Horrifying Republican response to Bishop's sermon

The rise of group identity politics has led to the polarisation we are now witnessing......with people feeling they have to buy into a whole suite of policy proposals or ideological positions - as a badge of tribal membership. Hence Obama telling black men that Kamala was the candidate they should vote for - because she was mixed race and a woman, and if you are black you are meant to prioritise your supposed black identity above all else.

It is not so much about Right versus Left, as rising above tribes and being able to see the larger picture....and that often involves not automatically dismissing everything just because it is coming from the 'wrong' tribe.

Many of us here have been shocked out of our previous ideological and political certainties - as a result of Gender ideology and the way it has been embraced by many on the so called Progressive Left. Once you've seen something, it is hard to go back to what you previously thought you knew or thought.

If you can rise above the continual focus on Trump as a personality and look at the issues then that might make it easier for you to grasp why people voted the way they did. Old allegiances are breaking down and everything is aligning in new ways.

When you have always been a politically engaged person and have a natural political bent, rather than just a narrow party affiiation, then you end up becoming interested in the larger patterns and movements that lie beneath the surface of events and issues.

And once again, it is a sign of extreme political immaturity and lazy tribalism to claim that if someone agrees with a politician on one particular policy, that they therefore are aligned with them on others.

Exactly. Hitler could have said we needed to save the ice caps and it wouldn't make environmentalists literal Nazis, not even if the Allies had insisted global warming was a scam.

"The left is responsible for this mess" is not "RIGHT ideology", Jessa. Another example of misinformation.

Again, I have never voted for a right wing party in my life and don't intend to ever in my life either. I am liberal, anti authoritiarian left wing. If you took a snapshot across my political views as a whole, I would be demonstrably left, non authoritarian (I usually end up somewhere near Gandhi on those "where do you sit politically" polls and you'll find a lot of women here are the same, despite your false claims) .

We are allowed to criticise and be angry at "our own side" for their, in this case, extremely glaringly obvious failures which, despite years of warnings, essentially handed the Presidency to Trump. We know this; gender was one of the key areas that led swing voters to switch from the Dems to Trump. And once again, it is a sign of extreme political immaturity and lazy tribalism to claim that if someone agrees with a politician on one particular policy, that they therefore are aligned with them on others. You clearly have very little understanding or knowledge of the history of women's rights legislation (many of the women you're smearing here do, so yes, they are better informed), It's the childish "everyone I disagree with is Hitler" argument. I don't know how old you are, but for goodness sake grow up. You're talking to a diverse range of adults here. Different ages and backgrounds, different life experiences. Perhaps actual diversity isn't one of your strong points either?

The problem is these days there's no therapy, no looking inti underlying issues or even any questionin, it's pure affirmation and drugs from the moment you enter the adult services at age 17.
The therapy pathway where physical interventions were a last case scenario when everything else has failed is called watchful waiting and is considered as both gatekeeping and conversion therapy.
I'm glad that your partner is happy with the changes made as a fully grown adult. Unfortunately your partner is the exception to the rule not the norm, unfortunately most don't have any therapy or have any of their beliefs challenged, they don't understand that they can't change sex, nor that the physical changes are only to alleviate their distress and that it won't change how most people see them.
If we are to find a way forward it has to involve proper watchful waiting therapy which challenges the patients beliefs and looks at the underlying issues but most importantly makes them understand that no matter what changes that they may or may not make to their bodies they will never change sex and as such don't belong in any opposite sex spaces or groups. Third spaces are the only way forward and trans people need to accept this or they will lose everything purely because of the overreach by the activists.

The pinnacle of DEI seems to have happened with the female LA fire chief saying it didn't matter if she couldn't lift a large man out of a burning building, and he shouldn't have got himself in that position in the first place.

I dunno, the American Aviation Authority or whatever they call themselves recruiting for people with visual disabilities to be pilots, or the top woman at Harvard who plagiarised the work she used to get the job and who said in court that calling for the death of Jewish people was 'contextual' came pretty close.

The pinnacle of DEI seems to have happened with the female LA fire chief saying it didn't matter if she couldn't lift a large man out of a burning building, and he shouldn't have got himself in that position in the first place.

And saying it's more important to have firefighters that 'look like you' (than ones who can do the job, seemingly). And everyone, including those who 'look like her' seem to be pretty outraged that this is what their taxes are paying for, and expressing the clear preference for young, fit men to turn up if they're about to die in a fire.

What she said isn't even logical, if everyone's just capable of making sensible choices to avoid getting caught up in a fire, why do you need firefighters at all?

