A bridge too far?

From the article:

 

I don't think I am. Have you ever had the procedure of what is done in these surgeries explained to you, and what these people live with post-op? It is a lie to describe these surgeries as changing your sex. That is not what is happening here.

And I am not wrong that there are high suicide rates for people post-op. That is the truth, and so what is going on here is the equivalent of a snake oil salesmen. Post-op is not a promised land where people don't commit suicide anymore, where people don't have mental health problems anymore, and people don't have problems anymore.

Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden | PLOS ONE

That was a 30 year study.

Here is the conclusion:

Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.
​

Given that is the results and 80% outgrow their gender dysphoria, encouraging them to do irreparable damage to their body is not a loving thing to do.

 

That's not the question. That's like claiming a cancer treatment is ineffective because while it stopped 80% of the participants from dying of cancer (in a cancer that generally kills 80% of the people who have it during that period of time), 20% did die, which is a greater rate of cancer deaths relative to the general population.

 

So, you are comparing transgenderism to cancer? Interesting...it is either an identity or a disease/disorder. You can't have it both ways.

 

I'm using an analogy to demonstrate why your logic is unsound. Connect the dots. It's not rocket science.

 

Not so fast. This is presented to us like we are talking about chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, mint chocolate chip, butter pecan, etc, like we are talking about preferences in ice cream or soft drinks or something. But the data tells us that is not the nature of what this is. To put transgenders side by side with people who are not that way and to declare hey, "This leads to equal human flourishing." That is simply not true.

You should go read the detrans subreddit. There are people post-op who have scathing things to say about the things you are defending. They are angry about the lies they were told to end up where they are. And on the front page right now there is a post about a detransitioner who was bullied at Harvard, where the only study cited in this thread was sourced. It doesn't sound like the most unbiased institution to be doing a study.

And if you have to compare trans people to cancer, then the house of cards of a narrative the left defends surrounding this issue is false. The difference is not as innocent as chocolate vs. vanilla.

 

Gender-affirming care is a treatment for people who suffer from gender dysphoria. And as the numbers posted in this thread showed, it is an effective treatment. It significantly reduces suicide risks in a population who have very elevated suicide risks. Your desire to claim it is ineffective by comparing apples to oranges is transparent, and I've already demonstrated why.

And I'm just going to laugh at you claiming we can't trust Harvard studies because it's not an "unbiased institution." Talk about grasping at straws, from a guy citing to Reddit.

 

The study you are referring to compares the suicide rates of post-op trans people to the general population. Yes, the suicide rate of the trans group is going to be substantially higher than that of the general population. However, the Harvard study compares the post-op suicide rate of trans people to people in similar situations who did not get the surgery. That study shows that there is a reduction in the suicide rate. The study you are referring to seems to me to be irrelevant.

 

Well, I clearly do recognize my own bias in this matter. It was Jesus who said, "Whoever is not with me is against me." Neutrality in spiritual matters is a myth. I unquestionably have an allegiance, and I am unquestionably on a side.

To embrace the other side here is to point the finger at Jesus Christ, who is the Creator of all things, including all men and all women, and it is to make an accusation that He failed as a Creator. That cannot be. The Creator did not fail. The creature has failed: the creature has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. And the creature has rebelled against the Creator. The solution in this matter is the repentance of the creature. God has not failed. Man has taken the lie of old, and said in his heart, "I will do what is right in my own eyes. I will judge for myself what is good and evil, right and wrong, and I will reject the counsel and the will of my Creator."

In the beginning God said to go down that path leads to death. And all the evidence we see even to this day has shown that declaration to be correct.

 

It is not an arbitrary choice. It is a simple matter of trusting God's Word. And there have been many men with lives full of joy who lived their lives that way. And there are many men throughout history like that who have been hated and despised for that faith and trust. And many of those people who hated them called themselves Christians.

