Heartwarming trans story

[meAgain]

*

[none]

looks like siskel and ebert  movie review about puppets except these people have no authority to be movie reviewers

You need to have authority to review a movie?

more than them, yes

[dutchy]

I saw a post from Kevin where he asked me 'what's natural' ?
He primarily reacted upon my claim that only women give birth the children , which is the natural cause of events.

Is that not true ?
Could you or Kevin elaborate ?

dutchy, what is the difference, to you, btween sex and gender? and again, what is natural?

gender and sex are not the same-- sex is a physical biological condition that in the natural world is primarily bimodal, but in which intermediate expressions occur naturally. my intersex aunt is a good example-- she was a female, sort of, but was also a male, sort of. this was her natural condition-- no human social norms or personal choices imposed her physical and biochemical makeup on her--its how nature produced her.

sex exists in a continuum, with males at one end and females at another, and a range of chromosomal-induced and physical variants in between that occur naturally in the natural world. theyre not uncommon, and unnatural social, political, and legal conventions have prevented people from recognizing that for centuries.

stigmatizing a natural product of the natural world is not a natural point of view-- i suggest that people who consider intersex persons to be flawed, depraved, or incomplete are forcing their own opinions on the situation, and calling their own social predispositions "natural" in spite of the clear evidence that the opposite is true.

second, gender is not the same as sex-- gender is a social contruct imposed between humans that itself varies within different societies. it refers to the roles played by people of different sexes in childrearing, breadwinning, governance, and so on. in western patriarchal societies, gender roles often meant that descent, inheritance, and governance went with the males. in my cherokee and chickasaw ancestors, gender held very different roles. my ancestors traced their lineage through their mothers, not their fathers. inheritance was matrilineal, and governance was shared between genders. the roles of masculinity and feminity are different in modern societies as well.

because gender is not physical, but behavioural, there is also a range of expression that doesnt necessarilly correspond to physical sex. you can have people who are genetically programmed to be behaviourally feminine who are given chromosomes that result in a male sex. and vice versa. these are the transgender people who are getting such unfavourable notice now among people who dont understand the difference between sex and gender. they appear in history for thousands of years, from ashnubanipal to joan of arc.

the confusion in all of this is ultimately semantic. the endpoints of the sexes are male and female, and of gender are masculine and feminine. you can have fully male individuals with fully feminine gender, you can have fully female individuals who are completely masculine, and you can have everything in between. yes, both distributions are bimodal and closely overlap, but that doesnt mean that the rest of us are somehow "unnatural," anymore than the gold nuggets in a stream bed are unnatural merely because the rest of the particles are gravel.

because of the terminolgy differences, you have people confusing the issue on both sides arguing about the words, instead of noticing natural situations. is a "woman" the same as a "female?" no, not anymore than a "man" is always "male." our socialized words have always been clumsy approximations of the natural world, and have prevented us from recognizing the simple continuum in expression of both gender and sex. yes, only someone with a functional uterus can give birth, and only someone with viable sperm can father children. but what about the people with both a uterus and testes? intersex expressions run the entire spectrum, and the peaks of the distribution are just that, peaks, not mutually exclusive categories.

instead of worrying about whether a man can give birth, or whether a female can inherit property or vote, i suggest we should just meet people where they are, and worry about our own lives instead of theirs.

Kevin i'm honest here. I'm not a biologist. Yes i can pretend to understand the things you write and i DO understand what you say !!!, but at the same time any clever biologist from a different flavor could easily convince me with a different approach.
I simply need to rely to much on others, that i can't bring myself to study this specific topic of sexes and gender far and beyond the basics.

However i do engage with more individuals than most around here. From all parts of society, all religious flavors and sexes.
My comments are mostly based on daily experiences.
My country...and i advise you to watch some YouTube vids about American expats, is known for it's tolerance.
Most here want anyone to live their own lives as they seem fit. I am not the person who is going to give them a moral lecture.
This is the general attitude in the Netherlands.'live and let live' as long as you don't preach or demand a platform of attention.

But this gender minority and i don't even mean the obvious '' a born women wants to be a man and visa versa''.
No i mean the platform given to an extremely small minority that identify themselves with things that i consider psychologically dangerous.
But as long as they don't cause any harm to themselves or others most dutch persons don't even notice or know what the gender letters stand for.
But this specific group don't want to remain unnoticed, so they demanded a platform in various ways.
They high - jacked the platforms of homo sexuals ..many don't like that at all..like the Amsterdam canal parade.. Their gay/rainbow flag was high jacked by the trans movement.
Radical feminists (TERF + trans-uitsluitende radicale feministen ) are fed up too.

We created a problem of acceptance that wasn't much of a problem to begin with.
And i base that not on some fluky survey , but real people who all say...we have our opinion, but we don't object to trans  people as long as they don't cause any troubles or confront us with it day in day out. Each to his/her/it own.
Just do your thing and we don't mind.
Dutch people hate street preachers (we have very few) and when someone wants to shove an ideology down our throats.
That's ingrained in our culture.

But the international wave of feeling oppressed and ignored has reached our borders too.
Since then a small minority of influential celebs from tv and politics want us to convince that we have a real problem.
Namely that we are unaware about our subconscious gender phobia.

And that same group is completely silent about what Hamas and Islam stands for.
Because Muslims are frequently in the news for beating up gays and tearing apart rainbow flags on buildings.
For some reason that makes my head explode, these absolute opposites of the liberal universe have found a coalition in one another at feeling oppressed.

While other oppressed people like the poor, and racial oppression (which IS still not solved) is pushed to the background.
And the result is that many dutch people begin to avoid the regular news....to one sided they claim. (today met another family who don't even watch national news anymore)
And the outcome is more and more ludicrous and really dangerous conspiracies prosper under the surface.
Well, was it worth all of that ?

[Kiahanie]

••••

••••

••••

••••
We created a problem of acceptance that wasn't much of a problem to begin with.
••••

The problem is not that y'all "created a problem of acceptance". The problem is you are now reneging on that promise.

We discovered over here that " tolerance" is easier when everyone looks and acts alike. Tolerance often ends when there is something to tolerate that has a different culture and color.

Untested "tolerance" often manifests as satisfaction with the status quo.

[dutchy]

••••

••••

••••

••••
We created a problem of acceptance that wasn't much of a problem to begin with.
••••

The problem is not that y'all "created a problem of acceptance". The problem is you are now reneging on that promise.

We discovered over here that " tolerance" is easier when everyone looks and acts alike. Tolerance often ends when there is something to tolerate that has a different culture and color.

Untested "tolerance" often manifests as satisfaction with the status quo.

Kiahanie i fully agree.

I hated 'Sinterklaas'' with black Pete and the many institutional racism still active in The Netherlands.
Not only that , but an in essence ''racist algorithm'' has been one of the biggest travesties post WW2.
Check it out and be utterly amazed what havoc was done by the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_childcare_benefits_scandal

But i hope you understand we had little to no moral objections towards homo sexuality and transgenders.
But the global 'wave' has decided it was a huge problem in the Netherlands too.

[Kiahanie]

^^^^^ Dutchy, nobody has "moral issues" with minorities. They just have "practical issues" that happen to involve minorities. More Christian Dutch get beat up by Christian Dutch than by Muslims.

It is not "moral objections" that are at issue. What we are dealing with are social and cultural practices. Your remarks regarding Muslims show a great deal of discomfort with The Other.

Do you want a dedicated thread to discuss it?

[dutchy]

^^^^^ Dutchy, nobody has "moral issues" with minorities. They just have "practical issues" that happen to involve minorities. More Christian Dutch get beat up by Christian Dutch than by Muslims.

It is not "moral objections" that are at issue. What we are dealing with are social and cultural practices. Your remarks regarding Muslims show a great deal of discomfort with The Other.

Do you want a dedicated thread to discuss it?

i already agreed , but i am unsure what you want to discuss. But let's give it a try.

Kiahani, i meet a lot of Muslims, i feel very comfortable in their private houses, discussing things as i do with many others who have views i strongly reject personally....that is for me those views wouldn't work at all. I also want to know what thrives them, handing out judgement isn't part of those conversations.

