Pope Francis Compares Transgendered People To Nuclear Weapons

Jimoslimos

Links234 wrote: »

What "truths" would these be?

Look, the scientific evidence keeps coming in, and the ship has pretty much sailed on the subject. Transsexual gene link identified, transsexual differences caught on brain scan, and there are loads more studies like these that are all showing the biological nature of transsexuality. We no longer classify it as a mental illness like we once did. And seriously, transgender people are just normal, average people.

This is the sort of stuff I wanted to comment on initially. These studies in no way confirm (or deny for that matter) any sort of overwhelming scientific consensus on a biological basis for transgenderism. The cynic in me would suspect that headlines claiming the presence of a "transgender gene" is the sort of thing used to sell soft science to the general public. Much in the same way this sort of research often claims the discovery of a "gay gene" or a "psychopathic serial killer gene". Easy media-friendly science that generates clickbait for the mainstream press, (and generous grants for these researchers). I'd hesitate to call it bad science, because often the authors' findings are taken out of context by the reporter.

I'm often cautious anyway when people try apply genetics to behavioural patterns in humans. Often there's usually an agenda on part of the author or methodological errors, sample size too small, inadequate controls, etc.

Anyway it matters little what the biology does or doesn't say (and somewhat ironic that supporters of religion and the Church would use it as a stick to beat others with). Whatever way anyone chooses to live their life is fine and I wouldn't choose to discriminate against anyone on that basis. I may disagree on the arguments on biology but I treat others with the same respect I would like myself, and that includes how they would prefer to be addressed, etc.

Finally to play a sort of Devil's Advocate with two questions.

Q1: If there was a genetic link proven to result in transgenderism and gene therapy was a viable option, would you support this as a preferred treatment option without the physical and psychological trauma of sex change surgery/hormone therapy?

Q2: On a similar vein, would you support pre-natal screening for this supposed gene?

ScumLord

Jimoslimos wrote: »

This is the sort of stuff I wanted to comment on initially. These studies in no way confirm (or deny for that matter) any sort of overwhelming scientific consensus on a biological basis for transgenderism.

They do and they don't. They may be able to show a gene involved in contributing to a persons sexuality but it's probably not the whole story. We're always finding different influences to behaviour. They're now finding that the status of your guts bacteria biodome can affect your mood.

But genes do affect sexuality, they do affect personality and they do affect the mental picture people use to survive.

It would be a long time before scientists would be able to give gene therapy like this without answering the question "what will happen?" with a shrug of the shoulders. Even if they could be certain of how the gene therapy would affect the individual they wouldn't know what would happen to the species as a whole. I think it's likely that if you could remove gays and transgenders from society that society would go through a sort of collapse.

One thing I've noticed about camp men (not gay men) is that they seem to be great at managing women. They have the ability to understand both sides of the gender divide and get both sides to work together effectively.

That's complete hearsay on my part but I'm pretty sure there are all kinds of social links that we don't understand happening. I don't think being gay is just an abnormality anymore, there does seem to be advantages to having all these types of people in communities.

floggg

Jimoslimos wrote: »

This is the sort of stuff I wanted to comment on initially. These studies in no way confirm (or deny for that matter) any sort of overwhelming scientific consensus on a biological basis for transgenderism. The cynic in me would suspect that headlines claiming the presence of a "transgender gene" is the sort of thing used to sell soft science to the general public. Much in the same way this sort of research often claims the discovery of a "gay gene" or a "psychopathic serial killer gene". Easy media-friendly science that generates clickbait for the mainstream press, (and generous grants for these researchers). I'd hesitate to call it bad science, because often the authors' findings are taken out of context by the reporter.

I'm often cautious anyway when people try apply genetics to behavioural patterns in humans. Often there's usually an agenda on part of the author or methodological errors, sample size too small, inadequate controls, etc.

Anyway it matters little what the biology does or doesn't say (and somewhat ironic that supporters of religion and the Church would use it as a stick to beat others with). Whatever way anyone chooses to live their life is fine and I wouldn't choose to discriminate against anyone on that basis. I may disagree on the arguments on biology but I treat others with the same respect I would like myself, and that includes how they would prefer to be addressed, etc.

Finally to play a sort of Devil's Advocate with two questions.

Q1: If there was a genetic link proven to result in transgenderism and gene therapy was a viable option, would you support this as a preferred treatment option without the physical and psychological trauma of sex change surgery/hormone therapy?

Q2: On a similar vein, would you support pre-natal screening for this supposed gene?

