The many hateful trans threads this Easter weekend

Maybe it's just a simple Constitutional tweak to fix a lot of things. I think we can loosely say that currently, anyone has the right to be stupid, across the board. I think we just need to tweak it to add, but no one else is responsible for paying for it or fixing it.

If you get an artificial vagina, store bought breasts and, especially estrogen injections then it's no fantasy. (It's the estrogen that separates your run-of-the-mill eunuch from your transgender woman.) Originally Posted by Tiny

That’s absolutely incorrect. None of that changes one’s gender. It’s a man with some things cut off, other things bolted on, and on medication. Doctors and society giving this same advice, destroying their healthy bodies and coming out the other side with only a lifetime of side effects, is largely responsible for the astronomical suicide rate.

So ya don't think it's the dysphoria and disillusionment of still being the biological sex that they don't want to be? Guessing you've not read any of the de-transitioned stories out there. FWIW: Many felt like they were lied to. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I support my family member who prefers to be referred to as neither male nor female. I question it no more than I question a male who is gay. I have no idea how my family member's story will play out in the future but the decision made.

How would you refer to the person in conversation with someone else? The only options I see would be strictly by name, which would sound very weird (ex: ’when Joe gets home from work Joe is going to cook dinner’) or “it”.

I support my family member who prefers to be referred to as neither male nor female. I question it no more than I question a male who is gay. I have no idea how my family member's story will play out in the future but the decision made. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Totally agree, much the same way I would if they were selling or buying a property. I may offer advice or at least my opinion, especially if asked, but at the end of the day, whether they follow my advice or not - it's their call and they own it.

I support my family member who prefers to be referred to as neither male nor female. I question it no more than I question a male who is gay. I have no idea how my family member's story will play out in the future but the decision made. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Back in the 60's there was a medical show called Ben Casey. This short clip is the opening credits. There is nothing else. No matter how screwed up society gets there is no way around it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xjq1P5p3fso

So you’re going to use 1960s Hollywood as your benchmark?

Ironic!

HAHAHAHAHAHSSHSHSHSH

So you’re going to use 1960s Hollywood as your benchmark?

Ironic!

HAHAHAHAHAHSSHSHSHSH Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Oh my God, you really don't get it. Those Medical symbols Man, Women, Birth, Death represent the course of life. Infinity indicates it's constant replication. With that being said Transgenders step outside that paradigm and yet society entertains it as if it has biological significance and it doesn't. Even Gender reassignment surgery is a joke because it is non functional. You cannot fix a problem which originates in the brain by operating between the legs. One cannot have a healthy outlook on life when there isn't a healthy outlook on ones self, no exceptions.

That’s absolutely incorrect. None of that changes one’s gender. It’s a man with some things cut off, other things bolted on, and on medication. Doctors and society giving this same advice, destroying their healthy bodies and coming out the other side with only a lifetime of side effects, is largely responsible for the astronomical suicide rate. Originally Posted by CreatedInSpace

I'm not going to use the word "absolutely." However you're almost certainly wrong about the bold text.

This paper is a comprehensive look at studies about suicide after gender-affirming medical care,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027312/

It's recent, from March of 2023.

Daniel Jackson looked at 23 studies. Most of the studies showed reductions in suicides from gender-affirming treatment, like surgery, hormones, and puberty blockers.

Two studies showed an increase in suicide rates. However both IMHO suffered from the fatal flaw that they did not compare outcomes before and after treatment, or alternately compare transgenders who were treated to those who weren't. The control group for one study was random cis (non-transgender) individuals, and the control group for the other was cis siblings. The reason I say they were flawed is because transgender people, both those who are treated and those who are not, experience higher suicide rates. Part of this is probably from discrimination and societal pressure and part is from higher incidence of some mental disorders like bipolar among trans people. But in any event, what the researchers should be comparing are trans people who received gender affirming treatment to those who didn't, or alternately suicide rates before and after treatment.

Anyway, back to Jackson's work. Another three studies didn't have statistically significant results. One of the three did show that those transgenders who received positive familial and social affirmation had lower suicide rates, validating what SpeedRacer and WYID have written in this thread.

The other 18 studies showed positive effects on suicide rates of gender-affirming care, including the grand daddy, Turban's 2022 study with 21,000 subjects. There may have been more subjects in Turban's study than all the others combined. One of the two studies that showed higher suicide rates for those receiving gender affirming care (compared to cis individuals) only had 324 subjects for example.

Here are a few plain language links that may be of interest,

https://fenwayhealth.org/new-study-s...idal-ideation/

https://www.hcplive.com/view/suicide...affirming-care

https://theconversation.com/trans-yo...eatment-207592

Now undoubtedly you can do some Googling and find some sources that will tell you what you want to hear. I see the Heritage Foundation and Elon Musk for example agree with you. And as much as I admire both the Heritage Foundation and Elon Musk, and as much as I agree with them on most economic issues, they're wrong on this.

I haven't considered one thing you brought up, health issues. I suspect your claim may be valid for trans men, that is for females at birth, who take testosterone. For trans women, the overall effect may be positive. I suspect they'll live longer than they would otherwise, based on the positive effect of castration on longevity. And there are multiples more trans women than trans men. But I may be wrong. There are definitely adverse potential side effects of long term use of estrogen, including heart attacks and strokes.

Thanks again to Winn Dixie for starting this thread. Before I took a look at these papers, I would have argued against providing puberty blockers, hormones and the like to minors. Now I'd lean in favor of allowing that with parental consent. I don't believe however that government should pay for it. CreatedInSpace, it's obvious that you believe this is a moral issue, so I don't believe your tax dollars should support sex change. Private charities should take up the slack.

And finally, at the risk of being repetitive, I believe Jesus is on my side. See Matthew 19:11-12.

I'm not going to use the word "absolutely." However you're almost certainly wrong about the bold text.

This paper is a comprehensive look at studies about suicide after gender-affirming medical care,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027312/

It's recent, from March of 2023.

Daniel Jackson looked at 23 studies. Most of the studies showed reductions in suicides from gender-affirming treatment, like surgery, hormones, and puberty blockers.

Two studies showed an increase in suicide rates. However both IMHO suffered from the fatal flaw that they did not compare outcomes before and after treatment, or alternately compare transgenders who were treated to those who weren't. The control group for one study was random cis (non-transgender) individuals, and the control group for the other was cis siblings. The reason I say they were flawed is because transgender people, both those who are treated and those who are not, experience higher suicide rates. Part of this is probably from discrimination and societal pressure and part is from higher incidence of some mental disorders like bipolar among trans people. But in any event, what the researchers should be comparing are trans people who received gender affirming treatment to those who didn't, or alternately suicide rates before and after treatment.

Anyway, back to Jackson's work. Another three studies didn't have statistically significant results. One of the three did show that those transgenders who received positive familial and social affirmation had lower suicide rates, validating what SpeedRacer and WYID have written in this thread.

The other 18 studies showed positive effects on suicide rates of gender-affirming care, including the grand daddy, Turban's 2022 study with 21,000 subjects. There may have been more subjects in Turban's study than all the others combined. One of the two studies that showed higher suicide rates for those receiving gender affirming care (compared to cis individuals) only had 324 subjects for example.

Here are a few plain language links that may be of interest,

https://fenwayhealth.org/new-study-s...idal-ideation/

https://www.hcplive.com/view/suicide...affirming-care

https://theconversation.com/trans-yo...eatment-207592

Now undoubtedly you can do some Googling and find some sources that will tell you what you want to hear. I see the Heritage Foundation and Elon Musk for example agree with you. And as much as I admire both the Heritage Foundation and Elon Musk, and as much as I agree with them on most economic issues, they're wrong on this.

I haven't considered one thing you brought up, health issues. I suspect your claim may be valid for trans men, that is for females at birth, who take testosterone. For trans women, the overall effect may be positive. I suspect they'll live longer than they would otherwise, based on the positive effect of castration on longevity. And there are multiples more trans women than trans men. But I may be wrong. There are definitely adverse potential side effects of long term use of estrogen, including heart attacks and strokes.

Thanks again to Winn Dixie for starting this thread. Before I took a look at these papers, I would have argued against providing puberty blockers, hormones and the like to minors. Now I'd lean in favor of allowing that with parental consent. I don't believe however that government should pay for it. CreatedInSpace, it's obvious that you believe this is a moral issue, so I don't believe your tax dollars should support sex change. Private charities should take up the slack.

And finally, at the risk of being repetitive, I believe Jesus is on my side. See Matthew 19:11-12. Originally Posted by Tiny

What has been failed to be researched extensively is the underlying cause of why a person would want to change his or her gender to the opposite sex.That's where the money and research should go. Not to dangerous surgeries that often give rise to post op infections and synthetic Hormone Drugs that have an array of side effects. This is Medical Russian Roulette.

I can not address this as sufficiently as I’d like during business hours but will say your verse is irrelevant to the topic, having nothing to do with gender, and refer you to Genesis 1:27. God was quite clear. Book one, chapter one.

What has been failed to be researched extensively is the underlying cause of why a person would want to change his or her gender to the opposite sex.That's where the money and research should go. Not to dangerous surgeries that often give rise to post op infections and synthetic Hormone Drugs that have an array of side effects. This is Medical Russian Roulette. Originally Posted by Levianon17

While I think I disagree, that's an excellent argument.

I can not address this as sufficiently as I’d like during business hours but will say your verse is irrelevant to the topic, having nothing to do with gender, and refer you to Genesis 1:27. God was quite clear. Book one, chapter one. Originally Posted by CreatedInSpace

I think Matthew 19:12 is relevant,

For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Jesus appears to imply that getting castrated "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" is a good thing. And people like you and me should accept that.

Consider that along with 1 Corinthians Chapter 7, verses 1, 8 and 9: " “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman," and "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." Paul wanted early Christians to remain celibate and unmarried so they could devote their full attentions to the Church, like Catholic priests. For those who don't have the discipline, they should marry. Well, the only way I'm going to be celibate is if someone cuts off my balls. Maybe that's what Jesus was getting at in the passage from Matthew.

Also consider Philip's conversion of the eunuch from Ethiopia, who presumably was able to spread the Word without interference from temptations of the flesh.

So I believe all this establishes that castration is a lovely thing in the eyes of New Testament Christianity. And castration is the elephant in the room. You can always stop taking hormones or have breast implants removed.

As to Genesis 1:27, first I think large parts of Genesis are fiction, including this verse. God creates the world in 6 days. Takes the form of a man and wrestles with Jacob. Endorses polygamy. And snakes talk. Really.

Furthermore, the passage is irrelevant. The text is

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

That's a huge jump, to believe that passage prohibits surgical and hormonal treatment for transgender persons. I don't understand why many Christians believe it would have anything to do that.

There's a lot in the Old Testament that is clear that Christians pretty much ignore, for example prohibitions against mixing types of cloth (for example wool and cotton) and eating pork and shrimp. I'm not sure why some have latched onto Genesis 1:27.

While I think I disagree, that's an excellent argument.



I think Matthew 19:12 is relevant,

For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Jesus appears to imply that getting castrated "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" is a good thing. And people like you and me should accept that.

Consider that along with 1 Corinthians Chapter 7, verses 1, 8 and 9: " “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman," and "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." Paul wanted early Christians to remain celibate and unmarried so they could devote their full attentions to the Church, like Catholic priests. For those who don't have the discipline, they should marry. Well, the only way I'm going to be celibate is if someone cuts off my balls. Maybe that's what Jesus was getting at in the passage from Matthew.

Also consider Philip's conversion of the eunuch from Ethiopia, who presumably was able to spread the Word without interference from temptations of the flesh.

So I believe all this establishes that castration is a lovely thing in the eyes of New Testament Christianity. And castration is the elephant in the room. You can always stop taking hormones or have breast implants removed.

As to Genesis 1:27, first I think large parts of Genesis are fiction, including this verse. God creates the world in 6 days. Takes the form of a man and wrestles with Jacob. Endorses polygamy. And snakes talk. Really.

Furthermore, the passage is irrelevant. The text is

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

That's a huge jump, to believe that passage prohibits surgical and hormonal treatment for transgender persons. I don't understand why many Christians believe it would have anything to do that.

There's a lot in the Old Testament that is clear that Christians pretty much ignore, for example prohibitions against mixing types of cloth (for example wool and cotton) and eating pork and shrimp. I'm not sure why some have latched onto Genesis 1:27. Originally Posted by Tiny

I generally like your posts here Tiny. You have the patience of a saint to put up with some of the nonsense from this crowd. However, you seem to have drifted into territory you are less familiar with here. For instance, your comments about christians eschewing pork and mixing fabrics are comandments made of the Jews. The sacrifice of Christ brought in a new covenant that doesn't require christians to follow ceremonial or civic commandments of that nature. Having said that, I'm not claiming to be any kind of biblical scholar per se. Maybe another line of reasoning would serve you better.

Maybe another line of reasoning would serve you better. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

You're right Ducbutter. I'm much better with science than scripture. But sometimes I just can't help trying to put my mail order Doctor of Divinity degree to use.

We live in a secular society, not a theocracy, and I don't think any of these Biblical references are relevant. However my mission is to persuade and evangelize, so I figured I'd take this route.

I have potentially set myself up to get my ass kicked, because CreatedInSpace undoubtedly knows the Bible better than I do. But it's like arguing with LustyLad or Texas Contrarian about economics. I know I'm going to get my ass kicked, but I just might learn something in the process.

... But is IS Good to have Tiny and you other lads here
debating the issues and sharing knowledge and information
without a lot of insults and hateful posts.

And whether the issue is finances or Scripture - it's nice
to hear BOTH Facts and Opinions.
Just sayin'

#### Salty