Christian parents win in court after school labeled 6-year-old son potentially 'transphobic'

[spartan max2]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

In the biological sense, yes.  Biological males are still males even if they want to be a woman.   The same with biological females.  That is why I am against biological males competing against biological females in sports.  

Sex and gender are two separate terms. So no one disagrees with the fact your sex is your sex. 

But gender is different. When you look at someone and mentally catagorize them as a man or a woman (gender), without knowing what their genitals are (their sex). Sort of proves the idea that gender is fluid and based on social constructs. 

We catagorize people's gender automatically all day without knowing for sure what their gentials are (what their sex is). Proving that gender and sex are two separate concepts.

Edited October 19, 2022 by spartan max2

[itsnotoutthere]

"Sort of proves the idea that gender is fluid and based on social constructs."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11814300

Ideal experiment

 

"Dr John Money was a psychologist specialising in sex changes.

He believed that it wasn't so much biology that determines whether we are male or female, but how we are raised."

Edited October 19, 2022 by itsnotoutthere

[spartan max2]

2 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

"Sort of proves the idea that gender is fluid and based on social constructs."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11814300

Not sure what point you think you're making. 

 

[itsnotoutthere]

12 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Not sure what point you think you're making. 

 

The child was raised as a girl from birth so all it knew was 'social constructs', but as a teenager came to realise that he was in reality a boy. 'Social constructs' made no difference.

"For Dr Money the case provided the ideal experiment.

Here was a child he believed should be brought up as the opposite sex, who even brought his own control group with him - an identical twin.

If it worked this would provide irrefutable evidence that nurture could over-ride biology - and Dr Money genuinely believed that Bruce had a better chance of living a happy life as a woman than as a man without a penis."

Edited October 19, 2022 by itsnotoutthere

[spartan max2]

8 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

The child was raised as a girl from birth so all it knew was 'social constructs', but as a teenager came to realise that he was in reality a boy. 'Social constructs' made no difference.

I find it odd that the people who have a problem with transgender people recently found these case studies. 

I learned these in school years ago, in what you guys would probably consider an ultra liberal setting. 

It sort of just shows your misunderstanding of transgender stuff.

It's not surprising that genetics and hormones effect behavior. Like yeah, if you try to raise kids as the opposite sex it isn't magically going to change how they act. If anything that should relieve your guys fear mongering that schools someone "brainwash" kids into getting surgery lol

That is not contrary to the fact that what we identify as being part of a sex are social constructs. Words are fluid. When you look at someone your mind categorizes a gender based on associations. Associations are social constructs. When looking at someone you don't know what their gentials are, their sex.

Edited October 19, 2022 by spartan max2

[itsnotoutthere]

"I find it odd that the people who have a problem with transgender people recently found these case studies."

Nope. Always known about this case Horizon did a documentary on it about 25 years ago.

Ok. Let me just ask you a straight question, just so I know where you stand & hopefully you'll give me a straight answer.

If a biological male i.e. with penis & testicles dresses as a woman and 'identifies' (says he is a woman) and has done for say 3 months Do you consider that person to be male of female? 

Edited October 19, 2022 by itsnotoutthere

[el midgetron]

52 minutes ago, odas said:

What about people who were born with both, male and female genitalia? What would be their right to present themself as? 

Like anyone, it would be their “right” to present themselves however they want. In most of these cases they are naturally more one sex, and have more of the physical characteristics of one sex, than the other. I question the prevalence of actually having both genitalia. Usually the condition I believe you are referring to involves just one genitalia that doesn’t match the internal anatomy or a genitalia that formed along something of an ambiguous path. 
 

There are all kinds of biological variance, it’s not just related to sex. Some people are born with fewer or more than 10 fingers. That doesn’t mean we should accept cutting fingers off children because they identify with having 8 fingers. People who are polydactyl should be treated with dignity and respect and met with accommodation and acceptance. Corrective procedures should only be employed if necessary. 
 

Being intersex is a quantifiable condition that can be objectively diagnosed. Being transgender is wholly dependent on one’s subjective reality. I don’t think there really is much of a valid comparison between a person who might have an extra chromosome resulting in some kind of biological variance and someone who falls within the biological binary but believes their chromosomes express the wrong gender. 

[el midgetron]

51 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Sex and gender are two separate terms. So no one disagrees with the fact your sex is your sex. 

