Transgender

14041424345

Comments

  • I'm not sure about the correspondence of trans and some gender variants. Wiki says that 'kathoey' in Thailand does not refer to trans women, for which 'phuying' is used. However, elsewhere kathoey seems to be used. It also says that ladyboy is pejorative.

    I really wonder about Wiki here as I found it quite confusing and unclear on the *current* usages of phuying and kathoey ... in fact I found it rather contradicted by another site run by a person living in Bangkok for 20 years -

    "The word katoey is of Khmer origin; when dealing with potential customers they normally introduce themself – normally only if they are asked – as ladyboys. Speaking with other transgender women they prefer to name themselves as phuying (women) or phet thi sam "third sex".

    Ladyboys are biological men with the strong feeling that they were born in the wrong body – but with female hearts and minds. Many undergo feminising medical procedures such as continuous hormone therapy, breast implants, silicone injections, chin augmentation, Adam's apple reduction, voice altering lessons and finally the cut – removal of male genitalia and vaginoplasty."

    I can't say, I just wanted to add this as I am struggle in practical terms to differentiate between katoey and trans women unless "katoey" identify as male which seems a bit strange (imo)
  • To put it another way, the driving force behind that whole series of essays seems to be external--sort of "I find myself more comfortable with stereotypical feminine norms, and therefore I must be a woman." The writer doesn't seem to express a sense of self that is at odds with the body so much as one that is at odds with the cultural norms. And that's why, though I've read the essays, I feel I still don't comprehend. Essentially, I'm looking for an abiding sense of "this is the wrong body" that is NOT simply the result of social conditioning, and that a strong course of "Fuck off!s" would not have helped. These essays, though interesting, are not that.

    Even as trans and empathizing, I found that essay/author a complete mess of an "atypical gender experience" - dense and hard to get to grips with. Worst of all I didn't get the feeling of real self-awareness improving or kind of crystallisation why he (or I guess she) identified as female.

    However Lamb Chopped, not looking for an argument but I found the body/image issues coming through? Agree too many works and little attempt to clarify an emotional bog (imo) of an essay but it's there.

    "Puberty destroyed my fantasy that I would just 'become' a girl. It was so horrible. My face starting growing the itchy hair and nobody accidentally called me "miss" anymore. For awhile I just denied the facial hair was growing until some kids made fun of me for long sideburns. Even then I was too embarrassed to ask my dad for help shaving." and

    "For years I was 60 pounds and suddenly I was gaining weight so fast .... 65, 70, 80 ... It terrified me! I was becoming more and more of a man and I couldn't stop it! Some of my girl friends had once joked about putting their fingers down their throats to throw up as a way to not gain weight. Maybe I could do that? Maybe it would stop me from growing and stop me from becoming a man?"

    If I have the time to find something better in a similar vein I will.
  • Can I be brave and put a kind of framework out, to be SHOT DOWN in flames?? Probably all covered I know.
    For most people and even some trans, gender identity is intuitive/a no-brainer.
    But if not, for trans people, gender identity formation ideally needs to happen within the adolescent stage - would we agree?

    To help me, I reread Erikson (well, he works for me ...) on general identity formation
    https://www.verywellmind.com/identity-versus-confusion-2795735

    "Those who receive proper encouragement and reinforcement through personal exploration will emerge from this stage with a strong sense of self and a feeling of independence and control. Those who remain unsure of their beliefs and desires will remain insecure and confused about themselves and the future"
    >> Trans historically have NOT received this, we agree?
    >> I totally agree it's changing now

    "Resolving the crisis at this stage of development involves committing to a particular identity"
    >> Yes - a choice has to be made, as a trans person (let's come on to this)

    "So, what happens to those who do not end up successfully forming an identity at this point in development? Kids who are not allowed to explore and test out different identities might be left with what Erikson referred to as role confusion. These individuals are not sure who they are or what they like."
    >> Seems hard to dispute?? - gender confusion OR very commonly assuming a default gender position facade which may work, or equally may crumble downstream

    I think the key thing I want to say at this point is please (please) don't assume trans people all choose i.e. "commit to a gender identity" in exactly the same way at all.

