The debate "Is it a God mistake or a genetic mistake" was started by
March 9, 2017, 10:31 am.
By the way, neveralone is disagreeing with this statement.
4 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 9 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
neveralone posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
TheExistentialist posted 4 arguments, neveralone posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
theshadow0, saurabhBalpande8888, makson and 1 visitor agree.
TheExistentialist, Najam1, neveralone, braymus17 and 5 visitors disagree.
but tolerance is something we are told to have in the Bible on several occasions as well. that's not including the "throw the first stone if u haven't sin" story in the Bible.
there are many ways to interpret that last line. some people advocate tough love and brutal "truth", which most often takes the form of harassment and discrimination.
be nice if there was an official clarification...
yeah. it's a fine line. we must live in the world but not be a part of it. in other words we live to help others who have fallen but we have to stay tolerant without joining. one scenario I can come up with is throughout the Bible Jesus was not with the rich and good but stayed with the bad. he healed them and taught them how to live their lives.
even if it is wrong according to the Bible, it teaches you how to live YOUR life. it also has a separate teaching on how to treat OTHERS.
also. the Bible has many teachings. it teaches that homosexuality is wrong, but it also teaches not to be judgemental, to love your neighbor, and many many many lines regarding charity (something that is the exact opposite of the right wing positions, foreign and domestic).
sure, but so is wearing clothing made of blended fibers, eating shrimp, breeding mules...women on their periods can't be touched, etc...
there are a bunch of things in the Bible that have nothing to do with morality and are just random commands. Homosexulity isn't a moral issue really. It causes no harm to the individuals who engage on it, it causes no harm to anyone in society, it causes no pain or suffering to any conscious creature at all.
So saying an act (or disposition) is "wrong" and yet is void of any moral consequences is a useless statement in a way. It's kind of like saying it's morally wrong to speak Spanish instead of English. It's a product of happenstance not moral impropriety.
so It is wrong in the Bible.
it auto corrected I meant homosexual relationships
so I would like to move this to heterosexual relationships. I have been searching for a certain Scripture that says this is wrong but have yet to find one. so I guess what I'm asking is if there is such a Scripture?
No, the study says that the "condition" (gender dysphoria) could not be considered a "disease" because there is no harm being done by the "condition" itself. So, the first step essentially in saying gender non-conformity is not a mental illness (mistake)
There are studies which measure the outcome of gender reassignment surgeries and facial feminization surgery (FFS) as it relates to mental health. The results are pretty interesting.
---this study shows the efficacy of gender reassignment surgery; the decrease in stress and the increase in normal function post surgery. While this is a great way to look at the efficacy of gender reassignment surgery and it's benefits, it doesn't, by itself show the social impact.
--- this is a much more interesting study since it compares FFS to gender reassignment surgeries (GRS) and the results are pretty surprising. FFS seems to have a similar outcomes to GRS and GRS + FFS. This seems to suggest that gender dysphoria is a product of social acceptance of gender norms vs non-conformation. Since sex wasn't addressed in FFS surgeries, the only variable in FFS is the social reaction one gets for gender non-conformity.
So we can say there is pretty good evidence that if gender non-conformation was more widely accepted, actual reassignment may not be as necessary. The evidence isn't conclusive yet, but the FFS study shows that outward appearance can effect reactions to gender non-conformity and do so without gender reassignment. This is indirect evidence supporting the idea that GRS and FFS are only necessary because of societal rejection for gender non-conformity.
ur hypothesis would make sense
that's not what the study said. it said the outside of social stigma, there is no harm to the person, not that they will have no desire to change genders. that is my personal hypothesis, I don't think any studies have been done to prove it. it does make sense logically tho. and either way, hating on someone else for how they act (as long as it isn't violent) is wrong so even if it doesn't change that, we should still seek to improve that aspect of our culture.
yes, I'm a total beta who clearly avoids confrontations. lol.