But you do disagree that your sex is your sex. That’s why you support someone physically altering their body to attempt to conform their sex to their gender identity. If you really believed sex and gender are two separate things there would be no need for this relation. Sex would be a biological construct distinct from gender and gender could be freely expressed unbound by the biological constructs of sex. Frankly if anything, that’s how it should be,
 

The basic premise for transgender ideology started out by claiming sex and gender are two separate and distinct things (like the twins study). However, the conflict of this with treating transgenderism by (re)connecting sex and  gender quickly became evident, So, an updated transgender ideological stance is something more like, yeah sex and gender are connected but the way they are connected isn’t always compatible with how we subjectively identify.

[odas]

9 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

Like anyone, it would be their “right” to present themselves however they want. In most of these cases they are naturally more one sex, and have more of the physical characteristics of one sex, than the other. I question the prevalence of actually having both genitalia. Usually the condition I believe you are referring to involves just one genitalia that doesn’t match the internal anatomy or a genitalia that formed along something of an ambiguous path. 
 

There are all kinds of biological variance, it’s not just related to sex. Some people are born with fewer or more than 10 fingers. That doesn’t mean we should accept cutting fingers off children because they identify with having 8 fingers. People who are polydactyl should be treated with dignity and respect and met with accommodation and acceptance. Corrective procedures should only be employed if necessary. 
 

Being intersex is a quantifiable condition that can be objectively diagnosed. Being transgender is wholly dependent on one’s subjective reality. I don’t think there really is much of a valid comparison between a person who might have an extra chromosome resulting in some kind of biological variance and someone who falls within the biological binary but believes their chromosomes express the wrong gender. 

I believe that acctually proves @spartan max2 point he was making in regards to gender and sex. Furthermore, it shows that biology, natur and state of mind do not always act in harmony, that there are glitches that most if us cannot understand but are common in nature among humans as well as animals.

While I understand that being transgender is getting somehow "in" or "cool" in today's world, primaraly to get attention, it is documented thruout our history that being transgender IS a part of nature and biology.

Some cultures are embracing it, some, like the abrahamic religions, are opposing it. But, it is defenitly a part of our biological nature.

As for the state of mind of a person who believes that he/she is acctually the opposit gender, we can compare it to any state of mind, including the beliefe in a god.

[itsnotoutthere]

Lets try again.

Ok. Let me just ask you a straight question, just so I know where you stand & hopefully you'll give me a straight answer.

If a biological male i.e. with penis & testicles dresses as a woman and 'identifies' (says he is a woman) and has done for say 3 months Do you consider that person to be male of female? 

Open question....Anybody !!!

Edited October 19, 2022 by itsnotoutthere

[spartan max2]

4 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Lets try again.

Ok. Let me just ask you a straight question, just so I know where you stand & hopefully you'll give me a straight answer.

If a biological male i.e. with penis & testicles dresses as a woman and 'identifies' (says he is a woman) and has done for say 3 months Do you consider that person to be male of female? 

That person is a male. Their sex is male. 

Their gender would be woman. She/her.  Also commonly called trans-woman. 

[el midgetron]

43 minutes ago, odas said:

I believe that acctually proves @spartan max2 point he was making in regards to gender and sex. Furthermore, it shows that biology, natur and state of mind do not always act in harmony, that there are glitches that most if us cannot understand but are common in nature among humans as well as animals.

While I understand that being transgender is getting somehow "in" or "cool" in today's world, primaraly to get attention, it is documented thruout our history that being transgender IS a part of nature and biology.

Some cultures are embracing it, some, like the abrahamic religions, are opposing it. But, it is defenitly a part of our biological nature.

As for the state of mind of a person who believes that he/she is acctually the opposit gender, we can compare it to any state of mind, including the beliefe in a god.

 I do agree that biology, nature and state of mind are not always in harmony. However, I reject the claim that transgender is a part of nature and biology. Being transgender is entirely subjective.

 I can’t think of any other examples where someone’s subjective state of mind is accepted by society over the objective reality of nature or biology. Sure, people will have shared subjective beliefs and norms but it’s important to remember that sometimes those beliefs are false. A society might believe in God but “God” is an external concept we subscribe to, not an internal construct we identify as and then expect others to objectively recognize (well, usually not and those cases probably don’t provide the best support for trans ideology). 

There is also a false logical and moral equivalence for citing something’s prevalence throughout history and culture as a justification for its adaption today. Slavery is also persistent throughout history and culture, yet not acceptable today. It’s the same with numerous other historical practices and beliefs as well. Also in contrast, despite historical examples of third-genders, intersex and non traditional gender roles, there is an even greater historical and cultural precedence for binary gender roles that are directly tied to sex. 

