"Her penis" - not at all Orwellian - argh

[Revoltingest]

Sorry, but Christianity isn't just some nebulous nothing that you tack any idea or belief to. There's variances but then there's hard boundaries. It's like "Identity Christians" who are white supremacists and think non-white people have no souls and will be destroyed by God one day. Yes, I'm going to say they're not Christians or getting such things from Christianity. That's an extreme example, but proves my point.

The hard boundary I see is belief in Jesus Christ.
That results in a vast spectrum, with some awful
variants. No True Scotsman doesn't exclude them.

 

[Rival]

Methodists, Westboro Baptist Church, Word Of God, Unitarians,
etc, etc. Some are OK with gay & trans folk. Others aren't.
Whatever their scripture says, the religion is the spectrum of
what various adherents infer & practice. We wouldn't say
that Christian Dominiomists aren't Christians just because
liberal Christians disagree with their flavor.

These are all Protestant denominations. Minor churches that have minimal presence globally. Although loudly represented, Protestant churches as a whole are still the minority, let alone their offshoot churches. When we speak of 'The Church', to 99% of people we're talking about the RCC, AC and OC. Not splinter groups which only represent themselves. The Church has no actual theological teachings on trans issues and other modern issues (and we can classify this as a modern issue for our purpose). The Church is not based on the individualistic beliefs of preachers and congregants; it's a body that produces informed theological literature and understanding based on hundreds of years of Church teaching. I doubt many new (19th c. and on) groups would be informed about what the theologians from any prior era taught, to have arguments based on solid teaching.

There are boundaries within which one must stay. The problem is people taking others at their word as 'I'm a Christian' and having no basis in historic Christianity at all. I don't take these people seriously (such as WBC and such) and neither should anyone else imo.

 

[Revoltingest]

These are all Protestant denominations. Minor churches that have minimal presence globally. When we speak of 'The Church', to 99% of people we're talking about the RCC, AC and OC. Not splinter groups which only represent themselves. The Church has no actual theological teachings on trans issues and other modern issues (and we can classify this as a modern issue for our purpose). The Church is not based on the individualistic beliefs of preachers and congregants; it's a body that produces informed theological literature and understanding based on hundreds of years of Church teaching. I doubt many new (19th c. and on) groups would be informed about what the theologians from any prior era taught, to have arguments based on solid teaching.

There are boundaries within which one must stay. The problem is people taking others at their word as 'I'm a Christian' and having no basis in historic Christianity at all. I don't take these people seriously (such as WBC and such) and neither should anyone else imo.

We have many more Christian sects here than I
mentioned. Diversity abounds. Get enuf "splinter"
groups, & they become a sizeable fraction.
I didn't mention the Catholic church. But it's not
a positive example of being pro gay or trans.
Just look at SCOTUS.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The hard boundary I see is belief in Jesus Christ.
That results in a vast spectrum, with some awful
variants. No True Scotsman doesn't exclude them.

Sorry, no. "Belief in Jesus" isn't enough. Muslims believe in Jesus, too, and so do Baha'is but they're not Christians. Mormons aren't accepted as Christians by basically every Christian body and their baptisms aren't accepted by any other church. They are outside of the boundaries of Christianity because of their novel doctrines.

Anyway, there's already a thread for just this debate:

Define Christianity

There is a thread on why does Christianity get so much hate Why do christianity get so much hate? This along with my Trinity thread Why So Much Trinity Bashing? ...has made me wonder how are people defining Christianity, since there are many on here who don't seem to take as an authority...

www.religiousforums.com

My comment was about Christianity demonizing trans people, which it doesn't. Otherwise I wouldn't be a Christian. There really isn't a binding teaching about it, like there is about homosexuality sexual activity or fornication. Of course, they are different things, too. "Transgenderism" isn't something you do.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry, no. "Belief in Jesus" isn't enough. Muslims believe in Jesus, too, and so do Baha'is but they're not Christians. Mormons aren't accepted as Christians by basically every Christian body and their baptisms aren't accepted by any other church. They are outside of the boundaries of Christianity because of their novel doctrines.

Anyway, there's already a thread for just this debate:

Define Christianity

There is a thread on why does Christianity get so much hate Why do christianity get so much hate? This along with my Trinity thread Why So Much Trinity Bashing? ...has made me wonder how are people defining Christianity, since there are many on here who don't seem to take as an authority...

www.religiousforums.com

My comment was about Christianity demonizing trans people, which it doesn't. Otherwise I wouldn't be a Christian. There really isn't a binding teaching about it, like there is about homosexuality sexual activity or fornication. Of course, they are different things, too. "Transgenderism" isn't something you do.

