Dawkins, Rowling, Sunak et al on Trans Issue and Women's Rights.

[arewethereyet]

I've seen a study that says: "The [2015 US Transgender] survey claims that 11% of female respondents reverted back to their original sex. Transgender men had a reversion rate of 4%."

Arewethereyet, and GN: "Circumcision and clitoral removal are barbaric.  Talk to your fellow abrahamists about it.". Yes, so-called female-circumcision is completely and inherently wrong, and God never asked for such a horrible thing; as for male circumcision, it was always planned as something only temporary, and Jesus Christ has redeemed us Christians from the necessity of it; painful circumcision now being replaced, by the Blood of Christ, by painless Baptism. As St. Thomas observes, by circumcision men (like Abraham etc) of old testified that Christ was yet to come, and painful expiation of sins had yet to be made. But by Holy Baptism, we now testify that Christ has already come, and redeemed us from our sins on the Cross. The Moral Precepts of the Gospel go beyond that of the OT, for e.g. Christ commands to forgive unconditionally and love even our Enemies and not just our Neighbors only, but many of the ceremonial precepts of the OT were nailed to the Cross.

So take it up with the Judaizers, you know, those whose claims the Apostles rejected in the Council of Jerusalem in A.D. 48, in Acts 15, when they unanimously decreed Circumcision was in no way necessary for Christians, but only the Grace of Jesus Christ. Jews of course, still under the law, believe the same error, and our Muslim friends also, misguided into what is basically an Arabian form of Judaism, with some changes, practice circumcision and other errors under the law.

Regards,
Xavier.

Temporary circumcision...the foreskin grows back?  Was that the plan?  Either way, lots of people didn't get that memo.

[Angrboda]

[Angrboda]

[Anomalocaris]

Xavier is wicked and evil

Excuse me,  evil has standards.   We don’t take losers.

[Paleophyte]

This is confirmed by basic biology.

And anybody would think that chromosomes were the sole determinant of identity because...?

Thoughts? 

None from you.

Let's Debate.

OK. I reject theism as having any basis. It isn't coded for by any chromosome and anybody who identifies as such is clearly confused. This is easily demonstrated by the aberrant behaviour of these self-styled theists (delusions, militancy, institutional sexual abuse, "holy" war, genocide) and by their rapid decline in a world with modern psychiatry. Would you like your conversion therapy with a side of electroshock?

[Nay_Sayer]

Xavier is wicked and evil

Excuse me,  evil has standards.   We don’t take losers.

Fair point.

[The Architect Of Fate]

This is confirmed by basic biology.

There is nothing in biology that refutes the existence of transpeople or their identities.

[Deesse23]

1.  I don't give a shit what Dawkins says on many issues.  He doesn't speak for all atheists.

2.  I don't give a shit about what the Brit PM says.  He doesn't speak for all Hindus.

3.  Rowling is a known transphobe, so I don't give a shit about what she has to say.

4.  Quoting a book of fiction from an event that didn't happen is about as realistic as telling me I have an angry aura.

but, but...."you atheists"

We are supposed to (!) be a uniform group, all being evil commie abortionists and child mutilators, the million of times notwithstanding where this troll has been explained why he is wrong. Since the troll must know he is wrong, and he is still spreading falsehoods, he is a liar. Or, of course, he was never really listening in the frst place, like many others.

[no one]

What to Patrick Star, Crissy Snow, and Joey Tribbiani have to say about fucking absolute fucking morons rights?

[Belacqua]

Richard Dawkins, the well known Militant Atheist, has said there are only 2 sexes or genders

Dawkins thinks we should only accept evidence that is empirically demonstrable. So we should demand repeatable, observable, objective evidence for what we think is true. 

If someone says "I feel it is so." Dawkins thinks that is insufficient to persuade us of anything. Even if they feel it really really strongly -- because even strong feelings about what's true may be wrong.

Our current ideology concerning gender disagrees with Dawkins. What a person feels concerning their own gender is what is true, and there is no biological, empirical, repeatable, observable, objective evidence which can contradict this. 

What's interesting to me is the question of when feelings are sufficient to prove something, and when they aren't.