Captain James Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Ohhhhhhhhh. That's all they have to do? You should call up the The American Psychological Association and let them know you got it all figured it now. Lol Brother, jokes are great, and I know what the APA thinks.. i've been studying counseling for a while now. It's all good though. We view things from completely different perspectives/worldviews. The APA is only one perspective: the secular one. I got that. It doesn't really mean anything to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Brother, jokes are great, and I know what the APA thinks.. i've been studying counseling for a while now. It's all good though. We view things from completely different perspectives/worldviews. The APA is only one perspective: the secular one. I got that. It doesn't really mean anything to me. I think there's a term for people who believe that they have the power to create their own reality. And a willingness to impose it on others. (More than one, I believe). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 The story in the OP must be exaggerated or distorted somehow. I would be very surprised to find the facts of the case are as described. Also I think the use of "they/them/their" in the singular sounds horrible. I would prefer we just default to "she/her/hers" instead of "he/him/his." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 So referring to yourself as xyr isn't going to make a kid feel even more like an outcast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Brother, jokes are great, and I know what the APA thinks.. i've been studying counseling for a while now. It's all good though. We view things from completely different perspectives/worldviews. The APA is only one perspective: the secular one. I got that. It doesn't really mean anything to me. So are you denying transsexuals exist, or that their psychology is invalid? I don't see what your worldview has to do with this. Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stugein Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 So am I a bad person if I don't hate, don't discriminate, but just really really am starting to find things like this increasingly stupid and tiring? I mean, I'm all for equality. I believe people should be treated the same no matter who or what they are. Acceptance should just be expected. Male, female, transsexual, pre-op, post-op, co-op, anything in between. Whatever the sex/gender/gender identity/whatever shouldn't matter. But for ****'s sake, if you present yourself as or look like a dude I'm calling you "he" and if you present yourself as or look like a chick I'm calling you "she". If I'm wrong and you correct me I'll apologize and start calling you the other one instead; I'm down with whatever you feel you are. But that's it. I'm over having to tip-toe around terminology and now we're talking about adding more pronouns? Just...come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I think there's a term for people who believe that they have the power to create their own reality. And a willingness to impose it on others. (More than one, I believe). Wait, let me guess...transgender? Do I get a prize? So are you denying transsexuals exist, or that their psychology is invalid? I don't see what your worldview has to do with this. Just curious. Worldview has everything to do with it. The "secular worldview" says we determine our own reality and existence e.g. who we are, how we should be, why we do things, what we do. etc. The biblical worldview says God determines reality and existence and He answers those questions. Do you see the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 So am I a bad person if I don't hate, don't discriminate, but just really really am starting to find things like this increasingly stupid and tiring? I mean, I'm all for equality. I believe people should be treated the same no matter who or what they are. Acceptance should just be expected. Male, female, transsexual, pre-op, post-op, co-op, anything in between. Whatever the sex/gender/gender identity/whatever shouldn't matter. But for ****'s sake, if you present yourself as or look like a dude I'm calling you "he" and if you present yourself as or look like a chick I'm calling you "she". If I'm wrong and you correct me I'll apologize and start calling you the other one instead; I'm down with whatever you feel you are. But that's it. I'm over having to tip-toe around terminology and now we're talking about adding more pronouns? Just...come on. I don't think that makes you a bad person. I am pretty sure that is almost the exact thing I said to my wife when we were discussing this issue - not this particular article, but the issue - a few months ago. I told her that it was frustrating as hell to understand. Part of that frustration is that even within the transgender community there seems to be no agreement on terminology. But that is not just a trans issue. I have gay friends who openly use the f-word and queer to describe themselves, while others find it offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVAbrendan Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I don't think that makes you bad person either. From what I've encountered, if you're unsure of what pronoun to use when addressing a person, it's not rude to ask what they would prefer to be called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Wait, let me guess...transgender? Do I get a prize? Actually noting that I can see some validity to that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Worldview has everything to do with it. The "secular worldview" says we determine our own reality and existence e.g. who we are, how we should be, why we do things, what we do. etc. The biblical worldview says God determines reality and existence and He answers those questions. Do you see the difference? Yeah, I do, and it sounds a lot like how kids get sent to gay conversion camps or whatever. Trying to say what should be done with these kids through the biblical worldview sounds a lot more like people making these decisions, not God. Where did God say that these kids are confused and need to be taught that being transgender is essentially fictional? I do want to thank you for the clarification and would be interested in hearing what you think the appropriate response to this type of situation would be through a biblical worldview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Warning: Big Lots Text I am combining three long posts over the last three days due to time and interruptions--well, and having figured (until now) that I shouldn't bother really getting into it. To anyone who does read it, for whatever reason, I apologize in advance--"God knows I'm sorry." I recommend most folks just skip my long posts. I tend to have well-deliberated reasons for how I do what I do, and when. The why is Eyes Only. 1. I know I'll have my share of "aw, jeeez" reactions to some of the posting I typically see on such topics. I do get the guys who are smelling "too much whining" and are being more ridiculing/dismissive (see underlined sentence in 2.). And I don't for a minute assume just from that reaction that they'd be hard on people with these issues in their presence, but would most likely simply treat them based on their individual "personality", not their "type." Even when I read examples of (literal) ignorance playing its role here, it's fine with me when not combined with either passive or aggressive arrogance, since we can't know everything about everything, though we post like we do. Usually, though, there is arrogance attached, and often from people who could hardly know less about it, yet still speaking so definitively on "how it is" or "should be." (more on that in 3). But the big save of these threads for me is that usually guys with some really worthy content (substantive or witty/funny, and it can come from any "side" on the topic) do show up and restore my naturally sunny and benevolent outlook. Wait---something in my throat.....ok. In that spirit, I want to state that Destino seems like such a credit to any demographic he'd claim membership in, and consistently reads as such an honest, open-minded guy yet with firm values, and just a very decent hooman bean. Ego-driven piety and arrogance, whether presented gently and smoothly or crudely and clumsily, seem to have passed him over. And what I always identified as one my favorite principles, humility, which if I remember is also considered a key spiritual principle in the Christian faith, is something he seems to have in spades. Like to multiply him by lots. Not sure that last line came out as intended. 2. I wouldn't posit the specific situation in the article as one to necessarily hitch a horse to, but the themes it addresses, and some of the standard reactions to it, can be used generally (as I will here, in serious length as it sometimes turns out) re: people and their attitudes on matters of human sexuality. There's still so much tough stuff to figure out and "try to get right" in this area, even for people actually living it, as well as for many well-qualified competent people who have long been working deeply in the field. But even what we have learned is hardly a typical part of the "opinion base" of many people. Not that lacking a credible and appropriate knowledge base stops many people from strongly opining on a matter, of course. And then there's what importance---"what should we do, if anything?"---we as a society agree to give to any "conclusions" even when we achieve establishing some. Whether about "accepted terminology" or "more important stuff", some reasonably expected reactions take forms like: "Well yeah, maybe some <insert label> have to put with some unfair ****, but who doesn't? Why change laws/customs that reflect important beliefs of the majority because a few troubled folks can't suck it up and deal. Why should we change so much for them? Who does that for me? No one gets everything they want and we all have problems. We all get treated poorly somewhere along the line. Just ask fat people. Welcome to earth." If I'm just going by the article (or part of my early upbringing), I see it, and agree with some of these types of sentiments in some contexts. I hate the gratuitously thin-skinned. But I don't apply that label to most who people seriously struggling with these kinds of problems and are not simply doing some "whiny self-indulgent drama." And "the labels" are a mess to most folks, especially on the "outside", but that's certainly an even bigger problem for these portions of the lgbt community. It didn't get messy "just because" of the "confused people with unfortunate sexual stuff." It gets that way because we ALL "have to have" labels for everyone and then we assign our group/individual positive and negative judgments via those labels to a large degree. That's a fundamental part of humans living in groups/society. But identifying and agreeing as to what is "excessive" or "wrong" and what "still flies" in our labeling/valuing/behavior/policy on any given topic of serious and controversial (often very "limbic") content is the big challenge. It's like a long war in some cases. But societies do change. If I say "Joe is the head of Community Charities" at the local church it's all smiles. If I say "Joe is a transvestite" (whether or not I even know the term's correct applications), it's a very different reaction to the same person, just via the label. Does that aspect of Joe's life in and of itself merit that change in reaction? Is it just? Fair? "Christian?" Is that characteristic really that vital to assessing the person's value as a member of society? I just did this exact thing at a church that I also do volunteer work for (yeah--long-held practice) as part of a discussion. I consider all this stuff as things to be mindful of in these discussions. And as in similar key aspects of our self (like how we represent parts of our self via our spiritual and philosophical and political views) it's often hard even for many "normal" people to accurately label themselves with single sweeping term. And, again, these terms do influence us by our assigned values--see voting mainly by the "R" or "D" next to a name. Picture someone with many desirable characteristics and views in all the normal candidate categories that many of us might love to see running for Potus, but they also self-describe as a "cross-dresser" or Muslim <cue Obama jokes lol) or, gasp, an atheist. Labels do matter. Reductionism of a person is a common pastime. Bigotry/prejudice (of even the most irrational/senseless type) is a common pastime. To my worldview, it begs for careful management, not the unfettered freestyle running that many egos (especially among dominant groups in a society) are comfy with much of the time. But all kinds of folks have problems in life where they are treated unfairly for some aspect of what/who they are at times, including members of majority demographics--even middle-aged white Christian males. Many of our citizens (correctly IMV) see much of this as them being asked to compromise/cooperate with changes in outlook and attitude that are, to them, supporting seriously unacceptable (despised in many cases) behaviors. And "just for some small segment of the population" or for "no good reason." So it is a big deal for those folks, too. They live here too--they count pragmatically and existentially in the argument. So when people are working towards such cultural changes in outlooks and attitudes on major social constructs, like slavery/suffrage/NA genocide/lgbt bigotry/ etc etc etc, it is a turbulent (often violent), varying, and uneven journey that is full of pitfalls (some horribly daunting) on all sides and missteps (some bloodily violent) by all sides. Many here, reflecting the society, may not even like/accept my inclusion of lgbt to that list. That's beautifully relevant to the issue, IMO, as the same dynamic ("this is different") was lively in those past cases. Most of all of it simply revolves around the more virulent forms of bigotry and self that are such a part of being human. I also keep in mind that there were many "fine-seeming and fun fellows" who spoke/wrote quite reasonably on many matters, yet also ridiculed or fought or despaired similarly over those other changes in their time. Most of us (obviously not all) these days certainly do seem to prefer letting the wimmenfolk share, and prefer the absence of overt genocide of an indigenous population and legally sanctioned slavery. I'd hope it's obvious I wouldn't be asserting "complete" equivalencies in all these issues, just noting relevant fundamentals. In the end, whatever changes are going to "make it" is a guess. My "most-likely" projection is that in the relatively near future, much of our "human sexuality dialogue" will be viewed much like previous dialogues in those past matters (not that those fights are all over). 3. (see 2 re: my old ignorance-plus-arrogance™ formula) Take mi amigo, CapnJames ("oooo, studied counseling, have we?"<--my best Yoda ) and his authoritative grasp of what constitutes "true" minorities, or on defining gender, or how "these children are just confused" (everyone can go home now, mission accomplished), or on whatever qualities he might view as representative of a "rational" adult. Perhaps rational to him might mean someone who deeply believes some pretty weird stuff--like Islam or Judaism or Christianity contains in the eyes of many other fine and intelligent people, or even in the eyes of one of those faith's believers who's looking at the other's departures from The Truth. And perhaps is also someone generally, or comparatively, or totally, ignorant, yet opinionated about these matters. You know, like someone not interested in what the secular experts have to say on these matters because they've concluded that worldview is superfluous to what they've "decided" matters to them the most, if not to the people suffering the effects of needless castigation or ridicule for their differences (exacerbated by that very religion's dogma). Nevertheless The Bible/Christianity is all that's needed to handle it--because it's about sinning and who know sinning better? They even have "therapies" for it. Rational is sometimes suborned to a ridiculously subjective reference. Religion (Bible-based here) is a big player in these matters. In this thread, it's manifesting both its helpful and its harmful side. One thing it is without doubt, is a very powerful cultural structure. In matters of human sexuality, in particular, I think it makes clear some of its totally human-made nature as it just is full of completely irrational bull**** on the matter. However, many of our deep-seated societal paradigms, including ones of religion-prompted "good ole" hetero sexual-behavior restrictions, have shifted over time, at least in terms of how seriously they're taken/practiced in real life by its own adherents. As in my oft-noted examples of the "sins" of adult heterosexual oral and anal sex, adult unmarried sex, adult married sex just for fun (not procreation), and adult masturbation, all (or all but one) of which were "just as bad" as "homo sex" sin-wise ("technically" still are to my understanding). Yet those behaviors are now far less chastised or even discussed, regarding adults. More interestingly to me, "rationality-wise" I guess, is how it would appear that this deliberate, repeated, near-total abandonment of adhering to those restrictions by such huge numbers of believers (i'm going with "large majority") is seemingly violating their own accepted conditions for joining God/Jesus in the afterlife, or however its being phrased these days by whoever, wherever, given differences from pulpit/congregation to pulpit/congregation. The premise is everyone knows people are going to "sin" again, but at least you're supposed to strive for sincere regret and honest repentance and honest effort to cease the sin. It seems to me a whole bunch of Christians are just saying "forget it" (to the whole thing when doing that) and just sort of la-la-la around the matter like it "isn't there, really." Obviously, most of the married hetero Christians who do/enjoy it are not even going to try to "stop having" oral or anal sex. So that looks like a blatant FU to me to the "bottom line" requirement. So let me do a check-in--are BJ's (for example) still a sin between husband and wife? Do those people need to be cached in with the transgender folks? Are they going to hell (or be denied being with Jesus after death?) "Rational" stuff, indeed. But that's ( the soul damage?) their concern, I guess. Perhaps they're just confused. Maybe a good counselor... (important note: there are many excellent church counselors I've worked with and I've been asked to provide secular counselling to church members by numerous clergy. and then there are the "others", just as in the secular arena) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Yeah, I do, and it sounds a lot like how kids get sent to gay conversion camps or whatever. Trying to say what should be done with these kids through the biblical worldview sounds a lot more like people making these decisions, not God. Where did God say that these kids are confused and need to be taught that being transgender is essentially fictional? I do want to thank you for the clarification and would be interested in hearing what you think the appropriate response to this type of situation would be through a biblical worldview. Well, seeing as I am a Southern Baptist... we just passed a resolution on the issue. http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/2250/on-transgender-identity Warning: Big Lots Text Maybe later, I just ate and I'm pretty full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Oh, Z, you know (or I hope) we'll get through it. I did hold back with my typical "don't even post seriously on it" thought. It will likely bring a "huh?", but I never post on consumer audio "arguments" when they arise, though I was a national level expert in my first career of 20 year duration. Don't tell on me, amigo. Also had this one: Per zoony: (love the ref) Selecting the more intended definition as used popularly, there (UK) or here-- wanker (ˈwæŋkə) n 1. a person who wanks; masturbator 2. a worthless fellow wank•er (ˈwæŋ kər) n. Chiefly Brit. Slang. a contemptible person; jerk. [1945–50] On that basis, "wanker" could be as fitting a universal term as any, and certainly fits many of us who enjoy spreading our magnificent plumage on the internet every day for all to behold. Granted, my plumage is a bit shoddy in contrast to many of you finer specimens, and I must take responsibility. Never soak your plumage in 21 year old Blowmore Scotch for more than 12 hours at a stretch. Gets really sticky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Well, seeing as I am a Southern Baptist... we just passed a resolution on the issue. http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/2250/on-transgender-identity Thanks for the link. If I'm reading correctly, the message seems similar to views on homosexuality -- maybe not the "love the sinner, hate the sin" aspect but in the idea that the church does recognize transgenderism but disagrees with the secular response. I still struggle to accept "worldview" as good reasoning. I mean, people who practice 'faith healing' whose children end up dying, do they get a pass because it was part of their worldview? Jumbo, great post as usual, you've got at least one person who enjoys reading 'wall of text' from your POV. Wall of text sounds bad but I mean it as a compliment here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Always A Commander Never A Captain Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I can't see this thread going anywhere good. I did find a little chart that may help explain... Help me out here. I appear to be behind the times. Queer means someone who identifies as non-heteronormative. I thought it was a synonym for gay? Instead it actually refers to someone who could be asexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, homosexual, all sorts of sexual's but simply not heterosexual? So if someone is officially "queer" all we know is that they can't like only the opposite traditional male/female gender? They could still be sexually attracted to the opposite traditional male/female gender, but in order to be labeled "queer" they would also have to be attracted to other sexual identities as well? So instead of labeling themselves with the more specific terms like bisexual or asexual. Queer would be used sort of like a standby term until they figure out what they actually do/don't like? Pansexual sounds like someone whose attracted to anybody with a good/funny personality regardless of looks/genitalia? Polysexual is attracted to a smorgasbord of sexual varieties and up for anything? I'm trying to figure out the difference between Pan and Poly sexual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 In one, you'd like this (lots of oral play): In the other, you like this: If it's the second, know it is best to not be the kind of person who would kick someone out of bed for eating crackers or you may be very lonely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Poly-sexual: attraction to multiple sexes/genders, such as someone who is attracted to masculine women, androgenous men and women, and masculine men (but not feminine men and women). Pan-sexual: sexual attraction is completely open and based the individual, not sex or gender identification. (Ps: I hate posting on my phone...one more week till I get my PC back) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVAbrendan Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Help me out here. I appear to be behind the times. Queer means someone who identifies as non-heteronormative. I thought it was a synonym for gay? Instead it actually refers to someone who could be asexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, homosexual, all sorts of sexual's but simply not heterosexual? So if someone is officially "queer" all we know is that they can't like only the opposite traditional male/female gender? They could still be sexually attracted to the opposite traditional male/female gender, but in order to be labeled "queer" they would also have to be attracted to other sexual identities as well? So instead of labeling themselves with the more specific terms like bisexual or asexual. Queer would be used sort of like a standby term until they figure out what they actually do/don't like? Pansexual sounds like someone whose attracted to anybody with a good/funny personality regardless of looks/genitalia? Polysexual is attracted to a smorgasbord of sexual varieties and up for anything? I'm trying to figure out the difference between Pan and Poly sexual. I'm not informed enough to really elaborate on much of this... I know that queer used to be synonymous with 'gay'...but I actually have met somebody in person who identifies themselves as 'queer', which is I was told is not the same thing as 'gay'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Queer simply means outside the norm. In literature you might see a character referred to as that "queer fellow down the street" who is a hermit and talks to garden gnomes. Queer became synonymous with homosexuality (and later a derogatory slur) because homosexuals fall outside the accepted male/female sexual relationship. However it also applies to gender identification and those outside the traditional gender role assignments. For example, I would/could fall under the heading of "queer" not because of my sexuality ( I am heterosexual) but because of gender id (bi-gender). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Poly-sexual: attraction to multiple sexes/genders, such as someone who is attracted to masculine women, androgenous men and women, and masculine men (but not feminine men and women). Pan-sexual: sexual attraction is completely open and based the individual, not sex or gender identification. (Ps: I hate posting on my phone...one more week till I get my PC back) This is taking it way to far. In my world, its simple, either you are gay or strait, either you like the same sex or don't. Yes its that simple. The subtle differences don't matter. I mean seriously, if I only like black women, does that make me ebonysexual? Do we really have names for specific preferences? What if I like all women of color except white? does that make me melaninsexual? what about if I only prefer white women? Its funny, we talked about this at work and one thing we couldn't wrap our heads around was how does a transsexual women say they only date strait men? huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 This is taking it way to far. In my world, its simple, either you are gay or strait, either you like the same sex or don't. Yes its that simple. The subtle differences don't matter. I mean seriously, if I only like black women, does that make me ebonysexual? Do we really have names for specific preferences? What if I like all women of color except white? does that make me melaninsexual? what about if I only prefer white women? Its funny, we talked about this at work and one thing we couldn't wrap our heads around was how does a transsexual women say they only date strait men? huh? When you say "transexual woman" does that mean a person who is woman but wants to be a man, or a man who wants to be a woman? Oh the humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 This is taking it way to far. In my world, its simple, either you are gay or strait, either you like the same sex or don't. Yes its that simple. "This is my rifle, this is my gun!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 This is taking it way to far. In my world, its simple, either you are gay or strait, either you like the same sex or don't. Yes its that simple. The subtle differences don't matter. I mean seriously, if I only like black women, does that make me ebonysexual? Do we really have names for specific preferences? What if I like all women of color except white? does that make me melaninsexual? what about if I only prefer white women? Its funny, we talked about this at work and one thing we couldn't wrap our heads around was how does a transsexual women say they only date strait men? huh? This is all very puzzling, no doubt, which is why I find it odd you begin by saying it is simple. You say a person is either gay or straight. Do you mean to say that there are no bisexuals or are you saying bisexuals are a subcategory of gay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Really tired of reading about other people's sexuality. And even more tired of reading and hearing about how they've overcome so much. You want to lop off your tits and grow a penis go for it. Just stfu already. Thanks in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.