Trib Opinion Piece Re: Church's Trans Policies

[smac97]

13 hours 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.

I can't tell if you are being serious, or if you are being, well, something else.  

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Also you keep talking about biology as if every identity must be biologically driven.

Respectfully, no.  I am speaking in the context of social/legal differentiation of biological sex, and how notions of "identity" play into that.  As I noted earlier:

Quote

"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.

In the main, I am broadly indifferent to what people think, say, do, etc. privately and among friends.  But there are some issues which I think do merit discussion because they go beyond private behavior and into the public/legal sphere.

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Trans men are not in denial that most of them have XX chromosomes. Trans women are not in denial about usually having XY chromosomes.

We can't speak categorically, I suppose.  "Trans women are women" sure sounds like a denial of biological reality (unless we acquiesce to radically re-defining, or refusing to coherently define, "woman").

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I doubt that teenager thinks that if you sampled his DNA it would show him to be canine.

So how are we to treat his identity?  

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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 asking questions and seeking input from people whose views differ from my own.

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am guessing that teenager identifies as a dog in the same way you identify as a child of God.

Well, that's interesting.  I'll think on it.  But this belief has little bearing on how society treats me.

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

I can appreciate that.  My question, though, is why their dysphoric belief is, it seems, becoming privileged under the law.

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Is that teenage boy living in a dog house outside? Is he biting the neighbors? Probably not.

I agree.  I think neither he nor his family takes his "identity" as a dog very far in sociological, legal and other terms.  

Some trans people, though, are "living" as their claimed "identity," and are expecting society to go along with that.  I am trying to understand why one "identity" is apparently being privileged under the law, while the others are not.

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Stefonknee Wolscht and Eva Tiamat Medusa are extremes.

Extreme as a matter of degree?  Kind?  Both?  Neither?

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

That's not the impression I have had from reading about him.  He "identifies" as a six-year-old girl.  Am I supposed to disregard that?

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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 introduced these two to illustrate the seeming absence of any "limiting principle" to trans ideology.

I also introduced the anecdote about the teenage boy to counterbalance the seeming "extremism" inherent in the other two examples, while still noting the absence of a limiting principle as to any of them.

In the end, though, all three do not appear to enjoy any privileged "identity" except, it seems, for the "trans" aspect of Eva Tiamat Medusa's and Stefonknee's "identity."  So we as a society are free to disregard/reject their "identities" as a reptile/dragon and/or a perennially-six-year-old person (these being "extreme"), but we should not disregard/reject their claimed "identities" as women?

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

So it seems that they do this stuff mostly in private, or in limited public venues where likeminded people congregate, is that a fair statement?

Also, it seems like these folks, or most of them, do not expect society to treat them as actual dogs, cats, etc., correct?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 27, 2024 by smac97

[Doctor Steuss]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

Quasi-related.  Kevin Carnahan (Philosophy & Religion professor at Central Methodist University, and co-editor for the Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics) has a book coming out in April of next year on why traditional soteriology (particularly Pauline-centric) requires Christ to be both the new Adam and the new Eve.  So, theologically speaking, under this soteriology, it accepts Christ as necessarily trans.  Obviously because of publication date, I haven't read it yet, but he supposedly goes through the eras (from first-century Rome to medieval mysticism) and all of the various traditions that had Christ transgressing/transitioning across the boundaries of sex and gender.

It's called "The Disappearance of Eve and the Gender of Christ," and will be published by Fortress Press.  For those who have unending book addictions, bottomless money stores, and time galore.

[teddyaware]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

And God the Father also clearly identifies himself as a man. Therefore, so what?

57 Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time.(Moses 6)

[The Nehor]

On 11/26/2024 at 10:20 PM, smac97 said:

I can't tell if you are being serious, or if you are being, well, something else.  

Both.

On 11/26/2024 at 10:20 PM, smac97 said:

Respectfully, no.  I am speaking in the context of social/legal differentiation of biological sex, and how notions of "identity" play into that.  As I noted earlier:

In the main, I am broadly indifferent to what people think, say, do, etc. privately and among friends.  But there are some issues which I think do merit discussion because they go beyond private behavior and into the public/legal sphere.

We can't speak categorically, I suppose.  "Trans women are women" sure sounds like a denial of biological reality (unless we acquiesce to radically re-defining, or refusing to coherently define, "woman").

The concept of “women” was created before we had any biological reasons for the differences between sexes and genders. Relying on them to define it when they weren’t around when they were created seems more than a little odd. I suspect this will fail in the same way that white supremacists couldn’t come up with a scientific defnition for what constitutes a black person.

On 11/26/2024 at 10:20 PM, smac97 said:

So how are we to treat his identity?

Already said this. Headpets, treats, and belly rubs. Ask permission first though.

On 11/26/2024 at 10:20 PM, smac97 said:

  I am asking questions and seeking input from people whose views differ from my own.

And then ignoring the response. You keep saying they are denying biological reality when they are not.

On 11/26/2024 at 10:20 PM, smac97 said:

Well, that's interesting.  I'll think on it.  But this belief has little bearing on how society treats me.

And the teenager being a furry or a boypup should fall into the same category. 

On 11/26/2024 at 10:20 PM, smac97 said:

I can appreciate that.  My question, though, is why their dysphoric belief is, it seems, becoming privileged under the law.

I agree.  I think neither he nor his family takes his "identity" as a dog very far in sociological, legal and other terms.  

Some trans people, though, are "living" as their claimed "identity," and are expecting society to go along with that.  I am trying to understand why one "identity" is apparently being privileged under the law, while the others are not.

What privilege? They mostly want to be left alone and for people to stop taking away their right to make medical choices about their transition.

On 11/26/2024 at 10:20 PM, smac97 said:

Extreme as a matter of degree?  Kind?  Both?  Neither?

Degree. It is more that they function as shocking examples because people love the bizarre.

On 11/26/2024 at 10:20 PM, smac97 said:

That's not the impression I have had from reading about him.  He "identifies" as a six-year-old girl.  Am I supposed to disregard that?

You disregard the idea that someone assigned male at birth can identify as a woman. Why is this harder to disregard? Too shocking?

