What is it?
-
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!
If you can't even say what you mean, then what?
- Thread starter David Young
- Start date
What is it?
Then I assume you oppose the absurd analogy being made in the OP?
I would need more context before I took a position either way.
But what I can say is that I often find activists in the LGBTQ+ community are counterproductively divisive when it comes to their attempts to forcibly warp society's linguistics and semantics to conform to their frequently ambiguous, incoherent, hot-off-the-presses opinions on complex topics like diversity, inclusion, childhood development, psychology, physiology, biology, peer pressure, propaganda, social constructs, philosophy, motivation science, misogyny, and understanding phobias in general.
What more context do you need, as someone who says he supports trans people? The OP is a classic example of someone who opposes the rights of trans people - comparing them to people who are delusional or who are talking nonsense when describing their gender identity. Surely as someone who doesn't think trans people are just delusional or silly or incoherent when talking about their gender identity, since you're a supporter of theirs, you'd find the analogy in the OP objectionable. Right?
Wow! It seems to me you read a LOT into the OP that to me is ambiguous at best. For example, where is the definition of "woman" codified? And when you say "trans", where is that defined? Do you mean transgender or transsexual or both or some other? Next, who speaks for "trans people"?
One behavior that I don't think is truly in support of trans people is to attempt to force new definitions of established words. This is an example of a "solution" that's not so great. And it's a complete non sequitur to be told that because I don't agree with this solution, I don't support trans people.
You said you're a supporter of LGBTQ+ folks. You tell me, what the heck did you mean by that? Who's covered by your support in the T of that acronym? And what does it mean when you say you support them?
This is an odd complaint. Language evolves and changes constantly. New words are added to language, old words are discarded. The meaning of words shifts. This is just part of how language has always evolved. You're not speaking King James English in your daily life, I presume?
Moreover, which new definition of a word are you so opposed to in your support of trans folks?
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Are you always this hostile when people can't parse a sentence you wrote, or do you simply assume from the start that every single question I ask you is a veiled attack against your person?
Seriously, you tell me. I'm not interested in getting into some "gotcha, your definition isn't quite correct" back and forth. You didn't answer my question about what YOU meant by the "t" - transgender, transsexual or both or other?
In the meantime, I'll say "all non-binary people" and feel free to improve that definition. So what I mean is that "all non-binary people" should have the same rights as binary people. They should not be discriminated against. They should have the same opportunities.
go look up sea lioning.
Sea lioning isn't about personal attacks, it's about obfuscation tactics.
Last edited:
This isn't a gotcha. You used the term LGBTQ+. I was replying based on that. T generally stands for transgender, though transexual is also at times used (its more archaic). I would include both under the umbrella.
Great. So then you'd oppose anyone who suggested that trans people are delusional or stupid or that their gender identity is nonsensical, right?
I would mostly agree. That said, I'm concerned that declaring oneself to be "trans" is probably fraught with errors if attempted at too early an age. I would say that until a person is through puberty, such a determination would be problematic. Maybe such a conclusion shouldn't be attempted until a person is 21? It's a tricky question as far as "how old is old enough" to draw such a conclusion.
Put another way, if an 8 year old is declared "trans" that feels premature.
If a 25 year has had some counseling and determines that they're trans, that feels legit.
Not sure where the line should be drawn between 8 and 25?
Were you not confident that you were male before age 25?
Aside from which, the OP said nothing about age. The point of the post was simply to paint trans people as crazy or stupid. Which is why it baffles me, if you're a supporter of trans people, that you would entertain it as anything less than insulting.
You didn’t know your own gender identity until after puberty? Really?
I mean no judgment, if that’s what your experience is. But studies typically show that gender identity forms at very young ages in humans. Both cis and trans
Not sure what my personal experience has to do with this conversation? It turns out that I didn't have any confusion in this regard, but why would that be relevant?
So the sentence in question from the OP is: "I am a woman". If spoken by a trans person, I would push back on that sentence a bit. That sentence seems to me to be an attempt to take some linguistic control of the language that would be counter productive. So once again, I view this sentence as a sort of "solution" created by a trans person. Being trans does not make a person an expert in linguistics or any of the many other possible domains of expertise that might come into play. And... me taking issue with the solution does not make me anti-trans or trans-phobic.
Not sure what my personal experience has to do with this conversation? It turns out that I didn't have any confusion in this regard, but why would that be relevant?
Back to an earlier post, I will reiterate: I think the whole arena of gender identity, gender expression, sex, attraction, gender dysphoria and so on is quite complex. It could easily involve topics like diversity, inclusion, childhood development, psychology, physiology, biology, peer pressure, propaganda, social constructs, philosophy, motivation science, misogyny, and understanding phobias in general.
Given such complexity, I'm not sure that researchers doing "gender identity studies" would make such bold proclamations. I would think a good researcher would be far more modest in their conclusions, given the complexity of the space, no?
You're claiming the personal experience of trans people under age 25 with regard to their gender is not "legit." I was seeing if your application of that principle is consistent.
What is the issue with this, specifically, aside from anti-trans people not liking it? It is bizarre, I have to say, that you think someone using a word you think they've used inappropriately means they consider themselves "linguistic experts." What they're experts in, more than anyone else, is their own experience. Their gender is female.
Not exactly my claim. As with all such discussions of large populations, claims are almost always of a statistical nature. Perhaps a bit more detail would be good: I would say that some of the young people who think they're trans, are actually trans. But many are not. Do you have an opinion on de-transitioning? It happens a lot, and to me the idea that a young person mistakenly felt they were trans, went through some invasive transitioning process (some FAR more invasive and permanent than others), and THEN came to the conclusion that they weren't trans after all is an important cautionary tale.
Next, trans-activists might also be supporting hidden homophobia without being aware of it. It's not uncommon for homophobic parents to coerce a probably-gay child into the belief that they are trans.
Again, the diagnosis or conclusion that a child is trans is fraught with complexity, and is all too frequently in error.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that there are no negative consequences when - for example - a trans person declares "I am a woman"? Is that your claim?
I agree, more detail would be good. What's "a lot?" What number and percentage of trans minors, for example, surgically transition and then detransition? Vs. those who remain transitioned? Vs. taking hormones or puberty blockers and then stopping those?
What's "not uncommon?" I've literally never encountered this in my personal life. I'm gay and have known many homophobic people in my life. None of them ever tried to convince me, or any gay person I've ever met, that we are actually trans but not gay. Perhaps you have lots of experience with this or it's rampant in your corner of the world? Or is this just a hypothetical you've heard about?
You're making a lot of statistical statements while providing no actual statistics. What's also fascinating is that you give no pause to your own experience of your own gender, but apply considerably more scrutiny to the legitimacy of trans' people's own experience of their gender.
And again, this stuff about kids going through puberty has nothing to do with what the OP actually said.
I didn't make a claim in that regard. I was waiting for you to explain your claim that it is problematic. Personally I don't see how, but I'm happy to hear your argument for it.