1 - what exactly did you find ambiguous?
2 - I'm not blaming anyone, I just don't want to educate you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do trans-activists allow for trans-moderates?
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
1 - what exactly did you find ambiguous?
2 - I'm not blaming anyone, I just don't want to educate you.
I think it's an extreme (and dangerous), position to claim that trans women are women.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
@Revoltingest Yeah, you are right.
Here are those I would pick out:
- is empathetic towards people who have gender or body dysphoria.
Counter - as long as you accept that is not always a mental disorder, but rather in some case the body as for sex has a different gender brain.
- supports fair treatment for trans people.
Counter - to vague and didn't need to be there. The rest of the list should speak on its own.
- supports ADULTS who chose to modify their bodies.
- DOES NOT agree that children and adolescents should be subjected to surgeries or hormones.
Counter - that is for the non-adults between them theirs parents and the doctors.
-DOES NOT agree that trans-women are women.
Counter - what is a woman?
- DOES NOT agree that sex is a social construct.
Counter - what is a sex and for the topic is there something a sex is not?
Can you clarify this question? thanks.
It seems like you're switching contexts here?
I said:
These two seem contradictory. Are pronouns you don't like just differences of opinion, which are not violence, or are they somehow harmful?
Why do you think they're contradictory?
Trans-activists often claim that to disagree with them is "violence"
A separate topic is the use of pronouns. I'm claiming that extreme pronoun demands are harmful. Harmful is not the same as violent, correct?
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
Just short of transmigratory.
Your original bullet said:
"DOES NOT agree that children and adolescents should be told how to identify."
I assume that this not-agreeing also extends to parents not telling children how they should identify, correct?
How is it a separate topic? Seems quite related to me.
Violence is a kind of harm, isn't it? How can differences of opinion not be violence, but someone using a pronoun you don't like is "harm?" This seems like a semantic difference.
Hey @mikkel_the_dane - I appreciate your good faith responses!
Am I correct that you think sometimes trans is a mental disorder, but sometimes it's not? Am I also correct that you think the body and brain are two distinct entities?
What's the long term evidence that ANYONE knows how to get this right for young people?
This is a common question these days. To me it smacks of a dangerous, post-truth worldview.
But to be more direct, a woman is an adult, human, female.
Another post-truth question. But sex is taken to mean normal biological differences between males and females. And rare exceptions do not somehow undo biology.
Last edited:
If I understand you, you're saying that a parent shouldn't tell a child that - for example - they're straight, or gay? If so, I would agree.
Sure, if we construct a Venn diagram, violence is a kind of harm. But wouldn't you agree that there are types of harm that are non-violent? I think the semantics are important here. It's not uncommon these days to hear folks from the far-left claim that words ARE violence. This is simply not true.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
That is all I needed to know. You don't understand that sex versus gender are different. The one is XX, XY and the other variants and the outward appearance of a body. The other is how a brain feels its sex and gender; and gender is a social construct in part.
The rest of your post can only be addressed if we can differentiate between sex and gender.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Studies from social science and psychology would disagree and in some cases in Denmark words are violence and punished as such.
I'm asking if you agree with that idea.
Okay gotcha, I'm glad we're in agreement that kids should have the freedom to identify as they choose and not be told they can't be this or that or must be this or that.
So words aren't violence, but they are harm? C'mon dude. What harm are pronouns you don't like doing to you?
Pretty sure slurs (for example) fall under hate speech, legally speaking, in most countries today. Which means they usually fall under the legal category of violence by default.
Words are seen as quite powerful to many a legal system today. And indeed can fall under violence in specific instances
I’m not suggesting that pronouns are necessarily the same thing, obviously. But based on the experiences I’ve heard, using the right pronoun for someone can have a profoundly beneficial effect for them. So the opposite should be true if someone deliberately uses the wrong one, surely.
Most of what you wrote doesn't describe a "moderate"; it describes an ideologically charged position that denies medical consensus and expertise in favor of ideology and personal preferences. I think it's quite problematic to pass off something so potentially harmful as "moderation"—especially when anti-trans legislation is sweeping the US as we speak.
I agree with the above.
It is therapy according to medical organizations such as the World Health Organization and American Psychological Association. Gender-affirming care is not about hastily or superficially "affirming" someone's gender identity as some claim; it includes an extensive range of interventions and therapeutic approaches.
www.aamc.org
See above. Also, if we take the above statement as a general rule, then parents and society shouldn't tell children and adolescents to identify as cisgendered either, yet that frequently happens. Should we also reject that?
See above. Medical organizations generally don't recommend surgical procedures for minors, and if a medical professional does so, that's usually done after extensive evaluation by qualified experts. A lot of bone surgeries and other procedures are also quite complicated, but they're not banned for minors because sometimes doctors determine that they're necessary. Why or how is this any different?
