In the year 1600, the monk Giordano Bruno was condemned as a heretic and burned at the stake. One of his "crimes" was insisting -- and publishing -- that the Earth travelled around the Sun -- an idea which was first proposed by Aristarchos of Samos in the third century B.C.E.

As he was burning, his last words were "Eppur si muove" -- "Nontheless, it still moves..."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno


What Science Says:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm

Brain activity and structure in transgender adolescents more closely resembles the typical activation patterns of their desired gender, according to new research. The findings suggest that differences in brain function may occur early in development and that brain imaging may be a useful tool for earlier identification of transgenderism in young people.


Brain activity and structure in transgender adolescents more closely resembles the typical activation patterns of their desired gender, according to findings to be presented in Barcelona, at the European Society of Endocrinology annual meeting, ECE 2018. These findings suggest that differences in brain function may occur early in development and that brain imaging may be a useful tool for earlier identification of transgenderism in young people.

What "The Church" Says:
https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-office-blasts-gender-theory-questions-intentions-transgender-people


The Vatican office responsible for overseeing Catholic educational institutions around the world has blasted modern gender theory, claiming in a new document that it seeks to "annihilate the concept of 'nature.' "

In an instruction released June 10 as LGBT people globally are celebrating pride month, the Congregation for Catholic Education calls the idea of people's gender identities existing along a spectrum "nothing more than a confused concept of freedom in the realm of feelings and wants."

Labeling the biological differences between men and women "constitutive of human identity," the office also questions the intentions of those who identify as intersex and transgender.

"Efforts to go beyond the constitutive male-female sexual difference, such as the ideas of 'intersex' or 'transgender,' lead to a masculinity or femininity that is ambiguous," states the document.

"This oscillation between male and female becomes, at the end of the day, only a 'provocative' display against so-called 'traditional frameworks,' " it continues.

The document, which carries the title "Male and female he created them," was released by the Vatican June 10 without prior announcement. Described as an aid for Catholic schoolteachers and parents, it is signed by the educational congregation's leaders: Italians Cardinal Giuseppe Versaldi and Archbishop Angelo Zani.

The educational aid does not carry Pope Francis' signature, and the text makes no reference of the pontiff reviewing the document.

Groups that minister to LGBT Catholics immediately criticized the document. New Ways Ministry, one such group, called it a "harmful tool that will be used to oppress and harm not only transgender people, but lesbian, gay, [and] bisexual people, too."


Francis, whose early pontificate was defined by his "Who am I to judge?" answer to a question about an alleged gay priest working at the Vatican, has made contradictory remarks about gender theory and transgender people throughout his six-year papacy.

In a 2015 interview, for example, the pontiff compared gender theory to nuclear weapons, saying the concept "does not recognize the order of creation." But in 2016, the pope revealed in a press conference that he had met at the Vatican with a Spanish transgender man who had been ostracized by his parish priest after having gender reassignment surgery.

"We must be attentive, not saying all are the same," Francis said about that experience, adding that "people must be accompanied, as Jesus accompanied."

The new document, which is 31 pages in length, does not speak of accompanying transgender people. It instead issues fierce warnings and criticisms of how children and young people are being educated today.

The text opens by saying that society is facing "an educational crisis, especially in the field of affectivity and sexuality."

It then claims that cultural "disorientation" has destabilized the family as an institution, "bringing with it a tendency to cancel out the differences between men and women, presenting them instead as merely the product of historical and cultural conditioning."

The heart of the document critiques modern society's detachment of an individual's concept of gender from their biological sex.

"Gender theory … speaks of a gradual process of denaturalization, that is a move away from nature and towards an absolute option for the decision of the feelings of the human subject," it states.

"In this understanding of things, the view of both sexuality identity and the family become subject to the same 'liquidity' and 'fluidity' that characterize other aspects of post-modern culture, often founded on nothing more than a confused concept of freedom in the realm of feelings and wants, or momentary desires provoked by emotional impulses and the will of the individual," it continues.