I am not involved in the ageplay/abdl community but I know people who are and that identification is almost always about the age of their little identity. There is talk of “being in littlespace”. It is a kind of escape mechanism or something done for recreation to relax. Sometimes it serves a therapeutic function. Sometimes people do it for fun. A biological adult who insisted they were six and acted like it all the time wouldn’t last long in the community.

On 11/26/2024 at 10:20 PM, smac97 said:

I introduced these two to illustrate the seeming absence of any "limiting principle" to trans ideology.

I also introduced the anecdote about the teenage boy to counterbalance the seeming "extremism" inherent in the other two examples, while still noting the absence of a limiting principle as to any of them.

In the end, though, all three do not appear to enjoy any privileged "identity" except, it seems, for the "trans" aspect of Eva Tiamat Medusa's and Stefonknee's "identity."  So we as a society are free to disregard/reject their "identities" as a reptile/dragon and/or a perennially-six-year-old person (these being "extreme"), but we should not disregard/reject their claimed "identities" as women?

What privilege? We have a somewhat arbitrary legal division over gender. They want to go to the other side. Is being a man or a woman such a huge advantage legally over the other gender that that is stealing something?

On 11/26/2024 at 10:20 PM, smac97 said:

So it seems that they do this stuff mostly in private, or in limited public venues where likeminded people congregate, is that a fair statement?

Also, it seems like these folks, or most of them, do not expect society to treat them as actual dogs, cats, etc., correct?

Yes and yes. Doing petplay or creature play or primal play in public is considered pushing your kink on others and is heavily frowned on. “Don’t scare the normies” is one phrase I have heard. It also gets you ostracized. These communities don’t want to be well-known or noticed. This leads to people trying to shut their events down or unbalanced with guns shooting up their venues.

If this is a trap to say you can insist someone who is biologically male has to be a man and society does not have to honor anyone who is transitioning it is vital that those who deny this change come up with a definition that is solidly black and white with no ambiguity that somehow deals with all shades of biological ambiguity including intersex people. Instead they insist the transgender activists have to give the definition when the reality is transgender people and gender studies scholars and the like are working hard to figure it out. Then their critics give some facile “common sense” definition that doesn’t include all cases showing they don’t have one either.

While I can usually identify what gender someone presents as I don’t see the huge difference so many do. In my younger and wilder days I more often dressed and presented myself androgynously. I started flirting with what I thought was a cute twink guy. Turns out she was a woman who thought I was a butch lesbian. We both laughed it off and dated for a while.

[The Nehor]

On 11/27/2024 at 10:32 AM, teddyaware said:

And God the Father also clearly identifies himself as a man. Therefore, so what?

57 Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time.(Moses 6)

And yet there are people born with ambiguous biological gender characteristics. So there could be intersex Gods out there. Why not transgender ones?

[Tacenda]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And yet there are people born with ambiguous biological gender characteristics. So there could be intersex Gods out there. Why not transgender ones?

I stumbled across this YouTube video of a woman that later found out she was a male as well as female, I really like her. And isn't it no wonder we have the LGBTQ among us. People need to open their minds, for heaven sakes.

 

[smac97]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Respectfully, no.  I am speaking in the context of social/legal differentiation of biological sex, and how notions of "identity" play into that.  As I noted earlier:

In the main, I am broadly indifferent to what people think, say, do, etc. privately and among friends.  But there are some issues which I think do merit discussion because they go beyond private behavior and into the public/legal sphere.

We can't speak categorically, I suppose.  "Trans women are women" sure sounds like a denial of biological reality (unless we acquiesce to radically re-defining, or refusing to coherently define, "woman").

The concept of “women” was created before we had any biological reasons for the differences between sexes and genders.  Relying on them to define it when they weren’t around when they were created seems more than a little odd.

I do not understand what you are saying here.  A "woman" is an adult biological female human.  We did not "create" the entity, we recognized it as existing and gave it a name.

I also do not understand what you mean by "before we had any biological reasons for the differences between sexes and genders."  Are you referencing differences between male and female?  Between "sex" and "gender"?

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I suspect this will fail in the same way that white supremacists couldn’t come up with a scientific definition for what constitutes a black person.

I do not understand what you are saying here.  We do have a "scientific definition" for what a woman is.

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

So how are we to treat his identity?

Already said this. Headpets, treats, and belly rubs. Ask permission first though.

But not really accept this "identity," though, right?  He's not really a dog.  We know it.  He knows it.  Those who want to play along with it are free to do so.  But in a broad sociological and legal context, he remains a human being.  For example, if he were to bite someone, he would not be euthanized (because he is not a dog), but he could not claim to be immune from punishment under the civil law (because he is a human).  Do we agree on that?

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I am asking questions and seeking input from people whose views differ from my own.

And then ignoring the response.

Well, no.  Here I am, interacting with your responses.

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You keep saying they are denying biological reality when they are not.

"Trans women are women" is not a denial of biological reality?  It seems that way to me.

Here is a YouTube video: Trans Women are Not "Biological Males"

From the description:

Quote

You often hear the phrase "trans women are biological males" thrown around, mainly by those trying to discriminate against trans people. But aren't trans people really just biologically male? Isn't that "the whole point of being trans," as some people say? Even trans-supportive people seem to agree on this point. Or, is it, as anti-trans people argue, that trans people do not understand biology? Or is it much more complex than that? Hint: It's more complex. So here's a video explaining what that means for our understanding of biology.

In the video the presenter speaks of a "minsinformed view of trans people that, somehow, trans women, for example, like myself, think that we're the same as cis women, i.e., nontransgender women.  Hint: we don't think that."

But then in the next sentence he says that "trans women push back on being called 'biologically male,' that we somehow don't understand basic biology that we all learned in middle school."  "{P}ush{ing} back on being called 'biologically male'" looks like a denial of biological reality.

He then goes on to talk about "two completely different things," that is, "sex and gender."  This seems to be equivocation.

He also goes to say that "trans people argue, and many people even understand, that 'sex' that biology, is also socially constructed."  This looks like a denial of biological reality.

He lays out his presentation as "1. Middle School Biology Review; 2. Socially Constructed Biology; 3.Biology Weaponized."

The overall presentation seems to be about equivocation and denial of biology.  He says "everything is mutable," when only some things are.  He speaks of people with DSD.

