Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Intergender

  1. #1
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default Intergender

    I thought it appropriate to start a new thread here in regards to intergender.
    Sonofmysoul seems to be interested in discussing this subject. I have sent an email in regards to my own general ideas on the subject.


    This is my following address:

    Intergender. What is its frequentcy? If you look at http://www.intersexualite.org/Misconceptions.html
    They do not give any statistics. If there is an ***igned team at hospitals that do choose sex, there should be some way in which to track the frequency at those hospitals. If you take into consideration that these doctrors are specialists, I am sure many other doctors would refer to the big city doctors. Hence the amount of lives births at that hospital alone in comparison to the cases in which these specialists work on... despite the website's citing as myth that 1/2000 are intersex is laughable. It is even more laughable since they do not provide concreate details to refute it. It is a special interest website so the biase is going to be considerable, in which cases, if they were to be given several studies, I have no doubt that they would select as an example the studies that best fit their political agenda and downplay or ignore confounding variables.

    Regardless of the frequency, your questions will remain for those in such a situation. But what is the real motivation behind such questions? Is it really in the pursuit of truth or it is a pursuit for another end, as perhaps to attempt to believe truth exists apart from truth, to universalize salvation and make it meaningless? I do not know, nor can I see the motivation of the heart. I would say that a majority of people who attempt to justify ****sexuality by using the intergender argument are not about the pursuit of truth, but a rearranging of some parts of truth to make their hypothesis to be truthful despite the truths they ignore, downplay, ridicule, or even attacking the messenger rather than the truthful message.

    So perhaps you are the minority. The first principle I always try to address is the natural order should there be no complications. The way things should be. This is what I would address if the audience is not Christian. For the Christian, God is the maker of the natural order and as such, his word is more authoritative than science, since when science discovers by observation, a whole new realm of questions comes into play that are not answered. Therefore, for the Christian, it is a matter of a guiding principle that does not change due to politics, or science, or any other pressure. Even when some science is affirmed correctly, it is a matter of our relationship to God which the Church remains clearly in the right. I say this because Thomas Aquinas model of movement in his argument for the existence of God was based on bad science. The principle of the argument remains true though.

    So, as far as the advances of medicine is concerned, new technologies and advancements generate new discussions on morality and ethics. So let us go back before this alternate surgery aspects. In a matter of principle, parents, doctors, and politicians are not God. God created the intergender person. So the first priority of that person is not sexuality, but personhood. Christ died for that individual as he died for everyone. It would be my own personal position, should such a child be born into my family, to not have the doctor pick the sex until it is clearly into ****rty which of the reproductive organs is going to win out. The complications from giving a name, how to incorporate them into the school system, and numerous other aspects would be difficult, but not impossible. I would give the child's name a gender neutral name. There are a lot of Irish names that are suitable as Shannon, and other names like Tony or Toni. They would in our day and age be placed into special education and more than likely would not be recommended for inclusion due to the severity of issues with other peer children. However, inclusion might be possible should the IEPs work well within special education and socially they gain acceptance until the future time where doctors do not have to second quess the gender that will win out. Toys would be a problem. I suppose I would be more accepting of a Tom Boy should the female gender win out than to make a boy effeminate. My wife is very much a Tom Boy growing up playing basketball, but is now very feminine. So I think such would be better to raise similiar to a boy than to a girl. Of course, homeschooling would be another option at least until surgery. If even possible, I might even wait until the child is full grown before surgery is done so that the organs fully develop and are much larger so the surgery will have less complications. I am unsure how much better it is to do surgery at a younger age, with organs being so small; would this have a greater impact on doctor malpractice giving the precision needed for such small organs. What other issues might arise? Calling he instead of she? I have even heard women at times call their girlfriends "buddy" or in the masculine form. Tom Boy is therefore much easier, calling the prospective female a male until the time it is determined that the female organ is the dominate gender.

    This my own addition:

    As far as experiencing normal human experience, there is no such thing. Equality is a principle, not a reality. We should try to treat everyone with equality, but clearly we do not and cannot. If we would, even the sever autistic child should be completely inclusive; however, they distrupt the flow of progress that the other children have. Then there are gifted children, who are held back in the regular cl*** because they do not have the same opportunities afforded them as families that can afford alternate schools.

