Caitlyn Jenner: The Reveal & The Reactions

[Grenartia]

It's really not open for debate any more than the shape of the Earth is open for debate. People can try to argue the point, but it's fruitless to do so.

People also debate whether vaccines cause Autism, but whatever.
Technically, by definition, transsexuals and homosexuals do have a mental disorder. Now, if you would please, find me the definition of "mental disorder".

I should also note that I am not against the idea of transsexuals and homosexuals, but I'm working off of technicalities.

Actually, no, neither being trans nor being gay meet the requirements of a mental disorder, since they do not inherently negatively impact the person's quality of life.

[Replevion]

No, it's not. However, it's up to you to show that this was a political decision, and not one based upon decades worth of research that tended to disprove older theories regarding sexuality, and instead indicated that homosexuality did not meet the definition of mental illness. Hell, even Freud didn't see homosexuality in and of itself as being harmful.

I'd agree that it's not harmful, I would however call it abnormal enough to be reasonably classified as a dysfunction. I don't see anything wrong with that. The pushes for the declassification of both Homosexuality and Transgenderism were both intended to stop governmental abuses motivated by the classification mentally ill and in my opinion it would be just great if we could stop mistreatment of the mentally ill instead of giving different groups the privilege of leaving the freak table. In the case of transgenderism there's actually a recognized need for care so Gender Dysphoria is the honestly ridiculous comrpomise. The feeling that your body and mind are mismatched is not a disorder but feeling less than okay about it is. Who else can get in on that deal, I don't want to be depressed and I think reclassification might be cheaper treatment.

"The privilege of leaving the freak table?"

You're going on ignore.

[Des-Bal]

"The privilege of leaving the freak table?"

You're going on ignore.

Yeah I think you missed the point.

[Boineburg]

People also debate whether vaccines cause Autism, but whatever.
Technically, by definition, transsexuals and homosexuals do have a mental disorder. Now, if you would please, find me the definition of "mental disorder".

I should also note that I am not against the idea of transsexuals and homosexuals, but I'm working off of technicalities.

Actually, no, neither being trans nor being gay meet the requirements of a mental disorder, since they do not inherently negatively impact the person's quality of life.

How ignorant are you?

When I try to explain my argument, you take out the little pieces that suit your argument best and throw away everything that doesn't.

Stop cherrypicking.

[Chessmistress]

In practice, since males will suffer more and more more and more true equality will be approached, that's VERY LIKELY to happen more and more in the future. Do you wish to see males with beards and muscles, dressed as males, joining women's only spaces just only because they say "I feel I'm a woman"?

I don't know, I was pretty unhappy when women wanted to join men-only spaces just because they felt like they were equal.

That's sarcasm BTW.

Men-only spaces were designed to exclude women, women's only spaces are designed to protected women and to give us safe space, that's very different.
However, you're funny: I'm consuming half bottle of Amarula I bought at the duty free shop, with a snoring blonde female supremacist valkyrie on the background, and someone still continue to say I'm a female supremacist or something like that: they should deal with my lady, that would be very funny. Luckily (or sadly, I'm not sure) she isn't able to speak English.

[Grenartia]

Yeah, and? Jesus never spoke against LGBT people.

1. Jesus never specifically singled it out because it was already widely known a the time He walked the Earth. 2. And anyways, the Bible still refers to homosexuality as a sin. 3. Jesus also affirmed that marriage is between one man and one woman.

1. But it wasn't widely known that helping somebody on the Sabbath isn't a sin, and in fact, refusing to help them pretty much is a sin? I find your claim suspect.

2. Only in Leviticus, and there's a shitton of stuff in Leviticus that nobody rails against people for being a sin (as I've already pointed out).

3. No. He didn't. He was specifically referring to how things worked in that period of time, not how they should always work.

[Grenartia]

Sex is not gender. Women can have penises. Fucking deal with it.

By definition, they cannot.

Fucking deal with it.

Women aren't defined by whether or not they own a vagina. Try again.

[Grand Calvert]

That's true. However, it does say that homosexuality is sinful (referred to as abomination in OT, reaffirmed as evil by Paul in NT). But just because someone is in sin, doesn't mean I treat them badly.

