Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

[smac97]

On 11/25/2024 at 4:52 PM, Calm said:

Quote

Again, we are not speaking of brain structures, but of sociological "identities" which are not congruent with reality and biological fact.

But that is part of the debate…whether or not there is biological fact that drives the sociological identities.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

• There may be some brain circuitry involved in a teenage boy "identifying" as a dog.  In the end, though, he is not a dog.
• There may be some brain circuitry involved in a man in his 50s "identifying" as a permanently-six-year-old girl.  In the end, though, he is neither female nor six years old.
• There may be some brain circuitry involved in a man "identifying" as a dragon.  In the end, though, he is not a dragon.
• There may be some brain circuitry involved in a man "identifying" as a woman.  In the end, though, he is not a woman.

Absent some significant foray into equivocation (typically involving a radical re-definition of, or refusing to coherently define, "woman"), I don't see much daylight in the foregoing bulleted items.

"Sociological identities" can and do matter (though some do not).

I strongly suspect that the teenager who "identifies" as a dog is not really treated as an actual dog.  I suspect his family and friends who are willing to go along with his mental illness go along with it for various reasons.  However, in the end his family probably doesn't let him defecate in the yard, have him go without clothing, have him sleep in a kennel outside, feed him dog food, have him receive veterinary care, keep him home from school, etc.  When the chips are down, he is sociologically a human being, not a dog.  His claimed identity as a dog does not override biological fact and reality.

In contrast, some (increasingly larger) segments of society are willing to go along with the sociological "identity" adopted by a biological male that he is a "woman."  Some jurisdictions let him change his birth gender on legal documents (as happened with Caitlin f/k/a Bruce Jenner), participate in women's sports (Lia Thomas), be in women's-only spaces (bathrooms, prisons), and so on.  This claimed identity does, it seems, override biological fact and reality, at least in some jurisdictions.

I am curious as to why the "transgender" identity is legally privileged, whereas the other "identities" under discussion are, it seems, not.

The Emperor's New Clothes comes to mind.  Some people seem to be able to formulate a coherent argument (presumably based on brain structure) for asserting that the "transgender" Emperor is wearing clothes, but that, in contrast, the other emperors (the teenage boy who identifies as a dog, Eva Medusa who identifies as a dragon, Stefoknee Wolscht who identifies as a permanently-six-year-old girl) are naked.  In my view, they are naked, all including the transgender guy.  The only material distinction between them is that there are substantial cohorts of society who are declaring the "transgender" Emperor as fully clothed, and anyone who says otherwise is a bigot or an ignoramus.

On 11/25/2024 at 4:52 PM, Calm said:

You stating that they aren’t congruent as a fact ignores the studies that are providing evidence otherwise (see the wiki link above).

Nope.  A biological male does not become a woman due to brain chemistry, circuitry, whatever.  

On 11/25/2024 at 4:52 PM, Calm said:

There is no science showing any evidence that allegedly human brains may be closer to dog or dragon brains than human in any way.  

There is no evidence that a biological male can become a woman by "identifying" as such.

There is no evidence that a homo sapiens can become a dog by "identifying" as such.

On 11/25/2024 at 4:52 PM, Calm said:

There is some evidence that some allegedly male brains may be closer in some ways to typical female brains.  

Which, even if true (a pretty big if), is irrelevant to whether a biological male can "become" a woman by identifying as such.

On 11/25/2024 at 4:52 PM, Calm said:

Again, not saying this evidence justifies a change in legal definition, just that it justifies a discussion about the implications, including legal ones, including whether the needs to experience life as a woman when DNA reads male or as a man when DNA reads female is driven by biological reality and if it is, should that be enough to justify offering the same protections offered to biological females.

I am seeing you ignore a good deal of science.

I am not ignoring it.  I am saying that subjective feelings cannot trump biological reality.

I am seeing you privilege transgender "identity" and scoff at other forms of subjective, self-declared identities.  I am curious as to why.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 27, 2024 by smac97

[california boy]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

• There may be some brain circuitry involved in a teenage boy "identifying" as a dog.  In the end, though, he is not a dog.
• There may be some brain circuitry involved in a man in his 50s "identifying" as a permanently-six-year-old girl.  In the end, though, he is neither female nor six years old.
• There may be some brain circuitry involved in a man "identifying" as a dragon.  In the end, though, he is not a dragon.
• There may be some brain circuitry involved in a man "identifying" as a woman.  In the end, though, he is not a woman.

Absent some significant foray into equivocation (typically involving a radical re-definition of, or refusing to coherently define, "woman"), I don't see much daylight in the foregoing bulleted items.

"Sociological identities" can and do matter (though some do not).

I strongly suspect that the teenager who "identifies" as a dog is not really treated as an actual dog.  I suspect his family and friends who are willing to go along with his mental illness go along with it for various reasons.  However, in the end his family probably doesn't let him defecate in the yard, have go without clothing, have him sleep in a kennel outside, feed him dog food, have him receive veterinary care, skip school, etc.  When the chips are down, he is sociologically a human being, not a dog.  His sociological identity does not override biological fact and reality.

In contrast, some (increasingly larger) segments of society are willing to go along with the sociological "identity" adopted by a biological male that he is a "woman."  Some jurisdictions let him change his birth gender on legal documents (as happened with Caitlin f/k/a Bruce Jenner), participate in women's sports (Lia Thomas), be in women's-only spaces (bathrooms, prisons), and so on.  This sociological identity does override biological fact and reality, at least in some jurisdictions.

I am curious as to why the "transgender" identity is legally privileged, whereas the other "identities" under discussion are, it seems, not.

The Emperor's New Clothes comes to mind.  Some people seem to be able to formulate a coherent argument (presumably based on brain structure) for asserting that the "transgender" Emperor is wearing clothes, but that the other emperors (the teenage boy who identifies as a dog, Eva Medusa who identifies as a dragon, Stefoknee Wolscht who identifies as a permanently-six-year-old girl) are all naked.  In my view, they are all naked.  The only material distinction between them is that there are substantial cohorts of society who are declaring the "transgender" Emperor as fully clothed, and anyone who says otherwise is a bigot or an ignoramus.

Nope.  A biological male does not become a woman due to brain chemistry, circuitry, whatever.  

There is no evidence that a biological male can become a woman by "identifying" as such.

There is no evidence that a homo sapiens can become a dog by "identifying" as such.

Which, even if true (a pretty big if), is irrelevant to whether a biological male can "become" a woman by identifying as such.

I am not ignoring it.  I am saying that subjective feelings cannot trump biological reality.

I am seeing you privilege transgender "identity" and scoff at other forms of it.  I am curious as to why.

Thanks,

-Smac

We have seen this all before on this board haven't we.  People who are different, people who are others, start getting compared to pets and barnyard animals.  It wasn't that long ago that these same comparisons on this very board was made when gay marriage was up for the popular vote.  Claims that if we let those that are gay marry, then that will completely change the definition of marriage and people will want to marry their dogs, cows, horses, even inanimate objects like computers etc.  Yeah I remember those discussions like it was yesterday.  I remember these comparisons within the last month.

We are not defined by how we treat those that are like us.  We are defined by those that are different than us. Do we bring them close to Christ and reach out to them with love and compassion, wanting to ease their burdens?  Or do we isolate them and feel like no matter who they are, they are unwelcome in our circle only adding to their burdens.  We aren't talking about criminals or dangerous people here.  We are talking about people who struggle with their gender.  Those that are making them into criminals, or comparing them to dogs or whatever want to judge a minority group as a whole and cast them out, not as individuals, but as an entire group.  Keep those that are different than us from us who we suppose are holy and justified simply because we are not like them.  This has been going on since the beginning of human history and I assume for some, it will always be that way.  We have a choice, each and every one of us to choose how we treat individuals for who they are and not throw them into some kind of group that we can demonize and degrade.  

How you treat others defines who you are, not who they are.  If you are a follower of Christ, should we not first ask ourselves, what would Jesus do??  Shouldn't our judgements be based on how Jesus treated those that were different?  Shouldn't we be more concerned with our own sins than others that are different?  Just what is the gospel of Jesus Christ is something we all have to ask ourselves when we come across someone who is not like us.  

 

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

We have seen this all before on this board haven't we.  People who are different, people who are others, start getting compared to pets and barnyard animals.  It wasn't that long ago that these same comparisons on this very board was made when gay marriage was up for the popular vote.  Claims that if we let those that are gay marry, then that will completely change the definition of marriage and people will want to marry their dogs, cows, horses, even inanimate objects like computers etc.  Yeah I remember those discussions like it was yesterday.  I remember these comparisons within the last month.

We are not defined by how we treat those that are like us.  We are defined by those that are different than us. Do we bring them close to Christ and reach out to them with love and compassion, wanting to ease their burdens?  Or do we isolate them and feel like no matter who they are, they are unwelcome in our circle only adding to their burdens.  We aren't talking about criminals or dangerous people here.  We are talking about people who struggle with their gender.  Those that are making them into criminals, or comparing them to dogs or whatever want to judge a minority group as a whole and cast them out, not as individuals, but as an entire group.  Keep those that are different than us from us who we suppose are holy and justified simply because we are not like them.  This has been going on since the beginning of human history and I assume for some, it will always be that way.  We have a choice, each and every one of us to choose how we treat individuals for who they are and not throw them into some kind of group that we can demonize and degrade.  

How you treat others defines who you are, not who they are.  If you are a follower of Christ, should we not first ask ourselves, what would Jesus do??  Shouldn't our judgements be based on how Jesus treated those that were different?  Shouldn't we be more concerned with our own sins than others that are different?  Just what is the gospel of Jesus Christ is something we all have to ask ourselves when we come across someone who is not like us.  

 

Jesus is a great example!

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

We have seen this all before on this board haven't we.  People who are different, people who are others, start getting compared to pets and barnyard animals.  

Not here.  

We are discussing people adopting "identities" in which they claim to be something they are not, which identities are not congruent with biological fact and reality.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

We are not defined by how we treat those that are like us.  We are defined by those that are different than us. Do we bring them close to Christ and reach out to them with love and compassion, wanting to ease their burdens?

Yes, we want to do that.

So the teenager that "identifies" as a dog.  How do you propose we as a society ease his burdens?  Do we go along with, ratify, endorse, celebrate, etc. his identity?

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Or do we isolate them and feel like no matter who they are, they are unwelcome in our circle only adding to their burdens.  

No, we do not do that.  We should help and be kind and respectful to each other.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

We aren't talking about criminals or dangerous people here.  

I agree.  We are talking about people whose grasp of reality is empirically erroneous.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

We are talking about people who struggle with their gender.  

"Gender" meaning . . . what?  In my view, "gender" is either (A) a co-extensive synonym to "biological sex," or else it is (B) a undefinable and infinitely malleable pastiche of subjective generalizations and stereotypes about biological sex.  We as a society have some few, but very important, compartmentalizations based on biological sex, such as women's medicine, women's sports, women's spaces (bathrooms, changing rooms, prisons, etc.).  We legally segregate based on these.  Conversely, we pretty much do not care much about regulating generalizations and stereotypes.

Moreover, when we say that we are "talking about people who struggle with their gender," we are talking about people with erroneous, incongruent-with-reality, borne-of-mental-illness-and-confusion perceptions of their "identity" as a male or female.  

Moreover, we are also "talking about people who struggle with" other erroneous, incongruent-with-reality, borne-of-mental-illness-and-confusion perceptions of their "identity," such as a teenage male homo sapiens who "identifies" as a dog, Eva Tiamat Medusa, a biological male who "identifies" as a female and a dragon/reptile, and Stefonknee Wolscht, an adult biological male who "identifies" as a perennially-six-year-old girl.

These three are examples of people who also "struggle," but we as a society seem to treat them differently.  That is, while we , can and should treat them with kindness, decency, and respect, we do not actually go along with their empirically-disprovable "identities."  This is how we, as a society, "reach out to them with love and compassion, wanting to ease their burdens."  But we take a very different approach to people who "identify" as trans.  I am curious as to why, and whether we should, do this.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Those that are making them into criminals,

Meh.  Nobody has suggested this.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

or comparing them to dogs or whatever

Nobody is doing this, either.

CB, people like you constantly exhort people to attempt to reach out, empathize, understand, listen to, etc. people who are gay, trans, etc.  Right?  I did that.  I went to Encircle House and listened.  One of the people I listened to was a teenage boy who "identifies" as a dog.  I did not "compare" him to a dog, I only noted that he "identifies" as one, and I posed some questions about it (here) :

Quote

After the meeting I walked downstairs to the main floor, where I encountered a larger group of mostly teenagers.  They were all talking animatedly.  Two or three of them were dressed up as "furries."  One of them, who was kneeling on the ground with dog ears on his head and a collar around his neck, turned and saw me.  He smiled and said "Hi!  My name is Jack, and I identify as a dog.  Woof!"  (I can't remember the name he gave, but it was a generic male name.)  I said hello back to him, and asked him about his day.  He said it had been fine.  As I had already been there for over an hour, I then exited the building and drove home.

On the drive home, I wondered about the expectations I had just encountered.  The people I had met upstairs all stated that they were "trans men," that is, biological women who "identify" as man.  None of them was dressed in any particularly "masculine" way.  They all had their hair in unremarkable cuts/styles.  None of them had beards, low voices, or anything.  All of them appeared to look female in every normative respect ("feminine" facial features, breasts, hips, etc.).  And yet each of them stated their identity as a "trans man."  And I think they had an expectation for this identity to be acknowledged, accepted, ratified, etc.  

Then I thought about the teenager I had met downstairs.  He specifically said he "identifies" as a dog.  Was I supposed to accept that statement as congruent with reality and biological fact?  Left to my own devices, I would think not, because notwithstanding how he "identifies," this kid was not a dog.  He was a human being.  In my  brief interaction with him, I treated him with kindness and respect, but I did not acknowledge (or endorse, or ratify, etc.) his self-identification as a dog.  It was a passing interaction, so there was no particular need to do so.  But if he and his family were to move in next door, and if his parents were to ask me to "respect" his "identity" as a dog, to treat him like a dog, to act as if I think he is actually a dog, etc., should I go along with that?

Rather than address my thoughts, you seem to be trying to shame or coerce me into silence by misrepresenting what I have said.  I hope you will stop doing that.

I thought about the teenager I had met downstairs.  He specifically said he "identifies" as a dog.  What do you think?  Was I supposed to accept that statement as congruent with reality and biological fact?

Left to my own devices, I would think not, because notwithstanding how he "identifies," this kid was not a dog.  He was a human being.  In my  brief interaction with him, I treated him with kindness and respect, but I did not acknowledge (or endorse, or ratify, etc.) his self-identification as a dog.  Do you think I made a mistake?  Should I ratify and accept his "identity" as a dog?

If this teenage boy and his family were to move in next door, and if his parents were to ask me to "respect" his "identity" as a dog, to treat him like a dog, to act as if I think he is actually a dog, etc., do you think should I go along with that?

I appreciate that you and I have different perspectives on these issues.  I am genuinely trying to understand yours, as I have sincere and reasonable and respectful questions about it.  Rather than attempt to silence me, I hope you will address the foregoing questions.  You have no obligation to do so.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

want to judge a minority group as a whole and cast them out, not as individuals, but as an entire group.  Keep those that are different than us from us who we suppose are holy and justified simply because we are not like them.  This has been going on since the beginning of human history and I assume for some, it will always be that way.  We have a choice, each and every one of us to choose how we treat individuals for who they are and not throw them into some kind of group that we can demonize and degrade.  

Nobody is doing this stuff.  You are attempting to stile and censor discussion.  I hope you will stop doing this.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

How you treat others defines who you are, not who they are.  If you are a follower of Christ, should we not first ask ourselves, what would Jesus do??  

I believe He would love them, and perhaps heal them of their illnesses.

I do not believe He would ratify false untruths or incorrect notions of reality.  

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Shouldn't our judgements be based on how Jesus treated those that were different?  Shouldn't we be more concerned with our own sins than others that are different?  Just what is the gospel of Jesus Christ is something we all have to ask ourselves when we come across someone who is not like us.  

I believe I treated the teenage boy with kindness and respect.  

I see nothing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ that requires me to ratify, endorse, accept, celebrate, etc. his self-declared "identity" as a dog.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 26, 2024 by smac97

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Not here.  

We are discussing people adopting "identities" in which they claim to be something they are not, which identities are not congruent with biological fact and reality.

Yes, we want to do that.

So the teenager that "identifies" as a dog.  How do you propose we as a society ease his burdens?  Do we go along with, ratify, endorse, celebrate, etc. his identity?

No, we do not do that.  We should help and be kind and respectful to each other.

I agree.  We are talking about people whose grasp of reality is empirically erroneous.

"Gender" meaning . . . what?  In my view, "gender" is either (A) a co-extensive synonym to "biological sex," or else it is (B) a undefinable and infinitely malleable pastiche of subjective generalizations and stereotypes about biological sex.  We as a society have some few, but very important, compartmentalizations based on biological sex, such as women's medicine, women's sports, women's spaces (bathrooms, changing rooms, prisons, etc.).  We legally segregate based on these.  Conversely, we pretty much do not care much about regulating generalizations and stereotypes.

Moreover, when we say that we are "talking about people who struggle with their gender," we are talking about people with erroneous, incongruent-with-reality, borne-of-mental-illness-and-confusion perceptions of their "identity" as a male or female.  

Moreover, we are also "talking about people who struggle with" other erroneous, incongruent-with-reality, borne-of-mental-illness-and-confusion perceptions of their "identity," such as a teenage male homo sapiens who "identifies" as a dog, Eva Tiamat Medusa, a biological male who "identifies" as a female and a dragon/reptile, and Stefonknee Wolscht, an adult biological male who "identifies" as a perennially-six-year-old girl.

These three are examples of people who also "struggle," but we as a society seem to treat them differently.  That is, while we , can and should treat them with kindness, decency, and respect, we do not actually go along with their empirically-disprovable "identities."  This is how we, as a society, "reach out to them with love and compassion, wanting to ease their burdens."  But we take a very different approach to people who "identify" as trans.  I am curious as to why, and whether we should, do this.

Meh.  Nobody has suggested this.

Nobody is doing this, either.

CB, people like you constantly exhort people to attempt to reach out, empathize, understand, listen to, etc. people who are gay, trans, etc.  Right?  I did that.  I went to Encircle House and listened.  One of the people I listened to was a teenage boy who "identifies" as a dog.  I did not "compare" him to a dog, I only noted that he "identifies" as one, and I posed some questions about it (here) :

Rather than address my thoughts, you seem to be trying to shame or coerce me into silence by misrepresenting what I have said.  I hope you will stop doing that.

I thought about the teenager I had met downstairs.  He specifically said he "identifies" as a dog.  What do you think?  Was I supposed to accept that statement as congruent with reality and biological fact?

Left to my own devices, I would think not, because notwithstanding how he "identifies," this kid was not a dog.  He was a human being.  In my  brief interaction with him, I treated him with kindness and respect, but I did not acknowledge (or endorse, or ratify, etc.) his self-identification as a dog.  Do you think I made a mistake?  Should I ratify and accept his "identity" as a dog?

If this teenage boy and his family were to move in next door, and if his parents were to ask me to "respect" his "identity" as a dog, to treat him like a dog, to act as if I think he is actually a dog, etc., do you think should I go along with that?

I appreciate that you and I have different perspectives on these issues.  I am genuinely trying to understand yours, as I have sincere and reasonable and respectful questions about it.  Rather than attempt to silence me, I hope you will address the foregoing questions.  You have no obligation to do so.

Nobody is doing this stuff.  You are attempting to stile and censor discussion.  I hope you will stop doing this.

I believe He would love them, and perhaps heal them of their illnesses.

I do not believe He would ratify false untruths or incorrect notions of reality.  

I believe I treated the teenage boy with kindness and respect.  

I see nothing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ that requires me to ratify, endorse, accept, celebrate, etc. his self-declared "identity" as a dog.

Thanks,

-Smac

If you don't slice and dice my post so you keep my thoughts in the context that I wrote them, then I would be glad to discuss this with you.  

[Calm]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am saying that subjective feelings cannot trump biological reality.

Where are the subjective feelings in studies measuring cortical thickness or length of receptor genes?  Very serious question.  

Quote

A biological male does not become a woman due to brain chemistry, circuitry

And if that is what I was saying, you might have a point.

Quote

am seeing you privilege transgender "identity" and scoff at other forms of subjective, self-declared identities

I am not privileging transgender identities, I am looking at scientific studies.  When there are scientific studies on human brains to see if some human brain structures or behaviours more resemble dogs or dragons in individuals who identify as dogs or dragons, I will be very interested in reading them.  Probably more interested than reading transgender brain comparison studies.  Feel free to point those out for me.

Nor am I scoffing at other identities…I am scoffing at your using them inappropriately in an argument.

Quote

The only material distinction between them is that there are substantial cohorts of society who are declaring the "transgender" Emperor as fully clothed

You repeating this means you are ignoring the presence of valid scientific studies examining similarities in the one case and the complete lack of studies in the other two cases.

Again I am not saying the presence of studies demonstrate anything but that a discussion about the implications of “biological realities” to use your term is reasonable in the one case and not in the other two….because there are currently no biological studies showing that some human brains are closer in structure to dog or dragon brains than they are to other human brains.

Edited November 26, 2024 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I believe I treated the teenage boy with kindness and respect.  

 

Talking about dogs and animals in the context of people transitioning is hurtful whether you justify it or not. I don’t think that’s debatable. 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

I believe I treated the teenage boy with kindness and respect.  

Talking about dogs and animals in the context of people transitioning is hurtful whether you justify it or not. I don’t think that’s debatable. 

I think it's very debatable.  A teenage boy at Encircle House "identified" as a dog.  A group of women, biological females, in an upstairs room at Encircle House "identified" as men, biological males.  I treated all of them with respect and kindness, but somehow the latter "identity" is legitimate, whereas you seem to think the former is not.  I don't understand that, and you aren't explaining how or why.  I suspect it is because you cannot draw a reasoned distinction which allows you to accept one form of incongruent-with-reality-and-biological-fact "identity" while rejecting another out-of-hand.  If I am in error, please explain.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 27, 2024 by smac97

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Jesus is a great example!

Jesus identified as a God when he is clearly a man.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I treated all of them with respect and kindness, but somehow the latter "identity" is legitimate, whereas you seem to think the former is not. 

