Is anti trans all Christianity?

If you want to make this clear then so be it.

At no point have I ever thought or implied otherwise to any of the above.

 

You should go back and read the post I was responding to. You were trying to make the point that a poll showing Muslims favor gay marriage more than Christians only proves that they support equal rights for groups like gays, but the poll can’t be used as evidence to show that Muslims tolerate gays.

So I am questioning your interpretation of the poll because you interpret that to mean Christians favor equal rights less than Muslims and probably most Americans. That doesn’t make Christians look good, right? If there’s no dog in the fight, then you have no reason to backpedal.

 

He’s not even making a consistent argument my opinion. He said the data in the poll can only indicate who supports equal rights for groups like gay people, not tolerance of gay people. So he’s basically saying that Christians are less likely to support equal rights for everybody especially gays. If somebody doesn’t support equal rights for gays, how can they argue they tolerate them?

 

However, you are choosing to gauge, define, and measure tolerance is subjective to you. On top of that you’re sending another poster on a wild goose chase because nobody knows what kind of data is even going to satisfied what you’re asking for. If you’re trying to make a point, I don’t know, but this is my suggestion, I think you should post your own data and evidence supporting your argument.

 

I am going to respond to this and ignore your last response because it is covered by the same concept.

It was a simple, and sincere question. It was not in the midst of some battle where I was trying to prove some point. I was not sending him on some wild goose chase. He made a larger statement that I was interested in learning more about, but only responded with a very narrow response. It is what it is. This is not a victory or loss for someone.

He made a larger all encompassing statement, and responded with gay marriage. If he had simply said gay marriage to begin with, I would not have responded because that would have been straight forward and not needing any sort of follow up. I do know that a large majority of Muslims vote democrat so there is nothing in that stat that I find surprising at all. I explained that above. I also explained above why I am more concerned with the radical parts of Islam rather than the moderate.

This has been a bizarre tangent where you jumped in and made some out-of-left-field way off base characterization of what I said and then he responded to your way off base characterization and the non issue took on a life all its own. Sincerely, this is not worth this much trouble. This is not important to any larger subject in this thread.

 

It seems everyone is taking the fact that more evangelicals not supporting same sex marriage (a fundamental right) vs American Muslims shows they are less tolerant of those individuals.

Believing a group deserves equal rights under the law is the basic foundation of tolerance.

But you are correct, this isn’t worth discussing any further because you are trying to add additional metrics beyond rights — which was never indicated.

 

This was my line of inquiry to begin with, which means I didnt add anything....because it is my line of inquiry. If you had simply said more support gay marriage rather than spending so much time wrapping that concept up in flowery language of "tolerant of LGBT people", this misunderstanding could have been avoided and I have explained this to you in great depth. Yeesh.

But yes, lets drop this. We have spent far too much time on this irrelevant tangent.


PS...One other leftist on the board hardly constitutes "everyone". It constitutes only "him", nothing more, and nothing less. Then again, you have already shown a penchant for great exaggeration and overstatement, so I am not surprised in the slightest. That appears to be your thing.

 

The people aren't marginalized. They are children. I'm OK with adults wishing they were another gender and even carving up their bodies. With children it is abuse and illegal. The perpetrators of luring children into transgenderism belong in prison for a long term.

When did I ever attack black studies or history? You accuse then you owe me an answer. The sentence above qualifies me as transphobic. Attack that but don't use terms like marginalized and prejudices and "questionable majority." None of those things apply to gender. Gender is biological not sociological. It is not a matter of choice.

Community is a useful pursuit. I'm not against divinity either. I'm against helping or luring children into the transgender thing. Say with what I said.

 

The problem is that you believe their belief or feeling is a delusion, but it's not. "Born in the wrong body," cannot be demonstrated to be factually incorrect. It is an opinion based upon who they are mentally, and they know more about what it's like to be themselves than you do. They are quite correct that there is a problem in their brain that leads to this issue, and it may literally be having a more masculine or feminine brain that does not match with the physical body. But since desire is the issue, and not comprehending reality, it's a mental illness, not a delusion.

