Teacher: Christian faith prohibits treating transgendered students with respect and dignity

[Shadow Wolf]

Practitioners of medicine are just as prone to intimidation and manipulation as anyone else.

Medicine is why transgender people can transition. It wasn't "pc pressure" (the concept of politically correct didn't even exist when the first medically supervised transitions were performed), but the process of science that found there is nothing wrong with being transgender and that medical intervention to transition is the appropriate course of action for treatment. Sort of like how they found there is really nothing they need or have to do with someone just for being homosexual, so it was dropped from the DSM entirely.

 

[Prestor John]

Except there is no torture. If the teacher does not want to comply with the students wishes, the parents wishes, the admins wishes they needn't. But, it is silly to expect to keep one's job in face of such posturing.

So you are of the opinion that the school is infallible?

No employer has ever implemented any rule that should ever be contested?

 

[Prestor John]

Medicine is why transgender people can transition. It wasn't "pc pressure" (the concept of politically correct didn't even exist when the first medically supervised transitions were performed), but the process of science that found there is nothing wrong with being transgender and that medical intervention to transition is the appropriate course of action for treatment. Sort of like how they found there is really nothing they need or have to do with someone just for being homosexual, so it was dropped from the DSM entirely.

This idea that poison and mutilation is the appropriate thing to do for transgender people is very new and very much influenced by political powers that be.

The harm that this poses (besides the poison and mutilation) is the false narrative that any of this stuff causes a "transition" of any kind.

It doesn't.

Men can never become women and women can never become men.

The goal is unattainable.

 

[SomeRandom]

This idea that poison and mutilation is the appropriate thing to do for transgender people is very new and very much influenced by political powers that be.

The harm that this poses (besides the poison and mutilation) is the false narrative that any of this stuff causes a "transition" of any kind.

It doesn't.

Men can never become women and women can never become men.

The goal is unattainable.

Really? Then explain all the non binary recognitions that other cultures have had for literally thousands of years. Including allowing and recognising people who transitioned, for lack of a better term.

The science behind transgenderism is the recognition that sex and gender are two different concepts and making a person feel comfortable in their own body is beneficial to mental health.

The surgery performed is new insofar as plastic surgery is new. The survival rates for surgery in general is a lot higher than it was back before technology and techniques used to allow. So it is safer and therefore recommended more readily. Though you might find some old timey instances in other cultures of crude forms of “gender bending” surgery if you tried.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

This idea that poison and mutilation is the appropriate thing to do for transgender people is very new and very much influenced by political powers that be.

The harm that this poses (besides the poison and mutilation) is the false narrative that any of this stuff causes a "transition" of any kind.

It doesn't.

Men can never become women and women can never become men.

The goal is unattainable.

As you have repeatedly been told;

A. not all, or even most, transgender people seek surgical or hormonal intervention

B. Medical treatments are shown to be efficacious in treating the condition. Different forms of medical treatment are available, and chosen based on the individual situation of the patient, in consultation with a range of allied health professionals.

C. No one is claiming that "Men can become women and women can become men", that isn't the point of the exercise. It's about giving people the best chance of the best possible clinical outcome for their condition. If you, personally, don't think a transwoman or man is a "real" woman or man, that's fine. No one asked you. The point is about making the transwoman or man feel better within themselves, it's not about you.

And finally, I've asked you before, but don't think I had a response, why are you so opposed to giving people treatment that helps them? What about it do you find SO threatening?

 

[Curious George]

So you are of the opinion that the school is infallible?

I definitely did not say that.

No employer has ever implemented any rule that should ever be contested?

The teacher has every right to contest it. The question is: should he prevail?

You seem to think so. I think not. The question then is which of us has an internally consistent view.

 

[Curious George]

Men can never become women and women can never become men.

How do you define men and women?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

How do you define men and women?

*popcorn*

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This idea that poison and mutilation is the appropriate thing to do for transgender people is very new and very much influenced by political powers that be.

The harm that this poses (besides the poison and mutilation) is the false narrative that any of this stuff causes a "transition" of any kind.

It doesn't.

Men can never become women and women can never become men.

The goal is unattainable.

And apparently? Certain religious groups can never enter into the 21st century.

Who knew?

 

[Prestor John]

And apparently? Certain religious groups can never enter into the 21st century.

Who knew?

I spoke from a purely biological standpoint.

Do you dispute this fact?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I spoke from a purely biological standpoint.

Do you dispute this fact?

No one disputed it. Care to answer anyone's questions now?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I spoke from a purely biological standpoint.

Do you dispute this fact?

No. You have zero actual biology to support your religious bigotry. None. Nada. Not any.

You use the word "fact" in a way that isn't consistent with how most of the world uses the word.

 

[Prestor John]

Really? Then explain all the non binary recognitions that other cultures have had for literally thousands of years. Including allowing and recognising people who transitioned, for lack of a better term.

You misunderstand my position. I never said that transgenderism is a new phenomenon or anything like that.

I am fully aware of the fact that this and other delusions have existed throughout human history and that varying cultures have had different views about them.

What I actually said was, "This idea that poison and mutilation is the appropriate thing to do for transgender people is very new and very much influenced by political powers that be."

My claim is that what is "new" is the idea that hormonal treatment and surgery are the "appropriate thing to do" and that this decision was reached via the influence of political pressure.

The science behind transgenderism is the recognition that sex and gender are two different concepts and making a person feel comfortable in their own body is beneficial to mental health.

I am aware of the creation of the concept of "gender" to fit their theories.

If changing the body to match the mind's perception were beneficial then we would see a massive decline in suicide rate, but we don't.

Appeasing the delusions of the mentally ill does them no favors.

The surgery performed is new insofar as plastic surgery is new.