I watched about a third of the presentation (it's 70+ minutes long).  Perhaps I should finish watching it, but he seems to be arguing that, because of DSDs (which as "complexities") and subjective feelings, the sexual binary does not actually exist, which I take to be a denial of biological reality.

As I see it, biological sex is, in virtually all circumstances, a "straightforward concept."  See, e.g., here.

Quote

Last year I came across an interesting article published in the British Medical Journal (one of the most influential medical periodicals in the world): Rethinking sex-assigned-at-birth questions.  In this article the authors were critical of people in medical fields making inquiries about a person's biological sex (“What sex were you assigned at birth, on your original birth certificate?”) and differentiating that from their "gender identity" (“What is your gender identity?”).  The authors seemed to hint that these questions were transphobic:

These questions have the potential to harm patients when they are used as a proxy for the more specific questions about anatomy and hormonal levels required to determine someone’s health needs. Furthermore, they do not inform clinicians about patients’ identities, names, or pronouns, all of which are important for truly inclusive clinical encounters. Instead, they may worsen rapport since sex assigned at birth is a construct that often clashes with the identity of transgender, intersex, and other people.
...
In both clinical and research settings, questions that allow patients to self-identify as transgender are critically important to identify and quantify health disparities and to develop effective interventions to reduce them. Questions about transgender identity should be developed by transgender people and vary according to setting, such as research, clinical practice, and census records. Questions regarding gender, transgender, and other relevant identities should be asked in research settings; in clinical settings, questions about pronouns and anatomy may be more relevant. These questions should be rigorously evaluated in the setting for which they were developed.

Recognising and respecting the gender of another person provides an opportunity to connect in a non-hierarchical manner. More broadly, recognising gender without reference to flawed constructs around sex assigned at birth allows us all greater personal autonomy and is key to eliminating transphobia in medicine and beyond.

The "Letter to the Editor" responses to the above article mostly from medical professionals were . . . pretty frank.  Here's an example (emphases added):

Dear editor,

 

We are writing on behalf of the Gender Dysphoria Alliance leadership board and membership. We are an education and advocacy organization for those with gender dysphoria – those who have medically transitioned and those who haven’t.

 

We acknowledge that there is disagreement among transpeople about political and clinical matters. We disagree with the erasure of accurate biological language and realities, for several reasons.

...

We believe it’s highly important for people with GD such as ourselves, whether we medicalize or not, to retain awareness of our biological sex. Because it’s not truly possible to change sex, accepting our full reality as trans people is important for both our psychological and physical well-being.

...

There are healthcare implications and safety concerns if our biological sex isn’t clearly recorded on our medical records to orient care providers to our medical needs.

 

Finally, we believe that the alteration of language and the falsified understanding of biological sex, applied to all people, is the result of extreme activism which is increasing societal hostility towards trans people. We do not wish to participate in that, and we don’t think it’s necessary in order for us to have rights and be integrated into society.

Another (emphasis added):

Dear Editor

 

Alpert and colleagues report in a BMJ Editorial 5th June 2021 that characteristics of external genitalia at birth are 98% accurate in defining sex at birth. They go on to say that these are ‘flawed constructs’ around sex assigned at birth. Never before have I heard of a test with 98% sensitivity being regarded as a ‘fl[aw]ed construct’. Would the authors please explain the reasoning which lead them to this conclusion.

 

Dr Peter Phillips FRCP

Consultant Geriatrician

East Suffolk and North Essex Foundation Trust

Another (emphases added):

Dear Editor

 

Sex assigned at birth: the difference between the biological fact and its social interpretation

 

It is good news to find articles like the one by Alpert et al.1 in which, from a multidisciplinary perspective, he studies scientific aspects with a humanistic approach. Thus, the aforementioned work shows great sensitivity to issues, beyond scientific ones, that affect a particularly vulnerable sector of the population.

 

However, there is one aspect of the article that I would like to draw attention to, and on which I would like to contribute another view. I am referring to the risk of confusing biological or physiological data with its meaning or social interpretation. Specifically, I find it worrying that, from a scientific point of view, the fact of sex assigned to a human being at birth is relativized, considering it an irrelevant fact and without any consequence.

 

It is true that different authors, mainly related to the ideology of gender postfeminism and from philosophical dialectics, have been affirming for years that biological sex is an artificial construction that must be discarded. Nonetheless, it is a serious danger that, on a clinical and healthcare level, a piece of data that is biological is relativized. This means being left at the expense of the meaning attributed to sex based on certain interests or feelings.

 

It is false that the sex assigned to a human being at birth is an invention or social construction, devoid of reality. On the contrary, we are facing a verifiable fact, not only by the physiognomy of some genitalia, but also by genetic evidence provided by analytics, etc.

 

This same type of verification is the one carried out with the rest of the animals and is the one that, for example, allows detecting a sex-linked hereditary disease, or indicating to a mother in the delivery room if she has had a son or a daughter. Are we really in reality when we think that a mother can be told that the sex of her newborn is not known and that we will have to wait for the newborn to state it?

 

The sex assigned at birth (derived from the consideration of the genitalia, the proportion of circulating hormones, etc.) is a fact that may have different meanings for different people or for different currents of thought. And that is where, in my opinion, the research and debate on the interpretation of what sex and gender means in society should be based.

 

The work referred to, by Alpert et al., ends up stating that “recognizing gender without reference to flawed constructs around sex assigned at birth allows us all greater personal autonomy and key to eliminating transphobia in medicine and beyond”. I believe that the previous statement, in accordance with what is indicated in the previous paragraphs, can be disputed, since, among other things, it can have effects contrary to those that the author seeks. Precisely, considering the sex assigned at birth as a social construction contradicts the autonomy of the person (based on complete and real information), and also the normalization of trans people. In reality, denying that transgender people have a biological sex at birth is stripping their own requests for gender reassignment of foundations.