The text claims that genetic studies have shown that male and female embryos differ "from the very moment of conception." In cases where a child is born with ambiguous genitalia, it says "it is medical professionals who can make a therapeutic intervention."

"In such situations, parents cannot make an arbitrary choice on the issue, let alone society," it recommends. "Instead, medical science should act with purely therapeutic ends, and intervene in the least invasive fashion, on the basis of objective parameters and with a view to establishing the person's constitutive identity."

Retelling the Genesis story of God creating humans in his image as men and women, the document calls for a reaffirming of "the metaphysical roots of sexual difference."

In a short section detailing some "points of agreement" with gender theory, the text praises educational programs that "share a laudable desire to combat all expressions of unjust discrimination, a requirement that can be shared by all sides."

"Indeed, it cannot be denied that through the centuries forms of unjust discrimination have been a sad fact of history and have also had an influence within the Church," it states.

"This has brought a certain rigid status quo, delaying the necessary and progressive inculturation of the truth of Jesus' proclamation of the equal dignity of men and women, and has provoked accusations of a sort of masculinist mentality, veiled to a greater or lesser degree by religious motives," it continues.

The document also praises anthropological studies that focus on the "values of femininity," lauding how "women's 'capacity for the other' favors a more realistic and mature reading of evolving situations.'"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2019 06:11PM by anybody.

You'd think after 2000 years of having to back-pedal to science, they would learn something. But no.

I agree with you wholeheartedly!

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You'd think after 2000 years of having to
> back-pedal to science, they would learn something.
> But no.


That's right. Backpedaling is the one thing they do the

best. They've had hundreds of years to perfect it.

Not surprised, being a church, that they would say that. However, Catholicism is based on Judaism, and in Ancient Israel, there were 6 genders.

http://www.sojourngsd.org/blog/sixgenders


Dear Western Religions,

If you were truly based on ancient Judaism, why do you all believe in only 2 genders??

This certainly requires more study.
My immediate observation is, Torah is not Talmud neither is it Mishna.

Jesus had constant problems with the Jews of his day because they "nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down." Mark 7:13

Jesus is also to have accused them "if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." John 5:46

He also is supposed to have said "ye are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires." John 8:44

John asserted the prevailing Jews of his day were not Jews, "but are the synagogue of Satan." Rev 2:9

The Babylonian Talmud was assembled after 70 A.D.

I have heard the oral traditions of the Jews at the time of Jesus, were codified in the Babylonian Talmud.

I understand the Mishna was assemble in the 3rd century.

Is biblical Christianity is older than Talmud/Mishna Judaism?

So my questions are:
How many genders are there in the Torah?
How many genders are there in Talmud and Mishna?

Just wondering.

They need to define what "transgender" means here. Which this study doesn't appear to. Transgender is used to refer to a number of separate phenomena today which are sometimes only loosely related. The best way to represent these phenomena would be a series of Venn diagrams. Transvestism for example, is quite different from being intersex, and not all transvestites crossdress for the same reasons. Those who have gender-reassignment surgery, or who wish it, are yet another category again.

I'm sure the usual suspects will rip me to shreds for even pointing out this obvious fact. I used to try on both my parents' clothes as a small child - yes, including my mother's. But did I ever identify as female? No. Did I ever want surgery to re-assign my gender? No. Did I ever get attracted to boys? No. Was I ever mistaken for a girl at that age? No. I have absolutely no shame in admitting I used to do this, which is another thing that would confuse the PC world. As I got older, this ceased to happen, but I still smile when I think of my tiny feet in my mother's high heeled shoes. :) Yet it seems strange to me that this behavior would be automatically lumped in with those who do fall into one of those categories. As I got older, this ceased to happen, but I still smile when I think of my tiny feet in my mother's high heeled shoes. :) When I put on perfume my mother had, I was also playing around with my father's razors (and cutting my hands on them!!!) It's best put in that context.

Sorry some cut and paste there, hence repeated sentences.