Oh look, nemiroff is a beta male and whats all men to be weak like him. what a surprise.
so if society doesn't care if ur the macho guy or not then u will feel no need to change ur sex? just seeing if I'm understanding this correctly
Well, the W.H.O conducted a study published in The Lancet Psychiatry in 2016, which seems to substantiate the claim that gender dysphoria (the medical term for transgendered individuals) is due to social pressures. Gender dysphoria is technically still classified as a mental illness under the ICD.
One of the key parts of defining an abnormal mental status as a disease is whether or not it causes stress, harm, or damage. The W.H.O study found that in isolation, gender dysphoria caused no stress, harm, or damage. Rather, it is the social response to gender dysphoria that causes stress, harm, and damage. So the condition itself will likely be removed from the ICD and no longer be considered a mental disorder.
Multiple follow up studies on this are already being conducted and even more are being planned. The follow up studies that have been done suggest that the amount of stress and harm is greater in societies with stricter gender roles standards, again reinforcing the notion that gender dysphoria is purely a societal problem rather than a mental disease.
1) that was about modeling ourselves to models.
2) I could argue that the celebrity thing is harmful but again a dif. debate. idk on transgender. I would like to know concerning God on this but as far as I know the Bible says nothing which got me on the train of thought of wondering where we got the idea that accepting transgender is God's mistake. then nemiroff said (from my understanding )that society pressure to be a macho man has forced men to become women and vise versa.
I was trying to respond to @neveralone. Had some issues with getting the reply button to work and forgot to include the @neveralone I guess. My response is to his claim that
A) "true. wether right or wrong is a diff. debate."
--- I'd argue it's not a debate at all since being transgender has no moral status.
B) "but how do u change how one thinks?"
You don't need to if there is no harm being done.
I didn't say it's morally wrong. I just hypothesized at the underlying cause. some say they "feel like the wrong gender", well what does a gender feel like? our norms superimposed subjective feelings for make and female and that is what is creating the conflict (imo).
society doesn't change fast so they should be free to choose a change, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the underlying issues and seek so that people don't feel uncomfortable in their own skin without massively dangerous hormone therapy and surgery.
I don't get this opposition to transgendered people. If you value freedom, then you should value all freedom. Since them changing their gender has absolutely zero impact on anything you do, I don't see how being transgendered isn't embraced like any other liberty we have. The ability to say what you want, worship who/what you want, the ability to be who/what you want, the ability to love who you want (within the realm of consent), etc... How is that not the American ideal?
Changing one's gender has absolutely zero moral status since the effects are not harmful to anyone, nor does it have the potential to effect anyone.
So how exactly is being transgender a moral issue at all?
true. wether right or wrong is a diff. debate.
also true. some ideas need change others preserved. but how do u change how one thinks?
I didn't say we should model ourselves after celebrities. I said celebrities are given more exceptions and flexibility.
and yes, we have a lot more rules for girls, but the handful of rules guys have are enforced (socially) with a vengeance.
we accept tomboys so why not guys? idk. I don't look at celebrities to dictate my life but I know some do. it is something that will be hard to accept for some.
we are OK with not being macho now, but not with full blown feminine behavior. example Chris tucker in fifth element. or prince. gay? straight? no one even knows!
I mean, we'll accept anything from a celebrity, but ordinary people will not be able to pull off a prince type personality without massive shaming.
I think guys don't need to be super macho if their not but I am admittedly against the grain. so what ur saying is if the guy could be less macho he wouldn't change his sex?
the mistake is not genetic nor divine. it is as it should be. the problem is the strict gender norms our society imposes on us. if a man was allowed to not be ultramacho he wouldn't feel like his body is misplaced.
I won't go into guessing about god, but nature always prefers diversity.
that is what I believe. and what we are told. so that leaves genetic. which why then is it wrong to right the genetic?
God cant make mistakes. the whole concept of God is that he is not limited by weaknesses that the creation possess.
while considering the transgender argument I see that we put out there that to accept transgender we must accept that God can make mistakes. I'm not sure about this though. I mean God made the soul. we made the body. so to me it feels more like a genetic mistake. opinions?