 

José López-Guzmán

Professor of Pharmaceutical Humanities

Pharmacy Faculty, University of Navarra

Research Building. University of Navarra. 31000 Pamplona (Spain)

Another (emphases added):

Dear Editor,

 

Like some of your other correspondents, I am baffled by the idea of referring to "sex assigned at birth". Sex is an inbuilt biological characteristic, like eye colour, blood group or the number of fingers one has - it is discovered at birth (or, in some cases, prenatally), not "assigned". Its foundation is the individual's chromosome content which, in the overwhelming majority of cases, leads to predictable processes of development in the genitalia and in other bodily areas. The authors seem to be arguing that because biological sex does not tell a doctor everything about a person's health or disease risk, it is of no value - an obvious non sequitur.

 

To take the example given by the authors in reply to an earlier rapid response: the possibility of pregnancy exists for most biological females (including some of those who have transitioned to a male gender role) but is impossible for all biological males, whatever gender role they adopt. Other respondents have already commented on the need to be aware of disease risk relating to cervical or prostate screening and one must also include cardiovascular risk which, though complicated, shows certain clear differences between men and women.

 

Transgender people, like everyone else, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect but this in no way means that downgrading or ignoring sex as a cardinal feature of someone's biology makes any sense.

 

Roger Fisken

Retired consultant physician and endocrinologist

Another:

Dear Editor

 

I am truly baffled that such an esteemed medical journal could publish an article about sex being assigned at birth. Since forever sex has been observed at birth if not already known. The only time it may be considered to be assigned is in the very small percentage of cases of those with a DSD where there is ambiguity.

 

The notion of someone being assigned a sex implies that it may not be correct, but we know no one changes sex, that there are only 2 sexes. Why are you peddling this nonsense? It is making a mockery of the medical profession.

 

Helen Bailey

Client services coordinator

Hampshire

Another:

Dear Editor

 

There is no such thing as "sex-assigned-at-birth". Sex is not assigned at birth. Publishing this nonsense diminishes the reputation of your journal.

 

Prof David Curtis MD PhD FRCPsych

Honorary Professor

UCL Genetics Institute

Another (emphases added):

Dear Editor

 

This editorial appears to argue against the use of clear language to describe biological sex in medicine. The authors seem to take a rather myopic view of this issue, framing it as one rooted in transgender rights and who holds power in “assigning sex,” instead of basic principles.

 

Human beings, of course, reproduced sexually long before modern medicine, birth certificates, or the word “transgender” first came to be. The truth of the sex binary is anchored in the mechanism that brings every human into existence.[1] Humans have two different types of gametes, two types of reproductive systems, two discrete reproductive roles: two sexes. As a result, we have given these two sexes different names: female and male. These will exist whether or not the clinician writes them down, or asks a transgender patient “what is your sex?” The fact that 0.02% of babies[2] have differences in sex development that cause the usually easy identification of sex to become a more complex affair, does not invalidate sex as one of the most clinically useful categorisations in medicine. To suggest that it does, and therefore sex should not be recorded, is absurd. If the accuracy of observable sex is claimed not to be good enough for doctors to record or rely on in medical practice, this would logically put doctors in a position where any data they have would need to reach an accuracy threshold far exceeding most tests. Even by the authors’ own statistic of 98%, it sets an impossibly high bar.

 

...

 

No rational argument appears to be made as to why doctors should avoid admitting that the patients who had hysterectomies are biologically female, and those who had orchiectomies male. Surgery on reproductive organs does not render sex obsolete. A lobectomy does not make the respiratory system redundant. While the authors dismiss information gained from knowledge of biological sex as “shorthand,” knowledge of the two types of reproductive systems, and being able to name them, is important. This holds true for gender clinicians, too. The patient referral form for the Gender Identity Clinic in London asks for “sex assigned at birth.”[8] It seems strange to suggest medicine should have no names for the distinctions between the people at risk of testicular torsion versus cervical cancer. Communication skills usually advise against reducing people to their organs, to avoid saying “the pancreas in room 7,” but even if some form of organ-inventory system were proposed, it seems likely the basic template would come in two distinct types.

 

Gender identity information can be valuable to help guide the clinical encounter, respect the transgender patient’s sense of self and gain a fuller picture as to healthcare needs. But gender identity should be recorded in addition to, not act as a replacement for, biological sex. If an unknown patient comes in to A&E, unaccompanied and unconscious, their gender identity would not be ascertainable. However, their sex would remain observable, and would make a difference to that patient’s care.

 

Healthcare cannot collectively discard words for the two biological sexes. Awareness of the importance of clinical research into sex differences in medicine, especially for the female sex[9], has just been highlighted by the pandemic. How would such work be done if the sexes cannot be named?

 

Clear language on sex is vital in medicine, science, and public health education.

 

It is surprising these words should need to be typed in a Rapid Response to the BMJ.

 

Sara Dahlen

MSc Student, Bioethics and Society

King's College London

London

 

• Never before have I heard of a test with 98% sensitivity being regarded as a ‘fl[aw]ed construct’
• It is false that the sex assigned to a human being at birth is an invention or social construction, devoid of reality. On the contrary, we are facing a verifiable fact, not only by the physiognomy of some genitalia, but also by genetic evidence provided by analytics, etc.
• I am baffled by the idea of referring to "sex assigned at birth". Sex is an inbuilt biological characteristic, like eye colour, blood group or the number of fingers one has - it is discovered at birth (or, in some cases, prenatally), not "assigned".
• Transgender people, like everyone else, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect but this in no way means that downgrading or ignoring sex as a cardinal feature of someone's biology makes any sense.
• There is no such thing as "sex-assigned-at-birth". Sex is not assigned at birth. Publishing this nonsense diminishes the reputation of your journal.
• The truth of the sex binary is anchored in the mechanism that brings every human into existence.[1] Humans have two different types of gametes, two types of reproductive systems, two discrete reproductive roles: two sexes. As a result, we have given these two sexes different names: female and male.
• The fact that 0.02% of babies[2] have differences in sex development that cause the usually easy identification of sex to become a more complex affair, does not invalidate sex as one of the most clinically useful categorisations in medicine. To suggest that it does, and therefore sex should not be recorded, is absurd.
• No rational argument appears to be made as to why doctors should avoid admitting that the patients who had hysterectomies are biologically female, and those who had orchiectomies male. 
• Healthcare cannot collectively discard words for the two biological sexes. Awareness of the importance of clinical research into sex differences in medicine, especially for the female sex, has just been highlighted by the pandemic. How would such work be done if the sexes cannot be named?