  2. #2
    CleoSquare
    Guest

    Default

    I have met a few people through work and life that have Klinefelters syndrome (xxy) and Turner's syndrome (Xo). While people with these syndromes appear male and female, they do have sexual appearance differences and are infertile. Obviously with the genotypes that they have, they are not your usual male (xy) or female (xx). These syndromes alone are not at all uncommon, and there are many others that are more rare and much more ambiguous.

    If it is possible for the genes to be physical causes for sexual ambiguity, then why is it so difficult to think that there may in some cases be good, biological reasons why some people are gay? Many of the folks that I know who are gay have been gay since childhood and have siblings that are straight.

  3. #3
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CleoSquare View Post
    I have met a few people through work and life that have Klinefelters syndrome (xxy) and Turner's syndrome (Xo). While people with these syndromes appear male and female, they do have sexual appearance differences and are infertile. Obviously with the genotypes that they have, they are not your usual male (xy) or female (xx). These syndromes alone are not at all uncommon, and there are many others that are more rare and much more ambiguous.

    If it is possible for the genes to be physical causes for sexual ambiguity, then why is it so difficult to think that there may in some cases be good, biological reasons why some people are gay? Many of the folks that I know who are gay have been gay since childhood and have siblings that are straight.
    In many cases, we should never attribute gayness to children. First of all, children are impressionable. Since there are no studies from which the gay lobbyists and ****sexual community are going to conduct regarding such impressionability, since obviously they will start with the hypothesis that they are genetically born that way, they will continue to deny deny deny regardless of what studies are conducted that show its falsehood. We also see people in many scenerios conduct themselves in ways that their siblings do not. There are children that murder their parents and their brothers that do not. An appeal to emotion is not a scientific examination. Until such time, I will take comfort in a God that does not change his views on the basis of each and every contemporary wind.

  4. #4
    TRiG
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Therefore, for the Christian, it is a matter of a guiding principle that does not change due to politics, or science, or any other pressure.
    I'm not sure I can be bothered to debate a man who has specifically stated he's not open to evidence. I change my opinions to match the available facts. People who do not do likewise are rather scary, actually.

    TRiG.

  5. #5
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    That is fine by me TRiG, present the facts, not the psychobabble. It is soo nice I can be just a strawman to you; easier to take me out of context than actually present something without confounding variables.

  6. #6
    sunofmysoul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    I thought it appropriate to start a new thread here in regards to intergender.
    Sonofmysoul seems to be interested in discussing this subject. I have sent an email in regards to my own general ideas on the subject.
    my apologies for not seeing this or the email columcille...
    i rather thought you just did not want to discuss it further.
    (please forgive my completely missing this...)
    This is my following address:

    Intergender. What is its frequentcy? If you look at http://www.intersexualite.org/Misconceptions.html
    They do not give any statistics. If there is an ***igned team at hospitals that do choose sex, there should be some way in which to track the frequency at those hospitals. If you take into consideration that these doctrors are specialists, I am sure many other doctors would refer to the big city doctors. Hence the amount of lives births at that hospital alone in comparison to the cases in which these specialists work on... despite the website's citing as myth that 1/2000 are intersex is laughable. It is even more laughable since they do not provide concreate details to refute it. It is a special interest website so the biase is going to be considerable, in which cases, if they were to be given several studies, I have no doubt that they would select as an example the studies that best fit their political agenda and downplay or ignore confounding variables.
    the following is from the Intersex society of North America.
    "If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. But a lot more people than that are born with subtler forms of sex anatomy variations, some of which won’t show up until later in life.

    Below we provide a summary of statistics drawn from an article by Brown University researcher Anne Fausto-Sterling.2 The basis for that article was an extensive review of the medical literature from 1955 to 1998 aimed at producing numeric estimates for the frequency of sex variations. Note that the frequency of some of these conditions, such as congenital adrenal hyperplasia, differs for different populations. These statistics are approximations.
    Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births
    Klinefelter (XXY) one in 1,000 births
    Androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 13,000 births
    Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 130,000 births
    Cl***ical congenital adrenal hyperplasia one in 13,000 births
    Late onset adrenal hyperplasia one in 66 individuals
    ******l agenesis one in 6,000 births
    Ovotestes one in 83,000 births
    Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause) one in 110,000 births
    Iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment, for instance progestin administered to pregnant mother) no estimate
    5 alpha reductase deficiency no estimate
    Mixed gonadal dysgenesis no estimate
    Complete gonadal dysgenesis one in 150,000 births
    Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft) one in 2,000 births
    Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans *****) one in 770 births
    Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births
    Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance one or two in 1,000 births"

