Man to Man... or Woman

[Piculet]

Untrue, and it's a very small number who do.

They (whom you were quoting) said it is increasing. You said it's not true, it's a small number — but is it or is it not increasing?

 

[Rival]

I'm sceptical. She had small but fully developed breasts, she didn't put on extra weight and got back to her previous weight. Her breasts went from small to enormous.

Healthfully

No, I don't believe a word of your story.

And SW would just make this up because...? You can't just discount people's personal experiences. Each body is different.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm sceptical. She had small but fully developed breasts, she didn't put on extra weight and got back to her previous weight. Her breasts went from small to enormous.

Healthfully

No, I don't believe a word of your story.

Thank you for letting us know how much you know about women. Its not much.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nothing wrong with you saying, you don't know.
To our best knowledge laws are not fixed and set, unless done so by a law giver. So based on what we know, the best explanation, is that these laws were set by someone - just as Hebrews 3:4 says.

It's not necessary, and its jumping to conclusions to assume it must be god. And wr havr above us a record of thousands and billions of years with consistent results, no signs of a creator needed or present.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They (whom you were quoting) said it is increasing. You said it's not true, it's a small number — but is it or is it not increasing?

As Ive said previously l, there are more people so there will be a higher overall number of everything. But recent studies have shown the percentageof those who detransition is both a very small percentage and has been seen to have decreased since the concepts of gender non-binary, non-conforming, and and neuter identifies.

 

[nPeace]

Probably mixed in a couple ideas I didn't catch it.

?

That went over my head. When you say universal laws, are you referring to metaphysics (or spiritual laws?) .... my original question when you first said this was how did you associate it to a giver?

?

Not all of them. I think I got this question somewhere in your comments to others but not to me directly.

Is this a "Yes, I got it"? ?

I'm not sure how the latter it connects.

From what I read, they were saying that surgery treatment for dysphoria is a well worth treatment and option for many transgender. You mentioned there were failure rates. Assuming that's your counter argument, how does the failure rates (or lead to death?) of treatment weaken the argument that for many transgender, surgery is the best option for their mental health condition?

They... referring to whom?
Ah. I now connected the dots. I think you just took one thing I said, and assumed it was a counter argument, to something particular, you had in mind.

Honestly, yes. I'm kinda getting mixed up with you and jesusknowsyou. He (or she) mentioned he didn't see gender and sex separate. Do you believe the same?

What is gender to you? (You probably answered this with others but I didn't read all the convo)

You are indeed getting mixed up, and moreover, it is leading you to ask me questions that are equivalent to.... "Um. What is grass to you? Do you know the difference between grass and trees?"
There is nothing special about this question. It's not like the Bible, you know.

I think this was to Jesusknowsyou. He kept talking about not believing the (transgender) narrative. I don't know if you agree with him for me to make that statement.

So is it safe to say, you do not know what I have been saying all the while?

When you said this.... It reminds me of what I heard some top Satanists say, about their agenda - put simply - "Eradicate Judeo-Christianity and it's values from society... permanently."....

It made me wonder if you believed what they said. Re-reading it now, maybe you can clarify what you meant?

I do believe what they said.
Does that mean that because you have not heard it, and do not give it the slightest consideration, that I must believe it based on cultural bias?

Wait? Wait? What????

How on earth did you compare this topic of getting insight from transgender with getting insight from a psychopath???

Ha Ha
Maybe you can explain again why you recommended getting insight from transgender, then let me show you the comparison... if you really don't see it.

I could sum everything up for you, if you are still in the dark about the issue, if @Rival is still interested in the question he asked earlier.

 

[Rival]

I could sum everything up for you, if you are still in the dark about the issue, if @Rival is still interested in the question he asked earlier.

I am.

Also, yes; getting info from psychopaths and anyone in the category you want to research is paramount. I had done almost no research on histrionic and antisocial personalities whatsoever and I knew from a very young age my mom was different. I learnt from her exactly what those things are. Reading about it later was only reinforcing what I'd already known and experienced. My aunt is the same. You can't really research people who aren't comfortable coming out either; this is why deep research into paedophilia is non-existent; obviously they don't want to talk, you have to get to know people with the thing it is you want to learn about. I learnt more from living with a histrionic, anti-social personality than I ever could from simply reading about it. Where do you think the researchers gain their information in the first place?

