Quote:I perhaps should have phrased it differently.
Those on the left believe that creationism should not be taught or "accepted" because it is perceived by some to be a belief rather than actual science. Only evolution should be taught.
Yet, a 13-17 year old boy (actual science, anatomy says so) who "identifies" as a girl (belief) should be accepted and treated as a girl. So do we not teach anatomy?
You're assuming that gender is based solely on hardware. That's understandable, because it's been the standard for millennia. The concept of a person being born into the wrong biological gender is, relatively speaking, a new one, and one that society is slow to accept as legitimate given the generations upon generations of dogma that are interpreted in a roundabout way as somehow condemning someone for believing that they are not who they were born as.
Also, let's not forget, actual science changes as we learn and understand more of it. The beliefs of creationism have remained largely unchanged (within their particular theoretical construct) for thousands of years.
Quote:You can sit and talk with the girl. You cannot talk with creationism nor anyone who's experimented with it.
I would dispute this, but that would go beyond the CoC.
Quote:I would dispute this, but that would go beyond the CoC.
I firmly believe in separation of CoC and state.
Quote:You're assuming that gender is based solely on hardware. That's understandable, because it's been the standard for millennia. The concept of a person being born into the wrong biological gender is, relatively speaking, a new one, and one that society is slow to accept as legitimate given the generations upon generations of dogma that are interpreted in a roundabout way as somehow condemning someone for believing that they are not who they were born as.
Also, let's not forget, actual science changes as we learn and understand more of it. The beliefs of creationism have remained largely unchanged (within their particular theoretical construct) for thousands of years.
I'm not assuming anything. Is anatomy not a real science that is proven? How is gender determined, by physical means or by a person's "feelings" (belief)?
Quote:I'm not assuming anything. Is anatomy not a real science that is proven? How is gender determined, by physical means or by a person's "feelings" (belief)?
Brain chemistry is not "feelings".
Quote:Then what are feelings?
Emotional responses created by the brain in response to external stimuli. Feelings come and go, but identity is more of a constant, and it's not as readily influenced by outside stimuli.
Quote:Emotional responses created by the brain in response to external stimuli. Feelings come and go, but identity is more of a constant, and it's not as readily influenced by outside stimuli.
Basically, brain chemistry.
Quote:Basically, brain chemistry.
If you want to look at it from 30,000 feet and gloss over everything to fit your agenda, sure.
Quote:Emotional responses created by the brain in response to external stimuli. Feelings come and go, but identity is more of a constant, and it's not as readily influenced by outside stimuli.
So how is "identity" created? Could it be from "feelings" or "belief"? What science proves identity?
I brought up the creationism vs. evolution argument because the left always cites "proven science" vs. "belief" in that argument. Is this not the same argument with different parameters?
What about anatomy? Is gender not proven by the science of anatomy? Would gender "identity" not be considered a "belief" or a "feeling"?
So which way is it? Hard science or belief?
Quote:So how is "identity" created? Could it be from "feelings" or "belief"? What science proves identity?
I brought up the creationism vs. evolution argument because the left always cites "proven science" vs. "belief" in that argument.
This is even more off topic, but there are plenty on the right who believe in evolution and do not believe Creationism is a science. There are intelligent people on both sides.
Quote:So how is "identity" created? Could it be from "feelings" or "belief"? What science proves identity?
I brought up the creationism vs. evolution argument because the left always cites "proven science" vs. "belief" in that argument. Is this not the same argument with different parameters?
What about anatomy? Is gender not proven by the science of anatomy? Would gender "identity" not be considered a "belief" or a "feeling"?
So which way is it? Hard science or belief?
I think the exact same stance was taken years ago regarding gay/lesbian folk.
I get the feeling you have never had this conversation with someone living it. Here is the difference. Ask them about themselves and their response is with conviction "this is who I am". Ask someone who believes in creationism and their response is, with conviction "this is what I believe". There is literally nothing for them to believe because it is just who they are. The only belief taking place here is your belief that it's just a belief on their part.
That right there is the difference.