    and the following is from Organization Intersex international
    It would be more accurate to state simply that in hospitals with gender ***ignment teams, 1 in 2000 infants is born with genitalia that are so atypical that the attending physician requests the help of the specialists in the team to ***ign a sex. Most hospitals in the world have no gender ***ignment teams and most intersex people have typical genitalia. One should be careful to note that even in the majority of births with atypical genitalia, the doctor does not request any ***istance from a gender ***ignment team even if one is available. Therefore, one can readily see that this figure gives the impression that intersex is very, very rare. It isn’t.

    There are so many different ways of being intersexed that it is very hard to give a statistic at this time. A more accurate estimate is given by Sharon Preves who has researched the topic of intersex very thoroughly. According to Preves, “The frequency could be as high as four percent.”





    Regardless of the frequency, your questions will remain for those in such a situation. But what is the real motivation behind such questions? Is it really in the pursuit of truth or it is a pursuit for another end, as perhaps to attempt to believe truth exists apart from truth, to universalize salvation and make it meaningless? I do not know, nor can I see the motivation of the heart. I would say that a majority of people who attempt to justify ****sexuality by using the intergender argument are not about the pursuit of truth, but a rearranging of some parts of truth to make their hypothesis to be truthful despite the truths they ignore, downplay, ridicule, or even attacking the messenger rather than the truthful message.
    my heart motivation, has been and remains, to ensure that I am not treading on others, trivializing others, and pretending that they do not exist merely to
    be able to maintain my preconceived notions and ideas.

    Even if there was only one, in the entire ...universe...that ONE, would be worthy of our notice, and understanding.
    That one, causes us to take into consideration that our "ideals" of whom should be allowed to marry whom, what male and female are, what other conditions MIGHT be....



    So perhaps you are the minority. The first principle I always try to address is the natural order should there be no complications. The way things should be. This is what I would address if the audience is not Christian. For the Christian, God is the maker of the natural order and as such, his word is more authoritative than science, since when science discovers by observation, a whole new realm of questions comes into play that are not answered. Therefore, for the Christian, it is a matter of a guiding principle that does not change due to politics, or science, or any other pressure. Even when some science is affirmed correctly, it is a matter of our relationship to God which the Church remains clearly in the right. I say this because Thomas Aquinas model of movement in his argument for the existence of God was based on bad science. The principle of the argument remains true though.

    So, as far as the advances of medicine is concerned, new technologies and advancements generate new discussions on morality and ethics. So let us go back before this alternate surgery aspects. In a matter of principle, parents, doctors, and politicians are not God. God created the intergender person. So the first priority of that person is not sexuality, but personhood. Christ died for that individual as he died for everyone. It would be my own personal position, should such a child be born into my family, to not have the doctor pick the sex until it is clearly into ****rty which of the reproductive organs is going to win out. The complications from giving a name, how to incorporate them into the school system, and numerous other aspects would be difficult, but not impossible. I would give the child's name a gender neutral name. There are a lot of Irish names that are suitable as Shannon, and other names like Tony or Toni. They would in our day and age be placed into special education and more than likely would not be recommended for inclusion due to the severity of issues with other peer children. However, inclusion might be possible should the IEPs work well within special education and socially they gain acceptance until the future time where doctors do not have to second quess the gender that will win out. Toys would be a problem. I suppose I would be more accepting of a Tom Boy should the female gender win out than to make a boy effeminate. My wife is very much a Tom Boy growing up playing basketball, but is now very feminine. So I think such would be better to raise similiar to a boy than to a girl. Of course, homeschooling would be another option at least until surgery. If even possible, I might even wait until the child is full grown before surgery is done so that the organs fully develop and are much larger so the surgery will have less complications. I am unsure how much better it is to do surgery at a younger age, with organs being so small; would this have a greater impact on doctor malpractice giving the precision needed for such small organs. What other issues might arise? Calling he instead of she? I have even heard women at times call their girlfriends "buddy" or in the masculine form. Tom Boy is therefore much easier, calling the prospective female a male until the time it is determined that the female organ is the dominate gender.