We'll agree to disagree.

 

[Brian2]

What the hell are you talking about? This makes no sense. Chemotherapy isn't "safe" in every possible way, but you wouldn't use that as an argument to say that chemotherapy as a form of intervention for those diagnosed with cancer is always bad or unnecessary. This is a nonsensical statement.


Notice how the sources I provide are scientific studies and reports produced and reported on by medical sources, and yours comes from "The Lesbian Post".

Funny, that.

Oh, but not to worry! The publication was prepared by "Lesbians United, and endorsed by Get the L Out UK, Lesbian Action for Visibility Aotearoa (LAVA), Lesbian Fightback, Lesbian Labour, LesbianMeToo, Lesbian Strength, Résistance Lesbienne, and Scottish Lesbians". I wonder how many of these organizations are medical organizations?

Could it be literally none of them?

What is it you like you say about dogma vs. facts?

Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy sounds scientific to me and maybe the 300 reports that the Lesbians were reading were science reports also.

https://accpjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jac5.1691#:~:text=Concerns%20have%20been%20raised%20that,puberty%20may%20permanently%20alter%20neurodevelopment.&text=The%20possible%20impact%20of%20puberty,capacity%20to%20give%20informed%20consent.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy sounds scientific to me and maybe the 300 reports that the Lesbians were reading were science reports also.

I didn't say they weren't "science reports". I explained how "science reports" on the effect of hormone suppression in pancreatic cancer patients says nothing about its efficacy as a treatment for gender dysphoria. This should be obvious. If you were trying to argue that we shouldn't use chemotherapy to treat cancer patients, and to prove your argument you presented a case study about the negative effects of giving chemotherapy to extremely elderly people with a significant number of severe underlying health issues and comorbidities, do you honestly think you're making a salient point? Or, do you just think you're selectively pointing out examples of where chemotherapy shouldn't be used and using those to support the broader argument that chemotherapy should NEVER be used?

https://accpjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jac5.1691#:~:text=Concerns%20have%20been%20raised%20that,puberty%20may%20permanently%20alter%20neurodevelopment.&text=The%20possible%20impact%20of%20puberty,capacity%20to%20give%20informed%20consent.

This is literally just a letter to the editor, not a study. Present facts, not "concerns" and "possible impacts". I have presented several studies in this thread that clearly demonstrate a positive relationship between current gender affirming care and positive health and mental well-being outcomes.

Mental Health Outcomes in Transgender and Nonbinary Youths Receiving Gender-Affirming Care - PubMed

This study found that gender-affirming medical interventions were associated with lower odds of depression and suicidality over 12 months. These data add to existing evidence suggesting that gender-affirming care may be associated with improved well-being among TNB youths over a short period...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Amsterdam Cohort of Gender Dysphoria Study (1972-2015): Trends in Prevalence, Treatment, and Regrets - PubMed

The number of people with gender identity issues seeking professional help increased dramatically in recent decades. The percentage of people who regretted gonadectomy remained small and did not show a tendency to increase. Wiepjes CM, Nota NM, de Blok CJM, et al. The Amsterdam Cohort of Gender...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Gender-affirming care is preventative care - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Study Finds Long-Term Mental Health Benefits of Gender-Affirming Surgery for Transgender Individuals

The American Journal of Psychiatry has published an erratum notice after conducting a statistical analysis that was prompted by letters questioning the methodology of “Reduction in Mental Health Treatment Utilization Among Transgender Individuals After Gender-Affirming Surgeries: A Total...

www.psychiatry.org

Psychiatry Online

PsychiatryOnline.org is the platform for all American Psychiatric Association Publishing journals, DSM, and bestselling textbooks, as well as APA Practice Guidelines, and continuing medical education.

ajp.psychiatryonline.org

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789423

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/137/3/e20153223/81409/Mental-Health-of-Transgender-Children-Who-Are?redirectedFrom=fulltext

 

[icehorse]

I didn't say they weren't "science reports". I explained how "science reports" on the effect of hormone suppression in pancreatic cancer patients says nothing about its efficacy as a treatment for gender dysphoria. This should be obvious. If you were trying to argue that we shouldn't use chemotherapy to treat cancer patients, and to prove your argument you presented a case study about the negative effects of giving chemotherapy to extremely elderly people with a significant number of severe underlying health issues and comorbidities, do you honestly think you're making a salient point? Or, do you just think you're selectively pointing out examples of where chemotherapy shouldn't be used and using those to support the broader argument that chemotherapy should NEVER be used?