Edited October 19, 2022 by el midgetron

[odas]

14 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Lets try again.

Ok. Let me just ask you a straight question, just so I know where you stand & hopefully you'll give me a straight answer.

If a biological male i.e. with penis & testicles dresses as a woman and 'identifies' (says he is a woman) and has done for say 3 months Do you consider that person to be male of female? 

Open question....Anybody !!!

A trans-woman. At the end it does not matter what I personnaly think about something in which I have no say or controll over.

 

[odas]

4 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

 I do agree that biology, nature and state of mind are not always in harmony. However, I reject the claim that transgender is a part of nature and biology. Being transgender is entirely subjective.

 I can’t think of any other examples where someone’s subjective state of mind is accepted by society over the objective reality of nature or biology. Sure, people will have shared subjective beliefs and norms but it’s important to remember that sometimes those beliefs are false. A society might believe in God but “God” is an external concept we subscribe to, not an internal construct we identify as and then expect others to objectively recognize (well, usually not and those cases probably don’t provide the best support for trans ideology). 

There is also a false logical and moral equivalence for citing something’s prevalence throughout history and culture as a justification for its adaption today. Slavery is also persistent throughout history and culture, yet not acceptable today. It’s the same with numerous other historical practices and beliefs as well. Also, despite historical examples of third-genders, intersex and non traditional gender roles, there is an even greater historical and cultural precedence for binary gender roles that are directly tied to sex. 

There are animals who change their sex and gender and even have both sexes. That is biology and nature. We, humans, are a part of it.

God is an internal construct.

Fals logic and moral equivalence does not apply to transgender issues if compared to slavery. Two completely different angles. Slavery is the state of mind of a hierarchy, gender is a part of biology.

Both are a part of nature. Animals inslave other animals too.

[itsnotoutthere]

35 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

That person is a male. Their sex is male. 

Their gender would be woman. She/her.  Also commonly called trans-woman. 

Thankyou, I commend you on you answer & your honest opinion. And I would agree with you. However, my issue with that is when it comes to placing or allowing these people into traditionally women only spaces, toilets, hospital wards, changing rooms, womens only prisons  etc.

Edited October 19, 2022 by itsnotoutthere

[jmccr8]

3 hours ago, el midgetron said:

 

I agree 100%. However, if someone expects you to reject objective reality, they are not “showing respect” for you.

Hi El

Part of collective reality is that people are different. Someone being different than me it to be expected and as long as they do no harm to others I don’t have a problem no matter if it is gender, religion, politics or putting cream in their coffee.

Much of what you get personally offended by is not new and has been around for thousands of years sometimes more hidden than other times and now with media the way is it is in the open at this time in history.

Just because some live a life I do not does not mean they disrespect me by living their  lives. I don’t see much difference in how you have reacted to me about my willingness to defend myself and you inferred it beyond my words to fit your narrative which is a form of disrespect and yet I do not get angry with you for that because I know that you do not understand where or how I grew up or lived through.

[el midgetron]

32 minutes ago, odas said:

There are animals who change their sex and gender and even have both sexes. That is biology and nature. We, humans, are a part of it.

God is an internal construct.

Fals logic and moral equivalence does not apply to transgender issues if compared to slavery. Two completely different angles. Slavery is the state of mind of a hierarchy, gender is a part of biology.

Both are a part of nature. Animals inslave other animals too.

There is no such thing as an animal that “changes gender”. There are animals that change sex or even have both sex organs. Biology and nature are not subjective realities, 

You can define God anyway you would like but good luck convincing people you are God, Your subjective reality does not manifest objective reality. 

[spartan max2]

49 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Thankyou, I commend you on you answer & your honest opinion. And I would agree with you. However, my issue with that is when it comes to placing or allowing these people into traditionally women only spaces, toilets, hospital wards, changing rooms, womens only prisons  etc.

I think there is healthy room for debate with alot of the implications as society becomes more open and accepting of transgender people.

Like I personally agree that sports should be split based on sex.

I do think people should be able to use bathrooms based on their gender though. I think alot of the fear people have around trans people in the bathroom is misplaced. 

Edited October 19, 2022 by spartan max2

[el midgetron]

4 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi El

Part of collective reality is that people are different. Someone being different than me it to be expected and as long as they do no harm to others I don’t have a problem no matter if it is gender, religion, politics or putting cream in their coffee.

Sexualizing and irreversibly altering children sexually, is harming children, A child cannot consent to those things.

Quote

Much of what you get personally offended by is not new and has been around for thousands of years sometimes more hidden than other times and now with media the way is it is in the open at this time in history.

