A Transgender Atheist Army For The Antichrist

Biology is more than just chromosomes though.

Plus the question is how should transgender people be treated in society so the social elements of gender are perhaps more pertinent than chromosomes.

If they have the organs of a specific gender even though they don't work, that would decide their gender I suppose or maybe we just refer to people by their sex. I'm sort of mixed on how the term gender is used because I think it boxes people in based on their eccentricities and often seems like it's just an easy way to sidestep the norms of being a man or a woman without challenging the social order. I can't say that that is true for all cases because of the mental differences and all, but once it gets to the point where people start making up their own gender identities instead of being male, female, or intersex saying things like "I'm genderfluid" or "I'm nonbinary" it becomes an impractical carnival where people feel that they can define themselves as anything they want to without any justification other than "That's what I want to be." and ruins the whole simplicity that makes gender so socially useful.

Presumably of the same school who 'cure' homosexuals.




'Fantasy genders'. As sensitive as ever, I see.

     FilmFlaneur said:  [full text here]

1. I have tried to explain to you that because the Bible is written beyond your rudimentary reading level, it is also often the case that the attempts of people to explain their beliefs to you are just as beyond your level of understanding.  Try as you might to "accept" their definitions, those remain beyond your reach.  It might serve your understanding to have clear definitions from an expert on English.  A list is here.
   
2. You have never successfully shown that I was, am, or ever will be in any error.
3. That is a very good question since I never offered any criteria.  What I did was point out that you have none, and thus your meaning is imprecise.  The meaning of "fantasy" gender is very precise because it simply means based on criteria that are not obviously biological or that are merely mental.
   
4. That would mean so much more if the "World Health Organization" spoke English or had any cause or right to set definitions in English.

   What happened that you failed to notice is that in the past "gender" was used rather strictly to refer to grammatical gender.  You should readily notice that grammatical gender is very different and requires a different word.  The difference between sex, the biological state, and sex, the activity, was something people solved by examining the context.  Later when people like you obliterated context, the need for a different word for the state and the activity become apparent and "gender" was stolen for the state.

  The obvious precise solution is to use biological gender, fantasy gender, and grammatical gender for the three needful definitions.  There should be no confusion.  Also the attempts to use "cultural" determinants of anything are useless (definitions are useful or not) since every culture is different.

   You and the W.H.O. are very obviously not making anything more clear.  I suspect it is because you do not want to see the truth.

You're the one recommending it as a solution to gender dysphoria.

But why do you believe this when the evidence doesn't support your belief?


Making attendees relive traumatic events, carry heavy rocks for miles, denying them food etc: www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/10/02/conversion-therapy-trans-wildnerness-programmes-gender-identity-critical-brynn-tannehill/

Plus despite all that, it seems to have a low success rate when it comes to converting people.

What ever the reason men and women believe they are transgendered, there is no reason to block them from reassignment treatment or surgery. I don’t support permanent gender reassignment for minors, but adults have the right to live and create the body they so choose so long as they are not harming people.

Somehow, a man like Arnie, who spent years pumping hormone and steroids into his system to unnaturally deform his body is considered a work of perfection. But it’s unnatural. So is breast augmentation. No problem there. 

You don’t see bands of trans men and women running around pretending to be Rambo or a latter-day Confederate terrorist. It’s not the trans community who are sexually molesting our children by the thousands in churches, schools, and Boy Scouts. 

So, Ar and others can flap their gums about how horrible transgenderism is, however, there are much, much worse things a person can be even with the regular hormones and family jewels intact. 

Never the less, by demanding just before that your words are to mean what you tell me they mean, you echo the request I make of those who follow a traditional reading of the Bible - such as when it tells us humans are made 'in God's image', or when thinking of a deity possessing such obvious anthropomorphic traits as love, jealousy, anger and forgiveness etc. Instead of your usual insults about their intelligence and reading skills. Consistency is the point here. (In the link you gave, even you admit that "Few people accept any anthropomorphic god in the modern world." which admits of necessity the fact that some at least, do. A QED.)

But don't take my word for it. Here's what David Hume, one of the most important philosophers to write in English, with a highly influential system of philosophical empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism said, back in the day:  “Enthusiasts” distort God “into a Resemblance with themselves, & by that means render him more comprehensible” (LET, I, 51/#21). You will note, btw, that neither he or I say that this is the 'right way' to define a deity since we all agree 'that which we call God' can cover a huge range.

And your authority for an opposing view is? None, as usual.

A lack of belief in God is not agnosticism. It is rather what defines atheism. Sorry about that. I had to explain it to you before, and it appears it has been necessary again.



As I said, as sensitive as ever. LOL. The criteria of 'fantasy' is purely subjective and, frankly socially conservative-phobic on your own part towards notions of gender fluidity. You also seem to imply that personal conviction and determined mental states must be fantasy (they can be, but it is not necessarily so). Otherwise your own conviction on points of gender fluidity can be ruled out, as equally bearing no relation to reality. See how it works?



I would ask you to provide an authority which disagrees with the WHO distinction, or indeed the standard dictionary definitions I gave of 'gender' and 'sex' but. I know I would be wasting my time. And since you have already told me that the terms can be muddled in usage, then that suggests there must be two distinct things to be mixed up in the first place. That's another QED. I have also found it hard to find any 'cultural determinants' for gender fluidity especially suggested by an authority. Are you really suggesting that people feel they are in the wrong body because of the culture they live in? I doubt whether you will provide any links for this either, to substantiate another of your wild claims..



Never the less, the distinction is perfectly clear while, while you have demonstrated quite adequately with your own confusion the possibility of muddle. (Your dragging in of grammatical gender, which plays no part in the debate, is a non-sequitur - and I can see how you might need to muddle things further by casting about.)

And:

"Please quote where I have done this before [using "cultural" determinants of gender [which are]error prone."]. Evasion will be noted.

... Evasion noted.

Not to mention McKrae Game, one of the biggest proponents of conversion therapy, came out of the closet. So much for it's effectiveness.