DEBATE: Is Gender A Personal Choice?
This Girl Defined video is a vblog by Kristen Clark and Bethany Baird, sisters, lifelong friends, and the founders of Girl Defined Ministries.
1. From a Christian perspective should you set your personal feelings aside, as these sisters suggest?
2. These sisters are encouraging a world with only heterosexual values, is that normal?
3. Are the sisters expressing division, hope, or are they on a glide path to becoming bigots?
Tags
Who is online
110 visitors
Is Gender a personal choice?
A person's gender identity is determined before birth. Obviously, our physical gender is determined before birth. Transgendered people do not choose to be transgender.
This video was very annoying. These two were visually very distracting with all the exaggerated facial expressions, hand movements and the constant looking at one another.
On the topic, , they seem to be claiming that God created men to be men and women to be women, period. If that is the case and God is omnipotent, why do we have homosexuals and trans gender people?
There have been effeminate men and butch women since time immemorial. They are a part of the nature of sexual expression. God created nature didnt it?
A large segment of people will say it because of some corruption or disruption in these individuals' natures. To be clear, this is not my perspective at all. I see it this way:
1. These are young opinionated women who may need greater exposure to suffering people.
2. The sisters opinions are authoritarian in nature, thus lacking in compassion.
3. The science on this matter is influx. More positive than negative.
4. Transgenderism is a legally protected construct.
5. Transgendered individuals can/do function appropriately in society.
Have you ever met a transgendered person? Recently? I have met almost on a regular basis.
For another perspective on this, read this article and then compare the two.
calbab if you feel this link isn't in keeping with your article. Please delete it.
The emphasis of Native Americans is not to force every person into one box, but to allow for the reality of diversity in gender and sexual identities.
It is the most amazing thing to watch as "Americanism" opens a berth just wide enough for outcasts to appear in/to American traditions. It is quite refreshing even. Today, you see more freedom of expression and it adds a crispness that surely had disappeared or left our nation as the status quo aged.
I am a liberal Christian who has learned to take great joy in sharing compassion with the outcast. The sister's video above point out just how powerful the spoken word can be in shutting people out of the culture—of normal life. With cheekiness, these girls leave little to the imagination of what their tone can become if they feel crossed by people who do not conform to their gender norms.
Kavika, you article is refreshing for it reminds this Christian of what this nation says of itself, while operating in contradiction in its national policies. It is time we understand that being our own individual doing things our way does not require us to be dominant over the lives of the persons next door! (We are all related.) I love that!
"Is Gender A Personal Choice?"
The best evidence I've seen suggests there is a biological etiology for transgender identity, this would mean that the answer is no, gender isn't a personal choice.
However this doesn't mean that everyone is in this group, you will always get the attention seekers, and the fad followers, for them I feel gender is very much a choice.
Well said! There are authentics, seekers, and players across every spectrum. Most of us have seen or been in the proximity of any combination of this in all walks of life. The song goes, "If walls could talk."
I am very glad to see this topic identified up-front as a Christian viewpoint.
I watched it and noted these comments in particular:
Okay, those are direct quotes. (There were more, but I'm trying to limit the length of my comment.)
Here are some additional Christian FACTS:
Those girls are stupid. They are not even good Christians. Genesis, their primary source, is a Book in the Jewish Bible. The Christian Bible does not start until the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Any self-proclaimed Christian who goes to the Jewish Bible to justify anything is a Fake Christian.
That is the true logic all REAL Christians need to accept.
Interesting good, Squirrel! Let me dwell on this one for a while. (-:
Let me see if I can establish a direction with your most excellent reply:
1. Are you stating that the Old Testament illustrates a heterosexual lifestyle only as god-ordained?
2. That the New Testament illustrates the inability of humans to live as heterosexual only, thus god-ordained compassion becomes necessary to include sexual variations?
1. No
2. No
What I am saying is that True Christians believe in the teachings of Jesus THE CHRIST. That's where the word Christian comes from.
To draw justification outside of the teachings of The Christ, like going into The Old Testament to justify something because it is NOT to be found anywhere in The New Testament, invalidates their claim to be Christians. Chritianity is covered EXCLUSIVELY in The New Testament only.
Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
If they are True Christians, they must believe what Jesus said, thus, they must believe that Transgenders are just as "possible" as anything else on God's Green Earth because Jesus said so. (Also, Jesus confirmed that God is omnipotent and creates all things.)
That is what I am saying.
(What I am implying is that a lot of people who claim to be Christians are hypocrites. And Jesus did not have much good to say about hypocrites.)
I think the mistake you are making is attempting to separate the old and new testaments, they are from a Christian stand point both relevant.
I agree the Christians have an issue with the logic of their faith
1) God created everything, and is infallible.
Therefore logically both homosexuals and transgender people are made that way purposefully by God.
2) The bible quotes against homosexuality.
The two conflict each other.
I would suggest the obvious answer is that God simply doesn't exist, therefore the morality of the bible is nothing more than one tribes norms from 3-2 thousand years ago.
These I think we can safely disregard.
You can disregard what you want.
You can believe what you want, or not believe what you don't want to believe.
You cannot tell others what they should and should not believe.
But, when somebody tells you they are one thing, and then demonstrates by his or her action or words (like those girls did) that he or she is something quite different than what he or she claim to be, then that person is a hypocrite. That's just the way it is.
(p.s. I don't care if you are an athiest. I'm not an athiest. I'm also not a Christian, although I do like a lot of stuff Jesus taught. But I try real hard not to be a hypocrite. And so far as I know, I have made no mistake, yet. The fact that you claim that I have made a mistake, kind of makes you a bit arrogant, doesn't it?)
"The fact that you claim that I have made a mistake, kind of makes you a bit arrogant, doesn't it?)"
No, I'm going by the logic and claims of the long established Christian church, you are ignoring these by attempting to separate the old and new testaments.
Does it say anywhere in the new testament that Jesus recanted the old testament?
You have to remember that Jesus wasn't a Christian, he was Jewish.
"But, when somebody tells you they are one thing, and then demonstrates by his or her action or words (like those girls did) that he or she is something quite different than what he or she claim to be, then that person is a hypocrite"
As for the Women in the video, I can't see anything hypocritical in what they are saying, it's in line with established Christian teaching. Yes, that teaching may well have logical flaws in it, but that's another issue.
Does it say anywhere in the new testament that Jesus recanted the old testament?
Yep! It says numerous times that Jesus brought a 'New Covenant' from God to the people. That is a recantation of the old.
In the New Testament Jesus replaced the old Ten Commandments with the Two Commandments. That is a recantation of the old.
Why do you even care? Aren't you an athiest?
And you are WRONG about Jesus. He was born Jewish, but he was The First Chritian because he was The Christ.
Some even call him Jesus Christ, but the correct way to refer to him is Jesus The Christ, who was IN FACT the very First Christian from which all Christians sprang forward.
"Yep! It says numerous times that Jesus brought a 'New Covenant' from God to the people. That is a recantation of the old."
Then name them, please note they will need to specifically state the old teachings are being recanted.
What of Mathew 5:17 doesn't this specifically state "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
Well?
"In the New Testament Jesus replaced the old Ten Commandments with the Two Commandments. That is a recantation of the old."
It seems to be saying that these are the greatest of the commandments
Isn't the first simply a rephrasing of
" Deuteronomy 6:5 New King James Version (NKJV)
5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength."
As for the second isn't that a rephrasing of
"Leviticus 19:18 New International Version - UK (NIVUK)
18 ‘“Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbour as yourself. I am the Lord ."
"Why do you even care? Aren't you an atheist?"
No, I'm agnostic, why should that matter, don't you also claim you're not a Christian?
"And you are WRONG about Jesus. He was born Jewish, but he was The First Chritian because he was The Christ."
No, Christianity didn't exist as a separate faith until after the death of Jesus, in short Christians have been persecuting Jews for centuries, yet the people they claim to venerate were indeed Jewish.
The Label " Christian "
was Officially used by a Caesar, not by any of the " Followers of Christ "
"You cannot tell others what they should and should not believe."
I'm sorry, but aren't you do that, here
"Those girls are stupid. They are not even good Christians. Genesis, their primary source, is a Book in the Jewish Bible. The Christian Bible does not start until the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Any self-proclaimed Christian who goes to the Jewish Bible to justify anything is a Fake Christian.
That is the true logic all REAL Christians need to accept."
Here
"What I am saying is that True Christians believe in the teachings of Jesus THE CHRIST. That's where the word Christian comes from."
And here
"If they are True Christians, they must believe what Jesus said, thus, they must believe that Transgenders are just as "possible" as anything else on God's Green Earth because Jesus said so. (Also, Jesus confirmed that God is omnipotent and creates all things.)"
Aren't these your words?
Impasse
Comment deleted because of the "Impasse" rule. I will explain. When a person calls impasse, that means they feel there will be no useful outcome from the discussion and at that point, no one makes a final point. It is not a violation, but if an impasse is called and not followed, the comment is removed, as to not ruin the thread. You are new here so I am leaving this explanation.
Thank you for pointing this out, I was wondering about that. It does seem rather a copout, but if those are the rules, I'll happily abide by them.
I'm not new, but I wasn't a regular, maybe under a dozen posts, and I haven't been here for nearly four years I think.
I went back and had a look, there's about six posts from 2013.
Pardon,, Facts are removed because?
E.A.
The highlighted part of section 5 in the COC
"5. Use profanity judiciously and sparingly. It is understood that certain profanity is commonly used, but be mindful that it may be deemed a personal attack or personally offensive to other posters/members. When entering a heated discussion, don't inflame the discussion. Use common sense and courtesy are recommended regarding the use of "objectionable" language. Those asked to refrain from posting a given word or phrase by a fellow member are expected to do so. An impasse may be called between two parties during a heated discussion by stating "Impasse", which can not have a last statement either before or after the "Impasse" is called, by the person calling the impasse. Articles containing graphic material should have a warning in red at the top of the article. Comments with graphic material should also give a warning with a long break to avoid the material by other members."
It seems to state the person calling the impasse can't have the last statement, perhaps this has been altered over time to neither party can have a last statement.
OK, thank you so what was it that I said that was an infringement?
And.. as far as I am Concerned there was " NO Heated Discussion " what did you see?
"" Those asked to refrain from posting a given word or phrase by a fellow member are expected to do so. ""
What was that " Terrible word"?
E.A.
"OK, thank you so what was it that I said that was an infringement?"
No, that would be weird, as I would then be subsequently talking to myself about it.
I imagine it's whoever is the moderator, their words seem to have replace my post.
AFM
Thank you it was @nowhere-man:
One has to get used to some weird rules, but they do not make for a Chat, discussion, or even banter!
I'm not a mod.....
ok My Apologies
who are you?
why are you writing in purple type?
Purple type is reserved for MODERATORS ONLY.....
Ask Perrie if you don't believe it.
It was a moderator they don't leave their name any longer. They also now delete comments that are not COC violations calling it skirting the COC. They are throwing all our guiding principles out the window.
The rule states
"An impasse may be called between two parties during a heated discussion by stating "Impasse", which can not have a last statement either before or after the "Impasse" is called, by the person calling the impasse"
This would seem to say the person calling the impasse can't have a last statement, but it says nothing about the others in the conversation.