I guess I can agree we should stick to the logic rather than appealing to experts, and logic says it's not a delusion as I attempted to demonstrate more clearly earlier in this post. At one time, they also called homosexuality a deviance rather than a variant, and they were obviously wrong before.

 

I've been trying out many different churches lately and so far none of them have preached anything like this. Why should you care? You shouldn't. It isn't about people living the lifestyles they want, its about them trying to cram that lifestyle down the throats of elementary school aged children. If the trans folks want to be left alone they should really leave kids the hell alone, capisce?

 

Nor can one prove that one is not the second coming of Jesus Christ when they make that claim, or that they are being followed by the FBI, yet somehow these things are labeled delusions. Go figure.

Truthfully, I am colossally bored with this topic, as it has gone beyond redundant. It is time to move on.

 

If you're not pushing the boundaries then you're going backwards.

I'll leave it there.

 

Duplicate

 

Maybe, you had been under the mistaken impression it was just about them realizing they have a penis, so the bolded seemed like a point that had not been successfully conveyed before, but sure, we can agree to disagree. I can be a bit of a bulldog on here, going at something longer than I should.

 

Huh?

At any rate, I had given a brief response above after initially not answering you once I realize you had opened a new line of inquiry...


Nor can one prove that one is not the second coming of Jesus Christ when they make that claim, or that they are being followed by the FBI, yet somehow these things are labeled delusions. Go figure.

In truth, there are a lot of things labeled as delusions that cannot be conclusively proven. There is a reasonable person standard that is an unspoken in this regard. I realize that you would contend that a reasonable person can believe that these people can be born in the wrong body, but by the same token another reasonable person could also conclude that their body is their body, and if they feel like an especially effeminate male, then so be it, that does not make them a woman. Therein really lies the true debate. Do we give it creedence or do we not. I personally do not, and I am far from being alone on that topic.

The medical establishment has only recently given it creedence which is why they used to call it a delusion up until 2010 or so. There was not some giant medical breakthrough that led to this change. What led to this change is the politics of it and the growing power of the LGBTQ lobby,, which also just so happened to be when Obama switched from opposing gay marriage to supporting it as another example of those changing politics.

 

Your comments on transgender people is bordering on hysteric and hateful. You’ve been calling them delusional but now you have really upped the ante, saying that they want to carve themselves up, treating a tans minor as valid is about grooming and being lured by predators. How dare you try to hide behind some form of mental health credentials and say stuff like this about people that you’re claiming to have expertise knowledge of. You don’t speak of expertise knowledge of transgenderism, gender, dysphoria, or anything close. You have personal issues with this group of people and it doesn’t come from the DSM. I don’t know where you’re getting your facts from, but it isn’t evidence based.

As for the other conversation, you’re trying to argue which religious group is more tolerant of these people, and you need to step the hell back, because you can’t speak or judge anybody when it comes to tolerance for transgender people. You personally are clearly intolerant of these people, and your arguments are coming from a place of pure ignorance, not the DSM.

 

Thanking you’re being followed by the FBI does not automatically qualify you as delusional. Many people from Jim Jones to Charles Manson have claimed that they are Jesus, they were not delusional by definition. Narcissistic, manipulative, yes. Why do you speak in such a dishonest way?

 

It doesn’t make them a woman. It makes them trans. There isn’t any debate about if it makes them a woman or not. They are trans. If that’s the key to why are you talk about trans people like they’re delusional and hysterically equate surgery with mutilation, then perhaps you should recognize that you’re the one who’s confused.

 

Nice rant. Thanks for the response. Now I need to go look up DSM since it means nothing to me.

 

Sincerely, you do not know what the f*ck you are talking about. Having worked in psychiatry selling an atypical antipsychotic for many years and having had countless discussions over dinner with psychiatrists over this very subject, I know damned well what I am talking about.

The beliefs that one is Jesus Christ, and that the FBI is following them are two of the most common delusions espoused by schizophrenics. Does this mean that every instance is considered delusional? Well, not with the FBI because that could theoretically be true but extremely rare, but with the Jesus Christ one? Yes, if a person walks into a psychiatrist's office and claims to be Jesus Christ, that person is going to be considered delusional.

Nothing I have said is dishonest. The only thing dishonest in this conversation is you pretending that you know what you are talking about. If you want to point to Jim Jones or Charlie Manson, if in fact they BELIEVE their claim rather than just being manipulative, yes that is considered delusional.

No, someone saying it to be manipulative is a liar rather than delusional, but that isnt what I was talking about is it?



For goood measure read this link...
Two Great Reasons To Stop Saying 'Drinking The Kool-Aid' (forbes.com)

"The phrase “drinking the Kool-Aid” refers to followership at its worse. It was coined after a delusional, pseudo-guru named Jim Jones led his cult, the Peoples Temple, to mass suicide."


Yes, he was considered delusional (assuming he was not lying). Get your silly crap out of here. Sincerely, you dont know what the hell you are talking about, yet you keep prattling on as if you do.



Do you want more?...
Charlie Manson: The Life and Delusions | HuffPost Entertainment

"Manson himself was a seedy figure with huge delusions. "


Sincerely, you are CLUELESS.

 

Your problem here is that your words do not match those that support your general position.

People that support your position claim womanhood to be their gender not their sex) and that gender is fluid.

How can you POSSIBLY not know this?

 

The above is you responding to someone else.

You are mixing his words together with mine and thinking they are from the same person.

You need to pay more attention. You have done this multiple times already.

 

You are making the point everybody else is making. Claiming you’re Jesus or the reincarnation/second coming, isn't evidence enough to diagnose somebody as delusional or having psychosis. You admit it. You say it would have to involve a person believing it as opposed to claiming it out of manipulation and power. This is why we keep telling you trans people don’t believe they are the opposite gender.

You sent me a Forbes article where the writer is colloquially calling Jones delusion. It’s not a case study or any theory in his mental health. What’s the point? I have read The Raven, The Road to Jonestown, Seductive Poison, and many other books on the subject.

 

Jim Jones and Charles Manson are universally referred to as delusional. Do you need more proof sources? I could easily provide you with 50 that all call him delusional. Do you know what a proof source is? You have not provided even ONE source to back up ANYTHING you have said, while I have provided proof sources for everything I have said that you have disputed.

You say colloquial. Of course it is colloquial because it is not formally coming from a psychiatrist that is treating them, nor would that claim ever come from a treating psychiatrist into the public sphere. There are laws precluding this . A psychiatrist does not share medical diagnosis for an individual. They could literally lose their license for doing so.

Believing oneself to be Jesus Christ is the very epitome of what is a delusion. People call Jim Jones and Charles Manson delusional because they have ESPOUSED delusions.

YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Yes if you want to say they are lying you could try to argue that they are not really delusional, but you can say that about literally every psychiatric diagnosis. There is no other way for a psychiatrist to know anything other than what they are told by the patient. There is not an objective test of such claims. If the patient says they are depressed, then they are diagnosed as depressed. If they say that they hear voices, they are diagnosed as psychotic. If they make a claim that is clearly detached from reality, then they are diagnosed as delusional. Any of these things could be lies, but that reality changes nothing. Many times they will not tell the doctor that they are hearing voices. If they are hearing voices but then do not tell of them, then they are NOT diagnosed as psychotic. They could also be play acting, but that once again changes nothing. How you somehow think that the potential of them lying changes something in this discussion is nonsensical.

YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

 

I don’t know what you’re saying. I talk to trans people. Male to female trans consider womanhood to be their gender identity. They identify as binary, meaning their gender is not fluid. For them, you’re either female or male, and they transition from one to another.

A non-binary person would say “gender is fluid” because they don’t identify as either gender. Their pronouns are they/them. A transsexual uses he/him or she/her.

I don’t personally talk or know any non binary people. I do know that some transsexuals don’t even recognize non binary people and say “you can’t transition to nothing,” so there is debate within these communities and issues with accepting each other is some cases.