I have shared that, but for some unknown reason, unknown to me at least, you seem to think that it must give me some discomfort.
No it doesn't, i love all people i meet and interact with.
Love means not an all fuzzy feeling, but i engage them as total equals and respect any view they want to share.
Unless those views are sadistic or cruel towards others.

In the morning i visit a farm with ten children of conservative Christians in the afternoon two lesbian women who raise their kids.
I am extremely comfortable with almost every single situation, i would be a liar if i made this up. .
I had to work in a brothel one time, and girls without many clothes were walking around. That was the only time i felt uncomfortable. And i don't want to receive a phone call from the church of satan to do a job, because that i would refuse.

The other day i met a Muslim couple from Iraq with a fully blind daughter of seven.
I asked the father if he wanted to share the full story and i almost couldn't keep my tears inside after he took the time to share his story.
I told him that his daughter was very lucky to have such wonderful and loving parents and i admired his openness towards a stranger.
For me a strong personal opinion about conservative Islam doesn't collide with how i approach Muslims/others.
Furthermore i do not wish to make my opinion known to certain people i know have a strong, but different opinion. I am searching for those things that unite us as human beings.

But i maybe wrong about this, i see this as a place were we can share our strong opinions, knowing this place is not the real world. At least it is not for me.
That is i share here far more rough edges of my personality that wouldn't be beneficial for anyone i real life, apart from friends and some family members.
Real life is about a constant flow of cooperation with others. Sharing certain views in real life is sometimes counter productive if you search for a common ground as human beings.
If a person is a victim of religion and hates anything related to god/religion,  i do not share what God means to me, because that would be very bad timing and inconsiderate to a person who just told me how religion has caused him/her harm.

[kevin]

dutchy, i applaud your interest in finding common ground with people with whom you disagree. i agree with you completely . . .almost.

there are people with whom you do not find a need to coexist with peaceably. you have mentioned those who hold views who are sadistic or cruel towards others.

this is a thread about trans people, and in my own case, i place homophobes and trans-phobes among the groups with whom i, also, do not seek to accomodate a common ground.

that is because i find those people to be cruel and malevolent. they do not see themselves that way, of course, but the harm they do is indistinguishable from that inflicted by people who understand themselves a bit better.

so i applaud your welcoming views, but i think that welcoming vioews are not merited in all cases. even so, if people like that stay away from me, i let them be. i cant change them, any more than i can change the habits of a old and poorly trained dog, and i dont try anymore. i just try to protect the people i love from the harm they run to cause.

[dutchy]

dutchy, i applaud your interest in finding common ground with people with whom you disagree. i agree with you completely . . .almost.

there are people with whom you do not find a need to coexist with peaceably. you have mentioned those who hold views who are sadistic or cruel towards others.

this is a thread about trans people, and in my own case, i place homophobes and trans-phobes among the groups with whom i, also, do not seek to accomodate a common ground.

that is because i find those people to be cruel and malevolent. they do not see themselves that way, of course, but the harm they do is indistinguishable from that inflicted by people who understand themselves a bit better.

so i applaud your welcoming views, but i think that welcoming vioews are not merited in all cases. even so, if people like that stay away from me, i let them be. i cant change them, any more than i can change the habits of a old and poorly trained dog, and i dont try anymore. i just try to protect the people i love from the harm they run to cause.

Thank you Kevin !

Maybe the fact that i so clearly remember my own brainwashed state, makes me very reluctant to conclude where people are in the moment i meet up with them in real life.
There is a lot going on underneath the surface.
I want to know what and why if there is an opportunity presented.

Yes you have a cruel massive worldwide homophobia that is based on pure hatred and bigotry.
I reject that in every thinkable way....and i can only imagine what it means when you are demonized by others who don't even know you personally. That must be heart wrenching especially in countries where beating up homo sexuals is an honorable thing from a religious perspective.

 I have seen another side also...i talked to victims of sexual oppression several times, that i partly understand that the reality of those victims is broken.
In fact i was engaged in such an environment myself, but fled when things got messy and personal.
Alpha males recruiting young boys to fulfill their lusts.
I don't dare to share what i have personally seen....and my best friend became a victim of such an overpowering adult that made him do things he in hindsight regretted tremendously.
After years and years ,out of nowhere , he attended the wedding of my brother, also his youth friend.
He told me he had seen and undergone things in private clubs that defy everything you ever thought was humanly possible.
The man responsible for all this died in the Scheveningen prison after dozens of young men reported their stories collectively when some proper police research was done...he told me all of this at the wedding night while the band was playing loud music in the background.
He was now married and had a daughter, but still had his dark memories at times.

Should one really expect an open minded view from those victims ?
I hope they can separate homo sexuality from sexual oppression, because for a rational person those should not be mixed at all. 

But for certain victims it is a very long way to come to terms with such things.
Many people can't see clearly because certain events in life have corrupted their objectivity about certain matters.
I am also a clear example. I simply can't be objective towards any cult or enclosed religious movement, because of my own experiences and distrust in such sects. JW ? I immediately switch off completely and a stubborn unwillingness gets the better of me when trying to see something positive in that cult....any cult.

And the same applies to hetero sexually abused men or women.
They can at times develop an extreme distrust in the other sexes when so many evil things came their way.
And i can only listen and be silent when i hear their stories.

I hope we can keep society together, but i sometimes fear for the worst possible scenario.
There is a fire burning underneath the surface and it can erupt easily.
 

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I have no desire to start trouble with anyone.  Why do you suppose the LGBTQ crowd gets targeted so much?  Extramarital sex is far more common, but no one is up in arms about that.

can a gay person come out among the jehovahs witnesses, jst?

if your answer is no, then you have one answer to your question.

but more broadly, i dont know why straight people are so fascinated by homosexuals. if youre not gay you will seldom interact with one in any sexually oriented manner. people i work with are outspoken about how gay people are sick and depraved, and need to forced back into hiding.

i ask them, why do you think about gay people so much? they dont like that.

so i dont know the answer to your question. why do so many white people hate black people? you see that all over oklahoma.

people just consider anyone different to be a threat, i suppose.

Witnesses view same sex relations as a sin, but no more than extramarital relations.   So, that isn't an answer to my question because my question is about homosexuality being treated differently than other sexual sins.  No one is trying to make premarital sex or adultery illegal.

On the other hand, if I say premarital sex is a sin, no one seems to get offended, but if I say same sex relations are sinful, people get offended.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to include you.  Why?  What's different?   

[kevin]

actuslly, adultery and premarital sex were often illegal, until quite recently. adultery was a crime in oklahoma until 1976. utah decriminalized adultery in 2019.

but as i see it, the difference is that people who consider adultery a sin are not targeting adulterers with legal, social, and political sanctions, whereas they are certainly attacking gay and trans people over many areas.

second, adultery is a choice, while LGBTQ orientation is not, imo. targeting gay or trans people for being gay or trans is much more like targeting black people for being black, or choctaws for being choctaw.

thats my own reasoning. other people may have a different view.

[Kiahanie]

Posted in wrong thread

[meAgain]

 *

[none]

don't hate the black person hate the blackness...
geesh megan...

[8livesleft]

I am perfectly capable of having a conversation with someone regarding why homosexual acts are contrary to natural law/violations of the natural order/disordered, and ultimately not in man's best interest.

It hasn't been shown that there is a "law" in nature. Without a law, nothing's being violated.

Speaking of man's interest, if the purpose is just to urinate and pleasure, what difference does it make what gender role you choose to achieve both?

With regards to reproduction, what's the point if you don't want kids at all and are in a society that's well-overpopulated (or otherwise too stressful)?

[none]

the irony is the reason that someone would feel that the world is overpopulated is because someone cynically cares about them so much....
"we love you but you can't rest here because that is the law and it is in direct conflict of the natural law that you need to rest here because you can't physically continue and we'll take everything from you and experiment on you until we find something that replaces what we took from you"

[8livesleft]

the irony is the reason that someone would feel that the world is overpopulated is because someone cynically cares about them so much....
"we love you but you can't rest here because that is the law and it is in direct conflict of the natural law that you need to rest here because you can't physically continue and we'll take everything from you and experiment on you until we find something that replaces what we took from you"

Right

Over-population might just be a symptom of the larger resource distribution imbalance.

[none]

and heartwarming is some dude looking at this young male that he put work into creating saying something like "ok I'll accept you as a female"

[Kiahanie]

the irony is the reason that someone would feel that the world is overpopulated is because someone cynically cares about them so much....
"we love you but you can't rest here because that is the law and it is in direct conflict of the natural law that you need to rest here because you can't physically continue and we'll take everything from you and experiment on you until we find something that replaces what we took from you"

Right

Over-population might just be a symptom of the larger resource distribution imbalance.

Yes. In many countries a large family is the only social security for old age.

[dutchy]

the irony is the reason that someone would feel that the world is overpopulated is because someone cynically cares about them so much....
"we love you but you can't rest here because that is the law and it is in direct conflict of the natural law that you need to rest here because you can't physically continue and we'll take everything from you and experiment on you until we find something that replaces what we took from you"

Right

Over-population might just be a symptom of the larger resource distribution imbalance.

Yes. In many countries a large family is the only social security for old age.

I think,....more honestly, i am convinced that systematical economical inequality has ruined more lives than it benefitted over the centuries. It is the 'father and mother' of all evil.
Hidden underneath 'religion', 'social justice' , 'culture wars', 'consumerism' nothing ever changes.
The rich and powerful, or shall we call them psychopaths....pull the strings.

During Covid the rich got two times richer and small companies and enterprises suffered tremendously.
Many were ruined by lock downs and excessive temporary laws.
The fact that this period 'doubled' the number of billionaires world wide and made the rich prosper should be proof enough for anyone that the global system is broken.

But we have no time to expose the real evildoers, we are sidetracked in other fights.
And the rich psychopaths saw that all was well and good and sold some more arms so that poor boys could give their lives in some hell hole once more, not their own offspring of course. No of course not, they are currently trained to learn the fine business tweaks of 'daddy', so that the family values are ingrained in the generations to come.

[kevin]

[dutchy]

We call it riding the gravy train.

[meAgain]

*

[meAgain]

*

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I am perfectly capable of having a conversation with someone regarding why homosexual acts are contrary to natural law/violations of the natural order/disordered, and ultimately not in man's best interest.  But those who disagree are incapable of engaging in conversation.

How would you help someone with gender dysphoria?

[dutchy]

@meAgain 

I personally live with the conviction that my wife and i have a duty to look after our children because we put them on this planet to begin with.
Therefor we agreed to do anything in our own capabilities to raise them and give them the proper care and attention we thought our children deserved.
Daycare was a big fat No No for both of us.
Because we were convinced our children needed two parents close by, while they were growing up in an ever increasingly complicated world.

Not everyone was/is in that luxurious position and others have different values that are sometimes alien to us.
And that goes far and beyond same sex marriage or children raised for a large portion by daycare, where their parents ''drop'' them early in the morning to gather them just before supper.
I was never interested in how others live their lives, as long as i don't have to adapt to their lifestyle either.
You could say i have practiced conservative family values without dropping the ball.

What i want to ask you if you personally think it's important that others should follow some rules or patterns when it comes to 'whome to love'', 'how to raise children', 'how to identify one self' ?
I never felt an urge to claim a moral highground to someone with different values, i just try to live what i/we think is morally acceptable to me/us.
Because the moment we are trying to convince others of a better way of living things get muddy.
Even in the NT many guidelines or questionable the least !

 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. ¹⁹ For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. ²⁰ But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. ²¹ To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

So if a master wants sex with a slave who believes in Christ...what then  ? Should he/she summit or object to his/her master ? 
Where is the fine line , Peter doesn't mention it at all ?

I know where the fine line is.
The writer of Peter ( not apostle Peter) has opened the door for more suppression, because Christians would always try to submit to their masters, because that's what Peter asked from them.
And most uneducated poor slaves couldn't make a clear distinction when their harsh masters wanted something from them that required a strong rejection.
In the last 2000 years many in power took advantage of this awful 'submission' passages in 1 Peter 2. With ongoing misery for millions of individuals.

Why do i bring this up ?
Live by your own moral code, give it everything you have, but the moment people, whatever religious title they may posses , start to lecture/force others to have a different lifestyle nothing good will come out of it.
Abortion rates won't drop because those in power condemn it, like homo sexuality it simply goes underground.
Adultery will be done in secret places, perversion will be active under the surface.
Isis/Islamic State had one of the most active PORN viewings worldwide in the brief period they pretended to be an Islamic State.
The only thing we can do, is live to the very standards that we want to live by.

So what's your take on that meAgain ?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

So if a master wants sex with a slave who believes in Christ...what then  ? Should he/she summit or object to his/her master ? 
Where is the fine line , Peter doesn't mention it at all ?

Perhaps Peter wasn't speaking to those ignorant of Jehovah's will.

And most uneducated poor slaves couldn't make a clear distinction when their harsh masters wanted something from them that required a strong rejection.

Which Jews were uneducated about God?  Which of them didn't know obeying God comes first?  I mean, if there's anything I've learned from Jewish scripture, it's that.

[none]

So if a master wants sex with a slave who believes in Christ...what then  ? Should he/she summit or object to his/her master ?
Where is the fine line , Peter doesn't mention it at all ?

Perhaps Peter wasn't speaking to those ignorant of Jehovah's will.

And most uneducated poor slaves couldn't make a clear distinction when their harsh masters wanted something from them that required a strong rejection.

Which Jews were uneducated about God?  Which of them didn't know obeying God comes first?  I mean, if there's anything I've learned from Jewish scripture, it's that.

David had time to sit around and be king and his violation was mentioned and he wasn't beat down for it and he was given the chance to live
do you believe that gift was from God or Nathan?

[8livesleft]

The point is all humans are subject to the way the world works.  It is in our best interest to behave/not behave in certain ways based on these "rules" of the universe.
 
And again, it isn't that nature cares or "has it out for you" or chooses to punish you for disobeying its "rules/laws".  Nature just IS.  And all men whether they would rather not be, are subject to the way nature IS.

Yet, we see gender fluidity in hundreds of species in nature.

If the tendency exists for all those other species (our ape cousins included), then it follows that it will naturally exist for us.

To say "it shouldn't" is nonsensical. The tendency exists in nature and will continue to exist so long as certain environmental conditions are met.

Good for those whose gender identiy matches their actual gender. But it's not like that for about 9% of the entire world's population.

That's over 700 million people, mind you.

It is more about distribution of resources than there being "too many" people.

There is a distribution problem but the result is the same: there's not enough for most.

Anyway, it hasn't been shown to trigger homosexuality as I had assumed.

Whatever it is, there's clearly something triggering the tendency since 9% of the world identifies as lgbtq and for a lot of these guys, it is not a choice.

[dutchy]

So if a master wants sex with a slave who believes in Christ...what then  ? Should he/she summit or object to his/her master ?
Where is the fine line , Peter doesn't mention it at all ?

Perhaps Peter wasn't speaking to those ignorant of Jehovah's will.

And most uneducated poor slaves couldn't make a clear distinction when their harsh masters wanted something from them that required a strong rejection.

Which Jews were uneducated about God?  Which of them didn't know obeying God comes first?  I mean, if there's anything I've learned from Jewish scripture, it's that.

So you mean Peter must be read only in context of a specific audience ? His letter is to all exiles scattered around various places. Not only the initial audience of Judeo-Christians .
It's a palette of all kinds of old and new believers.

The point i was trying to make is that only a certain type of submission is useful.Some are certainly not , but only useful for the aggressor.
Yes a believer should try to undergo most things without retaliation or rebellion...turn the other cheek
But the moment one's body is sexually defiled , or a submissive person is tortured both physically and mentally there is nothing left that 'pleases' God when one is undergoing such treatment.

Yes i know many Christian slave traders and church authorities did everything and anything to convince the sheep of the opposite, but one can easily guess in hindsight why that is the case.