What the normal procedure?
When I was a Moderator the ruling generally was the person calling the Impasse can not make a last shot type comment when doing so. It would appear that an Impasse was called properly. Others in the conversation can continue the discussion, but not with or make comments about the Impasse to the person who called it. Calling an Impasse does not mean other members can not continue to comment on the subject, but may not start or continue an argument with the person who called an Impasse.
Sound right Perrie?
I didn't call the impasse, I was told that no one could make a final point.
Please note the point I made was about something prior to the impasse being called.
If you are in a discussion or argument and the other person calls for an Impasse and they didn't make a final shot or comment, then the only proper response is to agree to the Impasse (or just stop talking or discussing that subject with them) and not make any other comments to the person who called for the Impasse.
Thank you for the input, reading the rules is one thing, hearing how they are applied in common usage is often more helpful.
"I would suggest the obvious answer is that God simply doesn't exist, therefore the morality of the bible is nothing more than one tribes norms from 3-2 thousand years ago."
................................................
Or GOD does exist and doesn't give a fuck about any of this.
When man wrote the bible he was fallible.
Is this your moral stance on transgenderism, or are you just venting? Please elaborate about your view of transgender people. I'd like to hear that.
Do what you want, be what you want, you only get one life.... Live it as YOU choose !
Sorry for the long delay in a response, I'm still getting used to the site. I do wish this had a "post" number system like NV had. The indented pages are OK But knowing where you are on the page is a guess and the how far down the page changes as new comments are added. Numbers would help relocate where you were, I guess that's why houses have n numbers on them. LOL
Do what you want, be what you want, you only get one life.... Live it as YOU choose !
AS LONG AS YOU DON'T FORCE YOUR VIEW OF HUMANITY UPON ME!
You are as free as I am to live, breath and be. Once I am forced to be something I don't want to be, forced to do something I don't want to do, or forced to not breath.....
THEN, I am NOT free! (I'm either a prisoner, a taxpayer, or dead)
The dilemma is government in our land is responsible for setting and maintaining community standards. Daily we the people have to make our case for what ought, should, or can possibly be permissible in the common places we cross into. My freedoms begin and end under the floor of my feet! However, society directs ever area of life I move through on a daily basis. I can never lose sight of this one thing.
Then I would move somewhere else.
I totally agree, to each their own and thank GOD we were not all created alike.
We'd never be able to tell each other apart...LOL
I agree wholeheartedly. It is desirable!
I agree that Christians are not under the old covenant. I have argued this for many years that Christians are under the new covenant, and like you, will continue to do so.
If I may I would like further elaboration on you perspective:
1.) Genesis and Exodus as existing outside of the (OT) Law and the Prophets books (Leviticus through Malachi), and
2.) The efficacy of the Law and the Prophets as wisdom (reference) books.
Do you recognize the New Testament only? I can accept it if you do.
As I explained, I am not a Christian, but I am also not an Athiest. I like a lot of the teachings of Jesus. Whether you believe he was the Son of God or not, if you read what he is attributed to have said, preached and taught, you must admit that he was a good and wise man at the very least.
I don't really know what you are asking, so I will just say, I pretty much disregard The Old Testament in it's entirety. I have read, and tried to understand the parts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John where it describes Jesus and his teachings. I don't pay much attention to what follows after that, especially the letters of Paul. And the Book of Revelation is pure bullshit as far as I am concerned.
Does that answer your questions?
Clearly enough.
What I am saying is that True Christians believe in the teachings of Jesus THE CHRIST. That's where the word Christian comes from.
I am only providing information here, and not taking a side.
While it is true that the word Christian means a follower of Christ, Jesus was a jew and died a Jew.. in fact he died "King of the Jews"
So with that in mind although Jesus never addressed any of this directly, he did live a Jewish life. Which brings me to this interesting blurb:
Third, a great portion of Jesus’ ministry related to Israel and those familiar with the Law of Moses. They were living in an age under the Mosaic Covenant , which explicitly condemned homosexuality ( Lev 18:22 ; 20:13 ). Unless there was some precipitating issue that would force Jesus to comment on homosexuality, the only reasonable conclusion — especially in light of the fact that Jesus viewed the Old Testament as the very Word of God (e.g., Matt 22:43 ) which was infallible ( John 10:35 ) — is that His view of homosexuality was the Old Testament’s view (i.e., God’s view) of homosexuality.
So I don't think that the argument that Christians are being hypocrites following the Old Testament holds.
And the Old Testament is written in parables for the most part, and is not supposed to be taken literally. That is why Jews also have the the Talmud, which is a collection of discussions on what the Torah (old testament) means. Discussions on this still go on today as modern Jews try to figure it all out...
For those of you who are religiously inclined.
If I may::
It is like standing on top of a " Skyscraper " and saying the " Foundation has No Merit " :-))
While it is true that the word Christian means a follower of Christ, Jesus was a jew and died a Jew.. in fact he died "King of the Jews"
I will only say this about that, because we are getting off the topic.
The Romans labelled Jesus as INRI, King of The Jews. It was a Roman joke, a slam actually against the Jews who could not keep their own people in line.
The Jews delivered Jesus to be tried and crucified. That is not something a club normally does to one of its accepted members. Jesus was a cast-out of the Jewish community who delivered him unto the Romans to be tried an crucified. The Jews instead chose to save a known and convicted criminal named Barrabas over Jesus.
The Greeks called Jesus The Christ. From what I have studied "Christ" is a Greek term. Had the Jews accepted him they would have called him their Messiah. They did not. They still do not.
Jesus died at the hands of the Romans at the behest of the Jews. He did not die as the "King of the Jews". He was cast out by the Jews. He was The Christ.
Do I see any possibility it " examining " this further? if so I can " shed some Light "
it=in
Under " Tag " Religion and Gender "
are shown, so the way I was taught, that makes them a Viable " debate " Item on the seeded article, if not someone correct me!
The Jews delivered Jesus to be tried and crucified. That is not something a club normally does to one of its accepted members.
I hope you are not one of those religious extremists.
It's been a long time since I have been in religion class, and I am going to say this off the top of my head, so if I am off a little my apologies , but -----
Jesus was not rejected by "The Jews" , he was rejected by the religious leadership which saw him as a threat to their authority. He wanted to not only live Jewish dogma, he wanted to transform it and reform it.
When Jesus died there was no Christianity , so he was never a Christian. He was a Jew.
And the Jewish people did not betray Jesus, his followers were made up of Jews.
JR -- Your understanding is the same as mine.
"JR -- Your understanding is the same as mine."
...and mine.
And taking that further, Jews consider that Jesus may have been a great and articulate prophet, but in no way the son of God.
But Jesus himself said what?
Jesus said nothing. Paul said it was forbidden.
John 20:17Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ”
Either one Accepts Jesus and " His Teaching " or not, can not have it both ways !
All the way back to Genesis 3 He was spoken as the " Seed of the Woman "
and here it is clarified as to when, why, and how " He was created "
The Supremacy of the Son of God
Col 1:15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
21Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because ofg your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.
E.A Italics Mine
"But Jesus himself said what?"
I don't know. "Was you there. Charlie?" Unfortunately they didn't have videotaping back then. I don't rely on what "believers" might have written thousands of years ago. There's lots of fake news these days, why not then?
Buzz, you could say the same about any scripture, even the one you follow (assuming you follow one). How do we know Moses saw a burning bush?
I have said often enough, so that many members who read what I write would know, that I consider the Old Testament at least, to be allegorical only. Seven days? Come on, John.
Care to show me where the " Days " are " Speck of Dust Plane Earth Axial Rotation ? " remember the Earth was part of the " Creation " in a Universe that was Created Is it possible that the " Creator is IN the Creation " what are we told about God " Fitting " in the creation ?
Now after the Humans have been Created,, the " View " Changed from " Gods Viewpoint and Time " to that that the " New Creation " needed to learn and in understand.
Remember the Original " Let US Create ... "
True. If belief were based on fact, it wouldn't be called faith.
@johnrussell :
How do we know Moses saw a burning bush?
Because DMT is found in so much plant life in the area. Ancient people were smarter than we oftentimes credit them.
According to Professor Benny Shanon at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem , it’s likely that Moses’ encounter, as written in the Bible, with the burning bush and his conversation with Yahweh happened while he was under the influence of DMT .
Dictanus albus ( "the burning bush") is full of DMT.
Good one,, then why " Quote " some parts that suit one,, but not others that do not.. someone earlier defines that as Hy??
"Good one,, then why " Quote " some parts that suit one,, but not others that do not.. someone earlier defines that as Hy??"
@ Eagle Averro
Could you please indicate to whom you are addressing that? The indents stop at a certain point so it can be impossibe to tell.. In my case, if it is me, I provide quotation marks and itallics to make sure it is understood that I am quoting another member's words and addressing them.
Ohh Please forgive me... It would be nice if the Programmers can make it so that when one is replying to a previous comments that be shaded or in underlined, and the post Number is inclusive many thanks
In the words of Amon Goth, Commander of the concentration camp in the movie Schindler's List, "I pardon you."
As the administrator of the Classic Cinema goup, and loving old movies, you will find that I often quote lines from them, and as well, often point out that LIfe imitates Art.
"And the Jewish people did not betray Jesus, his followers were made up of Jews."
Yes, primarily his followers would have been Jewish. Christianity didn't separate from Judaism until after the death of Christ.
The Romans labelled Jesus as INRI, King of The Jews. It was a Roman joke, a slam actually against the Jews who could not keep their own people in line.
No. Jesus actually said he was the king of the Jews:
In Mark 15:2 , Jesus confirms to Pilate that he is the King of the Jews and say nothing further. In John 18:34 , he hints that the King accusation did not originate with Pilate but with "others" and, in John 18:36 , he states: "My kingdom is not of this world". However, Jesus does not directly deny being the King of the Jews. [10] [11]
It was the Roman's who crucified him that mocked him with the thorny crown.
After the trial by Pilate and after the Flagellation of Christ episode, the soldiers mock Jesus as the King of Jews by putting a purple robe (that signifies royal status) on him, place a Crown of Thorns on his head, and beat and mistreat him in Matthew 27:29-30 , Mark 15:17-19 and John 19:2-3 . [13]
The Jews delivered Jesus to be tried and crucified. That is not something a club normally does to one of its accepted members. Jesus was a cast-out of the Jewish community who delivered him unto the Romans to be tried an crucified. The Jews instead chose to save a known and convicted criminal named Barrabas over Jesus.
Actually, it was not Jews in general (since most of Jesus' followers were Jews and hence later called Jewish Christians) but the Pharisees or the head of the Temple that wanted him dead, as they viewed him as a troublemaker and a threat to their authority.
The Greeks called Jesus The Christ. From what I have studied "Christ" is a Greek term. Had the Jews accepted him they would have called him their Messiah. They did not. They still do not.
Correct, the Greeks did call him the Christ, they were the first non Jewish converts. Here is where I have to differentiate. The Jews that followed Jesus did think he was the Messiah. The Jews who didn't of course, wouldn't call him that. But like any group of people, there was no consensus among Jews about Jesus. Even today groups like the Labavitch thought they found their Messiah in their Rabbi. Most other Jews think they are nuts.