    I THINK we all agree there can be lots of factors?

    Mind (mental and emotional processes), body (relationship with our body image), soul (?? intuition ?? hidden inner self ??) and internalized positions on masculinity and femininity can all come into play, likely more e.g. sexuality can be an "influencing" factor too imo
    Some can be societal e.g. various 'third-gender' concepts in some societies?

    Probably all factors I've mentioned and more have already come up on the forum.

    Like in any ultra-complex decision as individuals humans we (normally quite unconsciously) assign some kind of internal weighting factors. The weighting factors can and will vary significantly from person to person.

    For some trans it MAY be heavily or 100% body-weighted.
    For others it maybe heavily based on emotional processes PLUS say internalized positions on masculinity/femininity plus "some" body.
    You can imagine a few combinations ... there's no "Trans decision flowchart" (much though I'd love one tbh!!)
    Each trans person will weight their own way - it's pretty personal right?

    Imposing MY own personal views on weightings on another trans, or simplifying down to "female mind in a male body", or dismissing "emotions as subjective" or trying to get to a "Grand Unified Model of Gender Identity" all miss that it's an individual choice.

    That's how individual identity works - right?

    I doubt this will stop discussion here, quite the opposite.

    But it's kind of a summary of where I am right now.

    Nat
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    At the recent Synod of the Sydney Diocese, a Doctrinal Statement was adopted, including the following:

    Biological sex is a fundamental aspect of embodiment in God’s ordering of human life. Blurring the distinctions between male and female, or seeking to present one’s sex as contrary to one’s biology, is an attempt at self-creation that involves a denial of the biologically-sexed body that God has given to us.

    There is also comment decrying what was termed the choice made by some people to deny their birth gender and choose to become the other. The Abp's statements on blessing of same-sex marriages gained the newspaper headlines, but this Statement seems to me to be much more harmful. There are ways that the position on blessings but how on earth is a transgender person to respond? They are told that they have chosen to go against their birth condition*, limiting that to their physical condition. But AIUI, it is not a matter of choice. Rather it is an aligning, as much as is possible with today's abilities, of physical and psychological states. A woman born with a male body aligns her body to be female, and vice versa.

    Alas, we're stuck with it here, although attitudes in other dioceses are fully accepting of the position.

    *There was an aside dealing with those born intersex, and permitting surgical tratment.
  • To put it another way, the driving force behind that whole series of essays seems to be external--sort of "I find myself more comfortable with stereotypical feminine norms, and therefore I must be a woman." The writer doesn't seem to express a sense of self that is at odds with the body so much as one that is at odds with the cultural norms. And that's why, though I've read the essays, I feel I still don't comprehend. Essentially, I'm looking for an abiding sense of "this is the wrong body" that is NOT simply the result of social conditioning, and that a strong course of "Fuck off!s" would not have helped. These essays, though interesting, are not that.

    Even as trans and empathizing, I found that essay/author a complete mess of an "atypical gender experience" - dense and hard to get to grips with. Worst of all I didn't get the feeling of real self-awareness improving or kind of crystallisation why he (or I guess she) identified as female.

    However Lamb Chopped, not looking for an argument but I found the body/image issues coming through? Agree too many works and little attempt to clarify an emotional bog (imo) of an essay but it's there.

    "Puberty destroyed my fantasy that I would just 'become' a girl. It was so horrible. My face starting growing the itchy hair and nobody accidentally called me "miss" anymore. For awhile I just denied the facial hair was growing until some kids made fun of me for long sideburns. Even then I was too embarrassed to ask my dad for help shaving." and

    "For years I was 60 pounds and suddenly I was gaining weight so fast .... 65, 70, 80 ... It terrified me! I was becoming more and more of a man and I couldn't stop it! Some of my girl friends had once joked about putting their fingers down their throats to throw up as a way to not gain weight. Maybe I could do that? Maybe it would stop me from growing and stop me from becoming a man?"