Lets see, only in Leviticus, which also condemns: the consumption of shellfish and bottom feeding fish (there goes nearly the entire Louisiana seafood industry), the consumption of pork, and of bacon, the consumption of meat and cheese (damn, there goes double bacon cheeseburgers) together, the agriculturally sound practice of crop rotation (welp, there goes the only thing that's kept the Dust Bowl from repeating over the last 8 decades), wearing clothes made of blended fabrics (damn, cotton-wool blends were comfortable, too), and a shitton of other stuff.

There's also a mistaken reference in Genesis, in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, but upon closer inspection, that's more about rape (unless you want to argue that the angels WANTED to have sex with the men of Sodom, but that would mean you'd have to also admit that God has no issue with gay people, and there's a place in heaven for them).

And Paul's words are up for debate. There's a significant case to be made that his words are being mistranslated on this subject, given that it appears the word commonly translated as "homosexuals" appears to have been entirely made up by Paul, which is odd, considering he had no need to invent a word that means "gay people", considering the word already existed in the Greek the NT was written in.

Also, treating us badly includes refusing to affirm us. I should point out I'm entirely against getting the government to force a church to accept us, but that should not be confused with not wanting non-affirming churches to see the light.

First off, it's important to remember that there are 3 different kinds of OT laws; Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil. Civil laws were the don't eat pork or shellfish, don't wear mixed fabrics, etc. These only existed to make the Israelites different from everyone else, and don't abide on everyone. Ceremonial laws were laws that pertained to sacrifices, which is unnecessary because Christ was the ultimate sacrifice. Moral laws are the don't murder, don't commit adultery, homosexuality, etc., and are God's moral standard and abide on everyone. As with Sodom and Gommorah, the reason for God's wrath was many things, including homosexuality. And as for Paul's words...there's no way that that's a mistranslation.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

2. Only in Leviticus, and there's a shitton of stuff in Leviticus that nobody rails against people for being a sin (as I've already pointed out).

Point out David and Jonathan

[Geilinor]

No, it's not. However, it's up to you to show that this was a political decision, and not one based upon decades worth of research that tended to disprove older theories regarding sexuality, and instead indicated that homosexuality did not meet the definition of mental illness. Hell, even Freud didn't see homosexuality in and of itself as being harmful.

I'd agree that it's not harmful, I would however call it abnormal enough to be reasonably classified as a dysfunction. I don't see anything wrong with that. The pushes for the declassification of both Homosexuality and Transgenderism were both intended to stop governmental abuses motivated by the classification mentally ill and in my opinion it would be just great if we could stop mistreatment of the mentally ill instead of giving different groups the privilege of leaving the freak table. In the case of transgenderism there's actually a recognized need for care so Gender Dysphoria is the honestly ridiculous comrpomise. The feeling that your body and mind are mismatched is not a disorder but feeling less than okay about it is. Who else can get in on that deal, I don't want to be depressed and I think reclassification might be cheaper treatment.

If it isn't harmful, it should not be classified as an illness. That is a very simple concept.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Actually, no, neither being trans nor being gay meet the requirements of a mental disorder, since they do not inherently negatively impact the person's quality of life.

How ignorant are you?

When I try to explain my argument, you take out the little pieces that suit your argument best and throw away everything that doesn't.

Stop cherrypicking.

How are they cherrypicking? You only had two statements in that post that needed further debate (the "but whatever" in that vaccines cause autism quip suggests that wasn't asked for debate):

Technically, by definition, transsexuals and homosexuals do have a mental disorder.

Now, if you would please, find me the definition of "mental disorder".

The second has been answered on several occasions, and is therefore irrelevant. That leaves your first statement, which is what he addressed.

[Boineburg]

By definition, they cannot.

Women aren't defined by whether or not they own a vagina. Try again.

Actually, that is literally the exact definition. Nothing more.

[Des-Bal]

If it isn't harmful, it should not be classified as an illness. That is a very simple concept.

I disagree, I think it interferes with typical function and that's plenty. It's troubling that in pursuing equality for some people we're stigmatizing the mentally ill.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Civil laws were the don't eat pork or shellfish, don't wear mixed fabrics, etc.

*Moral Laws.

Sodom and Gommorah, the reason for God's wrath was many things, including homosexuality.

Luke 10: 10-13; Isaiah 19: 13-14; Jeremiah 23: 14; Ezekiel 16: 49; Zephaniah 2: 8-11
It was not homosexuality that got Sodom destroyed, it was the wishing of the rape of God's Angels

[Boineburg]

Stop cherrypicking.

