man really wants to be identified as a woman, but my empathy does not cause me to agree with him.

That's fine.

For me, if a man identified as a woman and kindly requested that I use she/her pronouns, I would:

1- Understand that "identifying as a woman" is a statement about how she sees herself on the inside, and isn't a statement about the biological features of her body.

2- Out of common decency, I would endeavor to use her preferred pronouns when referring to her.

3- Would recognize that whether she is a woman depends on the definition of "woman" we are using. According to an outwardly definition, she is "really" a man. According to an inwardly definition, she is "really" a woman. Regardless, these are just words in a language that is continuing to evolve. The point is to understand the speaker, not to argue about whether somebody's usage of the language conforms to the One True Definition of this or that word, much less insist that she is using a definition different than the one she is clearly using.

4- I don't know if there is anything here to disagree about.

As an example, if you said you were a child of God, I would try to understand what you meant by that, would try to be respectful about such a personal belief, and otherwise wouldn't give it much thought. But if somebody came along and said "I am a child of God" was:

1. insidious Orwellian doublespeak intended to undermine civilization
2. factually wrong given what "child" actually means
3. something that must be resisted
4. a phrase used by people who think "child" means anything and everything that anybody wants it to mean and is an existential threat to the English language
5. something that must be mocked with a tedious set of memes about how stupid it is to think "child" means anything you want it to mean, then...

I would point out that in all likelihood, this person hasn't really looked at the "I am a child of God" issue with empathy and nuance. The asinine response proves it. 

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

Can't we all just get along regardless of whether or not we believe someone is right or wrong?  The fact that I can see people who are wrong on many issues doesn't mean I don't love those people. We're all wrong about something, I think.

I totally agree.

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, Analytics said:

1- Understand that "identifying as a woman" is a statement about how she sees herself on the inside, and isn't a statement about the biological features of her

And not a statement about me (or any other person she is talking to) either, imo.

Edited June 22, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Could you elaborate? For example, the first definition I offered was this:

• Sex refers to a person's biological status and is typically assigned at birth, usually on the basis of external anatomy. Sex is typically categorized as male, female or intersex.

How, specifically, does that sow confusion and falsehood? Do you disagree and think the word "sex" doesn't pertain to biological status, isn't assigned at birth, and isn't usually made on the bases of external anatomy?

Conflating "sex" and "gender" and "gender identity" is the source of confusion and falsehood.  Equivocations and prevarications and re-definitions and politically-driven neologisms on a grand scale.

Moreover, the "assigned at birth" thing is, in my view, quite misleading.  Sex is not "assigned" by a doctor or a nurse.  Sex is a matter of biology that medical personnel can objectively and correctly identify virtually all the time.  And yet "assigned at birth" makes it sound like a person's sex is arbitrarily chosen by the attending physician.

Lia Thomas is not a woman, but by conflating "sex" with "gender identity," he has joined the UPenn women's swim team and decimated all of his female competitors.  He does this not by virtue of his "own internal sense of self and their gender," but by literally claiming to be a woman.

If I have an "internal sense of self" whereby I "identify" as a five-year-old girl, or as a six-foot-five tall Chinese woman, or as a wolf, or as a space alien, and if I harbor these false notions as being between me, myself and I, then we would not be having this discussion.  I am deluding myself.  I am lying to myself.  I am speaking untruths to myself.  But nobody else is being impacted, so "no harm, no foul."  

However, if and when I demand, by threats of legal punishment, by threated or actualized injury to reputation or profession, by social coercion/bullying, that others set aside what they understand to be reality and accept / ratify / endorse / celebrate my falsehoods, then there's a big problem.  Once I start to coerce people into saying things they may not want to say, or agreeing to things they do not want to agree with, there's a problem.

This is what you and yours are doing.  Your side is trying, with some success, to coerce others to affirm or acquiesce to manifest falsehoods.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

It seems to be really, really, important to you for "my side" to be unwilling to answer questions about this.

I think the near-constant evasions are illuminating.  I think many of the folks on your side are, frankly, scared.  Scared of the woke mob that shouts down anyone asking - or answering - reasonable questions about recent trends in radically re-defining terms.