Quote:You're thinking black and white in a world of grays. Do you not know girls who look and act masculine, or men who look or act feminine? I've heard many stories of boys who preferred playing with dolls over playing ball, and vice versa for girls. Is it that much of a stretch to think a boy may feel overwhelmingly that he should not only play with dolls, but also wear women's clothes, makeup and grow their hair long, from an age too early to attribute to exterior influences. Even that is an oversimplification.
Society strongly influences gender norms, and they have evolved over time. In past civilizations, and even other cultures currently, transgenders and transsexuals were not only accepted, they were and are considered special, even blessed. At the end of the day, all they want is to be who they feel they are.
The two responses directly below mine pretty much sum up how I feel about it.
I'm a tomboy, always have been. I hated playing with Barbie and wanted GI Joe. My Star Wars figures were my most favorite toys along with my Tonka Jeep Renegade. I hate dresses and am not feminine, though I'm not butch either. As much of a tomboy as I am it has never occurred to me to consider myself a guy. Not ever. Although when I was a kid I thought it was funny to pee standing up over the toilet but that was mostly to freak my sister out. Well, and when I was in the Army I wished I was a guy so I could be in a Spec Ops unit because back then there wasn't even the speck of a thought to anyone to allow females to try out for Ranger school. So I do get what you're saying, but again, the responses by hailtovictor and flsptsgd sum it up for me.
Quote:This is even more off topic, but there are plenty on the right who believe in evolution and do not believe Creationism is a science. There are intelligent people on both sides.
Agreed, though it would make for an interesting topic/discussion. Unfortunately, I don't think an honest discussion could be done without violating the CoC. There are some on the right (and I suspect on the left as well) that believe in both. I don't think that many that are for teaching Creationism believe that it's a science though.
Another topic that could be interesting is the board's rule against religious speech. I understand the rule and why it's in place, but I do believe that some of the "regulars" of this forum could keep it to reasonable discussion.
To kind of get back on topic. Why is it that "absolute science" is the "correct" thing with regards to one topic, and "identity, feelings or belief" is supposedly "correct" when it comes to a different topic? Absolute science (anatomy) tells us that a male born with certain parts is a male. If the male has a "belief" or "feeling" that he is actually a female, that doesn't change the absolute science.
Quote:Agreed, though it would make for an interesting topic/discussion. Unfortunately, I don't think an honest discussion could be done without violating the CoC. There are some on the right (and I suspect on the left as well) that believe in both. I don't think that many that are for teaching Creationism believe that it's a science though.
Another topic that could be interesting is the board's rule against religious speech. I understand the rule and why it's in place, but I do believe that some of the "regulars" of this forum could keep it to reasonable discussion.
To kind of get back on topic. Why is it that "absolute science" is the "correct" thing with regards to one topic, and "identity, feelings or belief" is supposedly "correct" when it comes to a different topic? Absolute science (anatomy) tells us that a male born with certain parts is a male. If the male has a "belief" or "feeling" that he is actually a female, that doesn't change the absolute science.
Though I think you are attempting to over simplify the issue, your argument would hold water if the the mind was settled science. That is not even close to true though. That which makes us who were are is barely understood from a scientific perspective. Anatomy does not even attempt to address this.
In addition, this is off topic but I think you are dismissing how they see themselves as nothing more than a belief (correct me if I am wrong) yet at the same time will argue in favor of beliefs for other matters.
Quote:Agreed, though it would make for an interesting topic/discussion. Unfortunately, I don't think an honest discussion could be done without violating the CoC. There are some on the right (and I suspect on the left as well) that believe in both. I don't think that many that are for teaching Creationism believe that it's a science though.
Another topic that could be interesting is the board's rule against religious speech. I understand the rule and why it's in place, but I do believe that some of the "regulars" of this forum could keep it to reasonable discussion.
To kind of get back on topic. Why is it that "absolute science" is the "correct" thing with regards to one topic, and "identity, feelings or belief" is supposedly "correct" when it comes to a different topic? Absolute science (anatomy) tells us that a male born with certain parts is a male. If the male has a "belief" or "feeling" that he is actually a female, that doesn't change the absolute science.
