Regret is really unusual and the vast majority of trans people don’t regret transition. using puberty blockers are about alleviating suffering. They are completely reversible and there is no reason the young person has to continue with transition. It actually gives young people with dysphoria time to work out who they are.
The European experience seems to disprove this assertion. They only use puberty, blockers and cross hormones on very strictly regulated researchers.
No it is not at all unusual. I think the statistics for suicides is the same for those who transition as those that have gender dysphoria. But then it is easy to say that it is just science denying groups who arrive at those statistics. After all science has for a long time said there were two sexes male and female with very rare genetic anomilies. Now apparentely trans activists have determined that science thinks men can become women. But back to the regret. Watch this from a very good youtube channel called the soft white underbelly. Ex (Detransitioning) Trans Woman interview-Shape Shifter - YouTube
I will update this with something that the interview above referred to which is that suicides actually are up when a person transitions. Here is the link to that Danish study and the concluding statement:
" Conclusions and Relevance In this Danish population-based, retrospective cohort study, results suggest that transgender individuals had significantly higher rates of suicide attempt, suicide mortality, suicide-unrelated mortality, and all-cause mortality compared with the nontransgender population." Transgender Identity and Suicide Attempts and Mortality in Denmark
I do agree with AJShep statement of Jul 8
Jay, this is a very practical and positive approach to follow for everyone to support our LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters. So many Christians forget their Christianity on this topic and instead give into fear and hatred. Keep up the message and may the Lord bless you.
I object to David’s post and believe it should be removed. He asserts that those that do not support LGBTQ+ ideas, (gay sex is not sinful, the mutilation of children is OK, etc.), are not Christian, but are just phobic and haters.
This is slander. Not supporting LGBTQ+ ideas does not make one un-Christian, just one who disagrees with their viewpoint.
The post should be removed.
I am going to ignore the science-denying part because there is no science that says so-called gender-affirming care is scientific consensus There is a lot of disagreement so saying science-denying is simply untrue.
We should however deal a bit more with the subject of gender identity. Webster’s defines Gender Identity as: " : a person’s internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female"
Which leads to the observation of how someone can “deny gender identity”? If it is an internal sense then it is not something that can be denied from outside. One can certainly deny that someone is not a male or female on biological grounds and those can often be seen on the outside and one can use the meaning of gender as referring to one’s biological sex, that does have a long history as the Webster’s usage quote at the end of this post reports.
What has happened in the last 10 years is that activists have taken to saying that if you don’t agree with them you are “denying”. But there has never been a time when disagreements on evidence or feelings has ever been improved by the claim that the other side is simply denying. That presents the apriori position that one’s own position is the truth or reality without actually providing any actual evidence that their position is indeed the truth or reality. It is in fact a very poor form of argumentation.
Are gender and sex the same? Usage Guide
The words sex and gender have a long and intertwined history. In the 15th century gender expanded from its use as a term for a grammatical subclass to join sex in referring to either of the two primary biological forms of a species, a meaning sex has had since the 14th century; phrases like “the male sex” and “the female gender” are both grounded in uses established for more than five centuries. In the 20th century sex and gender each acquired new uses. Sex developed its “sexual intercourse” meaning in the early part of the century (now its more common meaning), and a few decades later gender gained a meaning referring to the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex, as in “gender roles.” Later in the century, gender also came to have application in two closely related compound terms: gender identity refers to a person’s internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female; gender expression refers to the physical and behavioral manifestations of one’s gender identity. By the end of the century gender by itself was being used as a synonym of gender identity.
Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with sex as the preferred term for biological forms, and gender limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits. In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender). This delineation also tends to be observed in technical and medical contexts, with the term sex referring to biological forms in such phrases as sex hormones, sex organs, and biological sex. But in nonmedical and nontechnical contexts, there is no clear delineation, and the status of the words remains complicated. Often when comparisons explicitly between male and female people are made, we see the term gender employed, with that term dominating in such collocations as gender differences, gender gap, gender equality, gender bias, and gender relations. It is likely that gender is applied in such contexts because of its psychological and sociocultural meanings, the word’s duality making it dually useful. The fact remains that it is often applied in such cases against the prescribed use.
Usage of sex and gender is by no means settled. For example, while discrimination was far more often paired with sex from the 1960s through the 20th century and into the 21st, the phrase gender discrimination has been steadily increasing in use since the 1980s and is on track to become the dominant collocation. Currently both terms are sometimes employed with their intended synonymy made explicit: sex/gender discrimination, gender (sex) discrimination. Gender Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Since I posted the youtube interview from the soft white underbelly which was a guy that trans to a woman and then is trying to detransition here is one that I just listened to of a woman that trans to a man and detrans. This one is very much a Christian perspective from a very good Christian podcast that deals with a lot of tough subjects. Unbelievable? I lost nine years of my life: Transgender to Transformed | Laura Perry Smalts shares her life-changing story with Billy Hallowell | Shows | Unbelievable
this may be true in the case of puberty blockers, particularly if they haven’t been used extensively…but i think the situation with surgery is a bit different…a simple google search shows that regret amongst surgery recipients is not insignificant…
the other phenomenon to note is that there are young people who grow out of a need to transition…
delaying transitioning would seem to be the way to identify those who outgrow urges to transition and cut down on regret from irreversible surgery…
So transgender issues aside, are you saying that it is OK to discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community? If you were operating a business selling products or services, would you refuse to serve a gay or lesbian person/couple?
If you ascribe to the view that homosexual orientation is immutable, logically, Bongoangola is correct. Being a transgender is immutable, and puberty blockers are a tool to reliever suffering.
But if you think that homosexual or dysphoric orientation is not necessarily immutable, then it makes sense to withhold puberty blockers, which BTW, are not always reversible.