For example, I found this YouTube video from Blair White (a transgender "YouTuber and political commentator"), regarding Matt Walsh's "What is a Woman?" documentary, to be insightful:

She makes some pretty good points/observations:

At 2:16: "So the first interview of the movie is with 'Gender Affirming Therapist' Gert Comfrey. And wow.  Was it a way to start off the movie just displaying the absolute cringe.  First off, the concept of a 'gender affirming therapist' is inherently bad.  The idea that her mission is stated right in the title, to 'affirm' the gender of the client, rather than apply necessary and healthy pushback to these ideas before someone makes the ultimate decision to transition, which is in many ways, as we always say, irreversible.  The fact that she goes into it saying she is there to affirm your gender is a problem.  Matt then asks her the question that is the title of the film, 'What is a woman?'  And she has absolutely no response, other than she can't answer that.  Seems to me, if you are a 'gender affirming therapist,' you should know what a woman is.  I don't know how anyone sitting there presenting as 100% female can really utter those words without feeling incredibly stupid.  But she did it.  And also, the argument there is that you have to be a women to know what a woman is.  It's like, do you have to be a dog to know what a dog is?"

At 4:49: "He {Matt Walsh} then goes on and asks random people on the street what a woman is, and it's actually shocking how noone can answer it.  And I understand the film has a bias, and so perhaps if someone gave a really good answer, they might not show it.  That's obviously a possibility. ... However, it still is very telling how many interviews with people were in this film, {and} that such an innocuous, basic question has people feeling nervous and scared.  And like, they can't answer it, or they have no idea.  ... But watching people stumble over the answer and being scared to answer.  There's one group of women in particular that were interviewed that were very nervous about answering at all.  They had nothing to say.  And it was so telling about how you just know that they inherently know that the question is a landmine, and that depending on your answer you could literally have your life ruined for answering that way on camera.  They inherently know, whether or not they are steeped in trans discourse or knowledgeable about the subject, they inherently know that what was previously such an innocuous question is now this ideological battlefield for which you have to be on the right side or your life is over.  Because that's the point we're at.  It's not about what anyone actually believes.  It's about going with the crowd, going with the bullies, and just saying what they want you to say to get by, and to hope you live your life unscathed."

---

This seems . . . apt.  Accurate.  This seems to really be what your side is doing, or trying to do.  Your side is not really trying to persudje.  It is instead trying to coerce and bully.  To shame and humiliate.  Even to the point of using the force of law.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

What I see is that you are unwilling to listen to any answer that is given or to appreciate any nuance that may actually exist.

Funny, then, that I am continuing to interact with you and yours.

Sometimes I think you conflate listening with agreeing.  I think I have a pretty good track record with the former, but the extent of the latter is entirely up to me.  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

All "me and mine" are suggesting is that we try to have empathy for each other and treat each other with respect. And that is what you are resisting.

Nothing advances a conversation better then imputing denigrations and bad motives onto the other guy.  

</sarcasm>

You are just proving my point here.  That is not "all" that your side is doing.  And again, disagreement is not disrespect.  Nor is disagreement equivalent to lacking empathy.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Personally, I don't really care. Presuming Ms. Dolezal was honest about the way in which she is "black" (i.e. if she honestly disclosed that she was born in Montana to white parents of European descent, but self-identifies as black), then I don't care if she applies for the scholarship or not. 

The law cares, though.  And people who don't like being coerced into mouthing falsehoods and things they disagree with care.

Outta time.  More later.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Should we as a society let Lia Thomas, a biological male, compete in women's sports?  With all the biological advantages he has?  Should UPenn require his teammates to share a locker room with him?

This question isn't in the purview of "we as a society." The people who govern these sports leagues should make these decisions. 

In Olympic swimming, transgender women may not compete with women unless they completed their transition by the age of 12. In USA swimming, the rules depend on whether someone is competing at an elite level. If she is, then "to determine a transgender swimmer’s eligibility at the elite level, a three-person panel of independent medical experts will determine whether the swimmer’s prior physical development as a man gives the athlete a competitive advantage over her cisgender female competitors. The swimmer also must show the concentration of testosterone in her blood has been less than 5 nanomoles per liter continuously for at least 36 months." 

I'm exceedingly comfortable allowing these organizations to figure this stuff out, and don't see why it is something that "we as a society" should get worked up about.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Should we as a society let incarcerated biological males who "identify" as women be transferred to women's prisons?

In general, sticking a transgender woman into a prison full of men, including many who are violent and/or sex offenders, seems extremely dangerous and misguided. This country incarcerates far too many people, and the entire system should be reformed. How transgender (and intersex) people should be incarcerated should be handled on on a case-by-case basis.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

And how, as a legal matter, can we stop at gender?  There does not seem to be any limiting principle.  Can a fifteen year old "identify" as a 25-year-old and, on that basis, buy and consumer alcohol?  If not, why not?