Hi @Princessconsuelabananahammock9 . I'm sorry I didn't get back to you. I think we are probably in different time zones! I see you have already interacted with plenty of other women on this thread, all of whom are much better at explaining themselves than me. I also understand why you have stepped away from the thread, so I am not expecting an answer, though I do hope you read this.

I think you and I probably agree that various groups of people with bad intentions have taken advantage of people like your partner to push their agenda. I don't think it is just a few assholes/arseholes. This is a concerted attack on women as a sex-class from a huge number of queer theorists, cynical politicians, predators, fetishists, voyeurs, indecent exposers, misogynists, MRAs, misguided therapists, trendy teachers and mercenary medical practitioners. It is a war, and people such as your partner are being used as trojan horses and considered expendable collateral damage by the aggressors.

Sometimes I do use disparaging phrases, because people under siege do that to try to cope with the negative emotions. But I would wager than few of us have someone like your partner in our mind's-eye when we use those phrases. Don't forget that there are many women, and some men, on these threads torn apart by what is happening to children and young people and full of love and compassion for them. That compassion doesn't switch off when the children reach adulthood and it would extend to and enfold you and your partner. I hope everyone already taking cross-sex hormones in the US is given access to high-quality, non-captured healthcare professionals to consider what steps might be best for them in the future and if that turns out to mean continuing on hormones then I would totally support that.

I would also agree with you that it is possible that, for a very small number of people, even hours of high quality therapy to address any underlying issues may not be enough and some measure of relief can only be gained from hormone treatment and even surgery. We just don't know, because there seems to have been a concerted effort not to collect any data, to disparage or even silence any medics or therapists raising any concerns and to swamp the field with troubled young people via the affirmation model.

Where we probably disagree is on terminology. I'm not going to talk about terms like 'transition' or 'trans' and what they mean because that has already been discussed and would fill several pages. However, I would much rather trans-identifying females were termed trans women and trans-identifying males were called trans men. That would make way more sense to me and emphasise that they have not changed sex and continue to have all the rights associated with their sex class. And, to return to Jordan Peterson, I am completely against compelled speech.

Hope at least some of this makes sense!

Edited for crap grammar!

I'm referring to the fact that the vast vast majority of the population recognise biological sex is real, that there are two sexes in humans (and indeed all mammals) and that no-one can ever change sex.

Personally I think that feminism is as much about focusing on the specific needs of female people, as it is about creating 'equality' in the workplace. Now that there is legislation that prevents unfair discrimination I think it is possible to once agin notice difference and to accommodate it. People are not all equal in that they are not all the same. Culture, background, family of origin, sex, ethnicity, age, as well as individual talent, skill, preference and so on mean combine to make us all different.

I don't think operating negative discrimination against someone just because of the colour of their skin or their sex is a worthwhile goal, or something that should be encouraged. Obviously in some circumstances positive discrimination is important in order to achieve a particular goal or to protect a particular characteristic.

So, for example, we have single sex spaces - for a good reason...and that is to preserve the dignity of the female sex in certain types of situation in which the female body or biology plays an important factor - when members of female sex are in a state of undress, or occupied with their bodily function, or in sports in order to provide a level playing field in which female excellence can be encouraged and rewarded.

Likewise we may want to hire an asian woman to work in a service that is meant for women of certain asian ethnicities, or we may want to hire a gay man to work in a specialised service for other gay men. In such circumstances positive discrimination is acceptable and is protected in law.

The problem is when you appoint someone with the precondition that they must be of a certain social group then you are immediately narrowing the field of possibility. If 'diversity' and 'representation' rather than excellence is your goal then that might work. Though if this practice is extended indefinitely you simply end up practising reverse forms of prejudice and re-emphasisng group differences. People are viewed and treated purely as part of a social grouping rather than as individuals.

My experience of teaching showed me that schools that operate out of ideological principles and through the practice of 'mixed ability' teaching in order to 'include' everyone don't really meet anyone needs very well, and that excellence is sacrificed for mediocrity.The weakest often don't get the one to one support they need and the brightest are not stretched enough. Teachers end up teaching to the most common denominator or to the 'middle'.

It's not every day that the harassment is instigated by the POTUS though.

Thanks, @NotBadConsidering. That's exactly what I was trying to say.

Either it’s a mental health condition in people just like the rest of us. Like people who get body dysmorphia like you, or limb dysmorphia like others, or eating disorders like others, or any other condition with a distorted perception of self.
Or it’s a type of person who is just part of the spectrum of humans. In which case it needs to be explained what it is that makes a person a “trans person” without resorting to a definition reliant on mental health distortion.