The sexual binary is not unique to humans.  All mammals have the same trait, yet nobody goes around suggesting a "spectrum" of "sexes" and/or "genders" for dogs, cats, cows, horses, and so on.

I have repeatedly addressed issues regarding, and acknowledged the existence of, the very small number people with a disorder of sexual development (DSD), sometimes also referred to as "intersex."  See, e.g., here, here, here, here, and here.  I acknowledge that.  Per this article, "intersex individuals are not asexual, but have clear sex biomarkers that makes their sex epistemically uncertain."  That is, people with DSD do not represent a third sex.  See here:

Quote

The nomenclature “intersex” acknowledges something between two sexes and not a third sex. The term is intersex and not “extrasex,” therefore acknowledging the binary nature of human sex. Biological sex rarely may be phenotypically unclear in a given individual, but this does not represent a third one.

Evolutionary biologist Colin Wright rejects the “sex is a spectrum” mantra with clear reasoning: “a spectrum implies a continuous distribution, and maybe even an amodal one (one in which no specific outcome is more likely than others). Biological sex in humans, however, is clear-cut over 99.98 percent of the time.” Dr. Wright continues, “any method exhibiting a predictive accuracy of over 99.98 percent would place it among the most precise methods in all the life sciences. We revise medical care practices and change world economic plans on far lower confidence than that.”

 

DSD are not a matter of choice (though I'm not sure that's what you meant by "people can be intersex"), nor are they "gender dysphoria."  From the above article:

Quote

Intersex is not a subjective ideation. There is always an objective underlying medical origin. The DSM-5 Gender Dysphoria criteria states: “Specify if: With a disorder of sex development (e.g., a congenital adrenogenital disorder such as 255.2 [E25.0] congenital adrenal hyperplasia or 259.50 [E34.50] androgen insensitivity syndrome).” Intersex is what they mean, and it is different than gender dysphoria.

DSD is also pretty darn rare (and, I think, often presented as a red herring, since most trans people do not have any form of it).  From the above article:

Quote

Wildly inflated claims of the prevalence of DSD are common, but untrue. Dr. Leonard Sax exposed the source of some of this in his article, “How common is intersex.” Dr. Sax writes that Anne Fausto-Sterling asserted in her 2000 book Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality that intersex totaled 1.7 percent of human births. However, Sax shows that she included in her calculations common conditions having nothing to do with DSD. Dr. Sax notes that congenital adrenal hyperplasia and complete androgen insensitivity syndrome are the most common DSDs, which is in keeping with the previously stated DSM-5 Gender Dysphoria specification. Dr. Sax concludes that DSD/Intersex, “far from being ‘a fairly common phenomenon,’ is actually a rare event, occurring in fewer than two out of every 10,000 births.”

Similarly, a 1992 Danish study found their rate of “testicular feminization syndrome” to be 1:20,400. A 2001 Dutch study stated their rate of androgen insensitivity syndrome “with molecular proof of the diagnosis is 1:99,000.”

And a 2016 Danish study examining all their known 46XY karyotype females (androgen insensitivity syndrome) born since 1960 found the prevalence at 6.4 per 100,000 live born females. Intersex/DSD is rare.

I think most people these days can and will accommodate people who want to dress, act, etc. as things they are not.  We can humor these folks.  The phrase is, after all, "a common English expression that means to indulge or allow someone to do something that may be silly or foolish, but is not harmful or dangerous."

Things change a bit, though, when the context involves a necessary differentiation between the two sexes.  Medicine, for example.  And mandatory pronouns / compelled speech.  And women's spaces (sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc.).  And a few other areas of social interaction.  These are, for most people, a bridge too far, as they call for a denial of biological fact and reality.  We legally segregate some things based on biological sex.

Quote

Quote

Well, that's interesting.  I'll think on it.  But this belief has little bearing on how society treats me.

And the teenager being a furry or a boypup should fall into the same category. 

So we are free to disregard his "identity" as a dog?

Quote

Quote

I can appreciate that.  My question, though, is why their dysphoric belief is, it seems, becoming privileged under the law.

I agree.  I think neither he nor his family takes his "identity" as a dog very far in sociological, legal and other terms.  

Some trans people, though, are "living" as their claimed "identity," and are expecting society to go along with that.  I am trying to understand why one "identity" is apparently being privileged under the law, while the others are not.

What privilege?

Biological men being in women's spaces.

Compulsory speech and punishing speech (this is happening more and more in Europe, while their inroads in the U.S. is appreciably slowed, but still extant).

Quote

They mostly want to be left alone and for people to stop taking away their right to make medical choices about their transition.

I think most of us are happy to leave them alone.  But that's not a choice when biological men are going into women's spaces, when the State is compelling speech and punishing speech, and when minors are undergoing highly suspect - and very serious, and often irreversible - medical procedures.

Quote

Quote

Quote

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.

That's not the impression I have had from reading about him.  He "identifies" as a six-year-old girl.  Am I supposed to disregard that?

You disregard the idea that someone assigned male at birth can identify as a woman.

First, I respectfully reject the notion that biological sex is "assigned ... at birth." 

Second, I don't "disregard the idea" that a biological male "can identify as a woman."  I am pretty indifferent to what he subjectively feels, and what he chooses to do with those feelings.  The calculus changes, though, when biological men are going into women's spaces, when the State is compelling speech and punishing speech, and when minors are undergoing highly suspect - and very serious, and often irreversible - medical procedures.  And even then I don't "disregard" the identity so much as a decline to accept it as congruent with reality or binding on others in society.

Third, I am curious what differentiates the various aspects of Wolscht's "identity" for you.  You seem to disregard/reject his "identity" as a six-year-old person, is that correct?

Do you disregard/reject his "identity" as permanently six-year-old person?

I assume you do not disregard/reject his "identity" as a female, is that correct?

Quote

Why is this harder to disregard? Too shocking?

I am happy to disregard all of these incongruent-with-reality-and-biological-science "identities," until they are brought to my doorstep.  When biological men are going into women's spaces, when the State is compelling speech and punishing speech, and when minors are undergoing highly suspect - and very serious, and often irreversible - medical procedures, etc., then society can't really be indifferent to or disregard these issues.