    This my own addition:

    As far as experiencing normal human experience, there is no such thing. Equality is a principle, not a reality. We should try to treat everyone with equality, but clearly we do not and cannot. If we would, even the sever autistic child should be completely inclusive; however, they distrupt the flow of progress that the other children have. Then there are gifted children, who are held back in the regular cl*** because they do not have the same opportunities afforded them as families that can afford alternate schools.
    in all your thoughts here, what is your thought to the intergender marrying?
    should they be allowed? (what if their genetics do not match their physical outward appearance?) such as the genetic testing at the olympics that caused a girl (who had no idea she apparently genetically did not qualify to be a girl) stripped of her medal?



    soms

  7. #7
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    thanks for commenting. My post is a long one. So it is harder to break down.

    I'll have to be more thoughtful next time. At any rate, it is rare. It is not the same as ****sexuality.
    what is your thought to the intergender marrying?
    Guess it depends on the type of syndrome. I am not as educated as far as specifics in this area. In general, I would say such abnormalities would fit Jesus's description for those celebates that were "born in" p***age and celibacy more favorable. Since marriage in the bible is used specifically between male and female, regardless of its procreative nature, it is prefered to not allow such intergender marriages. Seems strange that I start with a maybe and end with a no. But again, I think the particular syndrome's capabilities to be corrected accurately comes into play with modern scientific medical practices and advances. It is unfortunate for intergender people, just as unfortunate for accidents, crippling deseases, and so on and so forth. This question should be more reserved for the priests that encounter in their parish such instances rather than to me. I should think that since the priest himself is celibate on a voluntary basis to please the Lord, that his example might be viewed more efficient to the Catholic intergender. It is a tough question to be sure, but one not imminent to the normal routine due to the various syndrome's rarity. I think the intergender, upon receiving communion and living a life of virtue will see a clearer path that God wants them to lead within the confines of the Catholic Faith.

  8. #8
    TRiG
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    thanks for commenting. My post is a long one. So it is harder to break down.

    I'll have to be more thoughtful next time. At any rate, it is rare. It is not the same as ****sexuality.

    Guess it depends on the type of syndrome. I am not as educated as far as specifics in this area. In general, I would say such abnormalities would fit Jesus's description for those celebates that were "born in" p***age and celibacy more favorable. Since marriage in the bible is used specifically between male and female, regardless of its procreative nature, it is prefered to not allow such intergender marriages. Seems strange that I start with a maybe and end with a no. But again, I think the particular syndrome's capabilities to be corrected accurately comes into play with modern scientific medical practices and advances. It is unfortunate for intergender people, just as unfortunate for accidents, crippling deseases, and so on and so forth. This question should be more reserved for the priests that encounter in their parish such instances rather than to me. I should think that since the priest himself is celibate on a voluntary basis to please the Lord, that his example might be viewed more efficient to the Catholic intergender. It is a tough question to be sure, but one not imminent to the normal routine due to the various syndrome's rarity. I think the intergender, upon receiving communion and living a life of virtue will see a clearer path that God wants them to lead within the confines of the Catholic Faith.
    Can I just say "**** you"? That seems by far the most appropriate response to this disgusting controlling authoritarian drivel.

    TRiG.

  9. #9
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default virtual reps anyway

    Quote Originally Posted by TRiG View Post
    Can I just say "**** you"? That seems by far the most appropriate response to this disgusting controlling authoritarian drivel.

    TRiG.
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Trig again".

  10. #10
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TRiG View Post
    disgusting controlling authoritarian drivel
    That pretty much sums it up. Thanks, TRiG.

  11. #11
    sunofmysoul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    thanks for commenting. My post is a long one. So it is harder to break down.

    I'll have to be more thoughtful next time. At any rate, it is rare. It is not the same as ****sexuality.