Jesus died at the hands of the Romans at the behest of the Jews. He did not die as the "King of the Jews". He was cast out by the Jews. He was The Christ.
Again, that is an over generalization of what happened at that time, especially the term Christ came way after the death of Jesus and for most Jews of the period, he was on their radar. They were too busy dealing with the Romans.
But my original point was that he was born a Jew and died one and that he never denied his roots. In fact, it was Jews who mostly followed him as their Messiah.
Theology fascinates me and I drowned myself in it during my college days. You seem very passionate about it too. So how would you define yourself.
Correct, the Greeks did call him the Christ
You might find this interesting.
Tacitus, possibly Roman's finest historian, pagan in good standing as well as a member of the Roman Senate, recorded in Annals 15/44 much of the Jesus saga as the primary source material we still rely on today
Read at the link
I fixed the link. That goes to an article of mine for some reason.
Nice!
I wonder how many that read any Math, heard of HERO, and how many have read his writings, and if not if that negates ALL mathematics
@Perrie: "No. Jesus actually said he was the king of the Jews:"
To be even more specific, this is simply a claim by the authors of Mark and John. The authors claim to speak for Jesus but ultimately these are words written well after Jesus' ostensible death. The only thing we can reliably say about the Bible is that it was written by ancient men to influence their contemporaries.
Jesus didn't write one word so all we have on anything he said was written by somebody else long after Jesus was dead. Perrie is not wrong for citing what was written in the Bible since that's all we have.
Unfortunately there was no Pulitzer Prize or Nobel Prize for Literature back then.
I don't think the scribes for King James was looking for one when they assembled the bible and got it approved by the king for all christiandom...
And King James was then "The Defender of the Faith"? No bias expected there.
Well, after that, the bible became the law of god.......
The application of force to faith......
Kinda ironic compared to what Jesus came down here to accomplish don't ya think?
The authors claim to speak for Jesus but ultimately these are words written well after Jesus' ostensible death. The only thing we can reliably say about the Bible is that it was written by ancient men to influence their contemporaries.
Bravo and well said.
If this were a Theological Seminar and not just some online chat about two stupid girls and their foolish video, I would not "Overly generalize". But. this is not a Theological Seminar. Thus, I'm not going to write a book trying to answer all your critiques of my comment. Instead I will say just two things, and then be done with this line of triviality.
1. As I said repeatedly, anyone can believe what they want to believe and nobody can tell anyone what they have to believe. I do not force my beliefs on anyone here, and I will not allow anyone here to force their beliefs on me. And to somebody else: Yes, you can believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ without accepting him as the Son of God and your personal savior. Who says you can't? If anyone says that, then they are full of bull.
2. Quoting you
"Here is where I have to differentiate. The Jews that followed Jesus did think he was the Messiah. The Jews who didn't of course, wouldn't call him that. But like any group of people, there was no consensus among Jews about Jesus. Even today groups like the Labavitch thought they found their Messiah in their Rabbi. Most other Jews think they are nuts. "
And here is where I have to differentiate with you in more modern terms.
There are Americans who followed Trump and think hs is the American Messiah. The Americans who don't think that are asking for his impeachment and removal from office. Like any group of people there is currently no single consensus on what to do with Trump. Trump supporters think of Trump as their savior. Those who do not support Trump think of his supporters as TrumpTards and Trump as a liar.
So, what's the point? Just as those who did not follow Jesus as their Rabbi/Teacher, they most likely did not even view him as a good Jew, and so they cast him out. Today we see the exact same situation by those who do not see Trump as a legitimate president and wish to cast him out of The White House.
Eventually the image of Jesus on the Cross was recreated in many different forms, and placed in prominence in every Christian Church throughout the world. Are there any Jewish Synagogues that include the image of Christ on the Cross. (I don't know of any, but there may be the rare exception, but you know what I am saying.) Is Jesus a Jew or is Jesus a Christian? Is Jesus the figurative inspiration of the Christian or the Jewish religion?
And by the way, do you really think Trump will ever be carved onto Mount Rushmore?
It is my belief that Christianity is NOT about literal marching orders, it is about FAITH in something bigger and greater than humankind, because Jesus made it so. You can believe whatever you want to.
Think about it.
(Sorry this is so long, but can you imagine how much longer it would be if I addressed all you criticisms?)
"So, what's the point? Just as those who did not follow Jesus as their Rabbi/Teacher, they most likely did not even view him as a good Jew, and so they cast him out."
It has already been pointed out that Jews in general did no such thing, the plot involved the chief priests and elders
Matthew 26 English Standard Version (ESV)
The Plot to Kill Jesus
26 When Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples, 2 “You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.”
3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, 4 and plotted together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. 5 But they said, “Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar among the people.”
Note the highlighted sections
Repeatedly stating the Jews "cast him out" doesn't make it so.
"Eventually the image of Jesus on the Cross was recreated in many different forms, and placed in prominence in every Christian Church throughout the world. Are there any Jewish Synagogues that include the image of Christ on the Cross."
I'm sorry, but the above has nothing to do with Jesus being Jewish or not. The Christian church as a separate faith did not exist at the time of Jesus, this is an historical fact. It was Saul of Tarsus that began targeted preaching to the non-Jews, this happened after Christ's death
"Is Jesus a Jew or is Jesus a Christian?"
Was, past tense. Jesus was Jewish, it's that simple, there is no confusion about this.
" Is Jesus the figurative inspiration of the Christian or the Jewish religion?"
Irrelevant, what others came to believe after his death has no bearing on what he was during his life.
08/04/17 10:47:15PM @another-fine-mess :
I'm not a Christian or Jew, I'm pagan and have some Knowlege of how Rome worked back then. If the killing was not ordered by Rome, it was approved certainly by Rome. The Jewish leaders at that time were puppets of the Roman Emperor. They bribed the Romans for their positions. I'm not sure but wasn't there a question if they were really Jewish or not?
The Plot to Kill Jesus
26 When Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples, 2 “You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.”
3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, 4 and plotted together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. 5 But they said, “Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar among the people.”
"I'm not sure but wasn't there a question if they were really Jewish or not?"
Rome certainly co-opted local leaders, quite frankly they wouldn't survive without Roman patronage, but I don't remember anything about them not being Jewish, they were however certainly political appointments.
" I'm not a Christian or Jew , I'm pagan and have some Knowlege of how Rome worked back then."
I was born, and raised in Britain, but I'm not a Christian. My mother was Catholic, and my father a Protestant, this in Glasgow when this still matter. I believe your background is Irish, so you can probably understand that. I was never baptised, so I'm not even a lapsed Christian.
I don't know what crime Rome sentenced Jesus for, I'd guess a type of sedition, that would certainly explain the King of the Jews smear. He wasn't a Roman citizen, so he wouldn't have had the protection of Roman law, but he would feel the full weight of it.
I was born, and raised in Britain, but I'm not a Christian. My mother was Catholic, and my father a Protestant, this in Glasgow
My family is almost straight pagan, a few Roman Catholics here and there. My grandparents came from the last bastion of the Irish language and traditional beliefs. Gaoth Dobhair
Gweedore (officially known by its Irish language name, Gaoth Dobhair , Irish pronunciation: [ˌɡˠi ˈd̪ˠoːɾʲ] ) [1] is an Irish-speaking parish located on the Atlantic coast of County Donegal , Ireland. Gweedore stretches some 16 miles from Meenaclady [2] in the north to Crolly in the south and around 9 miles from Dunlewey in the east to Magheraclogher in the west, and is one of Europe's most densely populated rural areas. [3] [4] It is the largest Irish-speaking parish in Ireland with a population of around 4,065, [5] and is also the home of the northwest regional studios of the Irish-language radio service RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta , [6] as well as an external campus of National University of Ireland, Galway . [7] Gweedore includes the villages Bunbeg, Derrybeg, Dunlewey, Crolly and Brinalack, [8] and sits in the shade of Donegal 's highest peak, Errigal . [9]
Gweedore is known for being a cradle of Irish culture , [10] with old Irish customs, traditional music, theatre,
Just one last thing.
No. Jesus actually said he was the king of the Jews:
I may be wrong about this but I really think Jesus said he was The Son of The Father, and thus the Son of God. I do not believe Jesus ever claimed to be the "King of the Jews". It was, in fact, the Romans who crafted the INRI sign and nailed it on the cross above Jesus. Jesus did not put that sign there himself.
in John 18:36 , he states: " My kingdom is not of this world ". However, Jesus does not directly deny being the King of the Jews. [10] [11]
The Jews of his time were "of this world". The Kingdom he spoke of, was not.
Jesus never directly denied being anyone's king, but he never directly claimed it either.
I'll take a look at The Bible and see if I can find an actial quote where Jesus referred to himself as King of The Jews, but I'm pretty sure I won't find one.
Finally, to answer your question:
Theology fascinates me and I drowned myself in it during my college days. You seem very passionate about it too. So how would you define yourself.
I define myself as a humble seeker of truth, and nothing more.
Hi Squirrel,
To your point #1:
1. As I said repeatedly, anyone can believe what they want to believe and nobody can tell anyone what they have to believe. I do not force my beliefs on anyone here, and I will not allow anyone here to force their beliefs on me. And to somebody else: Yes, you can believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ without accepting him as the Son of God and your personal savior. Who says you can't? If anyone says that, then they are full of bull.
I agree totally.
To point #2. Which is very thoughtful I guess it comes down to this:
I can see your point and analogy of Trump devotes and Trump haters. But you forget that there is a whole lot of people who are still confused. Let me explain. If you impeach Trump, you get Pence, and Pence, and no matter how you feel about him politically, he is a regular politician, who stands a chance of being very effective. Now if I was a dem (for the record, I am a true independent aka a unicorn), does getting rid of Trump really help in the long run? I would think not. If Pence proved effective, than more Pence. Now if I was a Trump devotee, I wouldn't want him out of the office no matter what. Remember he is my Messiah. But being an independent I can see the upside and down to both, and I accept the situation as it comes.
So, what's the point? Just as those who did not follow Jesus as their Rabbi/Teacher, they most likely did not even view him as a good Jew, and so they cast him out. Today we see the exact same situation by those who do not see Trump as a legitimate president and wish to cast him out of The White House.
Let's keep this part of that paragraph in mind: Just as those who did not follow Jesus as their Rabbi/Teacher
Eventually the image of Jesus on the Cross was recreated in many different forms, and placed in prominence in every Christian Church throughout the world. Are there any Jewish Synagogues that include the image of Christ on the Cross. (I don't know of any, but there may be the rare exception, but you know what I am saying.) Is Jesus a Jew or is Jesus a Christian? Is Jesus the figurative inspiration of the Christian or the Jewish religion?
OK now we are at the meat and potatoes of this discussion. To most Jews, Jesus is a Jew and a Rabbi/teacher. He is not the messiah to them, but they respect his teachings.
And by the way, do you really think Trump will ever be carved onto Mount Rushmore?
Well considering they forgot Adams, I hope not.
It is my belief that Christianity is NOT about literal marching orders, it is about FAITH in something bigger and greater than humankind, because Jesus made it so. You can believe whatever you want to.