Quote

Quote

 

I introduced these two to illustrate the seeming absence of any "limiting principle" to trans ideology.

I also introduced the anecdote about the teenage boy to counterbalance the seeming "extremism" inherent in the other two examples, while still noting the absence of a limiting principle as to any of them.

In the end, though, all three do not appear to enjoy any privileged "identity" except, it seems, for the "trans" aspect of Eva Tiamat Medusa's and Stefonknee's "identity."  So we as a society are free to disregard/reject their "identities" as a reptile/dragon and/or a perennially-six-year-old person (these being "extreme"), but we should not disregard/reject their claimed "identities" as women?

 

What privilege?

See above.  Biological males in women's spaces.  Compelled speech.  Punishing speech.

Quote

We have a somewhat arbitrary legal division over gender.

Respectfully, I disagree.  We legally segregate some things based on biological sex.  And these laws are routinely upheld as not arbitrary (Selective Service might be on the chopping block, though).

Quote

Quote

 

So it seems that they do this stuff mostly in private, or in limited public venues where likeminded people congregate, is that a fair statement?

Also, it seems like these folks, or most of them, do not expect society to treat them as actual dogs, cats, etc., correct?

 

Yes and yes.

Thank you.  This is illuminating.  Truly.

Quote

If this is a trap

I am being pretty open in my position, whereas "traps" are hidden.

Quote

to say you can insist someone who is biologically male has to be a man and society does not have to honor anyone who is transitioning it is vital that those who deny this change come up with a definition that is solidly black and white with no ambiguity that somehow deals with all shades of biological ambiguity including intersex people.

Respectfully, that's not how the law works.  I think biological males can be excluded from women's spaces.  The very, very small number of people with DSDs can and should be treated with decorum and respect, and for which some exceptions to the law may be justified.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 29, 2024 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A "woman" is an adult biological female human.  We did not "create" this concept, we recognized it as existing and gave it a name.

When was the last time you asked someone for a gamete sample to determine their gender? For me it was never, because that’s really weird. I just go off the social cues they present based on gender norms determined by society. If I’m wrong and they correct me I go with it. I thought that was normal. I had no idea there was this whole other category of people that ask for the gamete samples. 

[smac97]

20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

A "woman" is an adult biological female human.  We did not "create" this concept, we recognized it as existing and gave it a name.

When was the last time you asked someone for a gamete sample to determine their gender?

About 99.99% of the time, a person's biological sex is readily apparent, so no need to ask someone for a gamete sample.

Until very recently, biological males were not attempting to compete in women's sports, go into women's spaces, etc., so there was no need to ask someone for a gamete sample.

And I don't recall addressing this or calling for it, so it seems to be a red herring.

20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I just go off the social cues they present based on gender norms determined by society.

Yes, that is typically sufficient.  However, now that biological males are increasingly trying to go into women's spaces (sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc.), we are seeing previously-unneeded efforts by the State to maintain these few sex-segregated spaces.

20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If I’m wrong and they correct me I go with it. I thought that was normal. I had no idea there was this whole other category of people that ask for the gamete samples. 

Yep.  Red herring.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 30, 2024 by smac97

[tana]

About 15 years ago I was sitting in a bar in Auckland NZ. Unbeknownst to me, but made known to me is that people down under are amused by our American accent as much as we Americans are theirs.

Anyway, sitting in a lounge, I was in my early forties, a group of lesbians, maybe about ten in number came in and sat around a table near me and started interacting with me. There was a cute gal (CG) in the group that was sitting near me and I could tell she had taken a liking to me as she was mostly ignoring the group and talking to me. After about a half hour, her special friend strode over, all but physically picked her up and moved her and the group across the room. She turned around after a few paces and explained to me that I wasn't welcome to follow.

Hmm. So, this special friend gal (Bossy Girl/BG) was big, heavy, homely, hair and dress masc., loud, obnoxious, do all the talking, etc. Kinda looked like Ernest Borgnine. All of the fine quality attributes of your run-of-the-mill, male, redneck, idiot in his Harley T-shirt.

My question then being, what's the point in gender specific romantic interest if one can't tell the diff with their clothes on? I mean, who knows, BG could have been a guy pretending to be a girl acting like a guy. I'm thinking of maybe a variation of a gender version of the 'Chinese room' thought experiment.

I wonder, what is it that CG finds attractive in a love interest. Is it the fine shape of a woman's figure? - No. Not in this case.

Ditto for male? - No. Apparently not.

Is she looking for panache, intellect, modesty, money, domination, female genitalia? Nope, no, no, I guess maybe, I guess maybe, I guess probably.

Is there anything wrong with that, - that is, picking a person based only on their having similar bits? No. Not at all, just curious.


 Notes: Since this post started out as anecdotal  but devolved into what some might see as SSA ****ishness, personal attacks will be allowed.

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, tana said:

Is she looking for

Sometimes it’s just about the perceived safety of partnership with a woman.  Some lesbians prefer masculinity but don’t want the man that traditionally comes with it. 

[tana]

11 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Sometimes it’s just about the perceived safety of partnership with a woman.  Some lesbians prefer masculinity but don’t want the man that traditionally comes with it. 

Good answer! I'm pretty sure I have a physiological condition that causes me to over analyze and dissect everything. Clearly SSA cannot be broken down and made the sum of it's parts.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, tana said:

Good answer! I'm pretty sure I have a physiological condition that causes me to over analyze and dissect everything. Clearly SSA cannot be broken down and made the sum of it's parts.

No it cannot. It’s ok to ask questions.  Did you know that no one else really uses the term SSA outside the church and its social teachings? 

Edited November 30, 2024 by MustardSeed

[smac97]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

Good answer! I'm pretty sure I have a physiological condition that causes me to over analyze and dissect everything. Clearly SSA cannot be broken down and made the sum of it's parts.

It’s ok to ask questions.  

Umm....

 

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Did you know that no one else really uses the term SSA outside the church and its social teachings? 

Are you sure?

MensLine Australia: Same-sex attraction:

Quote

Is it normal?

Same-sex attraction is in no way unusual, immoral, abnormal or sick. It does not need to be cured or fixed. There are thousands of people going through the same situation at this moment. In fact, one in four families will have a family member who is gay or lesbian. There are an estimated 2 million same-sex attracted people in Australia.