Slavery has been around that long too, Just because something has been around thousands of years, doesn’t validate it. Or if you prefer a different argument, binary gender directly tied to sex has an even greater historical and cultural precedence than examples of non binary traits. 

Quote

Just because some live a life I do not does not mean they disrespect me by living their  lives. I don’t see much difference in how you have reacted to me about my willingness to defend myself and you inferred it beyond my words to fit your narrative which is a form of disrespect and yet I do not get angry with you for that because I know that you do not understand where or how I grew up or lived through.

Racist societies believe themselves to be genetically superior to other races. Like transgenderism it’s an entirely subjective belief. Why don’t you validate and affirm their subjective reality also?
 

You don’t get to impose your subjective reality on other people. People are not obligated to indulge your subjective reality. That has never been a thing and never will. 

[odas]

18 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

There is no such thing as an animal that “changes gender”. There are animals that change sex or even have both sex organs. Biology and nature are not subjective realities, 

You can define God anyway you would like but good luck convincing people you are God, Your subjective reality does not manifest objective reality. 

Yes there is.

https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/nature/article/2016/09/29/7-gender-bending-animals-animal-kingdom

As for convincing others that one is a god, it worked before, numerous times. In fact it does not take long or much of convincing for some to belive. 

[el midgetron]

3 minutes ago, odas said:

Yes there is.

https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/nature/article/2016/09/29/7-gender-bending-animals-animal-kingdom

As for convincing others that one is a god, it worked before, numerous times. In fact it does not take long or much of convincing for some to belive. 

All of those point to objective biological sex traits, most superficial and cosmetic. Just because a male has the coloring of a female doesn’t make it the “opposite gender”. Some women grow hair on their chins but they are still females. Some people grow hair all over their face but they are not animals.

[jmccr8]

1 minute ago, el midgetron said:

Sexualizing and irreversibly altering children sexually, is harming children, A child cannot consent to those things.

Slavery has been around that long too, Just because something has been around thousands of years, doesn’t validate it. Or if you prefer a different argument, binary gender directly tied to sex has an even greater historical and cultural precedence than examples of non binary traits. 

Racist societies believe themselves to be genetically superior to other races. Like transgenderism it’s an entirely subjective belief. Why don’t you validate and affirm their subjective reality also?
 

You don’t get to impose your subjective reality on other people. People are not obligated to indulge your subjective reality. That has never been a thing and never will. 

Hi El

I don’t impose my subjective reality on anyone as this is a discussion forum to which I respond because we all have a life that may be different than yours.

Do you not understand what doing harm to others means as that is what I said.

You know even though we have different opinions about topics does not mean I disrespect you. This should be evident given some of the discussions we have had as I have never called you a troll or spoke down to you.

I do think you are on the extreme ranger of being self righteous though and try to work with that when involved in discussions with you.

[spartan max2]

6 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

All of those point to objective biological sex traits, most superficial and cosmetic. Just because a male has the coloring of a female doesn’t make it the “opposite gender”. Some women grow hair on their chins but they are still females. Some people grow hair all over their face but they are not animals.

Gender = the associations we make with a sex.

So having a beard dosen't mean you're male but it's an association we make with males. Those associations = the man gender.

The animals in his examples aren't changing sex. But they are changing gender. 

Edit: some of those animals are also changing sex it looks like. Like the clownfish.

 

Edited October 19, 2022 by spartan max2

[Duke Wellington]

2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Gender = the associations we make with a sex.

So having a beard dosen't mean you're male but it's an association we make with males. Those associations = the man gender.

The animals in his examples aren't changing sex. But they are changing gender. 

Ordinarily there is man or woman.

Sometimes the foetus goes wrong and it`s not clear if they are a man or woman. They may even have both!

All others are people wanting to be something else and society wrongly convincing them that they can be something else. 

[spartan max2]

21 minutes ago, odas said:

Yes there is.

https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/nature/article/2016/09/29/7-gender-bending-animals-animal-kingdom

As for convincing others that one is a god, it worked before, numerous times. In fact it does not take long or much of convincing for some to belive. 

I found the lion one to be pretty interesting

Quote

Earlier this week, New Scientist reported five lionesses at the Moremi Game Reserve in Botswana had grown manes and adopted male-like behaviours. One has even been observed to roar and mount other females, just as a male lion would.

 

It's difficult to determine what exactly would cause these lionesses to change to a masculine appearance, but researchers think it's due to increased levels of testosterone, possibly due to a genetic quirk.