Regarding laws dealing with sex and gender, we should recognize that not everybody neatly and accurately fits into the broad-brush categories of being biologically male or biologically female. Furthermore, laws should recognize that depending on the situation, somebody's gender identity might be more pertinent than their biological sex. Laws are in fact evolving to deal with these realities.

Some people are objectively intersex--they aren't 100% male or 100% female. That complexity is biological fact. However, that type of complexity doesn't exist with whether you are a human, how old you are, etc. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Can a person of northern European extraction "identify" as a Native American when applying for scholarships earmarked for Native American applicants?  If not, why not?

As long as he is being honest about his ancestry, yes. Lying about your ancestry would be fraud.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Can a person "identify" as the biological child of a billionaire and then, at the billionaire's death, claim an inheritance?  If not, why not?

That would depend on whether or not the billionaire put the child in his will.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

There are all sorts of things in play here, far more than individuals and their subjective feelings.  When these false notions regarding "identity" intersect with the law, then the consequences become much more serious, and it becomes more difficult to simply wave these consequences away as being somebody else's problem.

Reducing the complexities of gender identity to mere "subjective feelings" is ignoring the reality of the issue. Nobody is arguing that "subjective feelings" trump everything else. This is a straw man.

[Analytics]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Conflating "sex" and "gender" and "gender identity" is the source of confusion and falsehood. 

That is exactly what you are doing! I have repeatedly provided a link that provides specific definitions of "sex", "gender", and "gender identity" so that these terms will not be conflated, and I've been careful to be consistent with how I use those terms. The reason that your favorite question (what is a woman?) is ambiguous and flawed is because it conflates these terms.

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is exactly what you are doing! I have repeatedly provided a link that provides specific definitions of "sex", "gender", and "gender identity" so that these terms will not be conflated, and I've been careful to be consistent with how I use those terms. The reason that your favorite question (what is a woman?) is ambiguous and flawed is because it conflates these terms.

No, I'm not.

"What is a woman?" has become a necessary inquiry because your side of this debate is conflating things.  "Trans women are women."  "Men can menstruate."  "Women can have penises."  "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman."

These absurdities are trading on equivocation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, I'm not.

"What is a woman?" has become a necessary inquiry because your side of this debate is conflating things.  "Trans women are women."  "Men can menstruate."  "Women can have penises."  "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman."

These absurdities are trading on equivocation.

Thanks,

-Smac

The church teaches sex/gender are eternal. What is the eternal definition of a woman? Is it the evolved mammary glands? The ovaries? The womb? Do these things have meaning in the eternities? Genuine question. Please provide the definitive eternal definition of the word “woman” please.  

[mfbukowski]

Are you guys really arguing about semantics?

Buy a dictionary and get a life!

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The church teaches sex/gender are eternal. What is the eternal definition of a woman? Is it the evolved mammary glands? The ovaries? The womb? Do these things have meaning in the eternities? Genuine question. Please provide the definitive eternal definition of the word “woman” please.  

You beat me to the question, lol. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

You beat me to the question, lol. 

When I contemplate what it means for me to be a man, I come up blank every single time. “What does salt taste like?” to borrow words from BKP. 

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When I contemplate what it means for me to be a man, I come up blank every single time. “What does salt taste like?” to borrow words from BKP. 

And what is sad is that even if you CAN define the word, you are still talking about WORDS and not "reality" whatever that means anyway!!

Squiggles on a page are nothing but squiggles.

Now if you are putting forth a "paradigm" /theory ABOUT alleged reality that's fine, but how is it tested?

Sciencific paradigms get tested by the scientific method which at least tells us that more than one person agrees that the recipe for the cookies actually turns out a cookie, and not a rock.

But religious paradigms that tell you what the meaning of life is FOR YOU, that's all you've got.

Now when 15 million people tell you that God told them the BOM DOES give meaning to their lives you have real "evidence"!

But even then, the stuff in the book did not have to actually happen- ALL you have is that 15 million people said it gave them meaning to their lives.

So the answer you get is not about history or "facts" other than the FACT that 15 million have a "testimony"

Is that evidence of something?   Dang RIGHT it is!!  Better yet is when you are among the 15 million who have meaning in their lives that they have never had before.

[Analytics]

17 hours ago, Obehave said:

You can do your own thing, whatever you think you should do, and I will do whatever I think I should do. 

Deal?

Deal.

17 hours ago, Obehave said:

  Or would you rather try to get me to become like you?  To think like you, and act like you?  As long as you don't try that, I don't think we will have any problems even though we may not agree with each other.

I do enjoy talking about what I think and why I think what I do, though, sometimes. 

I have a pretty thick skin, and prefer living in a heterogeneous society. You be you.