Gender Identification - NO HATE!

[Just_A_Guy]

On 2/21/2017 at 1:27 PM, Vort said:

Don't you think that might have more to do with (1) the societal mores of the time and (2) the specific individuals assigned to that period than with the righteousness and/or parenting techniques of the parents?

I could easily be wrong; but I had also associated the millennium as taking place on a Terrestrialized earth where death is banished, sickness is absent, and (so I've heard) even childbirth would be free from pain.  This being the case, I'm not sure we can say that people's growing up heterosexual in the millennium is entirely a product of nurture rather than nature.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

 Thats like saying we should find empathy for pornography stars.

Interesting you should say that.  I recently represented a client who made a (bad) living doing porn.  She had a severely autistic son; and the porn was the only way she knew how to bring in income and still be home enough to tend for his needs.  I met her after she had attempted suicide, which led to her son going into state custody, during which time an old meth habit she thought she had kicked resurfaced.  She sank into a depression and ultimately her parental rights were terminated.

 

Three weeks ago she made another suicide attempt.  This time, she succeeded.

 

You bet your boots I have empathy for that "porn star".  So does Jesus Christ.

[Just_A_Guy]

7 hours ago, NightSG said:

What about Charles Manson?

Just because several people have the same delusion doesn't make it any less of a delusion.  This is why scientists observe and experiment rather than just voting on what they want to set facts to be.

You may want to read the link.  In fact--read it even if you don't want to.  It talks of physiological and genetic irregularities, not mere psychological "delusions".

Edited February 23, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

14 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The definition and context of the word "empathy" is definable where one places themselves into the others shoes to feel and side with them in their feelings.  There is a context of morality that plays into the semantics of usage of the word. The LGBT want us to have empathy (in a strong moral sense) showing we affirm their plight.

We have to get the semantics correct before we go accusing each other of things because we dont understand words in their proper context and semantics.

You did not answer the question.

[Guest]

Rob, I'm really trying to help you here.  I agree with the fundamental principles you're espousing.  But your application needs some modification.  And when you say some things off the top of your head, you need to speak from a position of knowledge and fact, not emotion and presupposition.  Example:

17 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Ambiguity is rare in the trans community. 

Really?  Do you have any studies or statistics to back it up?

Transgenders in the US are at around 0.3%

Klinefelter's syndrome 0.2% to 0.1%

Hermaphrodites: 0.05%

That is just two causes that could account for over half of the transgenders in America.  Your opinion and personal views do not make up fact.

The vehemence with which you're attacking the topic indicates that you either have a personal experience which really impacted your life negatively, or you yourself have some issues with chastity.  This level of attack and refusal is not in line with the Charity that we're supposed to have for all mankind.

Try to have more empathy.  And, NO, that does not mean that you have to tell them that what they did was ok.  It just means that you understand when you feel weak and confused that you have also made some bad decisions in your life.

[anatess2]

13 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks for the feedback.

Sorry - but i guess i'm struggling to see the Charles Manson connection.  Can you clarify?

So to confirm, you believe the people in the study noted above are also delusional?  that study is referring to people whose bodies exhibit physically apparent conflicts between male/female parts.  i understand you think people like my friend are mentally ill (and i respect that, though i disagree), but to associate people with physically deformed bodies with mental delusion merely by nature of their bodies?

i guess i'm just not following.  No offense meant - just hoping to get some context.

 

Okay, I'm going to try to bridge this for you and @NightSG.

Dr. Ben Carson had an interview where he was asked about transgenders.  His response, I think, is helpful to your discussion.  I'm too lazy to find the video so I'm just going to paraphrase it.  And then I'm going to combine it with Blaire White's (a transgender) statements to expand it:

The problem with today's treatment of transgenderism is the politicization of it that misrepresents transgenders.  It is silly to now be confused about something that we have known for thousands of years - that there are biological markers that defines a man and a woman.  Thinking you're a different gender and even doing surgical operations to make you the opposite gender doesn't make you the opposite gender in the same manner that a Swede doesn't become an Afghan by moving to Afghanistan and living like an Afghan.  Therefore, when the biological marker is clear about one's gender yet one believes he is a she, then there is some conflict with one's mental state.  People who are thin, looks in the mirror and thinks they're fat have a mental conflict and the standard approach to relieve the conflict is to treat it as a mental health medical issue.  The conflict might be so great such that the best way to cope with it is to assimilate with the opposite gender.  In that case, the gender remains the same gender as the biological marker but the person tries to conform to the opposite gender as much as possible to relieve the conflict.  The politicization of this issue - making Public Schools provide transgender bathrooms, for example - is actually doing them more harm than good because it puts a spotlight on transgenders that make them stand out instead of assimilate.  Blaire White, for example, has been using the women's restroom for years without a problem because she has successfully assimilated into the women population.   She even changed her gender on her birth certificate to conform with legal requirements.  She wouldn't normally broadcast that she is transgender so she doesn't want any special rights afforded to her because of it.  But she is under no illusion that she is a biological woman - she knows she is a biological man with a mental conflict.  So when she hears of 8 year old girls wanting to be a boy or vice versa, she tells them, go see a mental health doctor.

Dr. Carson was asked - what about tolerance - and he answered - tolerance means we have equal rights, not a small segment of population gets extra rights that the majority has to give up their rights to tolerate.  Tolerance goes both ways.

Edited February 23, 2017 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Rob, I'm really trying to help you here.  I agree with the fundamental principles you're espousing.  But your application needs some modification.  And when you say some things off the top of your head, you need to speak from a position of knowledge and fact, not emotion and presupposition.  Example:

Really?  Do you have any studies or statistics to back it up?

Transgenders in the US are at around 0.3%

Klinefelter's syndrome 0.2% to 0.1%

Hermaphrodites: 0.05%

That is just two causes that could account for over half of the transgenders in America.  Your opinion and personal views do not make up fact.

The vehemence with which you're attacking the topic indicates that you either have a personal experience which really impacted your life negatively, or you yourself have some issues with chastity.  This level of attack and refusal is not in line with the Charity that we're supposed to have for all mankind.

Try to have more empathy.  And, NO, that does not mean that you have to tell them that what they did was ok.  It just means that you understand when you feel weak and confused that you have also made some bad decisions in your life.

I dont think you know what empathy really means. For example, I can have empathy for the guy shoveling snow in the bitter cold because I too have shoveled snow in the bitter cold. I can have empathy for a person suffering from the flu because I too have suffered from having the flu. What I cant do is have empathy for a transgender because I have never been there, do not know what their feelings are. In context here, having empathy for a trans means one sides with their feelings and affirms their position. I cannot do that. The whole goal of the LGBT is to create an attitude if empathy so that their cause is justified. It all boils down to having empathy for sin.

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I dont think you know what empathy really means. For example, I can have empathy for the guy shoveling snow in the bitter cold because I too have shoveled snow in the bitter cold. I can have empathy for a person suffering from the flu because I too have suffered from having the flu. What I cant do is have empathy for a transgender because I have never been there, do not know what their feelings are. In context here, having empathy for a trans means one sides with their feelings and affirms their position. I cannot do that. The whole goal of the LGBT is to create an attitude if empathy so that their cause is justified. It all boils down to having empathy for sin.

You have a funny definition of empathy.  Empathy is being able to understand and share one's emotions or situations.  That means you are able to put yourself in someone else's shoes.  Basically, understand how it is to be transgender.  It doesn't mean you will solve the issue of transgenderism in the same manner that the person having that conflict chooses to.  It means, you can understand their situation so you can then provide your OWN solution to the problem.  You can't solve a problem you refuse to understand.

The problem I see with your empathy is you refuse to understand what it is to be trangender or even gay because you think if you would accept certain emperical evidences that conflict with your position it would all of a sudden mean you are okay with men to have sex with men.  That leap right there in conlusions is where your empathy fails.  You can accept irrefutable emperical evidences that Catholic Schools don't condition men to be gay without accepting that it is OK for men to have sex with men.  Do you understand?

Edited February 23, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

It all boils down to having empathy for sin.

Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone.

[Vort]

45 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I dont think you know what empathy really means.

There is a mistaken pronoun here.

[Rob Osborn]

A primer on empathy ans sympathy-

http://www.k12reader.com/term/sympathy-vs-empathy/

[lostinwater]

49 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, I'm going to try to bridge this for you and @NightSG.

Dr. Ben Carson had an interview where he was asked about transgenders.  His response, I think, is helpful to your discussion.  I'm too lazy to find the video so I'm just going to paraphrase it.  And then I'm going to combine it with Blaire White's (a transgender) statements to expand it:

The problem with today's treatment of transgenderism is the politicization of it that misrepresents transgenders.  It is silly to now be confused about something that we have known for thousands of years - that there are biological markers that defines a man and a woman.  Thinking you're a different gender and even doing surgical operations to make you the opposite gender doesn't make you the opposite gender in the same manner that a Swede doesn't become an Afghan by moving to Afghanistan and living like an Afghan.  Therefore, when the biological marker is clear about one's gender yet one believes he is a she, then there is some conflict with one's mental state.  People who are thin, looks in the mirror and thinks they're fat have a mental conflict and the standard approach to relieve the conflict is to treat it as a mental health medical issue.  The conflict might be so great such that the best way to cope with it is to assimilate with the opposite gender.  In that case, the gender remains the same gender as the biological marker but the person tries to conform to the opposite gender as much as possible to relieve the conflict.  The politicization of this issue - making Public Schools provide transgender bathrooms, for example - is actually doing them more harm than good because it puts a spotlight on transgenders that make them stand out instead of assimilate.  Blaire White, for example, has been using the women's restroom for years without a problem because she has successfully assimilated into the women population.   She even changed her gender on her birth certificate to conform with legal requirements.  She wouldn't normally broadcast that she is transgender so she doesn't want any special rights afforded to her because of it.  But she is under no illusion that she is a biological woman - she knows she is a biological man with a mental conflict.  So when she hears of 8 year old girls wanting to be a boy or vice versa, she tells them, go see a mental health doctor.

Dr. Carson was asked - what about tolerance - and he answered - tolerance means we have equal rights, not a small segment of population gets extra rights that the majority has to give up their rights to tolerate.

Thank-you @anatess2

And to clarify - this is talking about earthly bodies.  i'll certainly grant - if you have a non-intersex male body that believes itself to be a non-intersex female capable of having children - there is a problem in your thought pattern.  i've never personally known a transgender person who has undergone the reassignment surgeries - but i don't think any of them are under this delusion - even after the surgery.

And for the record, i generally agree with Doctor Carson on the rights issue.  If it helped society - or even just the people with conflicted feelings -i'd be all for it.  But i don't believe it does help.  What would help is if people would evaluate people who have these feelings on a per-person basis - rather than absolute statements of condemnation based on limited information.  My guess is there would be a much smaller push for the rights if they felt they had a middle ground between assignment to hell or a psychologist. 

 

[anatess2]

15 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

A primer on empathy ans sympathy-

http://www.k12reader.com/term/sympathy-vs-empathy/

Okay, here it is:

Empathy means “understanding or experiencing someone else’s emotions or experiences as if they were your own, or as a shared experience”:

That's the definition on your link.

Now, where in that definition does it say that after understanding or experiencing someone else's emotions that you then HAVE TO CHOOSE THE SAME ACTIONS if you were in those shoes or even be okay with their actions?

Here, let me give you a clear example.  A guy felt desire for another guy.  That's an emotion.  Empathizing with the guy means you understand exactly what the guy feels - the way you can do that as a straight guy is to associate your desire for a girl to that same feeling the guy is feeling.  Now, the guy decides to go have sex with the guy he desired - Empathy doesn't mean that you should now be okay with his actions just because you understand how he feels - the way you can do this as a straight guy is to associate your desire for a girl you are not married to and how you are able to stop yourself from having sex with that girl or even overcome your desire so that you don't feel it anymore.  When you can do that, then you can HELP THAT GUY to stop having sex with the other guy because YOU HAVE DONE IT YOURSELF.

What you are doing, though, is telling the gay guy - no, you are wrong... you really don't desire that guy.  You're just being told by the Catholic School that you do.  That is not empathy.  That is being a brick-headed guy who refuses to understand.  That is more hurtful to your fellowman and would bring him farther from Christ than having empathy would.

Edited February 23, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thank-you @anatess2

And to clarify - this is talking about earthly bodies.  i'll certainly grant - if you have a non-intersex male body that believes itself to be a non-intersex female capable of having children - there is a problem in your thought pattern.  i've never personally known a transgender person who has undergone the reassignment surgeries - but i don't think any of them are under this delusion - even after the surgery.

And for the record, i generally agree with Doctor Carson on the rights issue.  If it helped society - or even just the people with conflicted feelings -i'd be all for it.  But i don't believe it does help.  What would help is if people would evaluate people who have these feelings on a per-person basis - rather than absolute statements of condemnation based on limited information.  My guess is there would be a much smaller push for the rights if they felt they had a middle ground between assignment to hell or a psychologist. 

 

But that's what the "push for rights" is doing - lumping all transgenders into a caricature of themselves - either for or against - instead of taking them into a per-person basis.  There are no rights that a transgender doesn't have that everybody else has under the Constitution.

Edited February 23, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

A primer on empathy ans sympathy-

http://www.k12reader.com/term/sympathy-vs-empathy/

Gee, you're giving English lessons while making a spelling mistake.

From the YOUR article.

Quote

Empathy means “understanding or experiencing someone else’s emotions or experiences as if they were your own, or as a shared experience”

From your post:

17 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

In the LGBT community, having empathy means siding with their cause because you can feel what they desire and want it for them too

Do you not see a disconnect here?

19 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Compassion towards a sinner is what Christ taught us. He didnt tell us to have empathy with sin.

18 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Like I said, I do not have empathy for sin.  

So, you are without sin?  You see, you didn't say homosexuality or transgender in these last couple of posts.  You said sin.  You don't have empathy for others who have sinned?

20 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Thats like saying we should find empathy for pornography stars.

So, you've never had any sexual desires in your life. You've never felt the temptation to break the law of chastity?

You can try to hide behind semantics.  But you haven't even based your position on that argument.  You've based it on your preconceived notions without anything to back it up other than your own righteous indignation.

I would grant that you may never have empathy for a man desiring to be female.  I would grant that you may never have empathy for a homosexual.  But that's not what you're actually saying.  It isn't what is in your posts.  What you are actually saying is rhetoric.  Stick with facts.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

Did you guys read further? It states-

"

The difference between the meanings of the words sympathy and empathy is as much emotional as it is grammatical. Knowing which word to use for a given situation can be tricky.

A good rule of thumb is to determine which word to use based on the level of connection that the subject of the sentence feels with the object.

For example, if the subject identifies with, and shares the pain of, the object, “empathy” is the correct word to use: She knew that he had lost his father when he was very young, just like she had, and felt a deep empathy for him rise in her heart.

Instead, if the subject is aware of the object’s suffering but feels no direct connection other than sorrow for the object, “sympathy” is the right word to use: As he watched the hurricane footage from his warm, dry apartment, he felt sympathy for those losing their homes."

[anatess2]

36 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Did you guys read further? It states-

"

The difference between the meanings of the words sympathy and empathy is as much emotional as it is grammatical. Knowing which word to use for a given situation can be tricky.

A good rule of thumb is to determine which word to use based on the level of connection that the subject of the sentence feels with the object.

For example, if the subject identifies with, and shares the pain of, the object, “empathy” is the correct word to use: She knew that he had lost his father when he was very young, just like she had, and felt a deep empathy for him rise in her heart.

Instead, if the subject is aware of the object’s suffering but feels no direct connection other than sorrow for the object, “sympathy” is the right word to use: As he watched the hurricane footage from his warm, dry apartment, he felt sympathy for those losing their homes."

Once again... where in this feeling of pain does it say he then has to ACT the same way or approve to ACT the same way.  Feeling something and acting on something are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Now, of course, the question is - do you believe that the only way to empathize with a gay guy is to desire a guy yourself?  That is, of course, silly.  You can empathize with that feeling of desire because you've felt desire yourself - regardless of the gender it is directed to.  For example, She knew that he had lost his father when he was very young, just like she had, and felt a deep empathy for him rise in her heart.  She, of course, can still feel empathy for the loss even if she lost a mother instead of a father.  It is the FEELING that you're empathizing with not the OBJECT of that feeling.

 

Edited February 23, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Did you guys read further? It states-

Did you read further in MY post?

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, you are without sin?  You see, you didn't say homosexuality or transgender in these last couple of posts.  You said sin.  You don't have empathy for others who have sinned?

So, you've never had any sexual desires in your life. You've never felt the temptation to break the law of chastity?

You can try to hide behind semantics.  But you haven't even based your position on that argument.  You've based it on your preconceived notions without anything to back it up other than your own righteous indignation.