I agree. I would say that about most faiths. It's people who corrupt the meanings.
(Sorry this is so long, but can you imagine how much longer it would be if I addressed all you criticisms?)
Ugh.. sorry if it came across that way. It's the teacher in me.
And as about our various differences on if Jesus called himself "The king of the Jews".. I think I am going to go with TIG over both of us:
@Perrie: "No. Jesus actually said he was the king of the Jews:"
To be even more specific, this is simply a claim by the authors of Mark and John. The authors claim to speak for Jesus but ultimately these are words written well after Jesus' ostensible death. The only thing we can reliably say about the Bible is that it was written by ancient men to influence their contemporaries.
See, an indie moment, LOL. Yes, no, yes, no.. wait... I'm going with him.
I appreciate your reply. Gives me something to think about although I have no good replies to post right now, but thanks!
p.s. I looked at The Book and scanned the net, but neither source claimed Jesus said he was King of the Jews or even King of Judea or Israel as variously interpreted from the Roman sign/plaque. In various texts he is said to have claimed to be either His Father's Son (in Heaven), Son of Man, and Son of God. And "My Father's house has many rooms." I'll keep looking as I can.
p.s. He also said he was the fulfillment of the prophecies at one point.
Have still found no references when Jesus actually claimed to be "King of The Jews". Don't believe he ever made that claim according to any version of the scripture I have looked up. He did say "I am who you say I am." but that's not the same as saying he was the KotJ.
Your source will have to come up with an exact quote that I am able to look up and verify.
Remember what Reagan said: "Trust, but verify."
Me too, but this little kid got a point. I mean he is not wrong, is he?
When I was a little kid I thought I was Matt Dillon for the longest time.
Should I have gotten a horse and revolver? It would have let me get more in touch with my "inner Matt".
And what about science?
Can politically correct opinion "trump" science?
If it can, what other scientific facts are only facts depending on the direction the political winds blow. Do you think that could be dangerous down the road at some point?
Do you remember Lysenkoism? It turned out horribly.
--Charles A. Leone, " Lysenko versus Mendel ," Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science , 1952
It's like thinking that giving massive amounts of money to the government will somehow change the weather !
Christ, if he ever existed at all, is dead for good. Dust. He will not be returning.
The girls identify three authorities for determining one's identified gender:
[the Bible]: To me it is sad that people even today use the words of ancient men from ancient times to guide their lives. Contemporary issues such as gender identity should not be based on words from ancient men with an agenda.
[society]: Ultimately what is legal is a function of society; the legal authority for choosing a particular gender is known. What is ethical, moral, etc. also seems to be a function of society. It all goes to what society considers acceptable. That is, we all need to conform (to a degree) to the wishes of the majority.
[self]: But ultimately gender identity is a personal consideration. Who other than the individual involved should have the right to determine one's identified gender? Even if society frowns on a biological male identifying as a female it should never be others who decide identified gender. That is a personal decision.
If someone wants to get up on a soapbox and say "I don't think transgender is good for our society", I think they should be able to do so without necessarily being referred to as bigots. It is their personal opinion. When such people try to influence laws that will effect these transgendered in a negative way, I think we are in a different and unacceptable ball park.
Good point! Emphatically.
Let me ask you a question, since you think John made a good point...
If I restated his point like this....
If someone wants to get up on a soapbox and say "I don't think straight people are good for our society", I think they should be able to do so without necessarily being referred to as bigots. It is their personal opinion. When such people try to influence laws that will effect these Straight people in a negative way, I think we are in a different and unacceptable ball park.
Would it be just as good a point?
Does gay marriage or gay rights effect straight people in a negative way?
In some peoples opinions it does.
I would posit if it doesn't then the reciprocal is just as valid.
[I]f we truly wish to understand why freedom is necessary in a civilized society, we must begin by realizing that, because freedom of discussion improves our own opinions, the liberties of other men [and women] are our own vital necessity. — Walter Lippmann. The Indispensable Opposition.
>>>
Would it be as good a point? My answer: "Yes. Emphatically."
When you say:
I think they should be able to do so without necessarily being referred to as bigots.
I certainly hope you are not referring to what I have posted, because I never called them "bigots". I called them hypocrites, because that is exactly what they are. But I never called them "bigots" even though they may also be that, I don't know. If they are "Christians" as they claim to be, then damn near everything they said in that video was Anti-Christian and hypocritical.
1. We miss the point when we imagine that we tolerate the freedom of our political [and all other] opponents as we tolerate a howling baby next door, as we put up with the blasts from our neighbor's radio because we are too peaceable to heave a brick through the window. If this were all there is to freedom of opinion, that we are too good-natured or too timid to do anything about our opponents and our critics except to let them talk, it would be difficult to say whether we are magnanimous or because we are lazy, because we have strong principles or because we lack serious convictions, whether we have the hospitality of an inquiring mind or the indifference of an empty mind. And so, if we truly wish to understand why freedom is necessary in a civilized society, we must begin by realizing that, because freedom of discussion improves our own opinions, the liberties of other men [and women] are our own vital necessity. — Walter Lippmann. The Indispensable Opposition.
>>>
Aristotle, Buddha, Socrates, Confucius, Plato, are as ancient as men come and are as relevant today as Jesus. Afterall, it is people who breath life into their words.
2. True. In our society we put much stock in its strives to keep the Constitution (given by our own private set of "ancient" white men with no input from women or racial minorities) on top. Then we travel the world to share American values in Asia, Europe, and all countries of the American continent. It is as though we have found a great treasure and can not rest until the world joins us in its acceptance.
Then, there is the tremendous strives being made to follow the Rule of Law. It gives the diminutive groups in our land great power against the majority. Rule of Law has helped many outcasts to have a voice. Especially the transgender!
3. I agree. I would caution as I know you will too of the many "peculiar" groups awaiting in an unofficial que to contest and contend with the majority and the Rule of Law for their opening to the sun above the tall trees.
(Hi, Tig.)
I posted this vblog in my newest group, Drop Kick Bigotry because I am concerned if these young women are indicative of a new crop of Christian women who will develop as permanent opposition to the rights of their fellow Americans transgender people who are making positive strides at personal freedoms and deliverance from living as social outcasts. Are these women (and soon their acolytes) spreading via the internet, their seminars, and their church a brand of up and coming bigotry? Is this "ministry" message hatred now, or will it develop more aggressively so over time?
Has " Evolution " made a choice?
In Life generally does " Gender matter "?
Does an " Alpha Female Fish Changing to a Male " Matter is it a Choice, what happens if that is " short-circuited "?
What is the " Human Genome " and can it be " Forced Mutated " and what would that mean for Humanity?
What does the CDC define as " High Risk " and why so?
Do I chose to be in the " High Risk " Group or is it genetic?
No offense but what does anything you have posted have to do with two girls expressing their Christian beliefs about Transgenders? Your comment seems focused on science and genetics. They are talking about Christian beliefs. They are wrong, and they are hypocrites, but nothing they said in their video has anything at all to do with the science of genetics.
Your View and you are welcome to it, I saw " Debate " If it is a Monologue please forgive me!
I Mentioned evolution and what " It processes " to some IT is God, to others God Created Evolution!
So My comments are Viable from any and ALL prospective if one does not like it, what can I say?
"" has anything at all to do with the science of genetics ""
WOW I am shocked Gender has nothing to do with" science " and or " Genetics " I do need to get an Edu Maca Tion :-)
Impasse
1. From a Christian perspective should you set your personal feelings aside, as these sisters suggest?
2. These sisters are encouraging a world with only heterosexual values, is that normal?
Generally-speaking, in our majority heterosexually-inclined and active culture, these sisters speak with confident authority on how Christians ought to live gender-wise. However, on this issue they positively can NOT suffer loss. By virtue of their immersion in a culture that support their feelings on gender—they win!
But there should be some inkling, some display, of compassion extended to the state of the Christian who experiences gender identity issues. These individuals can walk by faith, but may stumble at the flesh.
Is it the churches of America's role to keep traditional or allow Spirit leading? Wherever new horizons are breached?
Our culture has become so ridiculously confused that people are actually debating whether a classically immutable characteristic like gender is a choice. You can no more choose your gender than you can your species. Even if you change your outward appearance, which is all that can be changed, you're still the gender you were born.
According to the current politically correct psycho-blather, gender is a choice even though it's been viewed as an immutable characteristic in every society on earth since the beginning of recorded history. And the only changes that can be made to gender is in outward appearance because genetic makeup can't be changed. But don't let that stop this nonsense because gender needs to be a choice. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is supposed to be genetic and not a choice, even though identical twins have identical genes but both are rarely gay. However, homosexuality needs to be genetic to make it an immutable characteristic like gender used to be so homosexuals can argue that they can't change their behavior. And transgenders are like hermaphrodities even though, unlike hermaphrodities, transgender confusion is in entirely in their heads not their actual organs. And God condones it all because he created the confusion in the first place. Damn!
1. What is YOUR level of compassion and normalcy with transgender individuals and groups? Are you 'triggered' more with a transgender man or a transgender woman or not in either circumstance?
Calbab-- if you're talking to me, I don't have levels of compassion and normalcy with regard to transgenders or anybody else.
It is addressed everybody, 1ofmany. To all!
Heterosexuals have steamy dreams of women. Homosexuals have steamy dreams of other men. Do we have any transgender friends here to inform of the nature of your dreams? Second choice. Has anyone stopping by ever discussed dreams with a transsexual or transgender person?
Calbab-- Ask bruce jenner. Last time I heard, he hadn't decided to give up women. So I guess he thinks that he was born to be a lesbian.
And then there are those pesky variations to speak of! HA!
I bet transgenders don't dream about the joy of finding out that their love interest is another transgender because, if they did, they'd probably wake up screaming.
Sexual identification is not always the same as sexual orientation. That is to say that there are homosexual and heterosexual transgenders.
It is a wild-and-crazy world with many variations on the theme. Much of which people keep private.
Good point.
This partial true account of Chaz Bono, transitioned from Chastity Bono is why I ask YOUR level of empathy for transgender individuals who, until President Obama's executive order, were compelled to live out their existences in a despairing world:
>>>>>>
Excerpt: 'Transition'
I got a little closer to understanding what was going on with me during my first attempt at sobriety. I recall being at an all-lesbian barbecue with some new friends. At the time, I was involved with a woman who was very social (as well as sober) and I was doing my best to expand my own social life, after being so withdrawn. Newly clearheaded, I still found myself two steps removed from the group, observing their interactions, listening to their stories, and not as engaged as I could have been. And it occurred to me that day: I am not like any of these women. I'm not a femme lesbian; I'm not a jock lesbian; I'm not even a stone butch, despite my mannish shoes and clothing. I had tried on all these quintessential lesbian identities, but none of them had ever really fit. No , I thought to myself. I'm something other, something entirely different.
Over time, it began to dawn on me that though embodied as a female, I was not a woman at all. That despite my breasts, my curves, and my female genitalia, inside, I identified as a man. This meant, of course, that I was transgender, literally a man living in a woman's body. I have always felt more comfortable wearing boys' and men's clothes. Without a doubt, as a child I thought of myself as a boy. But the process of coming to terms with the reality that I am in fact transgender was horrific. It upended my entire life.