All kids try on their parents clothes -- that has nothing to do with being intersex or transsexual or transgender.

You said yourself you never felt that you had the wrong body so guess what -- you are cisgendered just like 99% of the population.

And if you look at old paintings and photographs, boys and girls wore the same dresses and long hair --

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_(boys)

Transvestite means cross-dressing. Last time I checked this was not offensive although Minitruth may have rewritten the Newspeak dictionary yet again.

Why precisely is it that PC people have to keep changing vocabulary? Is it because it has become offensive? Well, in some cases, yes, but in other cases no, so why change those terms? The obvious answer is that instead of being egalitarians as they pretend to be, they are in fact middle class élitists who wish to set verbal traps and shibboleths to see who is part of their ingroup and who isn't. Like most things today, SJWs are the complete opposite of what they pretend to be.

"you are cisgendered just like 99% of the population."

I'm not "cisgendered", "cisgender" or any such Newspeak nonsense. I'm just male. I don't have to defend that.

I didn't have female characteristics when I was born, I became well built and muscular through puberty. That's nothing to do with "cis" whatever, or even a personal choice, or my sexuality, or dress preferences it's just a physical fact.

This is science, not so-called "political correctness."

You are a heterosexual cisgendered male if you are sexually attracted to women (who may or may not be genetically female) and both your brain and your body are male (which is not always the case).

Intersex means having both genetic and/or anatomical sex characteristics that are not in the brain.

Human sexuality is complex.

Did you notice him stating that you're using "newspeak" this is his attempt to discredit you. Lot's wife called it when she said "...you'll be brushed aside as a cultural Marxist". Dismissing anything he doesn't like as newspeak is one of his popular go to's.

Jordan and those like him on this very board have shown that they have no interest in understanding the complexities and evolving understanding of human sexuality. It's not hard to understand that the more we learn about something terminology and social constructs change to as that understanding grows. And more importantly, as we try to understand the complexities of interacting with a various minority groups, instead of ignoring them and denying they exist.

They are stuck in a black and white, male or female understanding. They claim, unironically that this is good thing, to deny people's individuality and ability to define themselves as they are.(See macaRomney's post below) They see the evolving language to meet the needs of the current population as both confusing and offensive to their minds which don't quite seem to be able to keep up. So they claim they are right, stick their heads in the sand and deny the change that is happening all around them.

When it's pointed out that they are using offensive terminology, they don't say, "That was not my intent, what terminology should I be using and if you don't mind, can you explain why?". They dig in their heels, the use comparative derogatory terminology as a defense, "Well it's not like I said (insert offensive term here)". They point out that words used to mean something, even if they really didn't. When all else fails, they yell, "You're just being PC!".

If you replace PC with "respect" it shows what they really mean. When Jordan says, "Why precisely is it that PC people have to keep changing vocabulary? Is it because it has become offensive?" Becomes "Why precisely is it that RESPECTFUL people have to keep changing vocabulary? Is it because it has become offensive?". The answer to the question using "respect" becomes an obvious yes. Respectful people don't keep using offensive terms. Instead of trying to figure out why that is, He's decided to label it and dismiss it. (See the thread started by shylock regarding SSA equating Gay for other examples of him doing this very thing)

It always boils down to a lack of respect. They simply can't get themselves to respect the "other". The person or group they don't understand and really don't want to. Just imagine their response should anyone ask them, "What pronouns do you use?" Something that is becoming more popular with the generation just behind mine.

It's a shame and it's their loss.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2019 11:34AM by Finally Free!.

Thank you.

Do you mean people who try to be respectful and not offend someone by calling them something that they don't like or despise?

Do you have a need to demean someone else just to make yourself feel superior? I don't, so I don't call a black person "coloured" for example as it's widely regarded as offensive. But to do that just because that's what you grew up hearing and you don't want to accept that the world has changed, that's your problem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2019 09:14PM by anybody.

Be careful, anybody, or you'll be brushed aside as a cultural Marxist. And that, let me tell you, really hurts!