    Guess it depends on the type of syndrome. I am not as educated as far as specifics in this area. In general, I would say such abnormalities would fit Jesus's description for those celebates that were "born in" p***age and celibacy more favorable. Since marriage in the bible is used specifically between male and female, regardless of its procreative nature, it is prefered to not allow such intergender marriages. Seems strange that I start with a maybe and end with a no. But again, I think the particular syndrome's capabilities to be corrected accurately comes into play with modern scientific medical practices and advances. It is unfortunate for intergender people, just as unfortunate for accidents, crippling deseases, and so on and so forth. This question should be more reserved for the priests that encounter in their parish such instances rather than to me. I should think that since the priest himself is celibate on a voluntary basis to please the Lord, that his example might be viewed more efficient to the Catholic intergender. It is a tough question to be sure, but one not imminent to the normal routine due to the various syndrome's rarity. I think the intergender, upon receiving communion and living a life of virtue will see a clearer path that God wants them to lead within the confines of the Catholic Faith.
    the part highlighted in blue, I would like to discuss further if possible.

    Without factoring in reason, and medical scientific knowledge, we are left with the conclusion, (using the stipulated guidelines you have place on marriage here) that an old guy having sex with a young girl, (pedophilia)
    is okay, as long as they get married. (and as of yet can be legal in many states as long as they have parental signatures on the underage party).

    And what of polygamy? Does the Bible ever say it is wrong or a sin?

    And if you own a slave, (that's permissible too according to the scriptures)
    by biblical law that ownership of the slave, trumps "marital vows"

    If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. Ex.21:2-6



  12. #12
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunofmysoul View Post
    If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. Ex.21:2-6
    That's awful! The price of freedom is his family.

  13. #13
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    You highlighted my comment in blue.
    Since marriage in the bible is used specifically between male and female, regardless of its procreative nature, it is prefered to not allow such intergender marriages.
    Now, it seems quite clear that in the N.T. that bride Strong's #3565 and bridegroom #3566 numphios. Is only between female and male. The Scriptures, like in Revelations 21.9 "..., Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb," clearly shows an ****ogy of the marriage between husband and wife. The p***age as an ****ogy is oblivious to procreation. And even Paul in describing a husband's role to his wife uses the ****ogy of Christ and the Church in Ephesians 5.22-33. I suppose what set you to highlight this aspect is my reference about procreativity.

  14. #14
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunofmysoul View Post

    And what of polygamy? Does the Bible ever say it is wrong or a sin?

    And if you own a slave, (that's permissible too according to the scriptures)
    by biblical law that ownership of the slave, trumps "marital vows"

    If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. Ex.21:2-6
    In regards to age requirements, the N.T. is clear that we must obey the laws of the land. Secondly, that if the laws of the land are unjust, we are to practice the higher law of God. Hence, a bishop is to be the husband of one wife in the N.T. standards states. Also, what concerns "appearance of evil" should it come down to the age difference, even though it might be lawful in a civilian status does not mean it is acceptable to practice by the Church, just as the Catholic Church does not allow "****sexual marrages." It is the perogative of the Faith in doctrine and morals to practice within their own limits. If the secular law makers take issue with it, it is better that the Church suffer the same persecution that it did in Pagan rome in the first four centuries and overcome by p***ive martyrdom than to always be chasing after every whim of the world.

    In regards to O.T. law, as you suggested from Exodus 21, the law is based on prudence. The master cannot give what is not his own. The laws laid afterwards in regards to woman servants is concerned with the honor due every woman to be chaste. That is just the way in which that society operated and for the most part it worked for them. You should continue on with the p***age until verse 11. However, if male servant should be the master's servant for life, that is his own choice. It is not much different than a priest who takes holy orders, with the exception that he is celibate forever; the servant at least has a wife and children. I think it is a matter of prudence for the females under that society to find it more agreeable to be taken care of for life. Hence, when that care is not given by the master, as demonstrated in verse 11 "Should he cheat her of these three things (Food, Clothing, and Conjugal Rights v.10) she may leave, freely, without having to pay any money." This is of course related to the woman servant as a concubine, but as a matter of prudence, the spirit of the law, a master's care being unjust in any circumstance could be made aware of to the judges.

  15. #15
    TRiG
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    If the secular law makers take issue with it
    Are you seriously trying to suggest that anyone, anywhere, would like to force the RCC or any other church to perform same-sex marriages?

    There are plenty of churches around that refuse to perform interracial marriages. That's fine. A religion can be as restrictive as it wants to be. But those restrictions should not be encoded into civil law.

    TRiG.