Sometime in the last several weeks I linked to an article about issues concerning drugs used to treat prostate cancer, and someone in your pro-GAC cohort said the report wasn't relevant. It was. It was, because those prostate drugs are the same drugs they use in GAC.

As for comorbidities, you've opened a HUGE can of worms there. A large percentage of GD kids are on the spectrum and / or have other mental health issues.

Next, I looked at the 5 links you provided. They all have the same flaw. And it's a HUGE FLAW. None of them compare GAC results against talk therapy only.

So once again - with jazz hands - REGARDLESS of the healthcare approach - MOST kids with GD grow out of it.

Let that rattle around in your brain. Really try to take that fact in.

Therefore, given how dangerous and irreversible GAC is, the people who are advocating for GAC MUST prove, that GAC is more effective at improving mental health then talk therapy only.

NONE of the studies you linked to answer that question.

It's like saying - "if you're 10 years old and want to get taller, jump on a pogo stick for 10 minutes a day. Because studies show that after a couple of years, you'll be taller". doh!

All of these studies assume correlation is causation - and we know that that is often a flawed conclusion.

So once again - with jazz hands - REGARDLESS of the healthcare approach - MOST kids with GD grow out of it.

 

[We Never Know]

I'm sorry, "her penis" is a lie. It's not nuanced or complex, it's a lie.

This article starts by relating one incident, but then refers to many more:

‘Her penis’ – the most Orwellian phrase of our age

Just as well add this story to yours.

"Trans woman left sobbing in JFK Airport after TSA agent hit her testicles"

Trans woman left sobbing in JFK Airport after TSA agent hit her testicles: report

A transgender woman was left in tears at JFK Airport after she claimed a TSA agent punched her in the testicles while going through security.

nypost-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[Revoltingest]

Just as well add this story to yours.

"Trans woman left sobbing in JFK Airport after TSA agent hit her testicles"

Trans woman left sobbing in JFK Airport after TSA agent hit her testicles: report

A transgender woman was left in tears at JFK Airport after she claimed a TSA agent punched her in the testicles while going through security.

nypost-com.cdn.ampproject.org

I hope that TSA agent is prosecuted for
assault, & spends many years in prison.

What is up with people so fearful & angry
about transitioning that they become so
hate filled & violent?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sometime in the last several weeks I linked to an article about issues concerning drugs used to treat prostate cancer, and someone in your pro-GAC cohort said the report wasn't relevant. It was. It was, because those prostate drugs are the same drugs they use in GAC.

I've thoroughly explained why the use of those studies was manipulative.

"Peanut butter is poisonous and nobody should eat it."
"I don't believe that's true. Lots of people eat peanut butter and it doesn't poison them."
"Oh yeah? Well here's a study that shows that giving peanut butter to people with a severe allergy to peanut butter is harmful!"
"I don't see how that's relevant to the claim that peanut butter is poisonous for everyone or the claim that everyone should stop eating it."
"How is it not relevant! It's the same peanut butter!"

I'm not explaining it again.

As for comorbidities, you've opened a HUGE can of worms there. A large percentage of GD kids are on the spectrum and / or have other mental health issues.

Next, I looked at the 5 links you provided. They all have the same flaw. And it's a HUGE FLAW. None of them compare GAC results against talk therapy only.

Literally, just denial. That's all you have. I'm sick of responding to the same tired argument over and over when you know as well as I do that it's just a distraction. You have not a single clue about the validity of the studies, you cannot point to any flaw in their methodology. You're just looking for excuses to deny the science.

You are not smarter than the doctors who carried out these studies. You don't know more about medicine than the doctors who carried out these studies. The doctors who carried out these studies are infinitely more qualified to examine flaws in their studies than you are. They have carried out a little bit more work than you have with your "Logic 101" nonsense. Stop debating medicine if your position is anti-science.

 

[icehorse]

"Peanut butter is poisonous and nobody should eat it."
"I don't believe that's true. Lots of people eat peanut butter and it doesn't poison them."
"Oh yeah? Well here's a study that shows that giving peanut butter to people with a severe allergy to peanut butter is harmful!"
"I don't see how that's relevant to the claim that peanut butter is poisonous for everyone or the claim that everyone should stop eating it."
"How is it not relevant! It's the same peanut butter!"

I'm not explaining it again.

The reason we HAVE logic 101 is because it works.

Your example is logically different than the prostate drug example, try again.

Literally, just denial. That's all you have. I'm sick of responding to the same tired argument over and over when you know as well as I do that it's just a distraction. You have not a single clue about the validity of the studies, you cannot point to any flaw in their methodology. You're just looking for excuses to deny the science.

You are not smarter than the doctors who carried out these studies. You don't know more about medicine than the doctors who carried out these studies. The doctors who carried out these studies are infinitely more qualified to examine flaws in their studies than you are. They have carried out a little bit more work than you have with your "Logic 101" nonsense. Stop debating medicine if your position is anti-science.

I'm USING science, not denying it. Science uses control groups. Your studies do not.

You are making appeals to authority, and in this case the authorities are not reliable, as can be determined easily when you read the studies they provided.

So you can stick with your unreliable authorities, I will stick with logic and the actual scientific method.

 

[icehorse]

I hope that TSA agent is prosecuted for
assault, & spends many years in prison.

What is up with people so fearful & angry
about transitioning that they become so
hate filled & violent?

You're strawmanning most of us who oppose trans activism.

If a grown up wants to transition, if that let's him or her live his or her best life, that's cool.

But trans activists are trying to warp reality and that's dangerous and selfish.

So if the headline read "Trans woman claims HE was kicked in the testicles...", then that could be true. There are no lies in that headline.

But to say "Trans woman claims SHE was kicked in the testicles.." is a LIE. HE might have been kicked, but there was no SHE to get kicked. The second headline is not reality. Reality always wins in the end, and when we lie about reality, it always comes with bad consequences.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You're strawmanning most of us who oppose trans activism.

If a grown up wants to transition, if that let's him or her live his or her best life, that's cool.

But trans activists are trying to warp reality and that's dangerous and selfish.

So if the headline read "Trans woman claims HE was kicked in the testicles...", then that could be true. There are no lies in that headline.

But to say "Trans woman claims SHE was kicked in the testicles.." is a LIE. HE might have been kicked, but there was no SHE to get kicked. The second headline is not reality. Reality always wins in the end, and when we lie about reality, it always comes with bad consequences.

How about, someone was assaulted in an airport and it's wrong to assault people?

 

[Yerda]

So once again - with jazz hands - REGARDLESS of the healthcare approach - MOST kids with GD grow out of it.

Hello, I've managed to avoid the previous 44 pages of this thread. Curious about this bit. Most kids with GD grow out of it?

Apologies is you've posted links to something already but I'm wondering if you could show me where this comes from?

 

[icehorse]

How about, someone was assaulted in an airport and it's wrong to assault people?

I'm trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that if we call trans women "she", they will get assaulted less?

If so, I think the opposite is probably true. Can you explain your thinking?

 

[icehorse]

Hello, I've managed to avoid the previous 44 pages of this thread. Curious about this bit. Most kids with GD grow out of it?

Apologies is you've posted links to something already but I'm wondering if you could show me where this comes from?

I'm linking to a different thread that provides many links. I would recommend starting with the article written by the Finnish doctor in charge of GD for Finland, Dr. Kaltiala.

The evidence supporting "gender affirming care" is of very low reliability

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm trying to understand your point here. Are you saying that if we call trans women "she", they will get assaulted less?

If so, I think the opposite is probably true. Can you explain your thinking?

My thinking is, a person was assaulted in an airport. Instead of focusing on what genitals they actually have, or whatever, let's focus on the fact that assaulting people is wrong. Regardless of their gender, or what someone thinks their gender is, or ought to be. Let's all refrain from assaulting peoples' genital areas.

 

[icehorse]

My thinking is, a person was assaulted in an airport. Instead of focusing on what genitals they actually have, or whatever, let's focus on the fact that assaulting people is wrong. Regardless of their gender, or what someone thinks their gender is, or ought to be. Let's all refrain from assaulting peoples' genital areas.

Of course, and agreed.

But in this instance we were discussing the newspaper headline.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're strawmanning....

You should really learn what that term means.