More.
Did anybody else take stock of Chaz Bono's excerpt account: It's priceless! (No book promotion - no agenda.)
I did. I read it a few times actually. There seemed to me to be nothing to add. It was /is very good and right to the point. Thanks for adding it.
Supremo! to me, one of the most delicious treats in life is reading court issued opinions. Because no matter whether I like a rendered conclusion(s) are not, you DAMN sure can solidly see how a court came about it! My goodness! A beautiful thing: Debate.
God made men, God made Women, God made Bisexuals (hermaphrodites)
If a man wants to be a man, wonderful!
If a man thinks god made a mistake and thinks he should be a woman, wonderful!
If a woman wants to be a woman, wonderful!
If a woman thinks god made a mistake and thinks she should be a man, wonderful!
If a transgender bisexual wants to remain a transgender bisexual, wonderful! (as long as they understand the potential risk associated with it. Being a hermaphrodite can be a death sentence medically)
If a transgender bisexual knows god made a mistake and chooses to be either a man or a woman, wonderful!
God gave man the learned ability to change it around, switch Man for Woman for Transgender Bisexual, wonderful!
Obviously, since God is perfect and doesn't make mistakes, who are we to judge? In fact didn't he tell us to judge not yet we be judged?
So the only real issue here is this, one person making a judgment of absoluteness for other people/everyone else. A judgement that could only come from someone outside of God. A person who wishes to challenge God.
Who is to say that the Transgender Bisexual is making a choice? but God made bisexuals, and yes there have been fully functional bisexuals, functional both ways, male & female, very rare though.
If god in his infinite wisdom can create a bisexual that is full physically functional both ways, (male & female) why can't he create one that isn't? (which is the predominate condition of Transgender Bisexuals)
Why cannot he create one that has no physical Transgender Bisexual features at all?
Of course he can.
Who are we to say he didn't?
Perhaps GOD doesn't give a fuck about any of this.
When man wrote the bible he was fallible and manipulative.
No thanks
PS: I really dont care WTF you all think about this , I 've read the old testament , the new testament, the Book of Mormon and parts of the Koran. All Written by men with the main focus of controlling the behaviour of other men. Like I said, No thanks.
Yeah I have a hard time believing in a perfect God that makes no mistakes yet we put a lot of effort into getting rid of his perfect cancer, ALS and birth defects.
Do what you want, be what you want, you only get one life.... Live it as YOU choose !
Sorry Nowhere-man, it was intended to be a hilarious reply to 321steve!
Is Gender A Personal Choice?
Of course not.
Is Gender A Personal Choice?
Of course not.
Correct.
And it fact my guess is soon that will change-- your Gender will be determined by what the White House says you are-- and how Congress defines your gender! (And if Congress continues its current state of paralysis, you may end up being "gender neutral" for some time..)
Depends on who is in the White House and who controls Congress and for how long each.
LOL! Have you turned over a few tables and bar stools in your day?
Don't know if you were referencing me, but no I haven't done that.
But I have turned over a few applecarts in my time...
Whatever gender you are-- as long as you accept yourself, its all good.
Is race a personal choice?
Is biology real?
"Is race a personal choice?"
Interesting question, we now have a Woman that likes the term trans black, as it covers how she feels
Fine, I'm now trans-horse, my new name is Dobbin, and I insist everyone use the correct pronoun, whatever the hell that maybe.
Whether or not gender/transgenderism is a personal choice is not really for any of us to judge. In my opinion, it's a private matter that is better kept...private. The personal choice lies in the decision to correct what nature has given. That should also be kept a private matter between the patient, and the professionals enlisted to help.
My problem with the two young ladies in the video, is that they are trying to influence a younger generation in regard to a subject that they (the two young ladies) know nothing about...at least not personally. They reference a book allegedly written a couple of thousand years ago during a time when civilization was still evolving. Using a reference that old to justify sitting in judgment on others, is irresponsible at best.
In addition, they spent a great deal of time saying that God made us this way and God made us that way, and so shall it be. Not to trivialize the matter, but God made them both brunettes. By their own interpretation of the subject matter, they are defying the word of their God. Cherry picking what is God-given and what isn't, weakens the premise and argument considerably. That is the foundation for a hypocritical and exclusionary frame of mind.
My problem with the two young ladies in the video, is that they are trying to influence a younger generation in regard to a subject that they (the two young ladies) know nothing about...at least not personally. They reference a book allegedly written a couple of thousand years ago during a time when civilization was still evolving. Using a reference that old to justify sitting in judgment on others, is irresponsible at best.
>>>
This is an important point. Kirsten and Bethany while sharing their biblical perspective did not provide a way for the existence of transgender people. They did not strike a balance. It leaves the door open to speculate what they would do if they encounter transgender youth! What the meeting would be like: hostile or friendly? Cold or compassionate?
>>>
The Christian Bible is a wisdom book foremost and has truly impacted a multitude upon multitude of lives for the good. Subsequently, it can be as valid as any other set of ancient thinkers and for the believer more so, in my opinion. Jesus fully understood that in sharing wisdom from the first century (and earlier) with people who were going their own way that a certain mixture of compassion would be called for, because he recognized there were particular states in life that people could not change without the presence of great power.
Note that the narrative of Jesus is of a man who used great power to fix physical and mental states that the world had no power to affect.
My thoughts.
This is an important point. Kirsten and Bethany while sharing their biblical perspective did not provide a way for the existence of transgender people. They did not strike a balance. It leaves the door open to speculate what they would do if they encounter transgender youth! What the meeting would be like: hostile or friendly? Cold or compassionate?
In social or professional interaction, I treat everyone with respect. That doesn't mean that I have to accept a particular behavior. The Christian principle is love the sinner but reject the sin.
I haven't figured it all out, yet. Recently read where a woman decided to be a man, but her mate was a man, also. That's confusing to me. If you want to be a man why wouldn't you choose a woman as a mate? And, then, to top it all off the woman turned man got pregnant and produced a beautiful baby! So, she is a man with a woman's body parts. That still makes her a woman! I guess being a woman came in handy!
The article on "two spirits" was great. I think we all have a little of that two spirits thing going on. Some more pronounced than others. I like doing things that only men usually do and my husband will do things that women usually do. It makes for a whole person.
I use to like playing dress up. I loved being a princess, but I wasn't a princess. Boys got to do a lot of things that girls couldn't do, but try as I might no amount of wishing I was a boy at the time made it happen.
Well, do whatever yanks your chain, but that doesn't mean that you can expect all people to understand.
I haven't figured it all out, yet . . .
At least you're still sane enough to know that something's not quite right. These people have a disorder but instead of banding together to demand treatment, they band together to insist that they're normal and everybody who sees it otherwise is a bigot.
The article on "two spirits" was great.
It sure is a great article. Others should read it as well. Your comment is stellar!
In case you missed it, the archbishop for all military services issued a statement in support of Trump's ban and explained why gender cannot be a choice. Of course anyone who disagrees with the gay cabal is dismissed as a bigot but I thought I'd post the statement for consideration by those who can still think for themselves.
And you know his opinion is relevant, since he believes he eats a 2,000 year old dead guy every Sunday.
And you know his opinion is relevant, since he believes he eats a 2,000 year old dead guy every Sunday.
If he blew 2000 guys on Sunday, then his word would be gospel . . . to you.
I don't think that is necessary. Don't really care if you follow any doctrine or religion, but you could pass on some of the tolerance that you show to other groups of people to those of us who do follow Christianity? Thank you.
Do you eat dead guy crackers and wash them down with his blood? And you want me to be tolerant of those who call other people crazy because of a disorder that they can't comprehend? Not going to happen.
Yes, I do. At least, you recognize that it is a disorder. I don't call them crazy, but like most disorders one can get help. I have a thyroid disorder for which I get treatments.
You need to get help for the religiously based disorder that leads you to engage in creepy rituals.
Your comments remind me of the time Jeffrey Dahmer had his mother over for dinner.
His mom said Jeffrey I really don't care for your neighbors. Jeffery replied that's ok mom just push them off to the side of your plate and eat the vegetables.
Magnoliaave, they do get help from the medical sciences. Now then, it is high time for believers to realize that we 'sat' on a national platform with many other nonbelievers, they have a right live according to their dictates as we do to ours—causing no physical harm to the other. Now then, I am asking you and every other believer to understand that allowing transgender people to flourish in society does not one thing to endanger your or my way of life. Thank you.
I read every word of what the Archbishop wrote and I am attempting to understand how it applies to the world outside the Catholic Church. After all, the protestant church alone separated and has divided numerous times. So 1ofmany, are you one in the Archbishop's audience?
I read every word of what the Archbishop wrote and I am attempting to understand how it applies to the world outside the Catholic Church. After all, the protestant church alone separated and has divided numerous times. So 1ofmany, are you one in the Archbishop's audience?
It's not binding on non-Catholics but all Christians are faced with the same issue. It's one view of the issue for the consideration of all. If it has no meaning for you, then you are free to discard it.
The Archbishop gives the official church view and that is alright. I do question to what end it helps to heal the breach caused by President Trump, if the Catholic Church lays a bridge over to right-wing evangelicals. Indeed, if this is the case.
Careers may be lost at some point. Dignity will be totally stripped away. Shame will rise up in the body and mind and overwhelm some—many. Why, because with a stroke of a 'pen' or make that a tweet -- aspersions and doubt have been casted on a subset of "faithful" warriors and heroes. Why did it happen, because the RW evangelical God and a Catholic Archbishop did not see the individual executing, directing, and serving according to the contractual standards of commission and the UCMJ.
So when the ugliness creeps back out into the sun and it reblooms, whom should we chalk it up to President Trump, RW evangelicals, or a Catholic Archbishop?
The Archbishop gives the official church view and that is alright. I do question to what end it helps to heal the breach caused by President Trump, if the Catholic Church lays a bridge over to right-wing evangelicals. Indeed, if this is the case.
That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that Obama caused the breach by allowing this and Trump is correcting a mistake. It doesn't have to be anything more than that.
Careers may be lost at some point. Dignity will be totally stripped away. Shame will rise up in the body and mind and overwhelm some—many. Why, because with a stroke of a 'pen' or make that a tweet -- aspersions and doubt have been casted on a subset of "faithful" warriors and heroes. Why did it happen, because the RW evangelical God and a Catholic Archbishop did not see the individual executing, directing, and serving according to the contractual standards of commission and the UCMJ.
I'm fine with not admitting any more of them. Although I've said put the transgenders out, I'm still thinking about it. I certainly don't want to spend one dime on transition surgery, especially when they're arguing that they don't have a disorder. And I don't want any sensitivity programs in the military that compel solders to recognize gender reassignment. Those programs should be discontinued immediately.
So when the ugliness creeps back out into the sun and it reblooms, whom should we chalk it up to President Trump, RW evangelicals, or a Catholic Archbishop?
Again, that's one point of view. The other is that it was a mistake to admit them in the first place and chalk it up to Obama.
The other is that it was a mistake to admit them in the first place and chalk it up to Obama.