A few more:

National Library of Medicine: 

• Same-Sex Sexual Attraction Does Not Spread in Adolescent Social Networks
• Same-sex attraction in a birth cohort: prevalence and persistence in early adulthood

Scientific American: Massive Study Finds No Single Genetic Cause of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior

The Economist: Can biology explain same-sex attraction?

Frontiers in Psychology: Prosociality and a Sociosexual Hypothesis for the Evolution of Same-Sex Attraction in Humans

Quote

Human same-sex sexual attraction (SSSA) has long been considered to be an evolutionary puzzle. The trait is clearly biological: it is widespread and has a strong additive genetic basis, but how SSSA has evolved remains a subject of debate.
...
Kin-selection theories propose genes promoting SSSA could persist in a population if people expressing SSSA enhanced the reproduction of relatives (Bailey and Zuk, 2009). It is assumed the indirect fitness benefit of more relatives would compensate for the presumed fitness costs associated with SSSA and same-sex sexual behavior. Invoking kin-selection theory to explain human SSSA seems a little odd. The many examples of social and reproductive traits in animals that have evolved as a consequence of kin selection emphasize the evolution of non-reproductives, not same-sex sexual behavior (Kirkpatrick, 2000). 

American Psychological Association: Understanding sexual orientation and homosexuality

Quote

What is “coming out” and why is it important?

The phrase “coming out” is used to refer to several aspects of lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons’ experiences: self-awareness of same-sex attractions; the telling of one or a few people about these attractions; widespread disclosure of same-sex attractions; and identification with the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community.
...
What about sexual orientation and coming out during adolescence?

Adolescence is a period when people separate from their parents and families and begin to develop autonomy. Adolescence can be a period of experimentation, and many youths may question their sexual feelings. Becoming aware of sexual feelings is a normal developmental task of adolescence. Sometimes adolescents have same-sex feelings or experiences that cause confusion about their sexual orientation. This confusion appears to decline over time, with different outcomes for different individuals.

Some adolescents desire and engage in same-sex behavior but do not identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, sometimes because of the stigma associated with a nonheterosexual orientation. Some adolescents experience continuing feelings of same-sex attraction but do not engage in any sexual activity or may engage in heterosexual behavior for varying lengths of time. Because of the stigma associated with same-sex attractions, many youths experience same-sex attraction for many years before becoming sexually active with partners of the same sex or disclosing their attractions to others.

For some young people, this process of exploring same-sex attractions leads to a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity. For some, acknowledging this identity can bring an end to confusion.

Planned Parenthood: What causes sexual orientation?

Quote

Recent research suggests that 11% of American adults acknowledge at least some same-sex attraction, 8.2% report that they’ve engaged in same-sex behavior, but only 3.5% identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. This shows that what people feel or do is not always the same as how they identify themselves.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you sure?

No.  Be my guest 😊

[The Nehor]

On 11/29/2024 at 1:53 PM, smac97 said:

About 99.99% of the time, a person's biological sex is readily apparent, so no need to ask someone for a gamete sample.

No, it is not anywhere near that high. Also the indicators we use have a lot more to do with presentation, clothing, hair styling, and the like. That is not biological sex being apparent. That is gender being apparent.

We have enjoyed a recent rash of transphobes who insist they can tell when people are transgender and they routinely get it wrong. I think my favorite was when someone said they had a pic of a transgender woman that you couldn’t tell was trans. They posted a pic of J.K. Rowling and many insisted that she was obviously born a man. They can always tell……except they can’t.

On 11/29/2024 at 1:53 PM, smac97 said:

Until very recently, biological males were not attempting to compete in women's sports, go into women's spaces, etc., so there was no need to ask someone for a gamete sample.

And sports organizations are creating rules and criteria about that. This is ignored because it is one of the outrage points polemics use.

I notice that there is less concern about trangender men being forced to use a locker room or bathroom that matches the gender assigned at birth. These laws about “protection” will force some incredibly masculine looking transgender men into those spaces. Why is this never addressed? In general transgender people are hesitant about using public restrooms at all unless they are very far in their transition. I also know androgynous or butch cis women who are terrified to use women’s bathrooms because someone might conclude they are transgender. We have angry parents screaming at children’s sporting events that tomboys are clearly transgender.

We are putting up a nice bar saying that you have to be a specific amount of feminine or you don’t make the cut. Note no one is doing this about men. Huh……..a suspicious person would wonder why.

On 11/29/2024 at 1:53 PM, smac97 said:

Yes, that is typically sufficient.  However, now that biological males are increasingly trying to go into women's spaces (sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc.), we are seeing previously-unneeded efforts by the State to maintain these few sex-segregated spaces.

Genital inspectors at the doors perhaps? These rules are terrorizing women (both cis women and transgender women) and putting a big question mark on whether they are woman enough. That is fine though. Moral panics are supposed to punch down at the already marginalized. It is what they do.

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, tana said:

About 15 years ago I was sitting in a bar in Auckland NZ. Unbeknownst to me, but made known to me is that people down under are amused by our American accent as much as we Americans are theirs.

Anyway, sitting in a lounge, I was in my early forties, a group of lesbians, maybe about ten in number came in and sat around a table near me and started interacting with me. There was a cute gal (CG) in the group that was sitting near me and I could tell she had taken a liking to me as she was mostly ignoring the group and talking to me. After about a half hour, her special friend strode over, all but physically picked her up and moved her and the group across the room. She turned around after a few paces and explained to me that I wasn't welcome to follow.

Hmm. So, this special friend gal (Bossy Girl/BG) was big, heavy, homely, hair and dress masc., loud, obnoxious, do all the talking, etc. Kinda looked like Ernest Borgnine. All of the fine quality attributes of your run-of-the-mill, male, redneck, idiot in his Harley T-shirt.

My question then being, what's the point in gender specific romantic interest if one can't tell the diff with their clothes on? I mean, who knows, BG could have been a guy pretending to be a girl acting like a guy. I'm thinking of maybe a variation of a gender version of the 'Chinese room' thought experiment.

I wonder, what is it that CG finds attractive in a love interest. Is it the fine shape of a woman's figure? - No. Not in this case.