Of course. And just as necessary. It should not be covered by the tax payer.

The survival rates for surgery in general is a lot higher than it was back before technology and techniques used to allow. So it is safer and therefore recommended more readily. Though you might find some old timey instances in other cultures of crude forms of “gender bending” surgery if you tried.

Recommended by those swayed by politics.

 

[Prestor John]

No one disputed it. Care to answer anyone's questions now?

I am sorry. I confused you with another RF member. I will delete my earlier post.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This idea that poison

And thus far you've been unwilling to call hormone therapy for cis-gender people "poison," even though as has been explained it's the same exact medications.

My claim is that what is "new" is the idea that hormonal treatment and surgery are the "appropriate thing to do" and that this decision was reached via the influence of political pressure.

It came about because other methods weren't working, except to make people worse off. You'd know this if you actually took the time to study the subject, read sources provided to you, and refrained from making foolish assumptions and statements that are very easy to spot when you actually have studied the subject.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Appeasing the delusions of the mentally ill does them no favors.

Of course. And just as necessary. It should not be covered by the tax payer.

Recommended by those swayed by politics.

Irony: You enjoy a Tax Haven to practice your brand of religion, even though it's hateful (and harmful) to a significant fraction of the population.

Without which, it's unlikely yours would still be around, if it had to pay it's fair share of taxes (like any other entertainment industry does now).

But you deny medical help to people who would otherwise be desperately depressed, because **you** think it's ... icky or something.

How do you spell "hypocrite" again?

 

[Prestor John]

A. not all, or even most, transgender people seek surgical or hormonal intervention

That is good. When did I say that all or most did?

All I am claiming is that the hormonal and surgical treatments are not appropriate.

I never made any claim about how many trasngender people decide to go with those treatments.

B. Medical treatments are shown to be efficacious in treating the condition. Different forms of medical treatment are available, and chosen based on the individual situation of the patient, in consultation with a range of allied health professionals.

The word "efficacious" is completely subjective.

In my opinion, if a biological male still believes they are a biological female, then the treatment was not successful.

I will always dispute the concept of metaphysical subjectivism.

C. No one is claiming that "Men can become women and women can become men", that isn't the point of the exercise.

That is completely not true.

We have people refusing to transition because they believe that they have always been a member of the opposite sex, therefore "there is no need to transition because I've always been X."

We have biological males, who have undergone "gender reassignment", who are competing in "women only" sporting events.

It's about giving people the best chance of the best possible clinical outcome for their condition.

Again, the word "best" is completely subjective.

If you, personally, don't think a transwoman or man is a "real" woman or man, that's fine. No one asked you.

You understand that this thread is about a teacher being fired for refusing to use masculine pronouns to refer to a biological female student, right?

He was not an advocate against the transgender community. He did not claim that anyone was delusional or anything like that.

He accidentally used a feminine pronoun to refer to the student, which he apologized for and admitted that it was a "slip of the tongue".

When it was discovered that he avoided using any pronouns to refer to this student, the parents of the student went up in arms and demanded that he use masculine pronouns.

He, having knowledge of biology and a conviction not to lie, refused to do so and was fired.

And you have the audacity to now claim that "it's fine" for people to not agree with this lunacy?

You know what no on asked me? Whether or not I was okay with using a feminine pronoun to refer to a biological male.

And even if they did ask me - I would be labeled a bigot if I shared my actual opinion.

You are either naive or delusional claiming that "it's fine" for me to believe the way I do, because that's not what is happening in the real world.

The point is about making the transwoman or man feel better within themselves, it's not about you.

I understand that you are pushing this idea of appeasement.

I'm sure the schizophrenic would feel a lot better too if you told him that the lamp was actually talking to him and he should listen to what all the voices said.

Next time I'm using a public restroom and a biological woman with a hormonal imbalance walks-in, you can tell me that it's "not about me".

I would love it if all that they did didn't affect me at all, but even if it didn't I would speak out against these treatments because they are harmful.

And finally, I've asked you before, but don't think I had a response, why are you so opposed to giving people treatment that helps them?

Because I don't believe it helps them. The suicide rate remains unaffected. They are still more susceptible to other mental disorders.

They have an underlying mental issue that is not being addressed.

Also, I don't like helping to pay for elective surgeries and treatments that I don't approve of.

What about it do you find SO threatening?

I don't want my children being taught in school that our feelings can change fact.

Totalitarians begin their campaign by altering language. First alter the language, beliefs and thoughts will follow.

Give them one generation of brainwashing our children and no one will remember that it was biology that determined the sex of an individual, not their feelings.

 

[Prestor John]

I definitely did not say that.

The teacher has every right to contest it. The question is: should he prevail?

You seem to think so. I think not. The question then is which of us has an internally consistent view.

Biology is consistent. Our feelings are not.

My view is internally consistent, not yours.

 

[Prestor John]

How do you define men and women?

I have already made my position quite clear.

Feel free to read my previous posts.

 

[Prestor John]

No. You have zero actual biology to support your religious bigotry. None. Nada. Not any.

Would you mind sharing where I made a religious argument?

You can't claim that I did so unless you can quote me.

Also, would you consider me a "bigot" if I claimed to disagree with those who believe that the Earth is flat?

I need no further proof that this has turned into a political issue (rather than a scientific one) because my opponents turn to identity politics in their attempt to "win" the argument.

Whether I am a bigot or not is irrelevant to the biological fact that a man cannot become a woman and vice versa.

You use the word "fact" in a way that isn't consistent with how most of the world uses the word.

Really? I was unaware.

The rest of the world believes that our feelings can alter physical reality?

That sounds more like an opinion than a fact to me.

Care to explain how the world and I differ?