Q.1 Surely treatment is a matter for the individuals involved? Their preferences should be determinative, not the views of uninterested third parties to hypothetical questions.

Q.2 I support a woman's right to choose but don't supoort pre-natal screening for anything other than serious foetal abnormalities which are likely to seriously reduce or diminish the viability of the foetus or chances of survival of the child on birth.

If you decide you want a child you should take the child as.

Edit - on Q.2 it goes without saying that children or other people incapable of fixing informed consent can't decide these things for themselves. But neither of us are capable of deciding for them either.

Given the choice is between permanently altering their body or their mind, i don't know if anybody should be allowed make that decision for them either.

Jimoslimos

floggg wrote: »

Q.1 Surely treatment is a matter for the individuals involved? Their preferences should be determinative, not the views of uninterested third parties to hypothetical questions.

Q.2 I support a woman's right to choose but don't supoort pre-natal screening for anything other than serious foetal abnormalities which are likely to seriously reduce or diminish the viability of the foetus or chances of survival of the child on birth.

If you decide you want a child you should take the child as it is.

Q1: If funded by a public health service it does matter. Privately - up to the individual. However if gene therapy was recommended from a young age then both physician and parents would have input.

Q2: A woman's right to choose...on your terms?

floggg

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Q1: If funded by a public health service it does matter. Privately - up to the individual. However if gene therapy was recommended from a young age then both physician and parents would have input.

Q2: A woman's right to choose...on your terms?

Unless there is a clear medical/public health reason for doing so, it's not the states place to decide.

As far as I know the state doesn't mandate patients choose particualr treatment in other contexts, particualrly where there are long term irreversible consequences to the treatment, so I don't know why it would here. It should remain a medical decision based on what's based for the patient, not something mandated by the state as a matter of policy.

I imagine it could also violate human rights to force patients to permanently alter either their personality or their body (even if it's only done by denying funding).

As for pre-natal screening, there is a difference between not supporting something and supporting its prohibition.

It's not something I could ever personally support, but I wouldn't feel comfortable advocating for its prohibition at the same time.

Annasopra

ScumLord wrote: »

They do and they don't. They may be able to show a gene involved in contributing to a persons sexuality but it's probably not the whole story. We're always finding different influences to behaviour. They're now finding that the status of your guts bacteria biodome can affect your mood.

But genes do affect sexuality, they do affect personality and they do affect the mental picture people use to survive.

It would be a long time before scientists would be able to give gene therapy like this without answering the question "what will happen?" with a shrug of the shoulders. Even if they could be certain of how the gene therapy would affect the individual they wouldn't know what would happen to the species as a whole. I think it's likely that if you could remove gays and transgenders from society that society would go through a sort of collapse.

One thing I've noticed about camp men (not gay men) is that they seem to be great at managing women. They have the ability to understand both sides of the gender divide and get both sides to work together effectively.

That's complete hearsay on my part but I'm pretty sure there are all kinds of social links that we don't understand happening. I don't think being gay is just an abnormality anymore, there does seem to be advantages to having all these types of people in communities.

Yes but sexual orientation and gender identity are entirely separate. You responded to a point about gender identity and discussed sexual orientation - that doesnt make sense because they are separate.

BetterThanThou

I agree, all it takes is 7 transgendered couples "engaging" at the same time, and the planet is done.

Nodin

BetterThanThou wrote: »

I agree, all it takes is 7 transgendered couples "engaging" at the same time, and the planet is done.

Transgendageddon. Any day soon.

otto_26

blackbird 49 wrote: »

Some people are stupid enough to listen to crap from the Catholic Church, I think they believe and some people do as well that if ur not a Catholic ur a nobody, it's the one true religion (not). I believe if in living ur life in a good and decent way, ie, threat people the way u would like to be treated.

I was stupid enough to listen to the "Crap" from the Catholic Church and do you know what I was taught in school during religious class.... "Threat people the way u would like to be treated"......

So I'm confused who should I be listening to?

BlaasForRafa

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Q2: A woman's right to choose...on your terms?

So you're in favour of sex-selective abortion then?

fran17

Links234 wrote: »

Fran, have you stopped beating your wife? Stop evading and answer yes or no!

Pretty low by anyone's standards.Enough said I think.

Dimithy

fran17 wrote: »

Pretty low by anyone's standards.Enough said I think.

You understand the purpose of this question, and how it relates to your's but are being disingenuous to try to take the moral high ground.
Yes, definitely enough said.

Annasopra

fran17 wrote: »

Pretty low by anyone's standards.Enough said I think.