The Europeans have pulled back from this sort of therapy as it seems it does not make the person happier, and can be quite detrimental. If transgenderism is a mental condition rather than another gender, it makes sense not to interfere with nature’s processes.
I might add, the operations for transgenderism are fraught with difficulty. Especially is it impossible to craft a functioning penis. Even neovaginas are problematic.
I object to the normalization of homosexuality because of the confusion of gender it entails. The results of this normalization has not been positive.
So you mean if we ignore some of the LGBT Alphabet what about the others? The problem is they group together so you can’t do that, so that they seem to be in unity and a bigger group. They are not in unity as the 3rd letter is B for Bi which is very much a binary agreement so it does not agree with those nonbinary folks.
Second, you ask something that was not even mentioned. Is it OK to discriminate against? Was that the discussion? Not a part of anything I said, so why bring it up? I see no reason to derail anything with your hypotheticals. I think it is perfectly acceptable to disagree with activists’ views and actions and propaganda. That is something we all must do in all kinds of areas.
The idea that transgender is immutable is without any merit. Most of what the trans activists say is very illogical. They want to say gender instead of sex because gender they say is up to the individual’s interior feelings. That is why they seperate gender for sex. They also know that how ever much they want to say a man can become a woman etc they also know that even with the best medical intervention it has never once been done. So when you put forth an idea like transgender is immutable it makes no sense to their own use of gender. As they will often say that gender is a spectrum you can move up and down the spectrum whenever you feel like it. So transgender is never something you are born with so it is not an immutable part of a human being. Also there are too many examples of people who were on puberty blockers who were not relieved of mental or physical suffering so puberty blockers are not a tool to relieve suffering.
That is why I said most thinking people cannot logically ally with the transgender movement. Fortunately, the majority of Americans do not even though the left and the media have been pushing it for several years. I think it is interesting in that even in the Pew poll they say “sex assigned at birth” As if the doctor just assigns a sex instead of observing the sex. Those same sex characteristics that the Ultrasound saw in the womb. The media even polling organizations attempt to redefine things for a sex-confusion agenda
Just like the broader world around us there are Christians who are vocal about their disapproval of LGBTQ+. Many feel that actions or responses short of condemnation are in fact sinful. To these I would suggest it is important to remember there are diverse interpretations of scripture among Christians and that not all Christians view LGBTQ+ individuals negatively.
Regardless of your view, condemnation should have no currency within Christian values, instead love, compassion, and acceptance of personhood should be our values. You can hold firm religious beliefs while still treating all individuals with respect and dignity without being judgmental and preaching condemnation.
I’d like to nominate @ajshep ’s post #25-in which he claims to have been slandered by having his purported Christianity questioned-for the “Best Comedic Comment of The Month” Prize. Hopefully, this also will put him in contention for “Most Risible Remark of The Year” Award, although I think he’ll find he has some pretty stiff competition there, primarily from himself!
I submit that one cannot help but see his taking offense at this supposed effrontery utterly amusing since, according to Matthew’s alleged account of Jesus’ theology, a true Christian would find such attacks as evidence that he is on the right track for a heavenly reward!
Further, I find the notion that he has been “slandered” particularly and personally entertaining as he-apparently having assumed the role of arbiter of what is and is not Christian orthodoxy and/or orthopraxy-has assured me in this forum that one cannot call himself a Christian and, at the same time, be a panpsychist, for example, as to do so is allegedly anti-Christian.
You may not consider their argument “good”, but some people have come up with a profound, very reasonable and even biblical case for accepting WO, despite anything the Bible or the African delegation may have to say on the topic: for them, it just seems like the right thing to do.
Kinda like those who reject slavery no matter how “biblical” the concept may be.
It’s been almost 50 years since I lived and worked in Africa, and worshipped with the local SDA’s there. But I suspect the people I knew would still vote with the NAD-and against the Bible-on that issue!
Very well said.
We constantly hear the refrain from folks commenting in this forum like AJSHEP who loudly and persistently advocate for freedom from LGBTQ+ persons. Not only that, but deny even the existence of LGBTQ+ saying they are delusional and anyone who advocates for them are sinners and enemies. They applaud efforts to by courts and politicians that strip human rights and protections under law that heterosexuals enjoy. As seen in this thread you hear them opine for the good old days, when LGBTQ+ were invisible and suffered silently from bigotry.
Why did you not speak in such a manner to David1, who set himself up as arbiter of who is Christian or not? He is the one who made the comment. I have never said he is not a Christian, though I often disagree with him.
And I might add that Panpsychism could hardly be called a Christian doctrine, last I checked. But if you think that this belief is comparable with Christ as creator, go at it. Why do you refuse to defend your position? I do try to defend mine.
- I have not advocated freedom from LGBT. I don’t think they can be church members, but that does not indicate freedom from them. I have rented my apartments to several of them. I have one now in the apartment upstairs. You go too far in your thinking about those who do not agree with your position. Just because someone disagrees does not make them evil.
- I did not say they were delusional. I think gay six is sinful like stealing and adulatory and fornication. But I am a sinner, too, and so fall under the same condemnation. So gays are not enemies, but fellow travelers with their own problems. To make such acts righteous, however, is going against scripture.
- I have never applauded courts etc. from stripping humans rights
You know, David1, why do you say such things that are not true? Do you think that just because i don’t support gay sex that I hate gays? Jesus did not support adultery, but loved adulterers. Others can do the same.
Could you explain 1 Cor 5 in a way that does not involve condemnation? Paul condemned the acts of that man, and even said that Christians they should not have fellowship with him and that he should be disfellowshiped.
The thread is ending, but perhaps you will find a way to comment elsewhere. .
Actually, Bruce, that was a very creative reply, and I smiled myslef when i read it….
This topic was automatically closed after 14 days. New replies are no longer allowed.