 

[nPeace]

It's not necessary, and its jumping to conclusions to assume it must be god. And wr havr above us a record of thousands and billions of years with consistent results, no signs of a creator needed or present.

No one is jumping to conclusions.
Just because you can't figure out something, doesn't mean that those who have the answer jumped to conclusions.

It can be compared to an ancient civilization, passing down a story of a feat archived for centuries by their ancient ancestors, but because a person didn't see them achieve it, they make up in their mind, 'we don't know, and it doesn't mean it happened the way it was told.'
All the while, the ones who believe, although not being there, are reasonable in accepting the explanation, not only because it is in line with known similar events, but also because their ancestors had no reason to make up the story, and usually were reliable.

The conclusion is reached based on evidence, reason and logic.

I would think that if one thinks that is jumping to conclusions, they should think the same of evolutionary ideas, and abiogenesis.

 

[nPeace]

I am.

Okay.

Also, yes; getting info from psychopaths and anyone in the category you want to research is paramount. I had done almost no research on histrionic and antisocial personalities whatsoever and I knew from a very young age my mom was different. I learnt from her exactly what those things are. Reading about it later was only reinforcing what I'd already known and experienced. My aunt is the same. You can't really research people who aren't comfortable coming out either; this is why deep research into paedophilia is non-existent; obviously they don't want to talk, you have to get to know people with the thing it is you want to learn about. I learnt more from living with a histrionic, anti-social personality than I ever could from simply reading about it.

I would say, some peop;e don't understand what others are experiencing, but that does not mean they are not people who know of, and understand the issue, better than the one who think they do.

In other words, what your mom understood, is already understood by other people, even better than she may think she does,, and despite your not knowing.

At times there are things we miss, which others may be able to help us with.
Do you agree?

I don't think you are denying that people can think they know something about a situation or issue they themselves are facing, when they may really need help in understanding what they think they know, are you?

 

[Rival]

Okay.


I would say, some peop;e don't understand what others are experiencing, but that does not mean they are not people who know of, and understand the issue, better than the one who think they do.

In other words, what your mom understood, is already understood by other people, even better than she may think she does,, and despite your not knowing.

At times there are things we miss, which others may be able to help us with.
Do you agree?

I don't think you are denying that people can think they know something about a situation or issue they themselves are facing, when they may really need help in understanding what they think they know, are you?

No, my mom has those disorders.

I know about those better than most people because I grew up with her and experienced it. So when people come out with things like 'over-dramatic' and 'fake emotions' I know exactly what that looks like, what to look out for and red flags to spot. I never had to be trained how to spot these things. I know that there's much more to this than you could ever read in a book and it's much more complex than research would have a lot of people believe. Those fake emotions can look very real, and that over-drama can be very manipulative to people who don't understand what to look for.

We need to interact with people to understand them.

 

[nPeace]

No, my mom has those disorders.

I know about those better than most people because I grew up with her and experienced it. So when people come out with things like 'over-dramatic' and 'fake emotions' I know exactly what that looks like, what to look out for and red flags to spot. I never had to be trained how to spot these things. I know that there's much more to this than you could ever read in a book and it's much more complex than research would have a lot of people believe. Those fake emotions can look very real, and that over-drama can be very manipulative to people who don't understand what to look for.

Please note, I did not say she didn't. You might have missed the point.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No one is jumping to conclusions.
Just because you can't figure out something, doesn't mean that those who have the answer jumped to conclusions.

It can be compared to an ancient civilization, passing down a story of a feat archived for centuries by their ancient ancestors, but because a person didn't see them achieve it, they make up in their mind, 'we don't know, and it doesn't mean it happened the way it was told.'
All the while, the ones who believe, although not being there, are reasonable in accepting the explanation, not only because it is in line with known similar events, but also because their ancestors had no reason to make up the story, and usually were reliable.

The conclusion is reached based on evidence, reason and logic.

I would think that if one thinks that is jumping to conclusions, they should think the same of evolutionary ideas, and abiogenesis.