    If I have the time to find something better in a similar vein I will.

    Thanks for this. I can see a bit of gender dysphoria in a few places, notably "Puberty destroyed my fantasy that I would just 'become' a girl." Most of the rest, I'm afraid, mirror my own shock and horror at the changes of puberty--which is to say I suspect they are common to a great many sensitive children, regardless of gender. The size increase! The weird hair changes! The need to ask parents for embarrassing guidance! The sense of being on a runaway train, with no way to stop it! bleurrghhh, who'd willingly go through puberty again?

    But my main point in reading and responding to it was simply the same point I made before, which is that I don't feel like I've got a handle on what it means to be male or female without dragging in either a) the body or b) social expectations. After reading that essay, I'm no forwarder. I'm sorry.

    I was discussing this very issue with my son over dinner, and came to a way of expressing it that might be clearer (and forgive the rudeness, which is not intentional!): I would like to know if the problem is with "you," that is, the individual who wants to transition, or with society-in-general, which is imposing improper and oppressive expectations on people. If the problem is with individual people (as it's usually stated, a mismatch between a mind of one gender and a body of another), well, then, hormones, surgery, and etc. are apparently the way to go. But if the problem is with society, and the children would be fine as they are if we could only fix the general fucked-up-ness of society in terms of gender expectations--well, then, it's quite shocking to expect the children to do the changing. And first priority should be to get society straightened out, so no one has to pay such a high price simply to survive and do okay.

    That's the reason behind my question. It's a matter of figuring out where the real difficulty lies, and fixing it there. Not limping along as we presently do, with relatively unexamined theories all over the place and the individual bearing the brunt of it regardless.
  • AuspiciusofTrierAuspiciusofTrier Shipmate Posts: 13
    edited November 2019
    .
  • Gee D wrote: »
    At the recent Synod of the Sydney Diocese ...

    Biological sex is a fundamental aspect of embodiment in God’s ordering of human life. Blurring the distinctions between male and female, or seeking to present one’s sex as contrary to one’s biology, is an attempt at self-creation that involves a denial of the biologically-sexed body that God has given to us.

    There is also comment decrying what was termed the choice made by some people to deny their birth gender and choose to become the other.

    I will quote a lovely Trans woman I know verbatim - an academic with a PhD. Excuse anything you find offensive but I like her bluntness and agree 100%

    "What transphobes don't get is I didn't want to be a woman WAY more than they've ever wanted trans women not to exist.
    They should stop wasting time and energy on something that *just is*.
    I'm a woman."


    I don't really have anything else to add other than I thought that key Christian virtues included compassion, and not judging others?
  • Hi Lamb Chopped -

    No rudeness at all in what you asked!! Only I'm not sure how I can answer the questions in a way that could ever convince you 100% ...

    1) As I said that essay is a terribly poor case imho and wouldn't convince me of anything solid either, even as trans.

    2) I'm not a trans activist so I don't, can't and won't see it as a problem of a binary "us" versus "society".

    I take a view that we are in a process of developing shared understanding at this stage, and we need to head towards:

    - Societal acceptance that being trans is real, and that trans experience gender differently, and it's not a "choice" for us
    - Allowing kids to develop a gender identity as they do a sexual identity, but with education and guidance
    - Agreeing that many teenagers can be pretty confused, so there is a need for a framework and controls on treatments for different types of gender experience in an attempt to balance things out: individual trans needs vs. severity of gender experience vs. societal needs

    "Trans" is very broad, US teenagers today seem to understand trans gender classes and vocab better than I do. Many simply don't want or need surgery. They seem to be amazingly gender aware/literate and my impression is that the US seems to be 5-10 years ahead of us in terms of a joined-up dialogue based upon that.

