People have posted links. Here is another one for you. You don’t appear to want to learn anything.
Yeah, I don’t claim to have all the answers, other than I’m quite certain that two genders doesn’t cover the bases fully. Two covers 90+% that is likely quite true. But what about the few % that it doesn’t seem to work for. Why are you so dead set on claiming they MUST fit the two you like?
Do you really think that you could determine with 100% accuracy everyone’s gender if you just could peak between their legs? Why not do a little research and figure out why that won’t work?
Two links! Two different people explaining sexual orientations! You reckon either one have been viewed? Or will we get the 'ol DT or FOX explanations…We won! Anything else is fake news! We have to remember, supplying more actual, factual data only confuses the minds of some, causing it to get stuck in place.
Gender is cultural. There can be no argument to that claim, as we have alternate conceptual examples both current and from history.
Many Native American tribes had an overt concept of at least three genders, sometimes four. These “two-
spirit” people were commonly honored and held special roles within the tribes.
They were of course hunted an murdered by white missionaries, to show the natives how much Jesus loves them, but the traditions in many tribes continued or have resurfaced in recent decades.
What I find very odd is that for farm animals we have different names for them based on “gender affronting care” hence for horses we get geldings and for cattle we get steer/oxen (and of course eunuchs for male humans) so what is the terrible problem with realizing that there just might be some natural variability even without the intervention, and that such people might like a pronoun that acknowledges this?
Idealism can cause people to overlook the fact that Walla Walla alone cannot decide how supportive they will be to LGBTQ++ people. The North Pacific Union operates Walla Walla! And the Union is almost certainly under pressure. John McVay has the unenviable job of trying to maintain as much inclusion as possible while not having the institution taken over by ultra-conservative influencers. I know Dr. McVay personally. He is a kind, reasonable man who does care about and respect LGBT people!! Hopefully people will assess the situation calmly with reasonable expectations.
i agree that Fulcrum7’s rage bloggers aren’t calculating the effect of their posts, but i disagree that it strengthens the LGBT cause in our Church…Fulcrum7’s rage bloggers are having no impact on rational minds visiting that site…
i would say that some of the more MAGA fringe editorials on the site have fallen equally flat…reasonable Adventists, committed to Adventism, are in no danger from Fulcrum7, Spectrum, AToday, Advindicate, or any of the sites looking to influence Adventism…at best they galvanize only those who align before anything is printed, and who are looking to be galvanized…
personally, i think it’s good that there’s a free market of ideas and approaches circulating in our Church…it would be less than optimal if any strain of ideologies was silenced in any way…
I am sorry when did the discussion go to the neurobiology of trans-sexuality? When I asked about the 20 genders or even if you could define a gender. You could have given at least the ADA definition as that was in the Psychology Today article I linked to. Sure it was destroyed in the article but at least there was something instead of nothing. When you say the meaning that has been used for the last couple hundred years is not right anymore but you don’t even have a meaning, you are on weak ground intellectually.
More like 95% to 98% it might not cover some of the true genetic intersex related individuals, but even then they will usually make a choice that matches them best. I know the Trans activists have greatly inflatted the intersex numbers but that is again because they like to redefine words without using the normal medical meanings. But let us use your numbers. There are now 10% of the population that have 20 genders. I will ignore the gender is a spectrum crowd. So let’s assume that there are these 20 genders you cannot name or describe, Would not the category non-binary solve that problem? By the way, if you think that male and female is only described by what is between your legs, you are sorely mistaken. So please don’t assume your lack of knowledge is my lack of knowledge!
This is exactly the point of the article/what’s wrong with SDA Colleges and Universities: They cannot operate independently as they should, but instead must kowtow to the church.
Fulcrum7 unwittingly generates sympathy for LGBT+ individuals. Would you rather worship with pleasant LGBT+ individuals or the mean-spirited and shrieking scolds we see on Fulcrum7?
There has been no airing of the conservative argument. It’s not coming from Elders Wilson or Finley, because they don’t really know what they’re talking about. And it’s not coming from Fulcrum7, because that site is not authentically conservative but radical. Consequently, the SDA Church continues to drift with the cultural currents.
i understand what you’re saying…but i think you underestimate rank and file adventism, even if it doesn’t trouble itself to express anything (which it doesn’t)…Fulcrum7, and the entire MAGAventist right, is severely self-limiting, Village Church notwithstanding…it has very little actual influence…
i actually even wonder whether Gerry, or even David, believe everything they’re printing…to at least some extent, i think they’re doing what they think they need to do for donations…
The first time I came across the peculiar website, I thought it was satire.
Good, you are finally admitting that the standard two doesn’t in fact cover everyone. That is the only point I’ve been trying to make. From the above, it seems you still would really like to shoehorn the few percent who clearly have a biological bases for not fitting the standard mold, into one or the other, hence your claim they usually chose one or the other pronouns. So I think you still are of the opinion that gender should be male and female. Are you really just bent out of shape that language changes over time? To me, there is abundant evidence that some people don’t identify as standard male or female, so why not accommodate that fact? That is really all they are asking.
I linked to the lecture on the biological basis for transgender because you asked for it. You claimed my example of the geocentric universe was different because science advanced to the point were it was known to be wrong. So I gave you a link on how we know that binary gender identity isn’t 100% correct anymore either. Then you complain! BTW, the thing I found most interesting is that there are in fact differences in brain structure in people who claim to be transgender but never had any hormone or surgical changes made. These are not people who are genetically inter-sexed either, something you don’t seem to have admitted yet. I suspect you think that if one doesn’t have an inter-sexed chromosomal problem then they should stick with binary gender norms. So I was providing you with an example of why we should be willing to consider that the difference might be in the brain, not between the legs, and that there are in fact known examples of this already.