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Be careful, anybody, or you'll be brushed aside as
> a cultural Marxist. And that, let me tell you,
> really hurts!

Well, yes, you might find you have been gradually immersed in it, until one day you find yourself using deconstructionist words and phrases like "social construct", "reactionary", "narrative" (outside a literary context) and wonder why many people suddenly seem to have become so right wing. Maybe it's not a case of them moving away from you, so much as you moving away from them. Maybe you fell asleep on your boat and it drifted away downstream without you noticing it until it was too late.

That's how Mormonism works too. You convert and move further away from your old life until one day you find you're full blown TBM. Gradual indoctrination and understanding unscientific falsehoods as fact. And it works the other way too. You can drift so far away from it without even realizing it that you can effectively deconvert yourself.

> Well, yes, you might find you have been gradually
> immersed in it, until one day you find yourself
> using deconstructionist words and phrases like
> "social construct", "reactionary", "narrative"
> (outside a literary context) and wonder why many
> people suddenly seem to have become so right wing.

And yet "reactionary" and "narrative" are words and concepts that go back centuries and do not stem from the culture wars to which you now assign them. "Social construct" is newer, but it too antedates your monster-under-the-bed "deconstructionism." So why the anachronism? Are these words that, like "cultural Marxist" you just wield like weapons irrespective of their meanings and origins?


------------------
> Maybe it's not a case of them moving away from
> you, so much as you moving away from them. Maybe
> you fell asleep on your boat and it drifted away
> downstream without you noticing it until it was
> too late.

Perhaps. But then I'd be in the same boat as Ronald Reagan and John McCain, those rabid leftists.


--------------
> That's how Mormonism works too. You convert and
> move further away from your old life until one day
> you find you're full blown TBM. Gradual
> indoctrination and understanding unscientific
> falsehoods as fact.

And yet it is you whose political and social beliefs remain mainstream Mormon despite scientific facts to the contrary. It's remarkable how deeply entrenched those impulses remain.

We've seen considerable evidence of that lately, with you, macaRomney and Bruce R. McDonkie astonishingly complimenting each other on your shared views several times until McDonkie fell from favor. But I'm sure you and macaRomney can hold aloft the banner of Mormon views on race, gender, and science without DE's help.

I agree with Jordan and his wise assessments. There is too much ambiguity on what transgender means. The inteligensia and activists (some who might be deranged?) have lumped in anyone from people who are born with xxy chromosomes, to those accidentally born without certain body parts, to men who like to cross dress, to little children who are just experimenting and learning about clothes.

But this idea of gender being a spectrum seems bigoted to me. Which the activists are certainly prejudice and non accepting. of individual differences within the gender. Instead they want to define everyone into categories for their own political reasons.

When the Catholics say there are 2 genders. Yes that seems like the safest and most kind way to view people especially those trying to fit in and not get bullied. It works for 99% of the population. When the activists want to disrupt peoples lives they may be asserting the .01% of the population but are disregarding and throwing away the 99.9%. Which just seems wasteful. They are asserting to increase their power to larger numbers by confusing many who can actually fit in a gender and the bullies can actually accept.

Now when it comes to intersex people (that need to be differentiated from transgender but don't for some reason). They have a tough time. I've known one very close. And the mormon church is really bad for these folks. I sympathies with their dilemma. All the hormones they have to take and the doctors never get it quite right. It's bad....

Matter was first thought of as solid and inert.

Then they thought all matter was comprised of earth, water, fire, and air. Somebody put in a fifth element called "aether" but nobody could find it.

Then Democritus came along and said all matter was made little things called "atoms" but nobody believed him until 2,400 years later.

Fast forward to the 20th Century. Turns out that not only was Democritus right, but that atoms themselves were made other smaller particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons and they themselves were made of even smaller things called quarks and all of these particles were actually waves of energy and could be thought of as both.

But if you are a religious fundamentalist all this science and rational thought is just nonsense and made up.