    In conclusion: I just can't even start to give a binary "either/or" answer you seek. I see the issue as multi-faceted. Trans activists are far more strident and you'll get a different answer.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Natasha aka Nat - I did not find that offensive. As for the Synod resolution though, that really is offensive and shows no understanding at all.
  • For anyone interested in trying to understand trans gender identities, a lovely person sent me this summary today ... I couldn't see a way to upload (??) so I hosted it externally
    https://i.postimg.cc/3J60ZTWn/TSf-Lak-Wf-jpg-medium.jpg

    If you are interested, non-binary details
    https://nonbinary.wiki/wiki/Nonbinary

    I had long-chats today with a couple of gender-fluid trans ... we are all learning
  • And I've just noticed I made a seemingly HUGE self-contradiction in my views on choice vs non-choice so I need to reflect on that.

    As I say posting here is useful. Being challenged and challenging myself helps me understand gender better too ...
  • Gee D wrote: »
    At the recent Synod of the Sydney Diocese, a Doctrinal Statement was adopted, including the following:

    Biological sex is a fundamental aspect of embodiment in God’s ordering of human life. Blurring the distinctions between male and female, or seeking to present one’s sex as contrary to one’s biology, is an attempt at self-creation that involves a denial of the biologically-sexed body that God has given to us.

    There is also comment decrying what was termed the choice made by some people to deny their birth gender and choose to become the other. The Abp's statements on blessing of same-sex marriages gained the newspaper headlines, but this Statement seems to me to be much more harmful. There are ways that the position on blessings but how on earth is a transgender person to respond? They are told that they have chosen to go against their birth condition*, limiting that to their physical condition. But AIUI, it is not a matter of choice. Rather it is an aligning, as much as is possible with today's abilities, of physical and psychological states. A woman born with a male body aligns her body to be female, and vice versa.

    Alas, we're stuck with it here, although attitudes in other dioceses are fully accepting of the position.

    *There was an aside dealing with those born intersex, and permitting surgical tratment.

    I find this mind-boggling, like an exercise in not understanding other people. I suppose the assertions are par for the course, "biological sex is a fundamental aspect ... ", and so on. The rest of it builds on that premise, since sex is fixed, any variation is bad, because we say so. It doesn't seem to mention gender identity.

    I don't know how I would respond if I was a trans Christian, go to a different church?
  • Nat, you are right that trans is a broad category, hence the use of non-conforming in some UK clinics. And some kids seem very aware of gender variations. One should also not forget the right-wing anti-trans propaganda, which is fairly hectic. It's a weird mixture of moralizing, pseudo-biological and pseudo-medical hysteria. Are your children having their minds poisoned by gender activist teachers? Press 1 for yes, 2 to donate cash to our transphobic website, and 3 to vote a right-wing Christian proposal in your area to make life uncomfortable for any gender variance!
  • Gee D wrote: »
    ....
    Biological sex is a fundamental aspect of embodiment in God’s ordering of human life. Blurring the distinctions between male and female, or seeking to present one’s sex as contrary to one’s biology, is an attempt at self-creation that involves a denial of the biologically-sexed body that God has given to us.
    ......
    *There was an aside dealing with those born intersex, and permitting surgical tratment.

    I call bullshit (on them, obvs, not Gee D). Being intersex is just as "God-given" as being typically male or female. And there's no "treatment" for genetic intersex conditions, just the "attempt at self-creation" of choosing what gender to present as.
  • And there is a scandal here, I think. I mean that intersex kids were operated on, of course, without their permission, and this led to painful, if not tragic, conflicts. Thus a "boy", might feel female and so on. And by "boy" I mean a surgically created one. One of the commonest techniques was the amputation of the clitoris, as surgeons decided it wasn't needed.