Because we are talking about a human being. I don't think the girl will deny she has male genitals, she merely disputes that her genitals define her role in society.
Quote:I think the exact same stance was taken years ago regarding gay/lesbian folk.
I get the feeling you have never had this conversation with someone living it. Here is the difference. Ask them about themselves and their response is with conviction "this is who I am". Ask someone who believes in creationism and their response is, with conviction "this is what I believe". There is literally nothing for them to believe because it is just who they are. The only belief taking place here is your belief that it's just a belief on their part.
That right there is the difference.
I'll respond to the part in bold in your quote below.
So you ask a trans-person about themselves. their response with conviction is "this is who I am", or in reality their response is really "this is what I believe". Does that make it
fact or is that what he/she believes? Does that over-ride the actual science that proves otherwise?
Ask someone that believes in Creationism and their response is with conviction "this is what I believe" or it can be said that they say "this is how I got here". How is that different?
Regarding the part in bold, how is it "just who they are" when science says otherwise? Is it because they "believe" that they are a female born in a male body or vice versa?
Quote:I'll respond to the part in bold in your quote below.
So you ask a trans-person about themselves. their response with conviction is "this is who I am", or in reality their response is really "this is what I believe". Does that make it fact or is that what he/she believes? Does that over-ride the actual science that proves otherwise?
Ask someone that believes in Creationism and their response is with conviction "this is what I believe" or it can be said that they say "this is how I got here". How is that different?
Regarding the part in bold, how is it "just who they are" when science says otherwise? Is it because they "believe" that they are a female born in a male body or vice versa?
You really just don't understand or do not want to understand. It seems like instead of trying to understand you are merely attempting to debate your way into trying to prove you are right about.... something though I am not sure what exactly? I suggest you have an actual conversation with someone and see for yourself how misguided you are in thinking you understand.
No they did not say that and they do not. YOU say that. That is your translation to help you understand something you cannot begin to understand.
You are still continuing the flawed argument that "science says" no science does not say either way that is blatantly false. Anatomy does not address the mind and other sciences barely understand a small portion of the mind. The entire basis for your trans vs creationism argument is flawed at it's basic level.
Quote:Because we are talking about a human being. I don't think the girl will deny she has male genitals, she merely disputes that her genitals define her role in society.
Yes, we are talking about a human being. If the boy wants to dispute his role in society and claim that he is a she, that's his burden. The fact of the matter is that he's male and should either use the male facilities or opt for the "gender neutral" facilities.
In my opinion, society should not be forced to accept this boy as being a girl based on his belief or "feelings". He either should use the boy's locker room or use the provided gender neutral facilities provided to him.
I will say this with regards to the subject of the OP, and I know that this won't be taken well. If a 13 year old boy wants to "identify" as a girl and starts living as a girl, then something is really wrong with him. It would be interesting to see this kid's parents (assuming he has both).
Think back to when you were 13. For me it's several years back, but for some on here, think back to what it was like at that age and what led up to that.
Quote:Yes, we are talking about a human being. If the boy wants to dispute his role in society and claim that he is a she, that's his burden. The fact of the matter is that he's male and should either use the male facilities or opt for the "gender neutral" facilities.
In my opinion, society should not be forced to accept this boy as being a girl based on his belief or "feelings". He either should use the boy's locker room or use the provided gender neutral facilities provided to him.
I will say this with regards to the subject of the OP, and I know that this won't be taken well. If a 13 year old boy wants to "identify" as a girl and starts living as a girl, then something is really wrong with him. It would be interesting to see this kid's parents (assuming he has both).
Think back to when you were 13. For me it's several years back, but for some on here, think back to what it was like at that age and what led up to that.
I bet you think the same ways about gays and lesbians don't you.
I don't think society should be forced to accept actual beliefs, not what you are firmly convinced is a belief (when you can't possibly have a clue) but an actual belief but guess what? It is.