Things change.

That's the point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2019 10:55AM by anybody.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All the hormones they have to take and
> the doctors never get it quite right. It's bad....

It isn't a disease. IT is "bad" because of culture and not biology. You sound as much of the problem as anyone I've read here.

Well, you and Jordan are pretty much on the same page when it comes to "wisdom."

Take for example all that about the 99% or the 99.9% or the the 0.1%. That sounds exactly like Jordan ranting against legally mandated accommodations for the disabled. You both stem from a rich tradition; you both sound like your mentor, Boyd Packer, who in 1978 gave a speech called "To the One." Do you know it? Of course not. You haven't read it. Nor has Jordan. You two come upon Packer's wisdom naturally; it stems from your instincts.

All this from the man who thinks it is foolish to teach children math and science. All this from the champions of ignorance.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2019 11:40AM by Lot's Wife.

> "When the Catholics say there are 2 genders. Yes that seems like the safest and most kind way to view people especially those trying to fit in and not get bullied."

Literally calling it a kindness to invalidate the identity of people and who they are. This ideology is the heart of bigotry. Saying you must deny who you are so you can fit the ideals that "I" have, usually said with a condescending smile, calling it a benefit for those being denied their rights to exist as they are.

wrong place



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2019 11:45AM by Finally Free!.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> What Science Says:
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/1805
> 24112351.htm
>


wait, I thought science said that gender is a spectrum and there's no typical male or female brain.

https://www.fastcompany.com/40441920/everything-you-believe-is-wrong-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-male-or-female-brain

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/research-on-the-transgender-brain-what-you-should-know/

"Male, female and transgender brains"

“The male and female brain have structural differences,” he says. Men and women tend to have different volumes in certain areas of the brain.

“When we look at the transgender brain, we see that the brain resembles the gender that the person identifies as,” Dr. Altinay says. For example, a person who is born with a penis but ends up identifying as a female often actually has some of the structural characteristics of a “female” brain.

And the brain similarities aren’t only structural.

“We’re also finding some functional similarities between the transgender brain and its identified gender,” Dr. Altinay says.

In studies that use MRIs to take images of the brain as people perform tasks, the brain activity of transgender people tends to look like that of the gender they identify with.

“Research in these areas is extremely limited, and more research needs to be done to find conclusive results,” Dr. Altinay notes. “But we’re already seeing definite trends.”

Though these differences in brain structure and function are important markers for gender determination, it isn’t always as simple as male or female.

Some research shows the brains of transgender people are somewhere in between, sharing characteristics of both male and female brains, Dr. Altinay says.

This is consistent with the growing understanding that gender exists on a spectrum, with people identifying not only as male or female but also as genderqueer, genderfluid or nonbinary. These terms refer to gender identities that incorporate a variety of gender characteristics."

Enlightening article! I learned a lot from those articles! Thanks anybody. I also agree with those articles too. Don’t fight me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2019 07:51PM by redskittle.

Everyone is free to personally approve or disapprove of whatever they don't like for whatever reason.

That's not the same as denying that something exists in the face of scientific evidence.

The point I'm trying to make is about religion forcing people to deny fact-based reality and scientific research.

The Catholics did this in other cases -- Hypatia and Galileo are biggies.

It's no different than LD$, Inc. insisting that the Earth was created in 4004 B.C.E and Adam and Eve were real people and Noah's Ark isn't based on a Sumerian myth or an ancient pre-Columbian Iron Age civilisation existed in North America.

You might want to do some reading on both Hypatia and Galileo. Here is a is ot more to both stories. You can google them or check a website called 'History for Atheists' which goes into both.The authors of the site are atheist. The storyof Hypatia is much more complicated than Sagan made it out in Cosmos. There is a lot we don't know and the library was burned several times. Them first was when Julius Caesar was in Egypt. Christianity didn't exist then. The Pope was wrong I'm the case of Galileo but so were the scientists of the day whom the pope consulted and Galileo added a lot of fuel to the fire himself.