    However, things have of course changed, with the rise of patient advocacy groups, a new focus on human rights, and a new emphasis on non-binary variations. Thus, the radical idea arose that surgery is not inevitable, and can be delayed, and left to the individual. But I think the emphasis on early surgery persists, maybe because people find intersex difficult to accept, (of course, there are times when surgery is desirable).
  • Natasha aka Nat, you need not try to convince me of anything, I wasn't argiung. I was just trying to figure stuff out. I'll give my questions a rest for now. Maybe I'll grasp it at some future time.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited November 2019
    @Natasha aka Nat
    Regarding the shared understanding. Whilst I agree that every sort of interaction should have a shared quality, I would frame it differently.
    Trans people are. They do not need to explain themselves to me, I need to understand them.
    So whilst trans people willing to engage is something that will obviously help, I don’t think this is an equal exchange, the burden is on the non-trans.
    Not that I am telling you in any way, shape or form how to deal with this. Obviously not my remit. Just stating how I see things.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited November 2019
    Thank you, lilbuddha. How would we go on if we didn't have you to tell us how to interact with one another?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    @Natasha aka Nat
    Regarding the shared understanding. Whilst I agree that every sort of interaction should have a shared quality, I would frame it differently.
    Trans people are. They do not need to explain themselves to me, I need to understand them.
    So whilst trans people willing to engage is something that will obviously help, I don’t think this is an equal exchange, the burden is on the non-trans.
    Not that I am telling you in any way, shape or form how to deal with this. Obviously not my remit. Just stating how I see things.

    I think this is right. Asking trans people to explain themselves is a not very subtle form of disrespect, or worse, invalidation. Why should anyone have to do this? If I don't understand trans, or in fact, any form of sex/gender variation, then it's my job to change that via research, not by bombarding people with questions.
  • If @Natasha aka Nat feels disrespected by my questions, I will apologize most sincerely. But shouldn't you allow people to make their own decisions on that?

    If people never asked questions, nobody would ever learn anything. Have you known me to attack trans people before?
  • If @Natasha aka Nat feels disrespected by my questions, I will apologize most sincerely. But shouldn't you allow people to make their own decisions on that?

    If people never asked questions, nobody would ever learn anything. Have you known me to attack trans people before?

    I'm not sure who this is addressed to, but I haven't thought you were attacking anyone. But I have got familiar with endless questioning being put, not just to trans people, but to different kinds of sex/gender nonconformity, as a form of othering. With trans people, it has sometimes been acute, so non-comprehension is weaponized, again, not referring to you.
  • Assholes can make a weapon out of anything.
  • One of my trans friends recently threw open her FB page for a day to 'ask the trans woman anything'.

    She invited questions, just as @Natasha aka Nat has. It's not disrespectful to learn from people who are willing, for a time, to teach. Quite the opposite, I'd argue.
  • I was specifically addressing Natasha aka Nat and my point was that the burden in this should be on us non-trans people instead of equal or, as is most often the case, reversed. Anything beyond this is inferred, certainly not implied.
    Anyone participating in Epiphanies, and obviously in the FB example, is opening themselves to questions and questions are how we learn. Just talking about how I think the balance should work.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    At the recent Synod of the Sydney Diocese, a Doctrinal Statement was adopted, including the following:

    Biological sex is a fundamental aspect of embodiment in God’s ordering of human life. Blurring the distinctions between male and female, or seeking to present one’s sex as contrary to one’s biology, is an attempt at self-creation that involves a denial of the biologically-sexed body that God has given to us.

    If legislators playing doctor weren't enough, we have theologians playing human sexuality researchers. Ignorant pigs.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    I was specifically addressing Natasha aka Nat and my point was that the burden in this should be on us non-trans people instead of equal or, as is most often the case, reversed. Anything beyond this is inferred, certainly not implied.
    Anyone participating in Epiphanies, and obviously in the FB example, is opening themselves to questions and questions are how we learn. Just talking about how I think the balance should work.

    This literally makes no sense. But whatever.
  • Assholes can make a weapon out of anything.

    Quotes file.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    quetzalcoatl - I don't think mind-boggling is a strong enough description, but it's hard to think of words to describe the attitude. Our rector was horrified and does not mind saying so.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Hosting
    Hi Lamb Chopped, this is out of order. Please take personal conflicts to the Hell board
    Thank you, lilbuddha. How would we go on if we didn't have you to tell us how to interact with one another?

    A general reminder- if you interpret somebody else's posts not addressed to you as somehow getting at you, that does not allow personal attacks in response.

    Thanks
    Louise
    Epiphanies Host

    Hosting off
  • Thank you.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    At the recent Synod of the Sydney Diocese, a Doctrinal Statement was adopted, including the following:

    Biological sex is a fundamental aspect of embodiment in God’s ordering of human life. Blurring the distinctions between male and female, or seeking to present one’s sex as contrary to one’s biology, is an attempt at self-creation that involves a denial of the biologically-sexed body that God has given to us.

    I presume this is on the back of/influenced by the recent Nashville statement. Apart from the obvious objections that many people in this thread and others have raised, they aren't even necessarily consistent against their own standards of thought because they have to assume 21st century like abilities to identity 'biological sex'.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I don't have quick access to the transcript of debate to help you on that reference to the Nashville statement. The general flavour of the motion is from the teachings of the Moore College group. It is just so hurtful to many to put a motion like this forward and get it passed.

  • Gee D wrote: »
    I don't have quick access to the transcript of debate to help you on that reference to the Nashville statement. The general flavour of the motion is from the teachings of the Moore College group. It is just so hurtful to many to put a motion like this forward and get it passed.
    But is is not a surprise, right? Aren't Sydney Anglicans famously conservative in the pejorative sense of the word?

  • I think this is right. Asking trans people to explain themselves is a not very subtle form of disrespect, or worse, invalidation. Why should anyone have to do this? If I don't understand trans, or in fact, any form of sex/gender variation, then it's my job to change that via research, not by bombarding people with questions.

    1. Nobody understands trans. We know trans people exist, and we know what they say. Put together what lots of trans people say, and you have some kind of collective description of what trans looks like. But we don't understand anything - we don't know why some people are trans, and we don't even know if the thing we call gender has an objective existence.

    2. This isn't a surprise. We understand next to nothing about how the brain works.

    3. Asking people questions is research. This is how most people learn. Many more people learn about Hinduism by asking the Hindu kid in their class what they do than by taking a comparative religion class, and it's all the more real because it's just "what Supriti does" rather than some nonsense in a book.

    4. Asking respectful questions to someone who is willing to entertain them is different from "bombarding" or "badgering" people.
  • The fact is, any research that IS research goes right back to that: asking people questions. And I'd prefer to ask questions myself (the questionee being willing) than to rely on a third party I don't know to ask them for me (and possibly get hold of the wrong end of the stick). Plus that third party may simply not be interested in the points I'm most curious about.

    And yes, I hold a research PhD. Anyone surprised? :
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    I don't have quick access to the transcript of debate to help you on that reference to the Nashville statement. The general flavour of the motion is from the teachings of the Moore College group. It is just so hurtful to many to put a motion like this forward and get it passed.
    But is is not a surprise, right? Aren't Sydney Anglicans famously conservative in the pejorative sense of the word?

    I don't think anyone has said that it's a surprise. That does not make it any the less hurtful.
  • The fact is, any research that IS research goes right back to that: asking people questions. And I'd prefer to ask questions myself (the questionee being willing) than to rely on a third party I don't know to ask them for me (and possibly get hold of the wrong end of the stick). Plus that third party may simply not be interested in the points I'm most curious about.

    And yes, I hold a research PhD. Anyone surprised? :

    When I worked as a therapist, I started off asking lots of questions, and also giving interpretations, but I gradually learned to shut up and listen.
  • I think this is right. Asking trans people to explain themselves is a not very subtle form of disrespect, or worse, invalidation. Why should anyone have to do this? If I don't understand trans, or in fact, any form of sex/gender variation, then it's my job to change that via research, not by bombarding people with questions.

    1. Nobody understands trans. We know trans people exist, and we know what they say. Put together what lots of trans people say, and you have some kind of collective description of what trans looks like. But we don't understand anything - we don't know why some people are trans, and we don't even know if the thing we call gender has an objective existence.
    Not completely accurate.
    2. This isn't a surprise. We understand next to nothing about how the brain works.
    From what I've read, a better way to phrase this is that there is a lot we do not know. I think next to nothing over-eggs it.
    3. Asking people questions is research. This is how most people learn. Many more people learn about Hinduism by asking the Hindu kid in their class what they do than by taking a comparative religion class, and it's all the more real because it's just "what Supriti does" rather than some nonsense in a book.