 

The difference between us, Plank, is that I am perfectly happy to let you live your life the way you want, as long as you're not harming others. You think you speak for God. You think you know God's will. And you try to force your judgments and will on to others justifying it with the fiction that it is what God wants.

If that was the extent of it, I could probably ignore it. But you don't stop there. You see the power and force of government as a means to accomplish that goal. And you desire to oppress the rest of us with it. That is dangerous. It's the sort of thinking that led to harmful, freedom-hating theocracies in places like Iran and Afghanistan.

 

I still don’t understand why it matters if other people want to change their gender? Even if you think it’s a form of mental illness.

Have some reasonable societal guidelines that follow the science, and live and let live.

 

More like live and force everyone at the barrel of a gun to see things my way.

 

We need to treat transgender people with love, understanding and common decency. The transgender issues can be worked out. It’s the lack of love, understanding and common decency that leads to the high suicide rates.


Kentucky Lawmaker Speaks Out About Transgender Son’s Suicide

 

Pretty deep coming from someone who chose a profession that forces its judgments on others.

 

From my vantage point, I don't see it that way. I think about our differences, and I think it really boils down to this: we hold to contradictory ethical systems. The Constitution is a system of government. It is not a system of ethics. And the system of ethics that the generation who founded this country believed in is not what you are advocating for. So, we have a governmental system, and you wish to use the governmental system to implement a new system of ethics in society. That is a fact. That is what you are doing, and that is what the left is doing. It is about installing a new ethical order, one that does not acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord, but rather spits in His face and mocks his status as King.

You could make a similar claim about me as well as far as advocating for an ethical system, but I really am advocating (for the most part) the system of ethics the country was founded on. I don't advocate for things like chattel slavery, but I am not the revolutionary here molding the system to make sure everyone adhere's to my new novel ethical system barely anyone in history would recognize as ethical.

My viewpoint is fairly libertarian. Consider, I am just advocating for free speech rights and the freedom to believe in one's own religion without being forced to speak lies through their teeth to remain employed in this society. That is what the debate in this thread is about, and the left wants to punish free speech and those who don't prostrate themselves and make themselves subservient to your ethical system. Free speech is being cast an oppressive force that somehow "forces" others into some kind of reality. This is how totalitarian regimes speak of free speech. They speak just like the left does about free speech.

Your accusation that I want to make a theocracy might be tied to the issue of abortion. I believe the overwhelming testimony of science is that abortion is murder, and this is consistent with the testimony of the Bible. If murder is wrong universally, then abortion is murder is simply a matter of consistency. It is holding to a universal principle without a hint of hypocrisy. And anyone who opposes murder, but accepts abortion is wildly inconsistent.

I will admit that my ethical system is undoubtedly tied to the God of the Bible. Your ethical system is not. And our ethical systems are tied to two different spiritual kingdoms. One is the kingdom of Christ. The other is the kingdom of the world. And these two kingdoms are at perpetual war with one another. Only one kingdom will stand in the end. So, I see this as a cosmic spiritual battle between two spiritual kingdoms, and we are on opposite sides of that conflict. The destiny of each kingdom and its citizens are already decided, and the war between the kingdoms is much bigger than politics. It is about the human heart. It is about how we live our lives. It is about how we worship, but it does spill over into the political realm because laws must be ethical. And so your anti-Christ ethic and my Christ-exalting ethic come at odds with one another.

If you read Revelation the kingdom of the world has short lived success for a time. The Beast, which is understood to be an ethical/political system much like the one you are an apologist for, treads down the saints. So, the Beast is empowered for a time to oppress the saints. However, all of the worshipers of the Beast will be punished in eternity. That is what the Bible teaches.

 

Your position on trans people is about as anti-Christ as I can imagine. The concept of Christ is to treat people with decency. Arguably, Christ actually was or is at least depicted as the most "woke" person who ever walked the face of the earth. He would be as kind and understanding to trans people as could be. You are the opposite.