  16. #16
    TRiG
    Guest

    Default But of course

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    marriage in the bible is used specifically between male and female
    The authors of the Bible make no mention of intergender or transgender conditions, and quite likely knew nothing about them. Why should they? They were Bronze Age goat herders.

    TRiG.

  17. #17
    sunofmysoul
    Guest

    Default worth our consideration....

    In the case of Caster Semenya, someone who by all physical appearance
    would be granted the status of female, (encouraged to marry a male because of opposite outward physical sexual organs), her gender is in question. Her right to compete as a female athlete is in question. why? Because she is good enough to draw attention to her unique predicament. One of which her father is
    understandably furious about..."Semenya's father, Jacob, expressed anger when contacted by the AP on Friday morning, saying people who insinuate his daughter is not a woman "are sick. They are crazy."

    "The Australian newspaper reported in its Friday edition that medical reports on the 18-year-old Semenya indicate she has no ovaries, but rather has internal male testes, which are producing large amounts of testosterone.""Our legal advice is that, if she proves to have an advantage because of the male hormones, then it will be extremely difficult to strip the medal off her, since she has not cheated," Davies wrote to the AP. "She was naturally made that way, and she was entered in Berlin by her team and accepted by the IAAF. But let's wait and see once we have the final decision."
    full article HERE

    It is my humble opinion, that we rush far too fast in judging what we barely understand as of yet. And this would involve our belief that we have a right to say who can and cannot be married...and what marriage is "bonified" or kosher...In this realization, we cannot disregard those who may indeed be born ****sexual, and are also different from our standard normal definition of
    male= masculine heterosexual male
    female= feminine heterosexual female

    obviously, there is more....

  18. #18
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default Is it really a new phenomenon?

    Quote Originally Posted by sunofmysoul View Post

    It is my humble opinion, that we rush far too fast in judging what we barely understand as of yet. And this would involve our belief that we have a right to say who can and cannot be married...and what marriage is "bonified" or kosher...In this realization, we cannot disregard those who may indeed be born ****sexual, and are also different from our standard normal definition of
    male= masculine heterosexual male
    female= feminine heterosexual female

    obviously, there is more....
    Because "we rush far too fast in judging what we barely understand as of yet," it is better to side on the error of caution. Since this particular post is on intergender, it is not the same as ****sexuality, so my focus is strictly on intergender. Intergender is easily diagnosed due to the deformity of the reproductive organs. Equating it with ****sexuality, where studies are not conclusive and more oft than not are bias with confounding variables, I would not be supportive of making a statement factual when it is still a hypothesis or even espoused as a theory. It clearly is the case that the intergender is born with their condition.

    There is one other thing I would like to comment upon.
    Trig-The authors of the Bible make no mention of intergender or transgender conditions, and quite likely knew nothing about them. Why should they? They were Bronze Age goat herders.
    Am I to ***ume, Trig, that intergender is a relatively new phenomena? I mean, considering that parents, not knowing what gender their child would be because ultrasound was not available during that time, cannot see a child's gender deformity at birth? Or during the development stages where they have to teach their child how to bathe themselves? The Scriptures do not have to say "intergender" but can relate in common terms of everyday language about eunichs being "born that way from their mother's womb" (Matthew 19.12, JB). I guess everyone was blind since generations have existed without contact lenses and spectacles.

    Civil law is based on a different realm. In a democracy, it is based on majority of the people. However, we are a democratic republic. As such, telling me not making certain moral laws based on the people's will is pretty much a waste of your time. If I vote for a candidate to represent me, I will vote for them based on my idea of the best candidate that shares my social viewpoint. Wether you consider something fair or not is a matter of competing public voices. My main concern first is search for orthodoxy within the Church, and secondly to act as a responsible citizen and do my part to vote and become educated as best I can under my own living circumstances. I personally think the health care bill that Obama and the majority of Democrats, not counting the blue dogs of course, is an infringement of their world view upon me. Obama said that he want to make it mandatory, just like people driving a car are required to pay for car insurance, he wants to do the same and force everyone to pay for medical insurance. If he succeeds, I will be forced to do something I do not want. It is a political reality and can go both ways. If you think something is wrong, you will fight for it, get penalized for it, and eventually you might win or you might not. Big deal, it is only politics, it has no eternal value.