I would grant that you may never have empathy for a man desiring to be female.  I would grant that you may never have empathy for a homosexual.  But that's not what you're actually saying.  It isn't what is in your posts.  What you are actually saying is rhetoric.  Stick with facts.

 

Edited February 23, 2017 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Once again... where in this feeling of pain does it say he then has to ACT the same way or approve to ACT the same way.  Feeling something and acting on something are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Now, of course, the question is - do you believe that the only way to empathize with a gay guy is to desire a guy yourself?  That is, of course, silly.  You can empathize with that feeling of desire because you've felt desire yourself - regardless of the gender it is directed to.  For example, She knew that he had lost his father when he was very young, just like she had, and felt a deep empathy for him rise in her heart.  She, of course, can still feel empathy for the loss even if she lost a mother instead of a father.  It is the FEELING that you're empathizing with not the OBJECT of that feeling.

 

The use of the word empathy connotates affirmation for their cause or feeling.

[Guest MormonGator]

23 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The use of the word empathy connotates affirmation for their cause or feeling.

A lack of empathy or sympathy or whatever you want to call it will only end up hurting YOU in the long run. The people you have no sympathy/empathy for don't care about your opinion. You also have the frightening certainty that a lack of sympathy/empathy will eventually turn on ones self. You'll become Young Goodman Browne from the amazing Hawthorne story.

 You are absolutely in my prayers. 

 

Edited February 23, 2017 by MormonGator

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The use of the word empathy connotates affirmation for their cause or feeling.

Where did you get that from?

Can you just get off the semantics train. You're beginning to grasp at straws now.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Guest

[Guest Godless]

33 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The use of the word empathy connotates affirmation for their cause or feeling.

No, it absolutely does not. For example, I used to struggle with smoking and borderline alcoholism. I quit smoking cold turkey 6 years ago and have a much healthier relationship with alcohol than I used to. I empathize with people who have the same struggles, but without affirming their decisions and actions.

To take it a step farther, I empathize with people who are struggling with addiction to gambling and cocaine. I have never been addicted to those things, but I understand addiction well enough to still have that same empathy without affirmation of their actions. This is exactly what @anatess2 was trying to get at. As a heterosexual, you may not understand SSA. But as a human being, you understand sexual attraction, and very likely have fought thoughts and urges that your church would deem inappropriate. That is the common ground that can allow empathy towards LGBT individuals to take root. You don't have to condone or affirm their urges, just like you wouldn't condone or affirm the heterosexual impulses that virtually all straight individuals, including you most likely, deal with at some point in their lives.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

A lack of empathy or sympathy or whatever you want to call it will only end up hurting YOU in the long run. The people you have no sympathy/empathy for don't care about your opinion. You also have the frightening certainty that a lack of sympathy/empathy will eventually turn on ones self. You'll become Young Goodman Browne from the amazing Hawthorne story.

 You are absolutely in my prayers. 

 

Let me ask you this- Do you have empathy for serial killers?

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Where did you get that from?

Can you just get off the semantics train. You're beginning to grasp at straws now.

No, I just understand semantics really well and how political agendas and movements such as the LGBT use trickery to confuse people with words to get them on their side.

[Rob Osborn]

56 minutes ago, Godless said:

No, it absolutely does not. For example, I used to struggle with smoking and borderline alcoholism. I quit smoking cold turkey 6 years ago and have a much healthier relationship with alcohol than I used to. I empathize with people who have the same struggles, but without affirming their decisions and actions.

To take it a step farther, I empathize with people who are struggling with addiction to gambling and cocaine. I have never been addicted to those things, but I understand addiction well enough to still have that same empathy without affirmation of their actions. This is exactly what @anatess2 was trying to get at. As a heterosexual, you may not understand SSA. But as a human being, you understand sexual attraction, and very likely have fought thoughts and urges that your church would deem inappropriate. That is the common ground that can allow empathy towards LGBT individuals to take root. You don't have to condone or affirm their urges, just like you wouldn't condone or affirm the heterosexual impulses that virtually all straight individuals, including you most likely, deal with at some point in their lives.

I dont cant have empathy towards a trans or homosexual who have supposed desires and feelings because the love I share with my wife is completely different, in fact, the opposite of what they feel. I thus cant empathize with them because they do not experience the peace and eternal reflection of godly joy I feel.