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

[Pat Mustard]

So, let's discuss the Trans Issue. How many genders or sexes are there? Are gender and sex the same? Should child genital mutilation, or so-called sex change surgeries, even for young children, be allowed or promoted as a good thing, when it can be irreparably harmful for life, and regretted later on? Etc. For those who make the decision as 18+ year adults, that's one thing. But children?

Recently, we've had people from all across the Political Spectrum, i.e. People on Both Left and Right, and People from a variety of religious convictions and non-convictions, including Atheists like Dawkins, devout Hindus like British-Indian PM Rishi Sunak, and of course famous Harry Potter Author, J.K. or Joanne Kathleen Rowling, not at all coming to this issue from a Biblical Perspective, acknowledge there are serious challenges/issues that need to be discussed here. And of course, J K Rowling in particular has been the object of almost incredible hate simply for saying, in essence, she believes a man who attempts to change his sex is not completely and fully a Biological Woman. Richard Dawkins, the well known Militant Atheist, has said there are only 2 sexes or genders, and these are identical. Rishi Sunak said Biology is still the best determinant of who is a woman or a man. Many have called this the defining the women's rights issue of our time, whether men, even some who just identify as women without a full-blown surgery, should then be allowed into women's bathrooms/locker rooms, and compete in women's sports, like athletics, swimming etc. 

And of course, Piers Morgan, talk show host, when someone on his show said, "we can identify as whatever we want", so that in this perspective, there could be a 100 Genders, Morgan replied: "Ok, then, I identify as a Black Lesbian". Lol.

From the Christian Perspective, the answer is very obvious: "1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in His own likeness. 2Male and female He created them, and He blessed them." (Gen 5:1-2). This is confirmed by basic biology. 

Thoughts? 
Let's Debate.
God Bless.

The bible is a really shit book to be getting morals from. For example, it demands that you kill the infant children of the lands and peoples you conquer in gruesome and horrifying ways. It also demands that in certain circumstances abortions are not only allowed but mandatory (in circumstances decided upon by men alone).

But hey, if you want to follow the bible, more power to you. Just stay at least a few continents away from anybody moral.

[Angrboda]

The bible is both good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good.

[Silver]

The bible is a really shit book to be getting morals from.

With a magic decoder ring, you too can finally know which scripture to take literally and which is just metaphor. An easy payment of brain cells, you won't be needing them for anything else when you have Jesus in your heart.

[Rev. Rye]

So Dawkins said (1) JK Rowling and others have been bullied, by the Radical Left on this issue;

They have not been bullied they have been called out for being fucking bigots and the "Radical Left" has no meaning anymore as you lunatics think freaking Joe  milk toast Biden is one.

She might have just been someone with seemingly legitimate concerns years ago. These days, there's really no doubt. I can say this without fear of being contradicted because, well, here's someone who she's stuck up for an alarming number of times:





Here's a woman who's long reached the point where she thinks trans folk should be eliminated, and JoJo's offering to pay her legal bills.

[Belacqua]

Just this week Dawkins was on a talk show saying that the recent increase in trans people seeking surgery is a "memetic epidemic," and he compared it to measles.

I suspect he's going to lose a great deal of support over this.

[The Grand Nudger]

He's probably right. All these reich wing lunatics making a big deal about it made their already rebellious kids start to think "hey, I'm trans!"

Fucking groomers.

[Paleophyte]

One has to marvel at the incredible fragility displayed by these bigots that can't even allow the existence of transsexuals.

[Paleophyte]

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.

You might want to take a closer look at the evidence. Aside from the easy measurements like suicide rates, there's some pretty compelling results from neuro-anatomy and hormone levels.

[Belacqua]

You might want to take a closer look at the evidence. Aside from the easy measurements like suicide rates, there's some pretty compelling results from neuro-anatomy and hormone levels.

It will be interesting to see what research tells us in the future. 

The abstract of a 2021 paper in the Journal of Sexual Medicine ends with:

Although research on the underlying neurobiology of transgender persons has been accumulating over the years, neuroimaging studies in this relatively rare population are often based on very small samples resulting in discrepant findings.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...9521004252


So I don't know what we'll see in the future. It takes time for these things to shake out. Like it or not, scientists are also human beings and their motivations tend to color their findings, especially in the fuzzier issues like psychology.

[Deesse23]

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.

People dont just "feel" about their gender. Eergo, the rest of your drivel is just that: drivel.