You seem obsessed with 20 genders. I think that is way to many as well, its not going to easily make it into regular language use, its just too complicated. But I do suspect that over time acceptance of non-binary pronouns will become widespread.
The big problem with all of this is that it is accommodation that requires some effort on the part of the 98% to assist the increasingly tiny fractions that trail off to nearly nothing. So if some relatively simple solution can be found for accommodating 2% its one thing, but if you have 20+ to cover out to 0.001% its not happening.
But that is always the problem in society, how much do you spend in $ and effort to make life easier for the margins?
I scratched my head quite a bit about that over the last year as I watched my small town implement part of the Biden stimulus in the form of redoing all the crosswalks down about 1 mile of Main St + the associated sidewalks to conform to wheelchair access. It is now much nicer for wheelchairs (of which I hardly ever see one) but what was the cost? Would there have been wiser things that would have benefited a larger fraction of society?
Nice societies do help those at the margins.
There is practically very little things that cover 100% of anything. There are always exceptions because of genetic mutations and accidents and violence. I have never said anything otherwise. Genders referring to either male and female are examples of things that cover most if not all people the average person comes into contact with. I don’t want to move into pronouns as English has meaning and those who want to change the meaning again have no logical basis. Multiple pronouns like they and them are not pronouns for singular people. There is no reason at all to change them.
Language changes over time usually by adding new words with meanings. Not simply changing the meanings of commonly used words.
The subject of the lecture was not on gender and that was the topic. It was the module’s statement that gender is a social construct (which I posted a link that destroys that concept pretty well) and that there are 20 genders. I will say I don’t have a lot of respect for the studies that just show the areas of the brain that “light up” and then drawing a correlation. That is incredibly subjective, but we are not really in a place to fully understand the brain. Also in any kind of dialog like this we really need written material and not some college professors lecture. Lectures are not all good and don’t always begin on a firm foundation, plus if you can’t bring in something fairly direct I am not going to listen to a over an hour lecture to find the part you think backs up your view.
The gender binary is extremely accurate, and we all know this. In fact there was a continuing bit on Saturday Night Live which worked off that fact. It was called “It’s Pat” based upon the presentation that someone’s name and physical appearance could not accurately determine the character’s sex. https://youtu.be/Y6PcTOKSP0A
Not for a few % of people, and that is the issue. I think you have made it clear you really don’t care about those few %. There isn’t anything else to add.
Well the assumption that I don’t care because I don’t follow your line of reasoning is not at all accurate. One of the strengths of the political progressives is their deep emotions. But that is also a severe weakness because they often lose sight of the reality in their emotions. The concern for this very small intersex number is really just an excuse to then do the same thing for people who do not have any development disorder but do have a psychological disorder. This is witnesses by the political progressives who say gender-affirming care is telling someone that their gender is not what it biologically is. The reality is that it is gender-denying care, saying that even though a person is biologically one sex they really are the other sex. So the actual number of people with uncertain biological sex at birth is really quite small.
Disorders of sexual development (DSD)―a less derogatory term than intersex―are a heterogenous group of conditions characterized by aberrant chromosomal, gonadal, and/or anatomic sex with widely varying genotypic and phenotypic manifestations. Sexual differentiation comprises three successive steps: (1) genotypic events determined at conception in regard to chromosomal composition; (2) phenotypic events driven from the chromosomal makeup, which induce gonadal differentiation; and (3) gender identity formation, which can be a lifelong, evolving paradigm predicated on issues such as hormonal induction, external genitalia, and psychologic factors, to name a few.1,2 Patients with DSD are generally identified at birth, usually based on physical exam; then a multidisciplinary approach is used to manage these complex issues surgically, psychologically, and socially. These patients are treated by pediatric specialists who are rigorously trained to handle the complex pathophysiology of DSD conditions.
In contrast, transgender patients are genotypically and phenotypically “normal” but have a gender identity that is not congruent with their biologic sex. These patients are usually first evaluated by the physician as adolescents or adults, whereas most DSD patients are plugged into the medical system from a much earlier age. Transgender patients historically have had a much tougher time finding physicians trained in the nuances of their care and only recently have found more holistic and inclusive medical services to meet their needs." https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/disorders-of-sex-development
Not true. It is a mixture of both. This can actually cause confusion. For example “gay”. Or perhaps even more so the word cleave, which can mean “to join together”, or it can mean “to separate”. Many words have changed meaning overtime.
My favorite example of the flexibility of language was when a comedian-George Carlin, I think-pointed out that in English, the terms “fat chance” and “slim chance” mean exactly the same thing!
Really, so you are one of those people who don’t know the meaning of “usually” so you assume you have defeated the argument because you found an exception! It not even being an exception unless one confuses “usually” with “always”. Though you raise a good point with cleave, when was the last time you used that word? People often say, “homosexual” is not in the bible. That is true as it is a new word that had it’s own meaning. There was no fight about that word usage it did not change the language it added to the language making things clearer. Such is not for the use of gay. But of course, now we have lost things like gay paree just because a new meaning was inserted.
Actually I think you are incorrect by using “usually”. I think there are more occasions where the meaning has changed than new words. I only gave you only two examples. Neither is able to prove our point definitely, so from that perspective who is right, or who is more correct?
Too many people just toss out “facts” like usually, or 70% of etc with no basis other than their own experience. If you had said, In my experience language is usually changed by the addition of new words…yada yada yada, I couldn’t fault that. It is your experience. However, to throw out a generic, Language is usually changed…yada yada yada, leaves it open for challenge.