Perhaps it would be clearer for @Princessconsuelabananahammock9 if we discussed a similar condition to gender dysphoria, Body Identity Integrity Disorder or BIID (I think there are also other names for this condition). This is a condition in which a sufferer believes that certain body parts (often a limb) don't belong to them, and they seek amputation.

There was a surgeon in Scotland in the 1990s who was carrying out such amputations for a while but was eventually stopped. It's generally considered by the medical profession that such surgery, even though patients often declared themselves happier afterwards, is not beneficial.

My question for @Princessconsuelabananahammock9 or anyone who believes in the existence of people who are 'really trans' is: do you also believe that these people are 'really transabled'? Or are they just people with a mental health condition? Do you think there is a difference between people with this condition and those who alter their bodies to look like the opposite sex?

Edited for clarity.

No need to apologise honestly, you are welcome to your views, it was more a general comment of every day language. I think language might change over time, again

Have a nice day

I'm sorry you find the term transition problematic.

At this point I will stepping away from the thread.

I don't think much is being gained at the moment and I won't pretend to have all the answers, nor wish to debate the term transition.

It feels like it's all been said at this point.

I hope you all have a lovely day. 💐

I find the term transition problematic

We don't use it for any other situation where a human can't do what is proposed

I'm not going to decide gender dysphoria isn't real.
And I suspect you aren't going to suddenly decide it is real.

No one has said it isn’t real. Thats not what OldCrone said isn’t real.

Call it gender dysphoria, call it sex body dysmorphia, call it whatever. But you’re describing, and others describe, a distorted mental state.

What no one can explain is how someone with what even you describe as having a distorted mental health state is actually an innate identity of a group of people. It’s apparently a type of person, a “trans person”, someone that doesn’t require mental health help, but instead needs body actualisation because of unfortunate cosmetic errors.

Either it’s a mental health condition in people just like the rest of us. Like people who get body dysmorphia like you, or limb dysmorphia like others, or eating disorders like others, or any other condition with a distorted perception of self.

Or it’s a type of person who is just part of the spectrum of humans. In which case it needs to be explained what it is that makes a person a “trans person” without resorting to a definition reliant on mental health distortion.

And the relevance to the thread, the bishop thinks there’s such a type of person as a “trans child”. I would wager good money she can’t define that without actually resorting to mental health distortion: defining a child who is mentally distressed about their body, or mentally distressed in relation to social stereotypes, or mentally distressed as a result of other drivers of altered self perception like trauma. I would wager good money the bishop wouldn’t be able to explain it as a type of person, unless, as a bishop, she resorted to talk of “souls”. At least that would be logical.

And then maybe she could explain why, given these difficulties of definitions for children, we should be medicalising them with hormones before we’ve even agreed upon what’s going on with them.

Yes, if an atheist shares a belief with someone about the existence of God, they’re not an atheist.

I don’t believe in God, but I believe there are people that do.

I don’t believe anyone can be born in the wrong body, but I believe there are people that do believe in this.

I believe some people suffer legitimately from gender dysphoria and transitioning is the right thing for those people.

Therefore they have medical intervention and identify as trans.

They live as the opposite sex hence the transitioning.

This does not mean they become the biological sex, they are trans men and women.

As far as explaining gender dysphoria I don't have it, so wouldn't begin to attempt to. There is lots of literature I'm sure you can find though.

I do have body dysmorphia though and don't see my body as not normal. I just see it as larger than it is.

I'm not going to decide gender dysphoria isn't real.

And I suspect you aren't going to suddenly decide it is real.

So it's probably best to end things there.

So it's a mental health condition which can only be alleviated in some cases with treatment which changes their appearance?

This seems to align with what the NHS says, but to my mind, this doesn't make someone "really trans", it makes them some with a serious and persistent mental health condition. The perception of "being trans" only exists in the mind of the patient, and is not real in any objective sense.

This is why I don't believe that anyone is really trans, but I do believe that people exist who believe they are really trans.

What I can't understand is how people who do not believe themselves to be trans can believe that other people can be really trans, when it is simply a belief held by someone with a mental health condition concerning their own body. Surely the belief can only be held by someone with that condition.

Edited to add that I assumed you meant gender dysphoria (not dysmorphia).

Dysmorphia is defined as a condition in which part of the body is a different shape from normal.

Gender is socially determined stereotypes about masculinity and femininity.

So how can some have dysmorphia about socially determined stereotypes?

I believe that they suffer from severe gender dysmorphia and that transitioning is the best answer to a complicated situation for some people.