FFT: Gender as a social construct — what is the vid below telling us on where our intellectual culture has now reached?

_{kairosfocus
June 10, 2017

Academic Freedom, Evolutionary Incoherence, Logic and Reason, rhetoric, worldview

1}_{Categories
Academic Freedom
Evolutionary Incoherence
Logic and Reason
rhetoric
worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Someone gave the link, I think we need to watch a comparison of real vs fake papers on gender:

I ask us to ponder:

Where have we now reached, why? END

Comments

Just assertions on your part, Barry, but no actual way of validating your assertions.Yes, male and female bodies are different. However, it is also self evident that throughout all cultures people engage in sex for other than reproductive purposes, and in ways that go beyond matching up the complementary parts. It is also self evident that some people are sexually attracted to people of the same sex. Your "self evident truths" are really just "Barry's preferences", not some set of truths elevated above my, or any one else's, moral thoughts on the matter. Added in edit: I can assure you that same-sex people feel strongly that they are "conforming to their nature." (See all that Stephen aka Stephanie had to say above.) So who are you who gets to say what does and doesn't "conform to nature?"jdk_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

JDK @ 61: Homosexual acts are immoral. You say they are not and want to know how I can be sure you are wrong. I will tell you. An immoral act is an act that fails to conform to the good. The good with respect to anything is that which allows it to fulfill or conform to its nature. It is self-evident that humans are designed so that the male and female bodies are complementary. Thus, sex acts between male and female conform to human nature and are good (leaving aside issues of the proper context of those acts). Sex acts between male and male or between female and female do not conform to human nature and therefore do not conform to the good and are therefore immoral. UPDATE: JDK posted his cowardly retreat from the field in 64 while I was working on this comment.Barry Arrington_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

I'll note that Barry will not answer my question, and is trying to change the subject, so I'll not continue. He cannot, I don't think, explain how his ability to make moral judgments is any better than mine in respect to same-sex sexual activity. Invoking self-evident truths doesn't actually say anything. I'll leave it at that. BKA: JDK proves his cowardice again. He ran away from StephenB above and he runs away from me know. jdk_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

KF @ 62: "a key moral SET." Indeed, which is why JDK continues to dodge my question at 49. He, rightly, understands that he is on the horns of a dilemma. If he answers that the practice of the Spartans was wicked, he loses his "morality comes from society" argument, because the Spartan society condoned a practice that he knows is wicked. On the other hand, if he denies the Spartan practice was wicked, he stands convicted of condoning a self-evidently wicked practice. The only correct answer is that the Spartan practice was wicked even if everyone in Sparta failed to understand that. It follows inexorably that JDK must admit to the self evident moral truth to which KF alludes, and the moment he does that he finds himself confronting objective morality. And he is unwilling to do that, because he is a coward.Barry Arrington_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

BA, the victim in the case I refer to as a key moral SET, was a boy of about eight years old; on his way home from school on an afternoon, about thirty years ago now, and was -- as was his habit -- walking through a campus back gate near an aqueduct. This is a gate to a neighbouring housing estate that I had often walked through at all kinds of hours of day and night. The fenced- in way running up to a dam and down to a reservoir had bushes near the gate. That is where the monster pounced. KFkairosfocus_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

re 57: My original comment was about same-sex sexual activity between consenting adults who love each other. You said their desires were disordered. I don't consider their desires disordered. I then asked,
But how do you justify judging that their desires are disordered. When I said we had to exercise our reason and moral sense, that there was no guidebook, and we had to be realistic about the effect of our culture on our viewpoint, you rolled all that into “whatever jdk prefers.” But what do you have that is not covered in my sentence above? How does “what Barry prefers” differ from “what jdk prefers?”
You haven't answered this question. What is your rationale for thinking your judgment of disorder is qualitatively different in any way from my judgment that their desires are not disordered?jdk_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

F/N: We have been taught to almost worship democracy and the majority vote. We need to understand that while democracy offers valuable freedoms, it is an inherently unstable, manipulable and historically too often suicidal system of government. This is why it needs to be buttressed from the wider culture and world of thought, to guard it from marches of folly. It is therefore well worth pondering Plato's warning, by means of the parable of the ship of state:
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State[ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
And of course, I say this as a committed small-d democrat. KFkairosfocus_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

jdk
Very wrong, Stephen, but I see no sense in further discussion after reading 43.
How very convenient for you. Do you also have a convenient reason for ignoring my question @42: You have conflated two questions: [a] Should society treat transgenders morally? [b] Should transgenders act morally? I say that the answer to both questions is yes. You seem to say that the answer to question [a] is yes and the answer to question [b] is no. Do I interpret your comments correctly?StephenB_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