You mean the standard that tried to insinuate myself and links as supporting sex change operations on 3 year olds?

Links234

fran17 wrote: »

Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are too fast, I will catch it.

Cut the act Drax Fran, I don't believe for a second you're unaware of a common idiom, you're just acting aggrieved to shut down discourse.

fran17

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You mean the standard that tried to insinuate myself and links as supporting sex change operations on 3 year olds?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

bodice ripper

fran17 wrote: »

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Latin is it? How about non sequitur?

fran17

bodice ripper wrote: »

Latin is it? How about non sequitur?

Let me tell you a short story if I may.When I was young there was a group of us who hung out together,at each others houses etc.There was one guy who never offered to go to his house and we all wondered why.One evening we called round unannounced and witnessed his father dragging his mother out the door by the hair with our friend watching as he screamed.
No in my book to make an allegation of spousal abuse against anyone is beyond the pale and down right horrible.And for somebody to thank such a vile insult,well that speaks for itself.

Dimithy

fran17 wrote: »

Let me tell you a short story if I may.When I was young there was a group of us who hung out together,at each others houses etc.There was one guy who never offered to go to his house and we all wondered why.One evening we called round unannounced and witnessed his father dragging his mother out the door by the hair with our friend watching as he screamed.
No in my book to make an allegation of spousal abuse against anyone is beyond the pale and down right horrible.And for somebody to thank such a vile insult,well that speaks for itself.

Not an entirely surprising response, but fairly transparent.
You know what the question is, stop pretending to be offended.

mickstupp

Dimithy wrote: »

Not an entirely surprising response, but fairly transparent.
You know what the question is, stop pretending to be offended.

That's an incredibly dismissive response.

But on topic, I think the pope is a moron.

Dimithy

mickstupp wrote: »

That's an incredibly dismissive response.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" Is a fairly common example of a loaded question, and was being used to show up his own use of the same.
I don't believe he doesn't know this, and he is now trying to distract from the fact that his argument is full of holes.

Links234

mickstupp wrote: »

That's an incredibly dismissive response.

To be fair, he was caught out lying earlier in the thread, he's been extremely disingenuous in his debating tactics here, and has been haranguing me into answering a line of questioning that was obviously loaded, so I think dimithy is being entirely fail to call him out for further disingenuous debating tactics. It's gotten to the absurd situation where we're talking about use of a common idiom to point out a fallacious argument, a masterclass in thread derailment, chess board well and truly kicked over.

The_Valeyard

mickstupp wrote: »

That's an incredibly dismissive response.

But on topic, I think the pope is a moron.

Pretty sure the Pope is far from a moron.

Annasopra

mickstupp wrote: »

That's an incredibly dismissive response.

Ah look. Fran is full of faux outrage because he has been called out numerous times and is now trying to paint himself as a victim.

DeadHand

Hold the ball here a second...

I thought all you wonderfully hip, progressive AH'ers don't give a toss about the Catholic Church and it's various nonsensical pronouncements and, by extension, auld Franky and his dubious musings.

Which is why most of you don't care when he, as he occasionally does, speaks some solid commonsense. Which is perfectly fair.

So, why all the excitement when he is construed as saying something medieval? He's the Pope for Christ's sake, were you all really expecting some modern thinking? What would one expect from a duck if not a quack?

Don't let the fact he didn't actually compare trans people to nuclear weapons get in the way of another circle jerk. Emoting and typing is so much easier than reading and thinking. Why let the truth get in the way of yet another opportunity to parade your liberal, tolerant credentials? That is, of course, tolerance for everything but dissenting opinion.

The man's murder was called for at one point. No-one batted an eyelid. If someone was similarly brain dead enough to call for the murder of, say, Panti Bliss or any other LGBT figure if that someone happened to disagree with/dislike him what would the reaction be here? Pandemonium.

Ironically given the subject, this thread illustrates how we as a nation have largely rejected Catholic group think and dogma only to increasingly succumb to a new, liberal group think and dogma.

We change our Gods but this always struck me as a nation that longs for bovine conformity in which independence of thought is attacked savagely. Hence, we remained submissive to religious governance for years after other comparable nations had shaken it off. Hence, we are now falling for the new dogma of "liberal" PCism more helplessly than most.

Herd mentality still prevails. Even if the direction of the herd changes dramatically, it's still a herd.

fran17

Links234 wrote: »

To be fair, he was caught out lying earlier in the thread, he's been extremely disingenuous in his debating tactics here, and has been haranguing me into answering a line of questioning that was obviously loaded, so I think dimithy is being entirely fail to call him out for further disingenuous debating tactics. It's gotten to the absurd situation where we're talking about use of a common idiom to point out a fallacious argument, a masterclass in thread derailment, chess board well and truly kicked over.

Fine then,i have tried on two occasions now to put an end to this but you continue to pursue me with your infantile defence to what was a vile slur against me and all victims of spousal abuse.I'm gauging by this slur you have never been affected by this most heinous form of abuse and you should be thankful for that.
I used the word treatment in referring to a 3yr old child's admittance to a clinic which treats GID's.This child received psychoanalysis sessions as the first step in treating what was perceived to be the symptoms of a GID.Those are the facts.Now how you or anyone else perceived this to be or what conclusions you jumped to without further information are none of my business.Who the hell concludes that treatment of GID in a 3yr old child would involve a sex change operation?Seriously?
For the vast majority of adults social awareness is all that's needed to filter out any thought of using spousal abuse,in any form,in public.It was missing here and again that's none of my business and I have no wish to share anything with you regarding this matter.You have tried to defend this slur on numerous occasions now by accusing me of lying.It was an insult directed at me,used to continue to evade my question,and you were cautioned for this.Realising your error,you now try to cover this up by introducing idioms and if that's what squares it with your conscience then fine.
Tell me then,regarding these fantastic idioms you proclaim to use,who do you feel should be the one to determine if a comment is or is not an idiom in this forum?And also what would be the net result if every user of this forum used the idiom card immediately after insulting a fellow user as there form of defence?

Ficheall

I don't have time to read the last ten pages - has anyone explained where the Pope mentions transexuals yet?

B_Wayne

Fran, everyone knows what you implied. You back step on everything you say. You're one of few people who would say for example that your views on gay people being more likely to be paedophiles was said in heat of moment. Why not just say what you think rather than feigning concern? Everyone has some idea of what you think tbh.

Links234

fran17 wrote: »

It was an insult directed at me,used to continue to evade my question,and you were cautioned for this.

No insult was directed at you whatsoever, and you know this well. Now the matter of my infraction is none of your business (and thankfully has been dealt with in a satisfactory way, grand job to the mods and admins) and I think the above is nothing more than you thumbing your nose at me. Unbelievably poor form fran.

Oh, and I think now is a good time to remove myself from the thread, but I'd just like to add one last thing.

A few people have asked me if I wanted to do an AMA on boards, I've filled up the form, so I guess just watch this space

Meesared

fran17 wrote: »

Fine then,i have tried on two occasions now to put an end to this but you continue to pursue me with your infantile defence to what was a vile slur against me and all victims of spousal abuse.I'm gauging by this slur you have never been affected by this most heinous form of abuse and you should be thankful for that.
I used the word treatment in referring to a 3yr old child's admittance to a clinic which treats GID's.This child received psychoanalysis sessions as the first step in treating what was perceived to be the symptoms of a GID.Those are the facts.Now how you or anyone else perceived this to be or what conclusions you jumped to without further information are none of my business.Who the hell concludes that treatment of GID in a 3yr old child would involve a sex change operation?Seriously?
For the vast majority of adults social awareness is all that's needed to filter out any thought of using spousal abuse,in any form,in public.It was missing here and again that's none of my business and I have no wish to share anything with you regarding this matter.You have tried to defend this slur on numerous occasions now by accusing me of lying.It was an insult directed at me,used to continue to evade my question,and you were cautioned for this.Realising your error,you now try to cover this up by introducing idioms and if that's what squares it with your conscience then fine.
Tell me then,regarding these fantastic idioms you proclaim to use,who do you feel should be the one to determine if a comment is or is not an idiom in this forum?And also what would be the net result if every user of this forum used the idiom card immediately after insulting a fellow user as there form of defence?

Then why word it like this:

fran17 wrote: »

Don't know if you are aware,but there is cases of children as young as 3yrs old being subjected to the torture of sex change treatment by quacks in London.I use the term quacks as to call them doctors would be inappropriate.
I do assume though that you respect a parents consent on this matter and concede that they know best for the welfare of there prepubescent child?

Thats a blatant implication right there

fran17

B_Wayne wrote: »

Fran, everyone knows what you implied. You back step on everything you say. You're one of few people who would say for example that your views on gay people being more likely to be paedophiles was said in heat of moment. Why not just say what you think rather than feigning concern? Everyone has some idea of what you think tbh.

You really are a pebble in peoples shoes here Bruce.You don't really have opinions on anything other than peoples opinions.