President Obama demonstrated courage in that he connected the constitutional rights and privileges of homosexuals and transgender people to the power given a president to act on behalf of a passed over population of able-bodied and mentally fit citizens. Citizens who have provided clear evidence of their abilities to efficiently learn, perform, and live up to the standards and rigors of military life. Even receiving the respect and admiration of older respected officers, service member, and contract civilians.
Now then what justification can Donald Trump give for banning an entire class of service members and in the process instilling in the mind of any sufficient warrior(s) s/he is not good enough to be anything more than a second class American?
President Obama demonstrated courage in that he connected the constitutional rights and privileges of homosexuals and transgender people to the power given a president to act on behalf of a passed over population of able-bodied and mentally fit citizens . . .
I think Obama did a disservice to the country and I hope Trump has the courage to undo it. An army of drag queens is a cringeworthy image that I don't want to present to the world.
Now then what justification can Donald Trump give for banning an entire class of service members and in the process instilling in the mind of any sufficient warrior(s) s/he is not good enough to be anything more than a second class American?
Its a rhetorical question but I'll answer it anyway. Trump should issue a military regulation that says the following. All people are presumed to be born in the right bodies. If you believe that you were born in the wrong body, then you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. There will always be reasonable doubt because there is no scientific evidence on the subject that is more than conjecture. When they can't meet their burden of proof, either refuse to admit them or put them out as appropriate.
"Trump should issue a military regulation"
What that anyone who wants out of serving the country can call "Bone spur" and "walk" away from serving ?
I think Obama did a disservice to the country and I hope Trump has the courage to undo it. — Iofmany
>>>
What the U.S. Is Learning From How Israel Treats Transgender Soldiers
Yardena Schwartz/Tel Aviv
Updated: Aug 09, 2016 11:05 AM ET | Originally published: Aug 07, 2016
Amy always knew she was a girl in a boy’s body, as she always knew she would serve in the army. She grew up in a religious family in Israel and attended a school that prepared students to enter the air force. . . . she enlisted in Caracal, a co-ed combat unit, which is tasked with patrolling Israel's border with Egypt. To Amy’s surprise, the army was more than just accepting.
“They were empowering,” she says of her fellow soldiers and commanders. “The girls and guys in my platoon were so sweet and supportive, and all the staff tried to make it as smooth as possible. I didn’t even notice.”
From the start, they treated her as female, addressing her in female pronouns, giving her a female uniform, and allowing her to keep her long wavy hair (male soldiers must keep their hair short). Amy was permitted to sleep in the women’s sleeping quarters, and received permission to shower separately. The army also pays for her hormone treatments, just as they cover the medical needs of any soldier. [Bolding Calbab.]
How I see it.
Amy always knew he was a cat in a human body, as he always knew he would serve in the army. He grew up in a religious family in Israel and attended a school that prepared students to enter the air force. . . . He enlisted in Caracal, a co-ed combat unit, which is tasked with patrolling Israel's border with Egypt. To Amy’s surprise, the army was more than just accepting.
“They were empowering,” he says of his fellow soldiers and commanders. “The girls and guys in my platoon were so sweet and supportive, and all the staff tried to make it as smooth as possible. I didn’t even notice.”
From the start, they treated her as feline, addressing him in cat pronouns, giving him a feline looking uniform, and allowing him to keep his long wavy hair to pretend it was fur (male soldiers must keep their hair short). Amy was permitted to sleep near his litter pan, and received permission to lick his own behind rather than shower. The army also pays to have cat ears sewn on his head, just as they cover the medical needs of any soldier. [Bolding Calbab.]
Trump should issue a military regulation that says the following. All people are presumed to be born in the right bodies. If you believe that you were born in the wrong body, then you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. There will always be reasonable doubt because there is no scientific evidence on the subject that is more than conjecture. When they can't meet their burden of proof, either refuse to admit them or put them out as appropriate. —1ofmany.
Smacks of a segregationist exclusion tactic based on gender discrimination. And, you approve of it? Plain and simple, the parents and supporters of these potential members and actual service members would easily shred such a policy.
Smacks of a segregationist exclusion tactic based on gender discrimination. And, you approve of it? Plain and simple, the parents and supporters of these potential members and actual service members would easily shred such a policy.
Race is an immutable characteristic; transgenderism is a delusion. Of course I don't want delusional people in the military.
transgenderism is a delusion.
JUst because you don't understand or approve does mean things are just a delusion.
I think that kind of avoidance is delusional. Avoiding the reality of differences in the human population is deluding yourself. Good luck with that.
Didn't read the entire lessor-encyclical by Archbishop Broglio, but...
1. He is not the final word in The Catholic Church. Pope Francis has that honor and responsibility.
2. By Broglio's standards, he could well put out a statement forbidding anyone but Catholics in Good Standing to be members of the U.S. Military.
3. Why should a Catholic minister be authorized to make military policy for all, including any number of Protestant denominations, Hindus, Shintos, Sikhs, Janes, Muslims, Mormons, Scientologists, etc... Atheists and others?
4. Trump's original Tweet did not have the force of law, and The Pentagon has decided to reject it,.
5. Trump is full of shit.
Didn't read the entire lessor-encyclical by Archbishop Broglio, but...
1. He is not the final word in The Catholic Church. Pope Francis has that honor and responsibility.
He didn't claim to be speaking for the church. He has as much right to give his opinion in favor of the ban as others do to oppose it. Or is speech only free when yiu agree with it?
2. By Broglio's standards, he could well put out a statement forbidding anyone but Catholics in Good Standing to be members of the U.S. Military.
His comment on transgeders included catholics and non-Catholics alike. There was no indication of favoritism.
3. Why should a Catholic minister be authorized to make military policy for all, including any number of Protestant denominations, Hindus, Shintos, Sikhs, Janes, Muslims, Mormons, Scientologists, etc... Atheists and others?
He was giving an opinion not making military policy.
4. Trump's original Tweet did not have the force of law, and The Pentagon has decided to reject it,.
he can turn it into a directive and get rid of those who don't follow it.
5. Trump is full of shit.
True but so are those who oppose the ban.
Although I've said put the transgenders out, I'm still thinking about it.
1ofMany, What basis do you give for stripping transgender out of the military services? Which of the reenlistment benefits and perks should we remove from every other class of service members? We desire a members service, we listen to their needs, and the nation (Congress) acts to provide suitable compensation packages.
For hundreds of years this nation has demonstrated and transacted value for its heterosexual soldiers. The time has arrived for an expansion of those valuations to include all able-bodied classes legally permitted and volunteering to serve. Negotiate their contractual obligations, perks, and benefits accordingly. (And do not try telling me there is one blanket contract for all service members.)
Although I've said put the transgenders out, I'm still thinking about it.
1ofMany, What basis do you give for stripping transgender out of the military services?
The same basis I would use for someone who insisted that he was from krypton and demanded that he be allowed to wear a superman suit.
For hundreds of years this nation has demonstrated and transacted value for its heterosexual soldiers. The time has arrived for an expansion of those valuations to include all able-bodied classes legally permitted and volunteering to serve.
I rather that they stay in the closet.
The same basis I would use for someone who insisted that he was from krypton and demanded that he be allowed to wear a superman suit.
Says the dude wearing a Yoda suit, waving a light saber, and using a Star Trek Next Generation-inspired screen name.
On a somewhat related side note, and not that you care in the least, but I'm going to lose my shit if you continue to use the term 'butthole surfer'. You are as free as anyone here to express your beliefs, opinions, preferences etc., but using such a derogatory term serves no realistic purpose, and frankly, it makes the rest of us look bad.
On a somewhat related side note, and not that you care in the least, but I'm going to lose my shit if you continue to use the term 'butthole surfer.
Ok, I'm back just for you. I'll be glad to stop . . . right after they stop referring to me as a bigot. Otherwise, I'll have to loan you my shirt.
lose my shit
2. On a day to day basis I tip toe the line of losing my shit.
3. If you don't shut the fuck I'm gonna lose my shit and punch babies.
4. DUDE MATT I'M ABOUT TO LOSE MY FUCKING SHIT .
Also, not to belabor the point, BUT....
Calling someone a bigot is against the CoC. I distinctly remember long drawn out metas on such....
But of course the new influx of liberals do not know that, so it might be wise to make a site wide announcement of that....
You know, fair warning.....
Just to be fair.....
NWM, useful and timely reminder. Thank you!
NWM,
There is just a huge influx of members and they are not acquainted with what makes a violation and not specifically liberals. Both sides have used that term and others and that is why there was so much meta about it. So let's amend that and say:
Calling someone a bigot is against the CoC. I distinctly remember long drawn out metas on such....
But of course the new influx of new members do not know that, so it might be wise to make a site wide announcement of that....
You know, fair warning.....
Just to be fair.....
Thank you sweets, I stand corrected and advised for future reference.
just to be fair
I was just wondering?
When is it ok for a man to publicly beat a woman in America?
But still with the bone structure and muscle mass of a man. should "Zie." have told the woman hey, I used to be a dude? Did the other fighter have a right to know?
That situation may be a first in the sport of Mixed Martial Arts, but it is not the first situation in sports when a former man, who went through gender-reassignment surgery to become a woman, beat another women in a sporting event.
Renée Richards (born August 19, 1934) is an American ophthalmologist and former tennis player who had some success on the professional circuit in the 1970s. In 1975 Richards underwent male-to-female sex reassignment surgery. She was then denied entry into the 1976 US Open by the United States Tennis Association, which began that year requiring genetic screening for female players. She disputed this policy, and the New York Supreme Court ruled in her favor in 1977 in a decision in favor of transsexual rights.[2] As one of the first professional athletes to identify as such, she became a spokesperson for the transgender community.[3][4][5]
That court decision was back in 1977. One wonders why this is still such an issue some FORTY YEARS later?
I will look for and peruse this case and get back to everyone, including Kpr37 question!
Thank you!
I have done my assignment and am ready to report back on @kpr37 :
just to be fair I was just wondering? When is it ok for a man to publicly beat a woman in America?
>>>
Kpr37, I have read a truly remarkable NY Supreme Court opinion which decided that Ms. Renee Richards is indeed fit to compete as a woman professional tennis player. Extrapolation: Your "Fallon," all participatory facts being similar, is for all intents and purposes a woman - height notwithstanding.
From the 1977 court ruling:
In this court's view, the requirement of defendants that this plaintiff pass the Barr body test in order to be eligible to participate in the women's singles of the United States Open is grossly unfair, discriminatory and inequitable, and violative of her rights under the Human Rights Law of this State (Executive Law, § 290 et seq. ). It seems clear that defendants knowingly instituted this test for the sole purpose of preventing plaintiff from participating in the tournament. The only justification for using a sex determination test in athletic [93 Misc.2d 722]competition is to prevent fraud, i.e., men masquerading as women, competing against women.
This court rejects any such suggestion as applied to plaintiff. This court is totally convinced that there are very few biological males, who are accomplished tennis players, who are also either preoperative or postoperative transsexuals.
When an individual such as plaintiff, a successful physician, a husband and father, finds it necessary for his own mental sanity to undergo a sex reassignment, the unfounded fears and misconceptions of defendants must give way to the overwhelming medical evidence that this person is now female.
This court is not striking down the Barr body test, as it appears to be a recognized and acceptable tool for determining sex. However, it is not and should not be the sole criterion, where as here, the circumstances warrant consideration of other factors.
<<<
Kpr37, it seems you used a harsh frame for your question, "When is it OK for a man to publicly beat a woman in America?" It is not OK in competitive professional sports. However, Fallon is positively a woman! Therefore, the correct frame permits two women to compete against each other.
Here is the link to the Richards v. U.S. Tennis court opinion:
The case is fascinating to read and yet concise. I need not post it all here. One important issue the court considered that I did not show here is the topic of "bone density" after hormone treatment(s). Discovery on one's own can be a beautiful 'trip.'
Squirrel!! What a great read the Richards v. US Tennis case NY Supreme Court case is. In a rather concise analysis, the case step by step answers (in 1977) 99.99 percent of criticisms conservatives have voice today on this issue. How apropos. It is a treat to the brain--reading the expert witness statements and the judge's opinion. "Nailed it."
Five stars to you for this tip!
Well, thanks. Still, you'd think that after 40 years this would no longer be the issue that it is today.
Squirrel! I have found this to be the nature of Right-wing conservatism. Like their republican symbol, the elephant, they never forget any of their customs, traditional, or standards. Conservatives, will admit, they never take, "No," as a final answer.
I would like to add this little tid bit of science to this part of the discussion.
When a person goes through transgender fully, their hormones change. In the case of someone like Rene Richards, the estrogen she took to get her to that point, made her weaker and her muscles shrink and of course that leads to a lessening of agility.
The opposite is true, too.
Here is an interesting article from "Shape" (of course they would want to cover this)
How a Trans Body Changes
Savannah Burton, 40, is a trans woman who plays professional dodgeball. She competed in world championship this summer with the women's team—but played for the male team before she started her transition.
"I've played sports most of my life. As a kid, I tried everything: hockey, downhill skiing, but baseball is what I focused on most," she says. "Baseball was my first love." She played for nearly twenty years—albeit as a male. Then came running, cycling, and dodgeball in 2007, a fairly new sport outside the grade-school gym. She was several years into her dodgeball career when she decided to take medical steps to transition in her mid-thirties.
"I was still playing dodgeball when I started taking the testosterone blockers and estrogen," Burton recalls. She felt subtle changes within the first few months. "I could definitely see that my throw wasn't as hard as it was. I couldn't play the same way. I couldn't compete at the same level that I had."
She describes a physical transformation that was thrilling as a transgender person and terrifying as an athlete. "My mechanics of playing didn't change," she says of her agility and coordination. "But my muscle strength decreased significantly. I can't throw as hard." The difference was especially striking in dodgeball, where the goal is to throw hard and fast at your human targets. When Burton played with men, the balls would bounce so hard off people's chests that they would make a big noise. "Now, a lot of people are catching those balls," she says. "So it's kind of frustrating that way." Throw like a girl, indeed.
Burton's experience is typical of male-to-female (MTF) transitions, says Robert S. Beil, M.D., of Montefiore Medical Group. "Losing testosterone means losing strength and having less athletic agility," he explains. "We don't know if testosterone has a direct effect on muscle strength, but without the testosterone, they are maintained at a lower pace." This means that women typically need to work harder for longer to maintain muscle mass, whereas men see results more quickly.
Beil adds that men have a higher average blood count rate, and transitioning can "cause the red blood cell counts to go down, because the amount of red blood cells and red blood cell production is influenced by testosterone." Your red blood cells are integral in carrying oxygen from the lungs to your tissues; people who get blood transfusions often feel a surge of strength and vitality, whereas people with anemia feel weak. This could explain why Burton also reported a decrease in stamina and endurance, particularly when going for a morning run.
So in short, one has to force " Nature " or " Induce a mutation " that in the end is totally unnatural!
That means that one can not claim to be an environmentalist or naturalist and still partake in that methodology
It happens every day somewhere on this planet that someone "mutates" by taking a pharmacological enhanced ingredient that extends their cell, tissue, or organ life! So routine.
I have found this to be the nature of Right-wing conservatism.
AND by saying something like this you reveal your own biases to be political in nature rather than any real consideration for a person position.
I am a conservative, libertarian actually. I don't give one hoot about what a person decides is best for him or her. If a he wants to be a she wonderful for them, if a she wants to be a he same thing. It is none of my business as long as it doesn't directly impact me. And by directly impact I mean personally, intimately become something I have to deal with in my life..
Basically the chances of me attempting to reproduce with a person who has changed from male to female is ZERO. For anyone else that is their business.
It is not for me.
What we resent, (not all of us mind you just some) is those to are or support those who do go through the sex change want to force acceptance on us. Use the law to make us accept them as normal.
Never going to happen. That is imposing your will upon us which we reject out of hand. We don't care if that is what you want for your life. More power to ya.
JUST STOP FORCING YOUR OPINIONS ON US. and 90% of your issues will go away.
You have already gotten what you claim you want, the freedom to be who you think you want to be.
But in our view that isn't good enough for you. You want us to subjugate ourselves to your beliefs.
You want us to suffer what you claim you have. That is retribution not freedom.
Democrats in building a constituency use such to subjugate everyone to their whims.
Just like the king's minions wished to do to the colonists. We took up arms back then we will do it again.
Stop!
You've gotten what you claimed you wanted, you always had it. Stop trying to force us to think and believe like you.
I know that is hard, when what you want to do is make over the nation into your ideals of the world and a huge vision of how great it would be as long as everyone agreed with you. But that simply is never going to happen.
Your liberal utopia is a concentration camp to us....
And most of us will die before we willingly submit to that.
What we resent, (not all of us mind you just some) is those to are or support those who do go through the sex change want to force acceptance on us. Use the law to make us accept them as normal.
Never going to happen. That is imposing your will upon us which we reject out of hand. We don't care if that is what you want for your life. More power to ya.
The law does not force you to "accept" someone. It forces you not to mistreat them. You can think any non-accepting thoughts you want, and even vocalize them.
Your liberal utopia is a concentration camp to us....
And the Oscar for best performance in the role of sincere hyperbole goes to.....
Three stages in human history.
Aristotle
Alexis de Tocqueville
Kpr37, if I read this right it is a terrible thing to suggest-- no matter whom you quote!
Being compelled to give back to black slaves their early American freedom did not lose white masters their equality, did it? Explain how so!
Granting women limited, I repeat limited, equality (lack of utter equality remains outside her reach) takes away from your primacy? Explain please!
Interracial marriage between a black man and a white woman, and vice-versa, denigrates your ability to do what exactly? Explain if you can.
Transgender people need not serve conservative whim, because as duly noted in either form or fashion, conservatives free no-one. Conservatism binds the outcasts that it creates!
People free themselves from conservative 'ropes' on their lives, their hopes, and their dreams.
A conservative lacks nothing when other people are equal in the community!
if I read this right
See word "IF"
Cause your comment has nothing at all to do with mine!
You seem to be confusing my comment with your imagination.
If you can not quote me do not expect me to respond to unsourced beliefs.
if I read this right
See word "IF"
Cause your comment has nothing at all to do with mine!
You seem to be confusing my comment with your imagination.
If you can not quote me do not expect me to respond to unsourced beliefs.
@kpr37 I am pretty sure I owe you an apology for sounding off (at the wrong person). Jeez, friends? Sorry! Sorry! Sorry!
by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Kurt, as much as he was revered and tried by others to be forced into the position, actively resented and resisted being thought of as being any kind of philosopher at all. Unfortunately he has not attained his wish on this.
"Basically the chances of me attempting to reproduce with a person who has changed from male to female is ZERO. For anyone else that is their business. It is not for me." - Nowhere Man.
It can't happen (reproduction) for anyone else either:
Plaintiff's surgeon, Dr. Roberto Granato, who performed the sex reassignment operation on plaintiff, asserts that the male genitalia of Dr. Richards were removed and that as the result of the surgery the external genital appearance of Dr. Richards is that of female. Further: "With respect to Dr. Richard's internal sex, due to the operation I performed, one would say that Dr. Richards' internal sexual structure is anatomically similar to a biological woman who underwent a total hysterectomy and ovariectomy."
In addition, Dr. Granato states, that prior to and after the sex reassignment operation, Dr. Richards underwent endocrinological testing and administration of female hormones so as to change Dr. Richards' endocrinological hormonal balance to that of a woman. The removal of the testes, the main source of androgen (male hormones), decreases tremendously the male hormones in the blood and results in a decreased muscular mass; the structure of the muscle/fat ratio of the male is changed to a feminine type, together with the development of the breasts.
Note: A little extra definition thrown in for clarification with the whole "macho-man" protest remarks.
So your like every other liberal out there. Even though getting what you claim to want, you still have to resort to insults.
Macho Man?
I would have thought that was beneath you but I guess not.
You sir are just not worth discussing anything with. Been doing this for a long time Ive seen it here, NV, DU and several other places before that.
People who act like you are a waste of time.
I'm done with the conversation, when all you got left is derogation and insults used to prove your "moral" superiority over everyone else, you just plain aren't worth it....
Have a nice echo chamber.
OH PS: Medical science has advanced quite a bit since Dr Richards day.... You might want to catch up...
I am sorry you are sore. Really. If I have to explain it the whole "macho man remark" goes up the chain to "Fallon" and the MMA fight comment. Someone wrote men should not fight women competitively. Did you see that one? Oh.
Transgender women can birth babies? Who knew? Maybe?
Not sore, just not a fool....
Well if you can't take yes for an answer. . . . It's the best I can do.
"So your like every other liberal out there." Nope. That might be meat as an insult. But, I take in all in stride as sharing on a deeper level. No probs! I'm good.
"JUST STOP FORCING YOUR OPINIONS ON US. and 90% of your issues will go away."
- Nowhere Man
>>>>>>
Read it and. . .whatever.
Just sharing breaking news. Guidance on removing "fakes" (my new word for transgenders) from the military may have been approved.
Try telling me again about how 'pure and clean' the agenda of the conservatives is. If you can, that is!
Also, not to belabor the point, BUT....
Calling someone a bigot is against the CoC. I distinctly remember long drawn out metas on such....
Not to belabor your point of not belaboring the point, but I promise that I didn't call 1 of Many a bigot. I'm aware that it is a violation, which is why I said that his request is a fair one. That's not to say that I didn't think it for a brief moment... Besides, I prefer descriptors like morally bankrupt, jack-ass, dick-head, numb-nuts, and the more sedate knucklehead, blithering baboon, nincompoop, ding-dong, nightmare on NT Street, and the recently popular, 'tiny hands'.
BTW, I'm happy to see that you have returned from your latest sabbatical. I look forward to exchanging mild heated dialogue and comedic innocuous insults with you.
This is ME girl, just because I had to go to the church of the captain and "get my mind right" Besides, I'm still looking for the church of ample bottom, For some reason I would really like to share a cigar with you.... (no, not that cigar) but it would have to be a dominican cause cubans are still illegal.
But alas it is hard to get out of nowhere...
Much love sweetheart, We know you haven't an evil hateful bone in your body.......
"I rather that they stay in the closet."
Too bad, many folks would also like to turn back time to when blacks and women couldn't vote either. Too bad, the world has progressed. Want shit like that ? Move to a communist country, I hear N Korea is accepting anyone.
Move to a communist country, I hear N Korea is accepting anyone.
Since you're the one who opposes free speech, not me, you'd be more comfortable there than me and, as you note, they'll take anyone.
"Since you're the one who opposes free speech"
Once again... Wrong,
I respect your right to say bias stuff.
I've said all I have to say on this article.
Calbab -- thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts and, if I made the discussion too combative, then I apologize. Sometimes, I like to fight.
1ofmany. (-:
"I've said all I have to say on this article. "
LOL !!!
Just sharing breaking news. Guidance on removing "fakes" (my new word for transgenders) from the military may have been approved.
1ofmany, a quote from your article: "Note: This is a breaking news and developing story. Details may change."
>>>
I knew we would hear more from this rather unorthodox President who tweets his impulses, then proceeds to back-fill with policy and congressional actions. Well, if Donald Trump thinks people are going to simply move out the way while he and his 'bag of select generals' trash the careers of good-hard working people, ruin their familial relationships, break up their homes, doing so on a pretext intent on making conservatives and RW evangelicals happy -- President D. Trump truly evidences a grand delusion.
By this activity, I can truly say that RW evangelicals are meddlesome, ridiculous, and caustic people.
This man, Donald Trump, ruins lives. He is an emotion-killer. He molests many. Who/what is next, Mr. President? Recrimination of homosexuality?
Guidance on removing "fakes" (my new word for transgenders). —1ofmany
Your taunts speak volumes about the "many" you represent. That's all.
I just checked on this "controversy" and I can not believe that it has gone to 361 comments without dying. I congratulate the new member that started this article because, until NV decided to close down and many members there started to explore over here, that is an unusually high numbers of comments! Thank you for calling attention and advertising revenue to the founder we all love! She deserves it after so many years of hard work and the support of the original members here!!!
I hope the numbers increases, but that they may be a touch higher in quality. I think that some people, (who will remain nameless) have come over here thinking and acting and posting like they have moved from a large city, to a small village of idiots. Those people will be driven out because of their sad little assumptions. They look at NV as somehow more sophisticated and therefore (as has been seen on many occasions so far) that NT is some sort of walk in the park that you lowered yourself to. Trust me, we are not.
To our new members let me say that if you want to post music or comments on lighter subjects such as movies and things of that sort, then please welcome! You really are welcome and all of us here hope you will either post to your favorite subjects or ideas and/or find a group do also do so in! Honestly! We DO want you here!
Still, if you have left NV thinking that you have just walked into a small town tavern (I personally think of this site as a corner bar) where you are going to look at the longtime members as some sort of rubes who just could not hack it intellectually in NV (LOL!) and came over here, then you will be very, very surprised. There is no mercy here sometimes and you will be just as much intellectually challenged here as in NV and certainly more so, because many of us came to this site controlled by Perrie because we did not suffer fools gladly and NV had much more fools then are here or were there when you made the move.
I hope you stay because many of us are starving for Political, Sociological and Philosophic conversations and we are looking forward to them However, to quote Betty Grable in "Dark Victory"; "Strap yourself in. It's going to be a bumpy night!"
There's a grace period going on right now and a lot of holding back.
"We don't suffer fools well"
I couldn't have said it better myself my friend...
Well my friend (req sent) I know that Perrie put forth a grace period and I suppose it must be allowed. That said there have, undeniably, been some who have come over here from NV acting like we are just a backwater on the Mississippi, like a car that lost control on a curve and crashed into OUR living room. They are welcome and I honestly hope that many, many, many come over from NV! Believe that because Perrie has put many, many years of hard work into what we original members who followed her have built here is an above average site and more and the truth is some do not understand that. We are not a site that started last week or last year. We have been around for very long time in internet terms and it may seem a bit arrogant, but we do not want to be talked to like a "city slicker" come to town to think of us as fools...and some have.
Those aside, welcome to our little pub in the wilderness. We are all quite proud of it and hope that you and others will be proud to be members also.
yep, you will fit right in here, if you can stand the gaff...
10-4.
But never forget it...
OK I don't get this.. One of you or both please explain.
Both sides can smile smugly at one another knowing that he is wise while the other is a fool. So both may be wise or both may be fools but at least they're not angry about the other's stupidity.
Is this article ever going to end? I had to wait more than a minute for this page to fully load, and I do not have a slow connection.
What is this constant fascination with transgenders that we have to have constant discussions about it? I don't get it.
All this is highly repetitive.
Lots of comments seem like a good thing. Lots of interest and varying viewpoints.
However, is there a way to know which are the most recent comments rather than having to scan all comments looking for those that seem new and unread?
Is there a way to quickly go to just the new comments since last time you were here?
Hi Squirrel! I was shown how to use "Private Notes" (once set up) and it helps me "jump" to new messages! When I arrived one of the members had an article on it: Dowser:
Oh look! I am about a week old now! (-:
Lots of comments are good. We members should not quench the spirit, I say! Get it all out there and feel better afterwards! Peace!
Thanks! I copied the link address and will check it out!
I ran across an interesting comment from a former soldier who believes that he is transgender.
I read the former soldier's posted statement and my first reply to it comes from Senator John McCain, R) Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee:
"There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military—regardless of their gender identity."
He/she makes interesting points but they don't change my mind for reasons that I've already stated. I just posted it so people can see that, even some who think they're in the wrong body, see some merit to the opposing view.
By Eugene Kiely
Posted on July 26, 2017
Let’s look at what we know about the number of transgender individuals currently serving in the military and their potential impact on health care costs and military readiness.
In making his announcement that the military would accept transgender service members, Carter said that “there isn’t definitive data on the number of transgender service members.” But he cited RAND’s study of existing estimates “and their best estimate was that about 2,500 people out of approximately 1.3 million active-duty service members, and about 1,500 out of 825,000 reserve service members are transgender.” Those were mid-range estimates with the upper end of the ranges being 6,630 for active duty and 4,160 for the reserves.
So we are talking about a small subset of active and reserve service members. The number of service members that would seek gender transition–related medical treatment is even smaller.
Private health insurance data show that “0.022 to 0.0396 annual claimants per 1,000 individuals” seek transition-related health care each year. Based on that, RAND estimated that anywhere from 29 to 129 active-duty service members would seek such medical treatment each year among the force of 1.3 million members.
Although Trump described the cost as “tremendous,” RAND estimated that providing transition-related health care would increase the military’s health care costs for active-duty members “by between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually.” That represents an increase of no more than 0.13 percent of the $6.27 billion spent on the health of active-duty members in fiscal 2014.
As for military readiness, the RAND report said: “Similarly, when assessing the readiness impact of a policy change, we found that less than 0.0015 percent of the total available labor-years would be affected, based on estimated gender transition–related health care utilization rates. This is because even at upper-bound estimates, less than 0.1 percent of the total force would seek transition-related care that could disrupt their ability to deploy.”
The report was less definitive regarding the impact of transgender individuals on “unit cohesion.” RAND said its review of data from the civilian population, foreign militaries, and previous integration experiences of gays, lesbians and women “suggest a minimal impact on unit cohesion.” But it acknowledged that its conclusion “may not hold for transgender service members.”
The military spends more on giving retirees erections than on transgender troops
By: Jeff Schogol July 26
Military Times first reported in 2015 that the Defense Health Agency the year before spent $84.2 million on erectile dysfunction medications for active-duty troops, eligible family members and retirees.
Moreover, the military health system had filled nearly 1.18 million prescriptions for erectile dysfunction medications since 2014 and spent a total of $294 million on those drugs since 2011.
Juxtaposing the costs of ED drugs with medical costs for transgender service members may not be an apples-to-apples comparison, but the numbers, at least, are hard.
I am wondering: Can a transgender firefighter save your cat from dying due to smoke inhalation in a burning house? Would you accept CPR from a transgender lifeguard to save your life? How would you feel if a transgender security guard protected you from someone trying to rob a bank at gunpoint while you were there? Are you prepared for a relative to share with you that they have known for years they are not the gender they were raised as.
I usually ask questions like these inserting the word 'Gay' where I have placed 'transgender.'
I will not even pretend that I understand the struggles of someone who is transgender. But, I have decided that I will be someone who will listen to anyone who needs to talk without being judged.
Good questions!
"I will not even pretend that I understand the struggles of someone who is transgender. But, I have decided that I will be someone who will listen to anyone who needs to talk without being judged." — LMC-D
Amazing video. Thank you for sharing. L
My pleasure! Share the link. Enlighten the world!
Here is the same soldier as he is today!
AIR FORCE TIMES:
Transgender airman: ‘I would like to see them try to kick me out of my military’ By: Stephen Losey
“We have pilots, we have doctors, we have combat medics, we have security forces members like myself,” Ireland said. “We are everywhere in the military, and for our president to not have a military member’s back that is willing to die for him, blows my mind. And it just makes me very motivated today to continue my training.”
FabulousFabulousFabulous video.
Am I the only one who was completely surprised that the young lady was also transgender? I almost didn't believe it at first.
I was totally surprised too. That dynamic. . . speaks! Emphasizes Sargent Ireland's point about being "many." Somehow it made me sad to see the despair. I have been at that place for a different reason.
Our world as we know it is changing. If we do not let it continue to change, we will once again be guilty of stopping our Constitution from living out its creed.
So it is clear these young sisters (Kirsten and Bethany) can tell their church congregation and social friends what they believe about gender and what they can do with their gender based upon Biblical guidelines. Indeed, I can applaud them being true to themselves. But, as we see from this article PRACTICALLY-SPEAKING not everyone is EMPOWERED to live a set of religious rigors, attitudes, and traditions. Our constitution gives the people of this nation the room to be expressive in their sphere of existence. Our citizens are sometimes, actually for most of our history, have been oppressive and disruptive of the choices of their fellows. Thus, not allowing their fellow citizens to find joy, peace, and prosperity all at the same time—as themselves.
We can fix this. We, all the citizens of the United States just have to be bigger people in mind, body, and spirit. Peace!
8 Transgender Military Members Share How Trump's Proposed Ban Will Change Their Lives
Navy SEAL Kristen Beck
Kristin Beck felt like the rug has been pulled from under the military trans community a little more than a year after the Pentagon lifted a ban on their service. "Transgender people are some of the most patriotic people in the county," Beck tells PEOPLE. "We value our liberties because we know what it means not to have it."
Beck, a member of SEAL Team 6, retired from the Navy SEALS in 2011 with a Purple Heart. But despite no longer being an active service member, the 51-year-old isn't keeping quiet about the plight of those still serving.
The issue was addressed last year," she says. "People were told, 'Here's what we can do, you're protected. We value you as a soldier, sailor, airman, Marine. Okay, you're transgender. We don't care.' Now all that is taken away? No matter what you were told before, it's changed now? What's going to happen to all those people?"
Reference:
________________________________________________________________________________________________
What's happening? President Donald Trump sees transgender people the way most UNEDUCATED and MISINFORMED people—certainly in his age group—do. Like other strongmen (see: Putin), Trump is making it clear that he does not understand men who want to be women, or women who want to be men. So what he can not process-- he wants it eradicated in his name.