F/N: Cicero in De Legibus can help us understand the issues we are playing with, and the dangers we have so unwisely invited in the door in our civilisation (and typically, apart from core agit prop operatives and strategic planners, those caught up in ruinous agendas don't really realise the fire they are playing with -- indeed, that is the very nature of agit prop):
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC]: . . . the subject of our present discussion . . . comprehends the universal principles of equity and law. In such a discussion therefore on the great moral law of nature, the practice of the civil law can occupy but an insignificant and subordinate station. For according to our idea, we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man. We shall have to examine those principles of legislation by which all political states should be governed. And last of all, shall we have to speak of those laws and customs which are framed for the use and convenience of particular peoples, which regulate the civic and municipal affairs of the citizens, and which are known by the title of civil laws. Quintus. —You take a noble view of the subject, my brother, and go to the fountain–head of moral truth, in order to throw light on the whole science of jurisprudence: while those who confine their legal studies to the civil law too often grow less familiar with the arts of justice than with those of litigation. Marcus. —Your observation, my Quintus, is not quite correct. It is not so much the science of law that produces litigation, as the ignorance of it, (potius ignoratio juris litigiosa est quam scientia) . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions. They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones. They think, too, that the Greek name for law (NOMOS), which is derived from NEMO, to distribute, implies the very nature of the thing, that is, to give every man his due. [--> this implies a definition of justice as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities] For my part, I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
KF PS: Lawfare is one manifestation of the ruthless agenda we are dealing with.kairosfocus_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

jdk @ 52: "But how do you justify judging that their desires are disordered." You said it is immoral for an adult man to force a ten-year old boy to have sex with him, and you are correct. The desire to do something immoral is itself disordered and must be resisted. Now you can answer my question at 49Barry Arrington_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

kmidpuddle @53 While I disagree strongly with your worldview and the derived conclusions, I appreciate your well-wishes. I am of the opinion that when "those without the law do what the law demands", as Paul wrote, that it is much to their credit. So, thank you and the best for you as well, Stephen (aka Stephanie)SteRusJon_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

re 48: Excellent and moving. Thanks very much for sharing your thoughts. And 54 also. Also, I know that homosexuality and gender identity are not the same issue, although they overlap in some people, FWIW.jdk_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

I see that I have effectively been painted as stooge of the grand left wing conspiracy. I have no doubt that there are some who scheme to overthrow our very foundation as a nation. I happen to believe this is in the sovereign will of God. Thy will be done. I do wonder, if the right, particularly the Christian right, was more interested in "doing unto others as they would have done to them" in similar circumstances than on the personal decisions and actions of others so as to judge and condemn, if the individual members of the numerous disenfranchised groups would have been less susceptible to being so duped by them. Is it too late to change your attitudes and actions so as to win them over? Probably! We stooges, for the most part, want nothing more than to live our lives in peace but your attitude and actions confirm that you do not have our interest at heart because you would not like what you are doing to many of us if we were doing it to you. I will do as best I can to allow others to live in peace and, for myself, trust in God to judge me with true and full knowledge and mercy and grace. I am safe there. Your condemnation is of no import to me. Again a lot of opinion above that is based on experience of a fully aligned set of sex related characteristics that is of no value. You have no idea what you are talking about. One other point. The OP was addressed to "gender studies." In that respect, the homosexuality debate above is somewhat off topic. Homosexuality, while related to human sex characteristics, is distinct from gender identity. A common misconception is that they are necessarily related and an indication that one who thinks such is not conversant with the subject of gender identity issues and transgenderism. I have had my say and will, likely, leave the discussion. If any of you who object to my life actually take the trouble to get to know a stable, happy, successful transgender individual, of which there are many, I would really like to know about it and if it had any affect on your views. Stephen (aka Stephanie)SteRusJon_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

SteRusJon, before I get banned again for mentioning the blatantly obvious, I just want to commend you on presenting your situation in a logical and clear fashion. I am an atheist but you are the type of Christian that makes Christianity such an appealing religion. I wish the best for you.kmidpuddle_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

Barry, I'm curious what your response to this is: I wrote,
But how do you justify judging that their desires are disordered. When I said we had to exercise our reason and moral sense, that there was no guidebook, and we had to be realistic about the effect of our culture on our viewpoint, you rolled all that into “whatever jdk prefers.” But what do you have that is not covered in my sentence above? How does “what Barry prefers” differ from “what jdk prefers?”
jdk_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

Kmid:
Barry, did you want to bring up the molestation of 10 year old boys again?
Yes, actually, and if you had been paying attention you would notice that I did after Stephen's comment at 48. I am having an exchange with JDK, and I am now waiting for him to answer my question at 49.Barry Arrington_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

SteRusJon@48:
I see there have been several posts related to my comment #26. Let me address portions of various ones....
Ouch. That is going to leave a mark here. Barry, did you want to bring up the molestation of 10 year old boys again? KF, would you like to comment on inherently disordered and the downfall of civilization?kmidpuddle_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Barry:
Should our love and respect for a man who wants to have sex with 10 year-old boys allow him to be different without labeling him abnormal in the moral sense?
JDK:
Barry, the difference, which I know you are aware of, is that I was referring to consenting adults. Sex between adults and 10 year olds is immoral.
OK. We are making some progress. It is immoral for a man to have sex with a 10 year old boy. In ancient Sparta men had sex with young boys all the time. It was a commonly accepted practice. That practice was immoral wasn’t it JDK.Barry Arrington_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

I see there have been several posts related to my comment #26. Let me address portions of various ones. First, I did not actually state that I am transgender. But, for the record, I will now so stipulate. I do not believe I am defective or disordered or pathological. I believe that it may be some defective or disordered or pathological process or event is responsible for my present state. There was a time, long ago, that I thought there was something defective with me. I implored for healing. It never came. God left me to my own devices to deal with a state of being that is fully male anatomically and more female than male mentally/psychologically. I know some hold that my mental state is subject to my will but I assure you that it is in fact contrary to my will. For those of you who hold that gender identity is a choice, I ask, "Can you tell be what was that time and place that you made the choice? Do you awake in the morning and choose your gender for the day? Do you think you could "will" yourself to be of the opposite gender for the day?" I do not, any longer, believe I am defective. There is discussion of what is "normal' in the comments above. I do not believe there is a normal. There is a spectrum of mixed "sex" related characteristics in individuals. Instead of "normal", I see that there are "ideals". An "ideal" male and an "ideal" female with all of us actual persons distributed somewhere in between. Fortunately, most are clustered on one end or the other of the spectrum.. Problem is, without the omniscience of God, I have no idea what the correct blend of characteristics, both physical and psychological, would be to satisfy those two ideals. What I have come to realize is that just as the Psamlist knew he was knit together by God in his mother's womb, I know, so was I. Kf seems to believe that I and others like me are intent on destroying western civilization in some great conspiracy. I am not part of some grand scheme. I and so many of others who are marginalized in one or more ways want nothing more to live or lives in peace. Those of us who are essentially conservative have been forced to make unholy alliance with the enemy of our enemies to press for protection from those that would prevent that. Those of us who are more liberal are not convinced switch sides by rhetoric that demonizes us individually by claiming we are out to destroy the world system in some grand scheme when all we want is to keep our job, not be spit upon, keep our families together, have our children attend school safely and come out as productive members of society, Live in the neighborhood of our choice in a home within our means instead of denied housing. There is discussion of morality. What is moral about a father and mother casting their teen-aged child out onto the street for a deviation from the ideal? Where is the morality in firing and otherwise acceptable, even exemplary, employee when it is discovered or revealed that they are transgender thereby causing them and their family to suffer great losses? How is it moral to refuse to rent to an obvious transgender person who has the means to pay and the character to be a good tenant? I know that a major flash point is the bathroom issue that has been brought to the fore in an effort to save our civilization from decay. I am sympathetic to the concerns of many. But I, also, know that much of what the conservative right puts forward in making its case is deceptive, at best, or downright wrong in many respects. The harm that these laws are ostensibly meant to prevent are already legislated against by uncontroversial legislation. God knows these laws are rooted in the need for some to protect our civilization from the perverts who would destroy us all. I won't go any further on that topic. Point is, we are judged by God on how it is that we treat one another as individuals. Not on how well or hard we worked to fix the world. If we did a much better job of caring for each other the world would be a much better place, automatically. I acknowledge that there are some who have gone to extreme in their reaction to the harms done to us in the past. I can understand the the over-reaction but I am not in favor of it. But, please, recognize that that there has been and there continues to be actions that harm us as human beings made, imperfectly, in the image of God. Te plight and struggles of each transgender individual are unique to themselves. While many who try to live more as their inner identity dictates have difficulty and continue to struggle, but with different problems, there are many more that succeed in making their live more fulfilling. I wonder if those who are so staunchly against the decision of transgender individuals to live in accord with their inner identity have ever read the autobiographical accounts of anyone who has made a successful transition. How can one begin to have empathy for the someone with out hearing their story? Many of us have stepped back from the brink of suicide before making the choice to become and be the person within either by changing the anatomy or ignoring the anatomy that indicates the contrary. I assure you, if it was a simple matter of a willful choice, it would have been easy. If you think it is simply a choice, that is proof positive you have no idea what the true situation is. The orthodox Christian view is that the soul resides in the body. I ask those who agree with that, "Do you believe the soul more closely conforms to the anatomy or to the psyche?" Keep in mind that in the resurrection, Jesus tells us, "They are like the angels, ...." when speaking of whose wife the widow would be. I think sex anatomy is a temporary state intended for procreation in this physical world and is not even carried over into the next. If God where to be merciful to me and grant my request to heal me, (not that I any longer believe I need healing,) I wonder if He would change my identity as a person to conform to my anatomy, or, change my anatomy to conform to my identity as a person? Do you have such wisdom so as to make the correct call? Stephen (aka Stephanie) PS This is an edit. I see that there are post that were made while I put these thoughts together so this does not cover everything above.SteRusJon_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