You're directly contradicting medical expertise based on your personal opinions. This is a dangerous slippery slope of the kind that has led to loss of life during the pandemic, among other instances.
Then what are they? How are you defining "women" in the first place?
I have never seen any relevant medical or scientific authority claim that "sex is a social construct"; only that gender is. I would agree that some expressions of gender are rooted in biology, but exactly which ones and to what extent is a different question.
I have rarely ever seen someone claim that, but what I have seen and agree with is the notion that some opinions are more likely to enable violence or harm than others. So, for example, denial of the medical consensus on gender-affirming care and saying it should be categorically withheld from minors is a harmful opinion because it can enable bans on necessary and sometimes life-saving medical care.
For example:
I find this to be context-dependent, but in general, it's definitely a secondary issue compared to the above ones.
I think rejection of established medical consensus is far more harmful than arbitrarily declared pronouns.
I agree with the above.
It is therapy according to medical organizations such as the World Health Organization and American Psychological Association. Gender-affirming care is not about hastily or superficially "affirming" someone's gender identity as some claim; it includes an extensive range of interventions and therapeutic approaches.
What is gender-affirming care? Your questions answered
As states move to restrict certain treatments for transgender youth, experts explain the many types of care, the need for them, and their impact.
See above. Also, if we take the above statement as a general rule, then parents and society shouldn't tell children and adolescents to identify as cisgendered either, yet that frequently happens. Should we also reject that?
See above. Medical organizations generally don't recommend surgical procedures for minors, and if a medical professional does so, that's usually done after extensive evaluation by qualified experts. A lot of bone surgeries and other procedures are also quite complicated, but they're not banned for minors because sometimes doctors determine that they're necessary. Why or how is this any different?
You're directly contradicting medical expertise based on your personal opinions. This is a dangerous slippery slope of the kind that has led to loss of life during the pandemic, among other instances.
Then what are they? How are you defining "women" in the first place?
I have never seen any relevant medical or scientific authority claim that "sex is a social construct"; only that gender is. I would agree that some expressions of gender are rooted in biology, but exactly which ones and to what extent is a different question.
I have rarely ever seen someone claim that, but what I have seen and agree with is the notion that some opinions are more likely to enable violence or harm than others. So, for example, denial of the medical consensus on gender-affirming care and saying it should be categorically withheld from minors is a harmful opinion because it can enable bans on necessary and sometimes life-saving medical care.
For example:
I find this to be context-dependent, but in general, it's definitely a secondary issue compared to the above ones.
I think rejection of established medical consensus is far more harmful than arbitrarily declared pronouns.
How did you come to the conclusion that I don't understand the difference between sex and gender? you're gonna have to connect those dots for me
Okay, time for a little precision here. The long standing test for free speech is roughly "any speech that is not likely to cause imminent violence".
Do you think any of the claims I've made here are likely to cause imminent violence?
PureX
Veteran Member
I think @Revoltingest has a point, here. A lot of what you posted in the OP seems to be based on the fearmongering of the anti-trans faction regarding dangers that are in reality non-existent. This idea that children are being pushed or coerced to undergo chemical or physical proceedures, or even just gender swaps based on clothing and hair and so on.
Anything can have a potential for abuse when children are concerned but I fail to see any actual motive or evidence for any of this kind of supposed threat. EXCEPT for the make-believe motive of the loony-toons on the right that think all gays and trans and liberals and Biden and Hillary are part of a secret cabal of satanic criminals intent on perverting their children so they'll end up burning in hell.
Is there any point in repeating my posts,
given that you've yet to understand?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
How did you come to the conclusion that I don't understand the difference between sex and gender? you're gonna have to connect those dots for me
Okay, time for a little precision here. The long standing test for free speech is roughly "any speech that is not likely to cause imminent violence".
Do you think any of the claims I've made here are likely to cause imminent violence?
We are not in the USA. We are in general debate. Keep the USA of this as the only relevant place on earth, since we are not in that sub-forum.
As for gender and sex, what are they to you?
As for violence, then yes a transgender person could in Denmark be a victim of psychological violence and one or more persons could be sentenced for that.
As for you, no, you are not that dangerous for this thread.
If a kid wants to "try out" gender roles, okay. But no hormones, no surgery. We don't let kids drive or drink alcohol or vote, right?
Again, it seems like two separate questions. Words could cause a person to be fired or ostracized. Those are harmful, but not violent, correct?
As for pronouns, their extreme use is causing some people in society harm. Just ask Rob Hoogland.
I think I've answered many of your questions in other posts?
As for "anti-trans" legislation. What exactly is being legislated? I do not consider myself anti-trans, or transphobic, but I disagree with some of the more radical, post-truth claims that trans-activists are making.
What EXACTLY did you find to be ambiguous?
I asked questions beginning with post #2.
No answers.
At this point, it appears you're not involved in the discussion.
OK.