Ditto for male? - No. Apparently not.

Is she looking for panache, intellect, modesty, money, domination, female genitalia? Nope, no, no, I guess maybe, I guess maybe, I guess probably.

Is there anything wrong with that, - that is, picking a person based only on their having similar bits? No. Not at all, just curious.


 Notes: Since this post started out as anecdotal  but devolved into what some might see as SSA ****ishness, personal attacks will be allowed.

I don’t have an answer for your bolded question. I am bisexual and I don’t get why gender or biological sex figures so strongly into hetero and homo people’s attraction. I can appreciate masculinity and femininity as concepts and like both but they are mixed in everyone. I like those blendings.

17 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Sometimes it’s just about the perceived safety of partnership with a woman.  Some lesbians prefer masculinity but don’t want the man that traditionally comes with it. 

In the same way some gay guys prefer more feminine men. I tend to like the femboy and tomboy types but not exclusively. I have had several crushes on lesbian women (and straight guys). It is annoying. On the other hand some attractions are to the other extremes. There are some lesbians who want a feminine partner and gay guys into masculine guys and some who like a bunch of types.

It is very confusing. Attraction usually is.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

No it cannot. It’s ok to ask questions.  Did you know that no one else really uses the term SSA outside the church and its social teachings? 

That is not completely accurate. It is generally considered weird to use the term in casual conversation. In the secular world it is mostly used in technical settings where specificity is required. In some other English speaking countries it is sometimes used casually. In the United States using SSA and its associated terms casually usually means you got it from religion and/or homophobic spaces. In LGBT spaces you are looked at oddly if you use it outside a formal academic setting.

In the United States if someone says that someone “has same sex attraction” or “struggles with same sex attraction” a listener in the LGBT community assumes the speaker is a homophobe, queerphobe, and/or bigot. Occasionally might assume ignorance out of charity depending on situation.

Edited November 30, 2024 by The Nehor

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Umm....

 

Are you sure?

MensLine Australia: Same-sex attraction:

A few more:

National Library of Medicine: 

• Same-Sex Sexual Attraction Does Not Spread in Adolescent Social Networks
• Same-sex attraction in a birth cohort: prevalence and persistence in early adulthood

Scientific American: Massive Study Finds No Single Genetic Cause of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior

The Economist: Can biology explain same-sex attraction?

Frontiers in Psychology: Prosociality and a Sociosexual Hypothesis for the Evolution of Same-Sex Attraction in Humans

American Psychological Association: Understanding sexual orientation and homosexuality

Planned Parenthood: What causes sexual orientation?

Thanks,

-Smac

This is about respecting the people that are LGBT and how they prefer to be labeled .  Yes, you can find other people who use SSA. But you won't find any gay sites using it.

Kinda like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints asking people to not refer to the Church as the Mormon Church.  

So I would say if you prefer that people use the proper name of the Church, you should probably use the proper names for the LGBT community.

[MustardSeed]

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

This is about respecting the people that are LGBT and how they prefer to be labeled .  Yes, you can find other people who use SSA. But you won't find any gay sites using it.

Kinda like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints asking people to not refer to the Church as the Mormon Church.  

So I would say if you prefer that people use the proper name of the Church, you should probably use the proper names for the LGBT community.

Thank you! 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I can appreciate masculinity and femininity as concepts and like both but they are mixed in everyone. I like those blendings.

Indeed.  One of the things that makes people interesting. 

 In my youth there was a much more distinct divide and I found hanging out with girls who only talked about “makeup” and “boys” excruciatingly boring. I did notice a couple of the girls when we were in science class around boys only got much more interesting speaking math and science. They were actually into it, but never talked about it in girls’ spaces.  

These days talking to teen girls who are heavy into sports, academics, band, etc is much more interesting to me. Maybe they talk boys and makeup with their own age group, but it is good to see that the world has expanded what is considered feminine.

Edited November 30, 2024 by Calm

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

This is about respecting the people that are LGBT and how they prefer to be labeled .  Yes, you can find other people who use SSA. But you won't find any gay sites using it.

Kinda like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints asking people to not refer to the Church as the Mormon Church.  

So I would say if you prefer that people use the proper name of the Church, you should probably use the proper names for the LGBT community.

Poor comparison. The fact of the matter is that Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the actual registered proper name of a church organization that’s listed on official government records, documents that satisfy the requirements of law needed in order for the church organization to obtain legal recognition and a legally registered proper name.  Are the so-called “proper names” of which you speak actual legal proper names or merely popularly accepted labels?

Edited December 1, 2024 by teddyaware

[california boy]

48 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Poor comparison. The fact of the matter is that Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the actual registered proper name of a church organization that’s listed on official government records, documents that satisfy the requirements of law needed in order for the church organization to obtain legal recognition and a legally registered proper name.  Are the so-called “proper names” of which you speak actual legal proper names or merely popularly accepted labels?

No one is disputing the fact that the official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been the official name of the Church since the very beginning of the Church.  Yet until just recently President Nelson decided to drop the usage of the name Mormon and after decades of using the term Mormon, all the sudden became something the Church wanted to drop.  So don't make it sound like calling the Church the Mormon Church is something only people outside the organization have used for a very long time.  Ever hear of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir?  It wasn't outsiders that came up with that name is just one example.  The Church has used the name Mormon to describe itself my entire life and way before I was born. 

Unlike Same Sex Attraction, a term that has never been used by the LGBT community.

If you want to continue to use that term, which many in the LGBT community are very offended by, that is your choice.  It says more about you and your agenda then it does the LGBT community.  We all have choices on whether to treat others with respect and try our best to use titles that communities prefer.  

Yes there are names the LGBT community prefer to be called.  Lesbians, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender.  Not really a secret is it?

Edited December 1, 2024 by california boy

[MustardSeed]

To Teddy and Smac and all others- go ahead and use whatever terms you want to use. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Poor comparison. The fact of the matter is that Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the actual registered proper name of a church organization that’s listed on official government records, documents that satisfy the requirements of law needed in order for the church organization to obtain legal recognition and a legally registered proper name.  Are the so-called “proper names” of which you speak actual legal proper names or merely popularly accepted labels?

Whatever you say Brighamite.