How are they cherrypicking? You only had two statements in that post that needed further debate (the "but whatever" in that vaccines cause autism quip suggests that wasn't asked for debate):

Technically, by definition, transsexuals and homosexuals do have a mental disorder.

Now, if you would please, find me the definition of "mental disorder".

The second has been answered on several occasions, and is therefore irrelevant. That leaves your first statement, which is what he addressed.

1: He's going back and picking out the long-outdated posts and putting them against me long after I've explained what they mean, choosing to ignore my actual argument in favor of the lead-up questions. If that isn't bigotry, I don't know what is.

2: Again, I've answered this before.

[Talvezout]

Lets see, only in Leviticus, which also condemns: the consumption of shellfish and bottom feeding fish (there goes nearly the entire Louisiana seafood industry), the consumption of pork, and of bacon, the consumption of meat and cheese (damn, there goes double bacon cheeseburgers) together, the agriculturally sound practice of crop rotation (welp, there goes the only thing that's kept the Dust Bowl from repeating over the last 8 decades), wearing clothes made of blended fabrics (damn, cotton-wool blends were comfortable, too), and a shitton of other stuff.

There's also a mistaken reference in Genesis, in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, but upon closer inspection, that's more about rape (unless you want to argue that the angels WANTED to have sex with the men of Sodom, but that would mean you'd have to also admit that God has no issue with gay people, and there's a place in heaven for them).

And Paul's words are up for debate. There's a significant case to be made that his words are being mistranslated on this subject, given that it appears the word commonly translated as "homosexuals" appears to have been entirely made up by Paul, which is odd, considering he had no need to invent a word that means "gay people", considering the word already existed in the Greek the NT was written in.

Also, treating us badly includes refusing to affirm us. I should point out I'm entirely against getting the government to force a church to accept us, but that should not be confused with not wanting non-affirming churches to see the light.

First off, it's important to remember that there are 3 different kinds of OT laws; Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil. Civil laws were the don't eat pork or shellfish, don't wear mixed fabrics, etc. These only existed to make the Israelites different from everyone else, and don't abide on everyone. Ceremonial laws were laws that pertained to sacrifices, which is unnecessary because Christ was the ultimate sacrifice. Moral laws are the don't murder, don't commit adultery, homosexuality, etc., and are God's moral standard and abide on everyone. As with Sodom and Gommorah, the reason for God's wrath was many things, including homosexuality. And as for Paul's words...there's no way that that's a mistranslation.

I get what you're trying to say, but I'm just gonna put this out:

The Bible is 2,000 years old. There's a very, very, very good chance that various topics/subjects in it have either been mistranslated or fudged with.

I'm not saying I'm a expert on this, just pointing out this.

[Grand Calvert]

Civil laws were the don't eat pork or shellfish, don't wear mixed fabrics, etc.

*Moral Laws.

Sodom and Gommorah, the reason for God's wrath was many things, including homosexuality.

Luke 10: 10-13; Isaiah 19: 13-14; Jeremiah 23: 14; Ezekiel 16: 49; Zephaniah 2: 8-11
It was not homosexuality that got Sodom destroyed, it was the wishing of the rape of God's Angels

That was part of it. Also included was sodomy, inhospitality, etc. It's not like everyone there was guilty of only one thing.

[Replevion]

I don't know, I was pretty unhappy when women wanted to join men-only spaces just because they felt like they were equal.

That's sarcasm BTW.

Men-only spaces were designed to exclude women, women's only spaces are designed to protected women and to give us safe space, that's very different.
However, you're funny: I'm consuming half bottle of Amarula I bought at the duty free shop, with a snoring blonde female supremacist valkyrie on the background, and someone still continue to say I'm a female supremacist or something like that: they should deal with my lady, that would be very funny. Luckily (or sadly, I'm not sure) she isn't able to speak English.

Trans women face violence, discrimination, and prejudice from the same sources as cis women, uncoincidentally. And prima facie we're less discriminating and prejudiced, and I wouldn't be surprised if, though I can't demonstrate it, that we're less violent too.

So you're trying to say we should be ok with you being a prejudiced because your s/o is more prejudiced? Sounds like flawless logic to me.