re 45: more on abnormal and normal vs moral and immoral. These may overlap, but they are different. I know someone that has OCD, and is very paranoid about contamination sometimes, so the point of being out of touch with reality about this. This is abnormal but is not a moral issue. I think having sexual relations with someone other than one's spouse is immoral, but I think it is common enough that one could, I'm afraid, consider it fairly normal behavior. So we have two separate categories here, although I'm sure they overlap.jdk_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

re 39: by loving, I meant sexual love, which I clarified later.
You ask if Christians should be empathetic with people struggling with disordered desires? Yes, of course. But empathy does not extend to lying to them about whether their desires are disordered.
But how do you justify judging that their desires are disordered. When I said we had to exercise our reason and moral sense, that there was no guidebook, and we had to be realistic about the effect of our culture on our viewpoint, you rolled all that into "whatever jdk prefers." But what do you have that is not covered in my sentence above? How does "what Barry prefers" differ from "what jdk prefers?"jdk_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

re 41. Barry, the difference, which I know you are aware of, is that I was referring to consenting adults. Sex between adults and 10 year olds is immoral. I am not saying that we can't make moral judgments about different behaviors, although I think labelling them normal and abnormal is not very useful, or perhaps confuses two different issues.jdk_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Very wrong, Stephen, but I see no sense in further discussion after reading 43.jdk_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

jdk
If two women, or two men, love each other, including sexual attraction, and as part of that love have a sexual relationship, is that “abnormal” and we should do something for them if we can?
Yes, that would be morally abnormal. Yes, we should do something for them if we can. Leftist elitists do not really love gays. Their real aim is to control them politically by encouraging and feeding their sexual slavery. Otherwise, they would inform gays that, on average, their behavior will hasten their death by 20 years.StephenB_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

jdk
I think they moral things to do is as SRJ states.
You have conflated two questions: [a] Should society treat transgenders/intersexers morally? [b] Should transgenders/intersexers act morally? I say that the answer to both questions is yes. You seem to say that the answer to question [a] is yes and the answer to question [b] is no. Do I interpret your comments correctly?StephenB_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

jdk @ 40:
should our love and respect and support for their human dignity allow them to be different without labelling them abnormal in the moral sense?
Should our love and respect for a man who wants to have sex with 10 year-old boys allow him to be different without labeling him abnormal in the moral sense?Barry Arrington_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Good - I'm glad to read some of what you say.
Individuals can be abnormal in many ways. That doesn’t mean that they lack human dignity or that they don’t deserve love and respect. It also doesn’t mean that nothing should be done for them if something can be done.
Yes, I agree the part about love and respect, but I'm not sure just how one, or you, decides what kind of "abnormal" things would indicate that "something should be done for them." If two women, or two men, love each other, including sexual attraction, and as part of that love have a sexual relationship, is that "abnormal" and we should do something for them if we can? Or should our love and respect and support for their human dignity allow them to be different without labelling them abnormal in the moral sense?jdk_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

jdk @ 36
I believe that humans are moral creatures,
Promising start if the word “moral” means anything other than “what jdk happens to prefer.”
and I am committed to living a moral life.
Even more promising start if the word “moral” means anything other than “what jdk happens to prefer.”
However, there is no guide book anyplace, and yes, cultural norms change.
Uh oh. There is no guide to what is moral. And cultural consensus is ephemeral, pushing for eugenics one day and condemning it the next. So if we were having this conversation 10 years from now in a hypothetical world in which political progressives have switched their views about homosexuality the way they switched their views about eugenics, then you would be arguing the other side of this question. Why should I care what you think is "moral" if by "moral" all you mean is what you and people you agree with happen to think at a given time, always reserving the right to think exactly the opposite 10 years from now?
Therefore, each of us has to exercise our moral sense as best we can,
What does it mean to “exercise” ones “moral sense”? If there is no objective moral standard (either in a guide book or though societal norms), then “exercising one’s moral sense” seems to be code for “doing what I prefer.” If it is not, please tell me what it means.
balancing what our reason and moral sense tells us with an understanding that we are unlikely to be totally free of the cultural judgements with which we have been surrounded as we have grown.
On what basis does jdk reason to a moral conclusion if “moral” means “what jdk prefers”?
Do you believe it is moral to label SteRusJin as degenerate, pathological, and or immoral?
By “moral” you mean “what jdk prefers.” Obviously, jdk does not prefer for people to call SteRusJin degenerate, pathological, and or immoral. Accordingly, under your definition of the term “moral” it is not moral. Obviously, however, you have given me no reason to suppose that anyone else should care what you prefer. That is the problem with your approach to morality jdk. You define it entirely subjectively, and then expect everyone to bow down to your subjective preferences as if they had objective weight. This proves once again that it is utterly impossible to live as a moral relativist. No matter how much someone spouts relativism, they can’t help but believe that at the end of the day their moral judgments have objective force. It is impossible for moral relativists to act as if their moral judgments are what they say they are – mere expressions of their subjective preferences. All of this give rise to this weird state where if I were to answer the question in a way that is counter to jdk’s subjective preferences, he would think I am immoral, as if jdk’s subjective preferences should somehow be binding on me.
Why is your belief that it is immoral for two people of the same sex to love each other, for instance, any better grounded than my sense that it is immoral to deny them that?
What an absurd question. I don’t think it is immoral for two people of the same sex to love one another. Neither does anyone else as far as I know. That you would ask the question that way speaks volumes. jdk @ 37 You ask if Christians should be empathetic with people struggling with disordered desires? Yes, of course. But empathy does not extend to lying to them about whether their desires are disordered. Should Christians work to find ways to ease the struggles of people with disordered desires to find joy and happiness in life? Yes, of course. But telling them their disordered desires are not in fact disordered and telling them they should embrace and act on their disordered desires will not help them with that struggle.Barry Arrington_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

jdk
There is a difference between statistically normal (the percentage of people who are not heterosexual is about the same as the percent of people who don’t have red hair), and morally normal.
I was referring to morally normal. The standard for sexual morality exists for all people, regardless of where they may find themselves on the psychological or biological spectrum. . In many cases, that same standard will prompt individuals who are confused about who they are to search for their true gender identity, which can usually be determined. Don't you think people deserve to have that chance?
Read the post at 26, and tell me: is SteRisJon morally abnormal? Does his existence go “against the rational order of the universe.”
It is impossible for someone's "existence" to violate the rational order of the universe. Only one's behavior can do that. Morality is about behavior and intentions, not psychological or biological orientation.
Is it morally abnormal for me to want him treated with all the moral dignity and rights as any other person?
Of course not. I want the same thing, Indeed, I insist on it. However, you seem to confuse the phenomenon of intersexism, which is primarily physical, with the problem of transgenerism, which is primarily psychological. You also seem to assume that medical, psychological, or moral intervention should never be used to correct such abnormalities. Individuals can be abnormal in many ways. That doesn't mean that they lack human dignity or that they don't deserve love and respect. It also doesn't mean that nothing should be done for them if something can be done--while they are being loved.StephenB_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

Barry, let's simplify. SteRuJon finished his post with
A truly Christian attitude would, I think, be more empathetic to the plight of such individuals and, instead of dismissing and marginalizing them in society, work to find ways to ease their struggles to find joy and happiness in life.
I think they moral things to do is as SRJ states. Do you?jdk_{June 12, 2017
June
06
Jun
12
12
2017
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 16 17 18 19 20 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply