"rebirth date" and male to female gender change

[Gadianton]

Your original statement:

a father looks at the number of girls who identified as transgender in the 1960s and sees it was 0.2%. When he looks at the number of girls who identify as transgender today and sees that it's one in five

So one is six being LGBT supports your claim that one in five is transgender? lol. The largest category is bi.

I'm curious, what's the solution from the right-wing perspective? Do you think that Donald Trump (please reset the counter to zero; thank you) or Ron DeSantis can sign executive orders telling people to not be gay and the problem will disappear?

[Physics Guy]

My instinct in the face of any controversial issue is to try to start from objective physical facts. Giving birth is biology. That's a fact. What's also a fact, as I see it? That nothing besides giving birth is biology. Everything about gender besides actually giving birth is not biology but social convention.

What kinds of names or pronouns should we use for a person? There is no rule to say that every physical difference between people's bodies has to be recognised with a grammatical distinction. We don't use different pronouns for left-handed and right-handed people, or for tall people and short people. Whether or how differences among people are to be recognised grammatically is not a physical fact but a social convention that is subject to change.

For a long time it has been a social convention that biological sex was recognised with a grammatical distinction, but there have been plenty of changes in conventions like that. When was the last time you grammatically recognised someone's genetics by referring to them as My Lord or Her Grace? Recognising noble birth was hugely important for hundreds of years, but it turned out that we could just stop it, and switch to different conventions for referring to people. There's no reason we can't do that again.

It may take some trouble for me, to remember to use a different name and a different pronoun for someone I've known for years or decades under different names and pronouns. It may take some trouble for me to use a kind of name and a pronoun that doesn't seem to me to fit with how someone looks, or sounds, or acts. It's not all that much trouble, though. If it's really important to someone else, and only a little trouble for me, then it's only decent of me to do my best with the slightly more difficult names and pronouns.

"Why should I give that starving person my extra sandwich? I might get peckish later. It's my right to keep my sandwiches to myself. They shouldn't have gone and been hungry. I don't believe they're really hungry. I'm not hungry so how can they be?"

The same principle that tells me that that attitude would be despicable tells me that I should be trying to use whatever pronouns people want.

[msnobody]

I mean, the Bible is pretty clear not only with regard to the penalties homosexuals should suffer for homosexual acts, but that they should also be removed.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly …

And so on.

I’ve read the pro-LGBT+ Christian arguments that attempt to find a workaround, but it mostly results in an excruciating interpretation of scripture along with a form of People Were Just Different Back Then. It doesn’t really work. It certainly doesn’t work for your regular person, and after talking to or just hearing them talk I think I figured out why, topically speaking, the transgendered thing might be politically tolerated (or politically promoted), but will never really be accepted within the broader Christian community.

* standard disclaimer, I’m an egalitarian, atheist, recognize Kinseyian sexual studies, dna, etc. I’m coming at this from Your Average Joe and Jane’s perspective

So. Lying is an act of aggression when the receiver of the lie is expected to ignore what their own eyes tell them is the truth. The transgender movement is dripping in dishonesty from their POV. When you or, say, a MtF tells Bob to use female pronouns you’re telling him to see a woman when he sees a man. That’s dishonest and it’s aggressive. He sees a receding hairline, broad shoulders, thin hips, stubble, a pot belly, a fashion sense that smacks of male sensibilities, and quite often a male imitation of women’s fashion based on what men find attractive. The aggression is manifested in that you’re telling Bob 2+2=5, and Bob, from his POV clearly sees 2+2=4. The aggression is then further manifested in anger, and these days an attempt to destroy the receiver of the lie.

Here’s where it gets a little nefarious, and I’m kind of on board with this part of my hot take. They, the transgendered in this case, become bullies who want to assert themselves over others (perhaps it’s the male competitor within), but have no field where they’re, generally speaking, able to demonstrate competence or excellence outside of social manipulation. They demand female spaces, they demand female aesthetics, and they demand the female label. This is hostility because the average Joe or Jane simply can’t unsee a man.

And, my hot take armchair psychoanalysis says, they, the MtF take the label of ‘woman’ from the women they wish they could get love and acceptance from. They desire the female, and when it’s apparently they can’t get what they want from the female, they take it. They become the girlfriend, mother, wife, lover they were denied. Whatever. They wish to become the thing they were denied by nature, and attempt to take for themselves the role for which nature didn’t select them, and it’s hubris. “In the last days ... men shall be ... without natural affection ... lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts”. They can never be a woman, and aggressively shaming or attacking people who feel a perfectly natural revulsion of a man displaying abnormal behaviors and appearances is aggression, and will always be received as such, despite what society tries to do otherwise.

So. The Christian is in a bit of a pickle, if they’re the Loving Jesus kind of Christian, and not the Revenge Jesus kind of Christian. They have to live with what scripture says. It’s pretty unambiguous. They also have to live with what their eyes see. It’s also unambiguous. But at the end of the day they can just default to the Modified Golden Rule, as we all should, and treat others like how we’d want others to treat us. I don’t know how that squares with their god, though. He might get pissed. If the Bible is true, it’s most likely their god is going to be pissed. He’s probably pissed. Ok, he’s definitely pissed. So, that’s for Christians to figure out.

- Doc

Interesting theory, doc.

Regarding homosexuality(and other sins), 1Cor. 6:11 says, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” So, we know from Scripture that God changes the hearts of people. Also, that He is patient desiring that none perish. He does however give people over to what they desire.

[doubtingthomas]

What's also a fact, as I see it? That nothing besides giving birth is biology. Everything about gender besides actually giving birth is not biology but social convention.

Is Evolutionary Psychology a social convention? Or is it just pseudoscience?

[Moksha]

I'm curious, what's the solution from the right-wing perspective?

It all comes back to Soylent Green.

[Dr. Shades]

Is Evolutionary Psychology a social convention? Or is it just pseudoscience?

It's a field of study.

[Morley]

Is Evolutionary Psychology a social convention? Or is it just pseudoscience?

It's a field of study.

I think the question was meant to be rhetorical.