[Grand Calvert]

First off, it's important to remember that there are 3 different kinds of OT laws; Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil. Civil laws were the don't eat pork or shellfish, don't wear mixed fabrics, etc. These only existed to make the Israelites different from everyone else, and don't abide on everyone. Ceremonial laws were laws that pertained to sacrifices, which is unnecessary because Christ was the ultimate sacrifice. Moral laws are the don't murder, don't commit adultery, homosexuality, etc., and are God's moral standard and abide on everyone. As with Sodom and Gommorah, the reason for God's wrath was many things, including homosexuality. And as for Paul's words...there's no way that that's a mistranslation.

I get what you're trying to say, but I'm just gonna put this out:

The Bible is 2,000 years old. There's a very, very, very good chance that various topics/subjects in it have either been mistranslated or fudged with.

I'm not saying I'm a expert on this, just pointing out this.

No. The amount of manuscripts out there that say the exact same thing, and that we have modern translations that are super accurate, disproves this.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

That was part of it. Also included was sodomy, inhospitality, etc. It's not like everyone there was guilty of only one thing.

Luke 10: 10-13; Isaiah 19: 13-14; Jeremiah 23: 14; Ezekiel 16: 49; Zephaniah 2: 8-11

God despised their greed and wickedness more than he did than homosexuality, and the Sodomite men did not come to Lot’s house to have monogamous, committed, loving relationships with the male angels residing there. They came to rape these angels, and no, it is almost certain that every single person in Sodom was homosexual

[Grand Calvert]

That was part of it. Also included was sodomy, inhospitality, etc. It's not like everyone there was guilty of only one thing.

Luke 10: 10-13; Isaiah 19: 13-14; Jeremiah 23: 14; Ezekiel 16: 49; Zephaniah 2: 8-11

God despised their greed and wickedness more than he did than homosexuality, and the Sodomite men did not come to Lot’s house to have monogamous, committed, loving relationships with the male angels residing there. They came to rape these angels, and no, it is almost certain that every single person in Sodom was homosexual

He despised their iniquities equally.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Luke 10: 10-13; Isaiah 19: 13-14; Jeremiah 23: 14; Ezekiel 16: 49; Zephaniah 2: 8-11

God despised their greed and wickedness more than he did than homosexuality, and the Sodomite men did not come to Lot’s house to have monogamous, committed, loving relationships with the male angels residing there. They came to rape these angels, and no, it is almost certain that every single person in Sodom was homosexual

He despised their iniquities equally.

None of which was homosexuality, only rape.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No, it's not. However, it's up to you to show that this was a political decision, and not one based upon decades worth of research that tended to disprove older theories regarding sexuality, and instead indicated that homosexuality did not meet the definition of mental illness. Hell, even Freud didn't see homosexuality in and of itself as being harmful.

I'd agree that it's not harmful, I would however call it abnormal enough to be reasonably classified as a dysfunction. I don't see anything wrong with that. The pushes for the declassification of both Homosexuality and Transgenderism were both intended to stop governmental abuses motivated by the classification mentally ill and in my opinion it would be just great if we could stop mistreatment of the mentally ill instead of giving different groups the privilege of leaving the freak table. In the case of transgenderism there's actually a recognized need for care so Gender Dysphoria is the honestly ridiculous comrpomise. The feeling that your body and mind are mismatched is not a disorder but feeling less than okay about it is. Who else can get in on that deal, I don't want to be depressed and I think reclassification might be cheaper treatment.

Just a question, and I promise you that it's not a setup, a trap, or a gotcha: Do you have any experience in the study of advanced psychology or its practice? I'd also like to see a source vis-a-vis the motivations for reclassification.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

If it isn't harmful, it should not be classified as an illness. That is a very simple concept.

I disagree, I think it interferes with typical function and that's plenty. It's troubling that in pursuing equality for some people we're stigmatizing the mentally ill.

By your standards, left-handedness is also a disorder.

[Talvezout]

I get what you're trying to say, but I'm just gonna put this out:

The Bible is 2,000 years old. There's a very, very, very good chance that various topics/subjects in it have either been mistranslated or fudged with.

I'm not saying I'm a expert on this, just pointing out this.

No. The amount of manuscripts out there that say the exact same thing, and that we have modern translations that are super accurate, disproves this.

http://goddidntsaythat.com/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-joel-h ... 29620.html

Not saying that you're wrong, just pointing out that what might be in a certain copy of the Bible may possibly be mistranslated and or edited.