Sorry, double post meant to be an edit.

(April 11, 2016 at 4:28 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 3:38 pm)Mathilda Wrote: The only proven effective treatment for transgendered is to let them transition...It is not ideology. It is practice and experience.

Transitioning may remove the feelings of gender-dysphoria. Sex reassignment is still not effective at reducing the suicide rates or other psychological problems, like substance abuse, of trans-gendered people. There are deeper issues at play.

Maybe the unchanging suicide rate has to do with being ostracized by society; with being shamed and ridiculed and made to feel defective and inadequate by binary-minded individuals who refuse to accept that gender identity and sexual preference fall onto a spectrum rather then in one of two immutable columns. But, maybe not.

(April 11, 2016 at 4:20 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And yet you wouldn't kick up this much fuss, nor attempt to prevent, a person from getting plastic surgery. You might not like it, but I doubt you'd make the argument they should be prevented from doing so, yes?

There is a continuum between minor body modifications from tattoos to voluntary amputation. You must be aware of body integrity identity disorder. That is the condition where people self-identify as amputees. What do you suggest for them?

(April 11, 2016 at 4:20 pm)Esquilax Wrote: …How many transgendered sexual predators have actually been arrested for doing illegal things in bathrooms? Zero.

The concern has never been about transgendered sexual predators; but rather sexual predators posing as the transgendered.

(April 11, 2016 at 4:20 pm)Esquilax Wrote: This specter of bathroom rape resulting from equitable transgender laws is constantly brought up, but there's simply no facts to support it.

And I hope there never will be.

(April 11, 2016 at 4:20 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ”Dang, I guess I can't go into this women's bathroom to rape somebody now that the law prevents me from using the restroom other than the one matching my biological sex. I wouldn't want to break the law or anything..." Doesn't that sound ridiculous to you?

It’s more like this:

“I better not alert anyone that a suspicious man is hanging out in the women’s room because I might be called a bigot”

Your attitude creates an incentive for people to not report potentially dangerous situations.

(April 11, 2016 at 4:51 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 4:20 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And yet you wouldn't kick up this much fuss, nor attempt to prevent, a person from getting plastic surgery. You might not like it, but I doubt you'd make the argument they should be prevented from doing so, yes?

There is a continuum between minor body modifications from tattoos and voluntary amputation. You must be aware of body integrity identity disorder. That is the condition where people self-identify as amputees. What do you suggest for them?

(April 11, 2016 at 4:20 pm)Esquilax Wrote: …How many transgendered sexual predators have actually been arrested for doing illegal things in bathrooms? Zero.

The concern has never been about transgendered sexual predators; but rather sexual predators posing as the transgendered.

(April 11, 2016 at 4:20 pm)Esquilax Wrote: This specter of bathroom rape resulting from equitable transgender laws is constantly brought up, but there's simply no facts to support it.

And I hope there never will be.

(April 11, 2016 at 4:20 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ”Dang, I guess I can't go into this women's bathroom to rape somebody now that the law prevents me from using the restroom other than the one matching my biological sex. I wouldn't want to break the law or anything..." Doesn't that sound ridiculous to you?

It’s more like this:

“I better not alert anyone that a suspicious man is hanging out in the women’s room because I might be called a bigot”

Your attitude creates an incentive for people to not report potentially dangerous situations.

People with body integrity identity disorder are having limbs amputated. Or, in one well known case, a woman intentionally blinded herself with some type of chemical cleaner. These poor people are rendering themselves physically disabled. Gender reassigning is not this at ALL. Which is why it is called reassigning, not "genital amputation."

I identify, and have always identified as a heterosexual female. If I woke up tomorrow and saw a penis down there, that thing would be GONE as soon as possible, and if anyone tried suggesting psychiatric medications or psychotherapy as an alternative, I'd tell them to shove it up their asses. Politely. Maybe...

(April 11, 2016 at 4:51 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Your attitude creates an incentive for people to not report potentially dangerous situations.

Only your erroneous way of thinking is dangerous.

(April 11, 2016 at 5:05 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 4:51 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Your attitude creates an incentive for people to not report potentially dangerous situations.

Only your erroneous way of thinking is dangerous.

San Bernardino

Mark 16:18

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.


and note, there are NO requirements listed in regards to the 'sick', other than they be sick.  So, Drich needs but trot out an actual believer (or demonstrate HIS ability) who can INVARIABLY treat any and all 'transexuals', regardless of race, creed or color, of their affliction and Lordy! Lordy! Lordy! Atheist Forums will be no more !!!!

Come on, just one True Christian is all we need here.


Just one !!!!!

(April 11, 2016 at 4:04 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 3:17 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I do agree that it's a mental disorder, but I still think they should be legally allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies. It's not really my business if someone chooses to amputate their penis/boobs, and I'm not going to make a case about it or treat them differently because of it.

That sounds very progressive, except if someone is indeed suffering from a mental disorder it is not noble to allow them to irreversibly harm themselves. For example, it is right and proper to intervene when a severely depressed person tries to commit suicide rather than respect their personal autonomy. Likewise, it is right and proper to treat substance abusers rather than make it easy for them to poison themselves in the name of liberty.Right now, some people feel virtuous because they believe they are opposing bigotry and ignorance. They see themselves as fighting oppression. Their virtue signalling has nothing to do with compassion. Calling Drich a bigot only makes them feel good about themselves.

But Drich did raised the cultural issue in a clumsy fashion. Cultures do not self-segregate the sexes purely out of modesty, moral sentiment, or taboo. Many social practices evolved to protect people in situations where they may be vulnerable, like states of undress. Sexual predators taking advantage of a misguided law to remove sex segregation is a legitimate concern. Also state mandates to alter public and private infrastructure just to sooth the feelings of a tiny minority would divert resources away from more worthwhile pursuits.

I agree that unless you have a penis, you should not go into a woman's bathroom/lockerroom, and vice versa. For one, if we allow anyone to go into any bathroom/lockerromm so long as they say "I identify with this sex", this opens the doors to fakes who are sexual predators. Second, even though bathrooms wouldn't be as big of a deal for me personally, I respect that there are women who understandably are not comfortable with it. As for lockerrooms, I'm sorry but I would not feel comfortable with a man going in there while I'm in there changing/showering/etc... even if he did say he identified as female. I have no problem with a 3rd option of "gender neutral" bathroom/lockerrooms though. 

I do think there is a difference between intervening when someone is upset and trying to hurt themselves, and intervening when someone has gone through therapy and has decided to go under the knife for extensive surgery. At that point I see it as them being under the care of professionals and doctors, and though I may not agree that it's the healthiest course of action, I would not feel like it is in my authority to stop it from happening. 

The point where the lines may get blurred though, is when we are dealing with people who "feel" they should be blind/deaf/legless/armless/etc. There really are people out there who feel they are in the wrong body and that they should be in the body of someone who is blind, or an amputee or something. Should doctors help them out with that by blinding them? Or cutting off their legs? Obviously the answer is no. But then the question is, how is this different then, from a man who feels he should be a woman and wants to get his penis cut off? If we are being completely objective here, how is this different? I think the difference is that a person who undergoes sex change surgery is still able to function completely properly and normally with all their body parts (at least outside of the bedroom, but inside is not our business).... unlike the person who is unable to see because they had their eyes poked out by a doctor or something. Thoughts?

(April 11, 2016 at 5:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 4:04 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: That sounds very progressive, except if someone is indeed suffering from a mental disorder it is not noble to allow them to irreversibly harm themselves. For example, it is right and proper to intervene when a severely depressed person tries to commit suicide rather than respect their personal autonomy. Likewise, it is right and proper to treat substance abusers rather than make it easy for them to poison themselves in the name of liberty.Right now, some people feel virtuous because they believe they are opposing bigotry and ignorance. They see themselves as fighting oppression. Their virtue signalling has nothing to do with compassion. Calling Drich a bigot only makes them feel good about themselves.

But Drich did raised the cultural issue in a clumsy fashion. Cultures do not self-segregate the sexes purely out of modesty, moral sentiment, or taboo. Many social practices evolved to protect people in situations where they may be vulnerable, like states of undress. Sexual predators taking advantage of a misguided law to remove sex segregation is a legitimate concern. Also state mandates to alter public and private infrastructure just to sooth the feelings of a tiny minority would divert resources away from more worthwhile pursuits.

I agree that unless you have a penis, you should not go into a woman's bathroom/lockerroom, and vice versa. If we allow anyone to go into any bathroom/lockerromm so long as they say "I identify with this sex", this opens the doors to fakes who are sexual predators. Bathrooms wouldn't be as big of a deal for me personally, but I respect that there are women who understandably are not comfortable with it. As for lockerrooms, I'm sorry but I would not feel comfortable with a man going in there while I'm in there changing/showering/etc... even if he did say he identified as female. I have no problem with a 3rd option of "gender neutral" bathroom/lockerrooms though. 

I do think there is a difference between intervening when someone is upset and trying to hurt themselves, and intervening when someone has gone through therapy and has decided to go under the knife for extensive surgery. At that point I see it as them being under the care of professionals and doctors, and though I may not agree that it's the healthiest course of action, I would not feel like it is in my authority to stop it from happening. 

The point where the lines may get blurred though, is when we are dealing with people who "feel" they should be blind/deaf/legless/armless/etc. There really are people out there who feel they are in the wrong body and that they should be in the body of someone who is blind, or an amputee or something. Should doctors help them out with that by blinding them? Or cutting off their legs? Obviously the answer is no. But then the question is, how is this different then, from a man who feels he should be a woman and wants to get his penis cut off? If we are being completely objective here, how is this different? I think the difference is that a person who undergoes sex change surgery is still able to function completely properly and normally with all their body parts (at least outside of the bedroom, but inside is not our business).... unlike the person who is unable to see because they had their eyes poked out by a doctor or something. Thoughts?

Well, like I said, I don't think the two are analogous at all, because it's not simply an amputation of the penis (in a male to female case), it's a reassigning; a reconstruction. It's surgical change, not mutilation. Will it be perfect? Not likely. Neither are breast implants, and many times women lose sensation in their nipples as a result. But I haven't heard anyone up in arms over boob jobs lately! [emoji6].