    4. Asking respectful questions to someone who is willing to entertain them is different from "bombarding" or "badgering" people.
    Asking questions of those willing to be asked is not disrespectful in itself. Though I would posit that the questions we ask still have the potential to be.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Yes. Variation is normal, categorisation may often overlook this.

    There is certainly a lot of sexual dimorphism in the animal kingdom which serves as an aid both to selection of suitable reproductive mate and a means of establishing alpha male dominance. And I guess such things have influence on the historical preference for binary classification.

    But the more we discover, the more obvious it becomes that binary classification is an over simplification, regardless of the prevalence of binary distinctives in the majority of populations.

    The most important feature is the impact on social norms. What constitutes decent behaviour towards folks who are different from historically prevalent social norms?

    It seems pretty clear to me that decent behaviour towards other human beings should transcend these norms, be based on an understanding that we share a common humanity.
  • On a tangent, the Alpha male thing arose from a flawed study of wolves. When the researcher who developed it went back for further study, he found the dynamic to be much different. There are dominant wolves, but not always male and the packs tend to be familial. Same with gorillas. Chimps have a dominant male, but the relationship is much less one-sided than often portrayed. The more we study animals, the more complex their relationship are and the more the alpha model is revealed to be projection.
  • Thought this might be an appropriate place to post this good news:

    "Biden picks 1st transgender person for Senate-confirmed post" (AP, via Yahoo).
  • Golden Key, thank you! This news really made my day!
  • RussRuss Ship-mate
    Gee D wrote: »
    At the recent Synod of the Sydney Diocese, a Doctrinal Statement was adopted, including the following:

    Biological sex is a fundamental aspect of embodiment in God’s ordering of human life. Blurring the distinctions between male and female, or seeking to present one’s sex as contrary to one’s biology, is an attempt at self-creation that involves a denial of the biologically-sexed body that God has given to us.

    Not impressed with this statement.

    Biological sex is indeed a fundamental aspect of human life. But not the most fundamental aspect. There are people on these boards whose sex I do not know; that doesn't prevent mutual respect and meaningful exchange of ideas. Common humanity as reasoning beings goes deeper.

    And there's nowt wrong with self-creation. All our creativity is ultimately driven by and inspired by God's creativity; we follow in our small way His lead.

    The church has long respected (possibly over-emphasised) religious celibacy; people who deem their sex unimportant, eschewing the sexual functions of the body in favour of spiritual development. That too is an act of self-creation, seeking to become other than one currently is.

    They've totally missed the point.

    The point is truth and love - respecting the identity as human beings of all persons, while rejecting any lies they may have been fooled into accepting.





  • Russ wrote: »
    The church has long respected (possibly over-emphasised) religious celibacy; people who deem their sex unimportant, eschewing the sexual functions of the body in favour of spiritual development.

    I think you're conflating sex and sexual function here, aren't you?

    The Catholic church requires celibacy of her priests, but it also requires them to be men. It doesn't deem their sex unimportant at all - it thinks it a necessary criterion for priesthood.
  • That Doctrinal Statement seems to leave out gender, and gender identity. Just talking about sex misses the point.
  • That Doctrinal Statement seems to leave out gender, and gender identity. Just talking about sex misses the point.

    I suspect that is on purpose. I suspect that they take as an assumption that gender and sex are the same.
  • That Doctrinal Statement seems to leave out gender, and gender identity. Just talking about sex misses the point.

    I suspect that is on purpose. I suspect that they take as an assumption that gender and sex are the same.

    Like various feminists. I jokingly said to one that it was good to see her upholding Christian values, she was not amused.
  • NicoleMRNicoleMR Shipmate
    Seems like the right place to note that President Biden has reversed Trumps ban on trans people in the military.
Sign In or Register to comment.