Evolution has a very solid backing of evidence to support it, and astounding ability to predict what we see happening in the nature all around us. A/biovenesis is not something science has solved yet.
The Bible offers very weak evidence and very poor to no ability to explain what we see (such as a lack of a lack of evidence we would expect to find had the Exodus from Egypt happened) and has many stories that are disproven by historic evidence and accounts, and is not suitable for learning about science or medicine.

 

[Rival]

Please note, I did not say she didn't. You might have missed the point.

Are you trying to say that the clinicians have a better grasp of these things than the people who have grown up around them and experienced them first hand for decades? Would you say the same thing to a victim who isn't showing 'typical' signs of sexual abuse because he or she isn't behaving exactly how the DSM says? Would you tell them how they are actually feeling because the DSM says so? So why say it about any other group? We know what we experience. We don't need people to tell us.

 

[tayla]

In your view, is it okay for a man to want to be a woman, and take measures to reach that goal, such as by taking drugs to change his facial and body features etc.?

If this is what they wish, yes.

I realize this introduces changes into society; for example, a person born as a male who wants to compete in sports as a female. Seems like they should exclude themselves from this out of a sense of fair play.

 

[nPeace]

Evolution has a very solid backing of evidence to support it, and astounding ability to predict what we see happening in the nature all around us. A/biovenesis is not something science has solved yet.
The Bible offers very weak evidence and very poor to no ability to explain what we see (such as a lack of a lack of evidence we would expect to find had the Exodus from Egypt happened) and has many stories that are disproven by historic evidence and accounts, and is not suitable for learning about science or medicine.

Uh.... No.
However, if you are saying it is okay to jump to conclusions when it comes to science, because such explanations involve things that we can make claims about, since they involve physical things we see around us, that's just another preference, or orientation, imo.
Science has not solved the evolution cobwebs either, in case you have been making certain preferences in what you read.
The evidence you are expecting to find regarding one particular account - the exodus of Egypt - is a distraction - a strawman - if you will, and unreasonably picky, considering all the other evidence, including the Israelites being in Egypt.
As regard the stories disproved by historical evidence, I challenge you to name the story and the historical evidence disproving it. I suggest there is none.
Why one would think the Bible must be a science and medical textbook is befuddling to me.

 

[nPeace]

Are you trying to say that the clinicians have a better grasp of these things than the people who have grown up around them and experienced them first hand for decades? Would you say the same thing to a victim who isn't showing 'typical' signs of sexual abuse because he or she isn't behaving exactly how the DSM says? Would you tell them how they are actually feeling because the DSM says so? So why say it about any other group? We know what we experience. We don't need people to tell us.

No, that is not what I said, nor am saying.
You don't understand what I am saying at all.
Could it be you are focused on one thing, and applying every statement to that one thing.

One last time...
Whether a person is religious or not is besides the issue.
I am saying that oftentimes - in most cases, a person may think they understand something, when they really don't ... but they believe they do.
I am saying that while a person may understand some aspects of a situation, or issue, there may be other aspects they miss, which others may know, and understand, and can point out to them... thus helping them.

Do you follow me, so far?

Some people who think they know everything, do not learn, because they think they know, and no one can show them what they don't know.
They thus close books with the belief that they are right.

 

[nPeace]

If this is what they wish, yes.

I realize this introduces changes into society; for example, a person born as a male who wants to compete in sports as a female. Seems like they should exclude themselves from this out of a sense of fair play.

You do realize that the person in your example will say they were not born a male, but female, and that they are not changing into anything, but rather assuming their real identity.
That's the claim.
So naturally, in their opinion, one is discriminating, and depriving them of their privilege, and right, if they say otherwise.
That's their claim.

Oh, @tayla welcome to the boards.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

a person born as a male who wants to compete in sports as a female. Seems like they should exclude

That's debatable, really. We need more research on it.

 

[tayla]

Oh, @tayla welcome to the boards.

Thank you

 

[tayla]

You do realize that the person in your example will say they were not born a male, but female, and that they are not changing into anything, but rather assuming their real identity.
That's the claim.
So naturally, in their opinion, one is discriminating, and depriving them of their privilege, and right, if they say otherwise.
That's their claim.

I think they distinguish between genetics and its effects, and gender identity, and a few other categories.

Yes. When it comes to public spaces, and society, and moral questions; no one can agree. How do we decide? I dunno.