  19. #19
    Administrator Jill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TRiG View Post
    The authors of the Bible make no mention of intergender or transgender conditions, and quite likely knew nothing about them. Why should they? They were Bronze Age goat herders.

    TRiG.

    Trig,

    You just keep showing your ignorance of the Bible.

    Jill
    How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God. 1 John 3:1

  20. #20
    sunofmysoul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jill View Post
    Trig,

    You just keep showing your ignorance of the Bible.

    Jill
    Hello Jill, would you like to share exactly where the Bible does shed light on this?
    It would be greatly appreciated. The only thing i have found and that i think both TRiG and I are aware of, is the mention of Eunuchs (which does not specify
    someone born gender confused, or with both female and male anatomy)
    and or, the idea of "cross dressing" (which imho is a cultural thing as Christians seem to have no problem with females now wearing pants, ball caps, and men's t-shirts).

    There is also of course the mention of a male not being "effeminate" but my studies imply this is a term grossly misinterpreted into today's language...

    Did you have something more specific?

    thank you,
    with love,
    soms

  21. #21
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunofmysoul View Post
    Hello Jill, would you like to share exactly where the Bible does shed light on this?
    It would be greatly appreciated. The only thing i have found and that i think both TRiG and I are aware of, is the mention of Eunuchs (which does not specify
    someone born gender confused, or with both female and male anatomy)
    and or, the idea of "cross dressing" (which imho is a cultural thing as Christians seem to have no problem with females now wearing pants, ball caps, and men's t-shirts).

    There is also of course the mention of a male not being "effeminate" but my studies imply this is a term grossly misinterpreted into today's language...

    Did you have something more specific?

    thank you,
    with love,
    soms
    I know you are asking Jill, but it seems to me that "cross dressing" is not related to "intergender." One can only "cross" when their sex is known. Secondly, what concerns us is the practice of Scripture during the time period. Practices of propriety are different in every culture, and the N.T. is most concerned with outreaching the message of the Gospel. We are not told to preach the American Gospel and go to Africa and force the tribes' women to put on blouses to fit American social norms. I see no Pentacostal rubric, nor no Amish rubric to apply such a strict standard. The verses they use in the O.T. (such as Deuteronomy 22.5) are general principles that men and women are to abide by. Unisex clothing is acceptable in our culture, so it by no means is offensive. Since the Torah's laws are meant to be prudent, I would ***ume that special needs children and those with deformities would be taken care of in the same manner as women. The only laws that seem to reference them at all is in the Levitical priestly duties in Leviticus 21:16-23. This does not exempt them from hearing the Torah or receiving the blessings from the priest. Since such conditions are rare, and the needs of every handicapped individual is different, it is up to the judges to decide the matter of their care should there be any gross negligence.

    As far as "gender confused" I think your terminology is shady. Are you going to use this term to apply to ****sexuals or just to intergender? You are after all always trying to tie the two together when they are completely seperate. I am trying to scale the language barrier here. If that is your intention to tie the two together with such terminology, it is only going to confuse the issue at hand.

  22. #22
    sunofmysoul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    I know you are asking Jill, but it seems to me that "cross dressing" is not related to "intergender." One can only "cross" when their sex is known. Secondly, what concerns us is the practice of Scripture during the time period. Practices of propriety are different in every culture, and the N.T. is most concerned with outreaching the message of the Gospel. We are not told to preach the American Gospel and go to Africa and force the tribes' women to put on blouses to fit American social norms. I see no Pentacostal rubric, nor no Amish rubric to apply such a strict standard. The verses they use in the O.T. (such as Deuteronomy 22.5) are general principles that men and women are to abide by. Unisex clothing is acceptable in our culture, so it by no means is offensive. Since the Torah's laws are meant to be prudent, I would ***ume that special needs children and those with deformities would be taken care of in the same manner as women. The only laws that seem to reference them at all is in the Levitical priestly duties in Leviticus 21:16-23. This does not exempt them from hearing the Torah or receiving the blessings from the priest. Since such conditions are rare, and the needs of every handicapped individual is different, it is up to the judges to decide the matter of their care should there be any gross negligence.
    Ah, yes, I should have clarified...
    I meant to say verses that are commonly "used" in reference to transgender/intergender/intersex. I think sometimes these verses are the "grabbed straws" when trying to find something to address a subject that
    I think we can agree is not covered in "black and white" in the Bible.