Depends on what you mean by “legitimate”. 
 

They can both be very legitimately helpful at dealing with anxieties, for example.  That doesn’t mean they both or either need or deserve legal recognition.  Nor does it mean they are equivalent.

Edited November 27, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

suspect it is because you cannot draw a reasoned distinction which allows you to accept one form of incongruent-with-reality-and-biological-fact "identity"

You keep saying this without actually demonstrating it.

Edited November 27, 2024 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think it's very debatable.  A teenage boy at Encircle House "identified" as a dog.  A group of women, biological females, in an upstairs room at Encircle House "identified" as men, biological males.  I treated all of them with respect and kindness, but somehow the latter "identity" is legitimate, whereas you seem to think the former is not.  I don't understand that, and you aren't explaining how or why.  I suspect it is because you cannot draw a reasoned distinction which allows you to accept one form of incongruent-with-reality-and-biological-fact "identity" while rejecting another out-of-hand.  If I am in error, please explain.

Thanks,

-Smac

Whether or not you were treating someone with respect is not what I was referring to.  I’m glad you treated them respectfully.  I don’t doubt that you did.
im telling you that bringing the comparison of transitioning genders  to being a dog into a discussion is hurtful to people who are trans as well as those who have loved ones who are trans.  
 

When my elderly dad told the Asian lady at the fast food restaurant last week that his name was “wangwong” (for the order) - it was not wrong because he is racist or cruel. He is neither.  It was wrong because it hurts her. Should it? The “should” is immaterial.  It does.  So he needs to be made aware.  He can choose if he wants to continue going into a restaurant and referring to himself as Wangwong.  But he’s hurting the other person whether he accepts it or not. 

Your insistence on pushing this issue is not an accurate measure of your stance on how you feel about trans people. But it is a reflection of how much you care about how other people feel in response to you and if it matters enough to change your behavior.

Edited November 27, 2024 by MustardSeed

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

I treated all of them with respect and kindness, but somehow the latter "identity" is legitimate, whereas you seem to think the former is not. 

Depends on what you mean by “legitimate”. 

I suppose we could start with "congruent with biological fact and reality."  And/or "in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical."

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

They can both be very legitimately helpful at dealing with anxieties, for example.  

I'll consider that.

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

That doesn’t mean they need or deserve legal recognition.

Aye, there's the rub.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 27, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

suspect it is because you cannot draw a reasoned distinction which allows you to accept one form of incongruent-with-reality-and-biological-fact "identity"

You keep saying this without actually demonstrating it.

Could you elaborate on what you mean here?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate on what you mean here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Go back and reread my posts as I have already done so several times. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think it's very debatable.  A teenage boy at Encircle House "identified" as a dog.  A group of women, biological females, in an upstairs room at Encircle House "identified" as men, biological males.  I treated all of them with respect and kindness, but somehow the latter "identity" is legitimate, whereas you seem to think the former is not.  I don't understand that, and you aren't explaining how or why.  I suspect it is because you cannot draw a reasoned distinction which allows you to accept one form of incongruent-with-reality-and-biological-fact "identity" while rejecting another out-of-hand.  If I am in error, please explain.

Thanks,

-Smac

What the hell difference does it make to you what someone identifies as?  Does it somehow threaten who you are as a person?  Are they demanding that some stranger on the internet recognize that they identify in any way that you don't?  Why is it so important to you that we somehow should be concerned if someone identifies as a dog?  And why is it so important that you want to compare them to someone who is trans?  Do you think you should have so much power over complete strangers that it is up to you to dictate how any stranger identifies?

I just don't get your obsession with this kind of controlling you seem to need to do towards other people in how they identify.

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Whether or not you were treating someone with respect is not what I was referring to.  I’m glad you treated them respectfully.  I don’t doubt that you did.
im telling you that bringing the comparison of transitioning genders  to being a dog into a discussion is hurtful to people who are trans as well as those who have loved ones who are trans.  

I'd like to understand this.  I did not say the teenager was a dog, I said he "identified" as one.  How is relating what he said hurtful?  

47 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Your insistence on pushing this issue is not an accurate measure of your stance on how you feel about trans people.

Please don't presume to tell me what my "stance" is, or accuse me of misrepresenting my "stance."  I'm happy to tell you, and to be honest about what I think.

47 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

But it is a reflection of how much you care about how other people feel in response to you and if it matters enough to change your behavior.

Change what behavior?  Why is it some terrible thing to relate an anecdote about meeting a teenage boy at Encircle House who "identified" as a dog and in a separate room in the same building meeting a group of women who "identified" as men, and to ask questions of others regarding this experience?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 27, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

I think it's very debatable.  A teenage boy at Encircle House "identified" as a dog.  A group of women, biological females, in an upstairs room at Encircle House "identified" as men, biological males.  I treated all of them with respect and kindness, but somehow the latter "identity" is legitimate, whereas you seem to think the former is not.  I don't understand that, and you aren't explaining how or why.  I suspect it is because you cannot draw a reasoned distinction which allows you to accept one form of incongruent-with-reality-and-biological-fact "identity" while rejecting another out-of-hand.  If I am in error, please explain.

What the hell difference does it make to you what someone identifies as?  

I am curious about the subject.  Folks like you seem to want folks like me to listen to viewpoints which differ from my own.  So I have.  And having done so, and having proffered some respectful observations and inquiries regarding those viewpoints, you respond with huffiness or anger or whatever it is your exhibiting here.

I have previously laid out some of the basis for my inquiry:

Quote

I do not believe it is "prejudice" to disagree with some (many?) aspects of trans ideology.  This is particularly so where the ideology is asking (demanding?) society to deny reality and biological science, to endorse highly questionable medical procedures on minors and people with substantial mental health comorbidities, to punish speech, to compel speech, etc.
...
 

Quote

I've seen transman who looked so real that i really couldn't believe that they have been a female once, and to me those are real man. I think i could date a transman who looks so real like. And do i care that he has been a woman in the past? No! I don't care one bit and it doesn't affect me. 

Okay.  And even if and when these women "transition" in more obvious ways (clothing, hormones, surgery, etc.), I am largely indifferent to their choices.  I may disagree with them in the abstract, but they are adults and can do as they like.  Based on the materials I have reviewed, I suspect many of them have substantial comorbidities, which I hope they address prior to taking any substantial and irreversible steps toward "transitioning."

I start to become concerned, though, when I come under threat of punishment by secular law if I do not use compelled speech in relation to these folks.  We are seeing that in increasing measures in Europe.  Fortunately, I live in the United States, and so face little threat of this.  I would hope that Europe would be equally averse to compelled speech, but oh well.

I also start to become concerned when minors are being encouraged to undergo "trans" procedures.  I have serious concerns about that.

I also have a few other concerns (generally, I don't think biological males should be playing in women's sports, going into women-only spaces, being housed in prisons for women, etc.).  

And here:

Quote

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

• There may be some brain circuitry involved in a teenage boy "identifying" as a dog.  In the end, though, he is not a dog.
• There may be some brain circuitry involved in a man in his 50s "identifying" as a permanently-six-year-old girl.  In the end, though, he is neither female nor six years old.
• There may be some brain circuitry involved in a man "identifying" as a dragon.  In the end, though, he is not a dragon.
• There may be some brain circuitry involved in a man "identifying" as a woman.  In the end, though, he is not a woman.

Absent some significant foray into equivocation (typically involving a radical re-definition of, or refusing to coherently define, "woman"), I don't see much daylight in the foregoing bulleted items.

"Sociological identities" can and do matter (though some do not).

I strongly suspect that the teenager who "identifies" as a dog is not really treated as an actual dog.  I suspect his family and friends who are willing to go along with his mental illness go along with it for various reasons.  However, in the end his family probably doesn't let him defecate in the yard, have go without clothing, have him sleep in a kennel outside, feed him dog food, have him receive veterinary care, skip school, etc.  When the chips are down, he is sociologically a human being, not a dog.  His sociological identity does not override biological fact and reality.

In contrast, some (increasingly larger) segments of society are willing to go along with the sociological "identity" adopted by a biological male that he is a "woman."  Some jurisdictions let him change his birth gender on legal documents (as happened with Caitlin f/k/a Bruce Jenner), participate in women's sports (Lia Thomas), be in women's-only spaces (bathrooms, prisons), and so on.  This sociological identity does override biological fact and reality, at least in some jurisdictions.

I am curious as to why the "transgender" identity is legally privileged, whereas the other "identities" under discussion are, it seems, not.

The Emperor's New Clothes comes to mind.  Some people seem to be able to formulate a coherent argument (presumably based on brain structure) for asserting that the "transgender" Emperor is wearing clothes, but that, in contrast, the other emperors (the teenage boy who identifies as a dog, Eva Medusa who identifies as a dragon, Stefoknee Wolscht who identifies as a permanently-six-year-old girl) are naked.  In my view, they are naked, all including the transgender guy.  The only material distinction between them is that there are substantial cohorts of society who are declaring the "transgender" Emperor as fully clothed, and anyone who says otherwise is a bigot or an ignoramus.

I hope you can stop attempting to stifle reasonable and civil discussion and start to meaningfully participate in it.

57 minutes ago, california boy said:

Does it somehow threaten who you are as a person?  

No.

57 minutes ago, california boy said:

Are they demanding that some stranger on the internet recognize that they identify in any way that you don't?  

I don't know.

57 minutes ago, california boy said:

Why is it so important to you that we somehow should be concerned if someone identifies as a dog?  

I think we as a society ought to be discussing these things.  

57 minutes ago, california boy said:

And why is it so important that you want to compare them to someone who is trans?  

See above.

Again, you are trying to stifle reasonable and civil discussion.

57 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you think you should have so much power over complete strangers that it is up to you to dictate how any stranger identifies?

Loaded question, unworthy of a response.

57 minutes ago, california boy said:

I just don't get your obsession with this kind of controlling you seem to need to do towards other people in how they identify.

I just don't understand how you sleep at night, what with you spending your days torturing puppies for fun and profit.

False accusations based on false/loaded premises are not worth much, are they?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 27, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Go back and reread my posts as I have already done so several times. 

No, thanks.  I think we're mostly talking past each other.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

Sorry, I don’t believe I can help you see much beyond your assumed need to argue. 

Edited November 27, 2024 by MustardSeed

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Sorry, I don’t believe I can help you see much beyond your need to argue. 

It would be nice if you stopped imputing thoughts and motives onto me.  

If you don't want to participate in a discussion about this topic, that's fine.  You are under no obligation to do so.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

would be nice if you stopped imputing thoughts and motives onto me.  

I didnt

edit:  I’m sorry.  I edited the post to publically acknowledge my assuming your need to argue. 

Edited November 27, 2024 by MustardSeed

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not here.  

We are discussing people adopting "identities" in which they claim to be something they are not, which identities are not congruent with biological fact and reality.

Yes, we want to do that.

So the teenager that "identifies" as a dog.  How do you propose we as a society ease his burdens?  Do we go along with, ratify, endorse, celebrate, etc. his identity?

No, we do not do that.  We should help and be kind and respectful to each other.

I agree.  We are talking about people whose grasp of reality is empirically erroneous.

"Gender" meaning . . . what?  In my view, "gender" is either (A) a co-extensive synonym to "biological sex," or else it is (B) a undefinable and infinitely malleable pastiche of subjective generalizations and stereotypes about biological sex.  We as a society have some few, but very important, compartmentalizations based on biological sex, such as women's medicine, women's sports, women's spaces (bathrooms, changing rooms, prisons, etc.).  We legally segregate based on these.  Conversely, we pretty much do not care much about regulating generalizations and stereotypes.

Moreover, when we say that we are "talking about people who struggle with their gender," we are talking about people with erroneous, incongruent-with-reality, borne-of-mental-illness-and-confusion perceptions of their "identity" as a male or female.  

Moreover, we are also "talking about people who struggle with" other erroneous, incongruent-with-reality, borne-of-mental-illness-and-confusion perceptions of their "identity," such as a teenage male homo sapiens who "identifies" as a dog, Eva Tiamat Medusa, a biological male who "identifies" as a female and a dragon/reptile, and Stefonknee Wolscht, an adult biological male who "identifies" as a perennially-six-year-old girl.

These three are examples of people who also "struggle," but we as a society seem to treat them differently.  That is, while we , can and should treat them with kindness, decency, and respect, we do not actually go along with their empirically-disprovable "identities."  This is how we, as a society, "reach out to them with love and compassion, wanting to ease their burdens."  But we take a very different approach to people who "identify" as trans.  I am curious as to why, and whether we should, do this.

Meh.  Nobody has suggested this.

Nobody is doing this, either.

CB, people like you constantly exhort people to attempt to reach out, empathize, understand, listen to, etc. people who are gay, trans, etc.  Right?  I did that.  I went to Encircle House and listened.  One of the people I listened to was a teenage boy who "identifies" as a dog.  I did not "compare" him to a dog, I only noted that he "identifies" as one, and I posed some questions about it (here) :

Rather than address my thoughts, you seem to be trying to shame or coerce me into silence by misrepresenting what I have said.  I hope you will stop doing that.

I thought about the teenager I had met downstairs.  He specifically said he "identifies" as a dog.  What do you think?  Was I supposed to accept that statement as congruent with reality and biological fact?

Left to my own devices, I would think not, because notwithstanding how he "identifies," this kid was not a dog.  He was a human being.  In my  brief interaction with him, I treated him with kindness and respect, but I did not acknowledge (or endorse, or ratify, etc.) his self-identification as a dog.  Do you think I made a mistake?  Should I ratify and accept his "identity" as a dog?

If this teenage boy and his family were to move in next door, and if his parents were to ask me to "respect" his "identity" as a dog, to treat him like a dog, to act as if I think he is actually a dog, etc., do you think should I go along with that?

Give him some headpets, some belly rubs, tell him he is a good boy, and give him a treat. It is not rocket science. Help the guy out.

Also you keep talking about biology as if every identity must be biologically driven. Trans men are not in denial that most of them have XX chromosomes. Trans women are not in denial about usually having XY chromosomes. I doubt that teenager thinks that if you sampled his DNA it would show him to be canine. This is a strawman you keep raising no matter how many times it is shot down. If you don’t care enough to try to understand how transgender people view themselves that is fine but stop putting words into their mouths.

I am guessing that teenager identifies as a dog in the same way you identify as a child of God. There is no DNA test that will prove either of you correct and you both know that. You feel it. Same way transgender people feel the pain of dysphoria. Same way we claim to be literal descendants of a deity. Our religious claim is actually much more extreme since we don’t say we identify as children of God, we just say we are. So really more like transgender people. Religious conversion is an interesting metaphor for transitioning now that I think about it.

People argue about how these identities come about. Some believe in some spiritual explanation. Some believe there are potential genetic components. Some suspect environment. Some think it was due to trauma or something else. If you think it is cowardly not to have an explanation the church specifically takes no position on what causes gender dysphoria so they are in good company I suppose.

Is that teenage boy living in a dog house outside? Is he biting the neighbors? Probably not. In my younger and wilder days I knew people in the furry, puppy, catboy, catgirl, otherkin, and whatever communities. For some it is tied to sexual desire. For some it is not. Most have jobs and live their lives and sometimes “pup out” or whatever when amongst people it won’t freak out. It lets them temporarily go to a happy space or play or just have fun. There are events and conventions they have fun at. Some are more playful. Some are sexual. If you see a sign saying something is a puppy mosh pit GO THE OTHER WAY!!!!!

Stefonknee Wolscht and Eva Tiamat Medusa are extremes. Stefonknee is accused of abandoning their wife and children though the reality appears much more complicated. His wife issued an ultimatum and then he got kicked out. Could the family unit have been saved by complying with the ultimatum and just enduring gender dysphoria? Maybe? I don’t know. The identifying as an 8 (later 6) year old is a variation of the ABDL or little kink. Probably primarily sought out as a form of self-therapy. Again, she doesn’t think she is biologically 6 years old. Eva Tiamat Medusa is trotted out because people find her disturbing to look at. These are shock value figures. That people’s minds jump to them is proof that people love to base stereotypes on things that are viewed as weird and unusual. So show more sympathy to those who assume all Mormons are polygamists. They are just stereotyping based on the most weird examples like you are doing here. It means they like “freakshows” too.

I am friends with a couple and one of them likes to go into pup headspace. Sometimes he does it when I am around. It is cute. He is my cuddle buddy when we watch movies. He has a good job and a healthy social life. He is just weird in private and it makes him happier. It helps him recharge. I am also friends with a sapphic (lesbian but only one is lesbian) couple who are both catgirls sometimes and interact with them in that headspace.

And in case you don’t think I am weird enough already I have been a puppy boy myself in my younger and wilder days. I didn’t identify that way on a spiritual level but it was fun to get into an animalistic headspace. Plus headpets, bellyrubs, “good boy”s, and treats are fun. I still have some of my gear. Might break it out for a party next month. Does this mean I am deeply mentally disturbed? I don’t know. I know it feels good and sometimes helped me. I have private theories as to why many people embrace this kind of play that have to do with social norms cutting people off from emotional support but they are just guesses. 

That isn’t the weirdest thing about me either or the things I sometimes do recreationally. I think it is healthy compared to the weirdos who want to marginalize everybody different and are more obsessed with transgender genitalia than transgender people are. Probably not a coincidence that pornhub search results for transgender porn is highest in red states. There is a weird attraction mixed with a lot of hatred. I suspect sometimes how much is self-hatred they are projecting. They would be so good and pure if those evil transgender devils weren’t out there tempting them. Hey, maybe that is where the irrational “grooming” thing comes from. More projection where they feel groomed. I am going to make a note to look into that. Could be interesting.

General warning: Be careful Googling some of the terms I used. Some may lead to fetish sites and images. Viewer discretion is advised.

[MiserereNobis]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Give him some headpets, some belly rubs, tell him he is a good boy, and give him a treat. It is not rocket science. Help the guy out.

Also you keep talking about biology as if every identity must be biologically driven. Trans men are not in denial that most of them have XX chromosomes. Trans women are not in denial about usually having XY chromosomes. I doubt that teenager thinks that if you sampled his DNA it would show him to be canine. This is a strawman you keep raising no matter how many times it is shot down. If you don’t care enough to try to understand how transgender people view themselves that is fine but stop putting words into their mouths.

I am guessing that teenager identifies as a dog in the same way you identify as a child of God. There is no DNA test that will prove either of you correct and you both know that. You feel it. Same way transgender people feel the pain of dysphoria. Same way we claim to be literal descendants of a deity. Our religious claim is actually much more extreme since we don’t say we identify as children of God, we just say we are. So really more like transgender people. Religious conversion is an interesting metaphor for transitioning now that I think about it.

People argue about how these identities come about. Some believe in some spiritual explanation. Some believe there are potential genetic components. Some suspect environment. Some think it was due to trauma or something else. If you think it is cowardly not to have an explanation the church specifically takes no position on what causes gender dysphoria so they are in good company I suppose.

Is that teenage boy living in a dog house outside? Is he biting the neighbors? Probably not. In my younger and wilder days I knew people in the furry, puppy, catboy, catgirl, otherkin, and whatever communities. For some it is tied to sexual desire. For some it is not. Most have jobs and live their lives and sometimes “pup out” or whatever when amongst people it won’t freak out. It lets them temporarily go to a happy space or play or just have fun. There are events and conventions they have fun at. Some are more playful. Some are sexual. If you see a sign saying something is a puppy mosh pit GO THE OTHER WAY!!!!!

Stefonknee Wolscht and Eva Tiamat Medusa are extremes. Stefonknee is accused of abandoning their wife and children though the reality appears much more complicated. His wife issued an ultimatum and then he got kicked out. Could the family unit have been saved by complying with the ultimatum and just enduring gender dysphoria? Maybe? I don’t know. The identifying as an 8 (later 6) year old is a variation of the ABDL or little kink. Probably primarily sought out as a form of self-therapy. Again, she doesn’t think she is biologically 6 years old. Eva Tiamat Medusa is trotted out because people find her disturbing to look at. These are shock value figures. That people’s minds jump to them is proof that people love to base stereotypes on things that are viewed as weird and unusual. So show more sympathy to those who assume all Mormons are polygamists. They are just stereotyping based on the most weird examples like you are doing here. It means they like “freakshows” too.

I am friends with a couple and one of them likes to go into pup headspace. Sometimes he does it when I am around. It is cute. He is my cuddle buddy when we watch movies. He has a good job and a healthy social life. He is just weird in private and it makes him happier. It helps him recharge. I am also friends with a sapphic (lesbian but only one is lesbian) couple who are both catgirls sometimes and interact with them in that headspace.

And in case you don’t think I am weird enough already I have been a puppy boy myself in my younger and wilder days. I didn’t identify that way on a spiritual level but it was fun to get into an animalistic headspace. Plus headpets, bellyrubs, “good boy”s, and treats are fun. I still have some of my gear. Might break it out for a party next month. Does this mean I am deeply mentally disturbed? I don’t know. I know it feels good and sometimes helped me. I have private theories as to why many people embrace this kind of play that have to do with social norms cutting people off from emotional support but they are just guesses. 

That isn’t the weirdest thing about me either or the things I sometimes do recreationally. I think it is healthy compared to the weirdos who want to marginalize everybody different and are more obsessed with transgender genitalia than transgender people are. Probably not a coincidence that pornhub search results for transgender porn is highest in red states. There is a weird attraction mixed with a lot of hatred. I suspect sometimes how much is self-hatred they are projecting. They would be so good and pure if those evil transgender devils weren’t out there tempting them. Hey, maybe that is where the irrational “grooming” thing comes from. More projection where they feel groomed. I am going to make a note to look into that. Could be interesting.

General warning: Be careful Googling some of the terms I used. Some may lead to fetish sites and images. Viewer discretion is advised.

How do your friends you mention think of you as a Mormon? I imagine Mormons don’t have the best reputation in these communities. Do you have to explain and defend your beliefs and community association?

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

How do your friends you mention think of you as a Mormon? I imagine Mormons don’t have the best reputation in these communities. Do you have to explain and defend your beliefs and community association?

Some don’t know. Some see me as being on the way out. They might be right. I don’t know.

A few have asked me if the stories about Mormon Swinger parties are real. I know a few exist but I am not a fan of swingers and most of the community people I know aren’t either. Swinger groups are weirdly too much like the church. I feel like I am going to choke on all of the heterosexuality sometimes in both places.

Edited November 27, 2024 by The Nehor