    (It does not mean that i agree they are meant to be used that way...they are just the only verses i have heard used on the subject.)

    As far as "gender confused" I think your terminology is shady. Are you going to use this term to apply to ****sexuals or just to intergender? You are after all always trying to tie the two together when they are completely seperate. I am trying to scale the language barrier here. If that is your intention to tie the two together with such terminology, it is only going to confuse the issue at hand.
    I understand your question here, and completely agree, that it is much more complicated, and indeed I,myself have problems locating the correct terms
    on this subject.

    Let me begin with a preliminary that will allow you to see what page I am on, on this subject.

    For the most part, in our society, we have the common notion (and have so been taught) that there are two genders, and one sexual orientation (that is normal, and acceptable)

    They are as follows:

    Since at least the 1970s, anthropologists have described gender categories in some cultures which they could not adequately explain using a two-gender framework. At the same time, feminists began to draw a distinction between (biological) sex and (social/psychological) gender. Contemporary gender theorists usually argue that a two-gender system is neither innate nor universal. A sex/gender system which recognizes only the following two social norms has been labeled "hetero-normative":

    * female genitalia = female iden***y = feminine behavior = desire male partner
    * male genitalia = male iden***y = masculine behavior = desire female partner
    found HERE

    What instead, science and medicine will tell us, (and reality) is that there are more...many more, who do not fit into these iden***ies, with a large variety of combination's.
    I was taught (within evangelical Christianity) that anyone that does not fit into the previous categories:
    male/masculine/heterosexual or female/feminine/heterosexual

    was "choosing" to go against their natural born God given instinct, and by doing so, sinning against God and mankind, and themselves.

    What I believe now, is that it is not so simple. For facts and evidence
    tell me that there are conditions affected by many things (including the amount of estrogen or testosterone /or lack thereof, in the womb) that do indeed cause a different "natural born" scenario then the above mentioned "accepted" gender/sex.

  23. #23
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunofmysoul View Post

    was "choosing" to go against their natural born God given instinct, and by doing so, sinning against God and mankind, and themselves.
    The main issue I take with is mostly within this sentence. ""Choosing" to go against their natural born God given instinct" is to me problematic in that 1) our natures our corrupted. God's gave us a nature uncorrupted state of immortality within Adam and Eve. It was by ancenstral sin of Adam and Eve that caused a problem, and if they disobeyed under the circumstances of not understanding death and experiential experience, we all would have suffered the same. As such deformities exist in the corruption of nature, and our response to that will either be virtious or vicious both within the person itself and those that come into contact with them. There is a higher spiritual matter to be addressed here in that we are more than just our sexual impulses. 2) the second problem I take issue with this is your point is circular. God gave them instincts to sin against God. This is not the orthodox view of Christianity; this is your idea of what orthodox Christianity believes. Big difference. The distinction I think is partly addressed in #1. Which is the root of vice? Pride or sexual p***ion? I think the serpent's example most vile.

  24. #24
    TRiG
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jill View Post
    Trig,

    You just keep showing your ignorance of the Bible.

    Jill
    So, are you going to enlighten me, then?

    TRiG.

  25. #25
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    I addressed the comment that Jill was referencing, you did not reply. But I am coming to the point that pearls before swine is the same as leading a horse to the water, but you cannot make them drink. The only purpose it serves me now is mostly psychological, I am fighting the corrupted impulses within myself by "transforming my mind." The more I realize that I am more than just my sexual impulses, the more I overcome the temptations on a daily basis. The other reason is to make a stand. If Walter Martin can hold his own on a large panel of hostile guests on the Long John Nebel show and the influx of unorthodox posters coming here almost shares the same circumstance, these suggests to me that the level of dialogue here is much more engaging, the moderating is much more fair, and the opportunity to see how 1 Corinthians 1.17-25 really operates (most especially for me to see the change within myself) quite satifying.

    17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning.
    18 The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
    19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside."
    20 Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?
    21 For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith.
    22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
    23 but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
    24 but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
    25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

    vs 21 footnote 9 True wisdom and power are to be found paradoxically where one would least expect them, in the place of their apparent negation. To human eyes the crucified Christ symbolizes impotence and absurdity.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •