New Scientist and the trans nonsense

[Kendall K. Down]

I have often complained that the writers and editors for New Scientist
simply do not think about the stuff they publish. Usually it is when two
articles, supposed to support evolution, contradict each other and
thereby support the Creationist platform. This time they have -
unwittingly, I'm sure - debunked the trans nonsense.

"DNA is packaged into chromosomes with the cells of most men and
transgender women carrying one X and one Y, and those of most women and
transgender men carrying two Xs - although some people have other
combinations such as XXY or XYY."
23-07-20922 p. 19

Just think about it for a moment: men and transgender women have XY
chromosomes - in other words, transgender women are indisputably men.
Women and transgender men have XX chromosomes - and again, that is
absolute proof that transgender men are actually women.

It really is ridiculous the way the woke mob carry on. You can go in for
surgery and have your finger cut off, but that will not change you from
being a man into being a woman. In exactly the same way, you can go into
surgery and have your willy cut off, but that will not change you from
being a man into being a woman. Or you can have your breasts cut off,
but that will not change you from a woman into a man.

Remember, folks. You read it in New Scientist first.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Timreason]

My training was in engineering, not medicine, which is why I don't spout
on about subjects I'm not qualified to gabble on about. So what follows
is simply the understanding I have gleaned from a variety of sources
over the years.

I've said on this NG before, that I don't really understand the 'trans'
thing. But my failure to grasp it does not necessarily mean it is
'nonsense'.

The problem for the casual enquirer into subjects such as this is that
any truly neutral articles are almost as rare as rocking-horse poo.

From what I've seen so far, however, it seems that the answer, like it
is for many of these things, is "It's complicated".

I'm willing therefore to be corrected, but my understanding goes
something like this:

All foetuses (or 'fetuses' among the medical community!) start out
female. But those with Y chromosomes (around half) will usually develop
as male. So for the majority, XX chromosomes develop female, and XY
chromosomes develop male.

So far, so good.

But there are a few people who have XXY or XYY and may develop bodies
that are 'between' male and female. These people are those I believe are
referred to as 'intersex'. Many such individuals will identify with one
or other gender, but some seem to be neither.

Now, let's go back to what I said above, "It's complicated".

In the developing foetus (I'll keep to that spelling) apparently in all
people there are two main hormones influencing foetal development. They
are androgen (testosterone?) and oestrogen (my spell checker doesn't
like that, either). Basically, an XY foetus will usually respond more to
androgen and the gonads will develop as testicles, etc. In an XX foetus
it will respond more to oestrogen, and the gonads will develop as
ovaries, etc.

Again, so far so good. But here again other things can happen. In an XY
foetus there may be for some reason an absence of androgen, or maybe the
foetus for some reason is 'blind' to the androgen and doesn't respond to
it. So the biologically male foetus will develop with more female
characteristics. The same applies for XX foetuses where there is an
absence of oestrogen, or the foetus is 'blind' to it. Then the female
foetus will develop with more male characteristics.

I really don't know if I've got any of this right, and I reitterate that
I am NOT in any way qualified to pronounce on medical matters.

Nevertheless, the above is my understanding, and the basis of why I
don't believe the 'Trans Thing' is 'nonsense'.

Another way of looking at it is that some males are 'very female'-like,
and some females are 'very male'-like.

My view? It's complicated, because people are complicated and extremely
diverse.

Tim.

[John]

On 22/07/2022 19:41, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> It really is ridiculous the way the woke mob carry on. You can go in for
> surgery and have your finger cut off, but that will not change you from
> being a man into being a woman. In exactly the same way, you can go into
> surgery and have your willy cut off, but that will not change you from
> being a man into being a woman. Or you can have your breasts cut off,
> but that will not change you from a woman into a man.

So what if a trans person, several years later, becomes a Christian?
Will God accept them just as they are, or will they have to revert back
to their original sex?

[Mike Davis]

On 22/07/2022 19:41, Kendall K. Down wrote:

Not that often that I agree entirely with your scientific comments :-)
but here I do. It's the difference between (scientific) 'sex' and
(emotional) 'gender'.

However, I've yet to come across a scientific article (though I haven't
tried v hard) on correlation between gender identity/stability and those
with XXY or XYY chromosomes.

>
> Remember, folks. You read it in New Scientist first.

Actually NO - that information has been available for many years!

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/07/2022 10:09, John wrote:

> So what if a trans person, several years later, becomes a Christian?
> Will God accept them just as they are, or will they have to revert back
> to their original sex?

I really don't know the answer to that one. I suspect that if the person
has undergone extensive surgery and other interventions it may simply
not be possible for him/her to go back, though we do have examples of
people who have tried and are now suing those they feel have ruined
their bodies.

I imagine that if they do get into heaven, there will be an embarrassing
interview on the way in ...

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/07/2022 08:13, Timreason wrote:

> In the developing foetus (I'll keep to that spelling) apparently in all
> people there are two main hormones influencing foetal development. They
> are androgen (testosterone?) and oestrogen (my spell checker doesn't
> like that, either). Basically, an XY foetus will usually respond more to
> androgen and the gonads will develop as testicles, etc. In an XX foetus
> it will respond more to oestrogen, and the gonads will develop as
> ovaries, etc.

I think you are correct in your summary - but what you are describing
are genuine medical conditions. No one, least of all me, would wish to
dennigrate such unfortunate people.

However there are other people who do *not* suffer from confused genes
(XXY or XYY), who do not suffer from hormonal problems, but who, for
whatever reason, decide that they wish to identify with the opposite
sex. A mediocre swimmer, perhaps, who realises that the only way he can
win gold is to change his name and start beating women.

Trans ideology claims that if he says he is a woman, then he really is a
woman and it is heresy to think otherwise. I am proud to self-identify
as a heretic.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/07/2022 12:29, Mike Davis wrote:

> Not that often that I agree entirely with your scientific comments :-)
> but here I do. It's the difference between (scientific) 'sex' and
> (emotional) 'gender'.

Emotional problems should be deal with emotionally - ie. with psychology
- not with surgery or hormones.

> However, I've yet to come across a scientific article (though I haven't
> tried v hard) on correlation between gender identity/stability and those
> with XXY or XYY chromosomes.

Yes, that would be an interesting study.

>> Remember, folks. You read it in New Scientist first.

> Actually NO - that information has been available for many years!

You know that; I know that; apparently the trans lobby that is presently
persecuting J.K.Rowling does not.

[John]

Why, isn't the slate wiped clean when they become a Christian?

Not that there's anything in the bible that forbids someone becoming a
trans person of course.

[John]

On 23/07/2022 21:15, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 23/07/2022 08:13, Timreason wrote:
>
>> In the developing foetus (I'll keep to that spelling) apparently in
>> all people there are two main hormones influencing foetal development.
>> They are androgen (testosterone?) and oestrogen (my spell checker
>> doesn't like that, either). Basically, an XY foetus will usually
>> respond more to androgen and the gonads will develop as testicles,
>> etc. In an XX foetus it will respond more to oestrogen, and the gonads
>> will develop as ovaries, etc.
>
> I think you are correct in your summary - but what you are describing
> are genuine medical conditions. No one, least of all me, would wish to
> dennigrate such unfortunate people.
>
> However there are other people who do *not* suffer from confused genes
> (XXY or XYY), who do not suffer from hormonal problems, but who, for
> whatever reason, decide that they wish to identify with the opposite
> sex. A mediocre swimmer, perhaps, who realises that the only way he can
> win gold is to change his name and start beating women.

So how do *you* know the difference between between someone who has a
wonky chromosone, and is that perturbed they want to/have changed their
sex and someone who is simply "Going for Gold"

> Trans ideology claims that if he says he is a woman, then he really is a
> woman and it is heresy to think otherwise.

Well I think we should leave it to those that do want to/have
transition(ed), because they're in the situation and we're not.and
providing they've gone through the necessary pshycological counselling
it's their body to do what they want with it.

The only restriction I would personally place on someone becoming trans
would be a/ they are an adult and b/ they can't take part in
professional sports of their new sex. (purely because it gives them an
unfair advantage)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/07/2022 23:33, John wrote:

> So how do *you* know the difference between between someone who has a
> wonky chromosone, and is that perturbed they want to/have changed their
> sex and someone who is simply "Going for Gold"

*I* don't, but doctors can.

> Well I think we should leave it to those that do want to/have
> transition(ed), because they're in the situation and we're not.and
> providing they've gone through the necessary pshycological counselling
> it's their body to do what they want with it.

Certainly in a free country people can do what they want with their
bodies - but equally, in a free country, I am not obliged to believe a
6'6" rugby player with a beard who tells me that he is a woman.

> The only restriction I would personally place on someone becoming trans
> would be a/ they are an adult and b/ they can't take part in
> professional sports of their new sex. (purely because it gives them an
> unfair advantage)

Neither restriction is acceptable to the trans lobby. Stonewall,
apparently, wants children as young as two to be able to determine their
own sex, and, of course, there are all sorts of protests about men not
being allowed to compete in women's sports just because they have
started to wear a dress.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/07/2022 23:09, John wrote:

> Why, isn't the slate wiped clean when they become a Christian?

Certainly - which means they go back to their birth gender.

> Not that there's anything in the bible that forbids someone becoming a
> trans person of course.

Actually, there is. Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits cross dressing - and I
don't suppose a woman who thinks she is a man would be terribly happy
still wearing a dress.

[Timreason]

On 23/07/2022 21:15, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 23/07/2022 08:13, Timreason wrote:
>
>> In the developing foetus (I'll keep to that spelling) apparently in
>> all people there are two main hormones influencing foetal development.
>> They are androgen (testosterone?) and oestrogen (my spell checker
>> doesn't like that, either). Basically, an XY foetus will usually
>> respond more to androgen and the gonads will develop as testicles,
>> etc. In an XX foetus it will respond more to oestrogen, and the gonads
>> will develop as ovaries, etc.
>
> I think you are correct in your summary - but what you are describing
> are genuine medical conditions. No one, least of all me, would wish to
> dennigrate such unfortunate people.

Good. You seem OK with people who do have physical differences.

I know someone personally who is a retired clinical psychiatrist (no,
I'm not, nor have ever been his patient!) Forgive me for considering him
more qualified than you over the subject of differences in the mind.

He is a Shia Muslim, and yet has less trouble than you seem to over
accepting differences within peoples' minds.

Surely you can accept that if the body can develop differently, so can
both the brain and the mind?

You are probably right that some people with psychosis might, for a
time, believe they are of the opposite sex, just as they might believe
they are Napoleon or something. But that does not mean it's the ONLY
reason why some individuals might identify as being the opposite sex to
their biological one.

So you can accept differences in the body, but not in the brain or mind.
OK, but personally I don't find that logical. For one thing, the brain
is part of the body, and you don't know (or I, for that matter) that
there just could be some physical differences that affect ONLY the brain
or mind development.

>
> However there are other people who do *not* suffer from confused genes
> (XXY or XYY), who do not suffer from hormonal problems, but who, for
> whatever reason, decide that they wish to identify with the opposite
> sex. A mediocre swimmer, perhaps, who realises that the only way he can
> win gold is to change his name and start beating women.
>
> Trans ideology claims that if he says he is a woman, then he really is a
> woman and it is heresy to think otherwise. I am proud to self-identify
> as a heretic.

As I've said before, I don't really understand the 'Trans Thing', and I
do accept that some people may have motives such as sporting advantage
etc., but personally I believe it is a real phenomenon for some
individuals. When it comes to psychology, AFAIK the main approach is to
help people accept and live as they are, rather than try to force
change, which doesn't seem to work when it has been tried. For some,
changing the body's appearance might be the right approach, but probably
not for all.

My own view is it is better to change the way people are treated by
wider society, than it is to try to change either the individual's body
OR mind. It's better to just accept that some women want to live
man-like lives, and some men want to live woman-like lives.

I don't feel qualified to dismiss it as 'nonsense', but clearly you are
much more qualified than I in the subjects of psychology and psychiatry.
I was just a humble mental health Support Worker...

Tim.

[Timreason]

Didn't Jesus wear some sort of one-piece garment that was probably very
much like what we would call 'A dress'?

Tim.

[John]

On 24/07/2022 07:21, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 23/07/2022 23:33, John wrote:
>
>> So how do *you* know the difference between between someone who has a
>> wonky chromosone, and is that perturbed they want to/have changed
>> their sex and someone who is simply "Going for Gold"
>
> *I* don't, but doctors can.

Could you cite me a single case where someone has transitioned *just* so
they can compete in professional sports of their chosen sex?

>> Well I think we should leave it to those that do want to/have
>> transition(ed), because they're in the situation and we're not.and
>> providing they've gone through the necessary pshycological counselling
>> it's their body to do what they want with it.
>
> Certainly in a free country people can do what they want with their
> bodies - but equally, in a free country, I am not obliged to believe a
> 6'6" rugby player with a beard who tells me that he is a woma

Hate to break it to you old chap, but a man who has transitioned into a
woman won't have a beard. Although it does remind me of an amusing joke.

A bride on her wedding night says to her husband, "I must confess
darling, I used to be a hooker."

He says, "That's a bit of a shock love, but I must admit, I find it
quite a turn on. Tell me about it."

She replies, "Well, my name was Nigel, and I played Rugby League for Wigan!"

>> The only restriction I would personally place on someone becoming
>> trans would be a/ they are an adult and b/ they can't take part in
>> professional sports of their new sex. (purely because it gives them an
>> unfair advantage)
>
> Neither restriction is acceptable to the trans lobby. Stonewall,
> apparently, wants children as young as two to be able to determine their
> own sex,

Not something I agree with, but there are older children who have
expressed a wish to be the opposite sex, and as long as it's dealt with
properly the child should be supported (and undergo counselling just to
ensure it's genuine) but re-assignment shouldn't take place until they
are adult. Just my opinion.

...and, of course, there are all sorts of protests about men not

> being allowed to compete in women's sports just because they have
> started to wear a dress.

You're being silly again. That wouldn't happen until they had
transitioned. You'll be pleased to know that Rugby has recently said
that trans people will be unable to compete in events with their chosen
sex, and our lovely Culture Secretary is encouraging other sports to
take a similar stance.

[John]

On 24/07/2022 07:24, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 23/07/2022 23:09, John wrote:
>
>> Why, isn't the slate wiped clean when they become a Christian?
>
> Certainly - which means they go back to their birth gender.

Up thread, when I asked you whether people would have to revert back to
their original sex you said "I suspect that if the person has undergone

extensive surgery and other interventions it may simply not be possible

for him/her to go back.." Have you changed your mind?

And of course you lied about the embarrassing interview on the way into
Heaven.

>> Not that there's anything in the bible that forbids someone becoming a
>> trans person of course.

> Actually, there is. Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits cross dressing - and I
> don't suppose a woman who thinks she is a man would be terribly happy
> still wearing a dress.

But we're not talking about cross dressing, are we? We're talking about
people that have transitioned from one sex to another.

So yes, whilst going through the trasitioning period and before the
medical operation I assume there would be a period of cross dressing,
but no worse sin then any other (if indeed Deut 22:5 still applies)

Side note: I do hope that any woman wearing trousers is kicked out
before you take a service.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/07/2022 13:41, John wrote:

> Could you cite me a single case where someone has transitioned *just* so
> they can compete in professional sports of their chosen sex?

There are several suspects. Read the news.

> Hate to break it to you old chap, but a man who has transitioned into a
> woman won't have a beard. Although it does remind me of an amusing joke.

No, but the man who has decided to but hasn't actually done it yet does.
I've met him.

> She replies, "Well, my name was Nigel, and I played Rugby League for
> Wigan!"

Ha ha.

> Not something I agree with

Good, but unfortunately the trans scene is not made up of you, but of
fanatics who make life hell for anyone who disagrees with them.

> You're being silly again. That wouldn't happen until they had
> transitioned.

And exactly how long does it take for their muscles to become like those
of their chosen sex? How is that tested for?

> You'll be pleased to know that Rugby has recently said
> that trans people will be unable to compete in events with their chosen
> sex, and our lovely Culture Secretary is encouraging other sports to
> take a similar stance.

I'm glad that common sense is finally starting to assert itself.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/07/2022 07:40, Timreason wrote:

>> Actually, there is. Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits cross dressing - and I
>> don't suppose a woman who thinks she is a man would be terribly happy
>> still wearing a dress.

> Didn't Jesus wear some sort of one-piece garment that was probably very
> much like what we would call 'A dress'?

Yes. So?

My first serious girl-friend wore trousers; her brother wore a skirt
(shalwar kamize for her, lungi for him). They were, of course, Indians.

Why you should think that modern western dress is the be-all and end-all
I cannot imagine. Try going up to a Scotsman in his kilt and telling him
that he is wearing a dress. You'll probably need some dental work
afterwards.

The point is that in any culture there are differences in male and
female dress. Deuteronomy prohibits men from wearing women's clothes,
whatever those clothes may be in that culture.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/07/2022 07:37, Timreason wrote:

> Surely you can accept that if the body can develop differently, so can
> both the brain and the mind?

Yes, it's called mental illness.

> So you can accept differences in the body, but not in the brain or mind.
> OK, but personally I don't find that logical. For one thing, the brain
> is part of the body, and you don't know (or I, for that matter) that
> there just could be some physical differences that affect ONLY the brain
> or mind development.

I have had no particular feelings on the subject for a long time (and
have been aware for many years of people who have "transitioned"). It is
the sudden explosion of people - particularly children and young people
- who claim to be the opposite gender or no gender or one of the 105
genders recognised by the BBC that leads me to believe that we are not
facing genuine problems but a fashion. (I think you would agree that
those with genuine differences would be a very rare phenomenon.)

> My own view is it is better to change the way people are treated by
> wider society, than it is to try to change either the individual's body
> OR mind. It's better to just accept that some women want to live
> man-like lives, and some men want to live woman-like lives.

Yeah - and two-year olds are perfectly qualified to make such a
life-long choice.

> I don't feel qualified to dismiss it as 'nonsense'

It is nonsense to claim that a person *becomes* the opposite gender just
by saying that they are. A trans-woman is still a man, whether or not he
has had bits chopped or wears a dress or has speech therapy (as if there
isn't enough for speech therapists to do helping people with genuine
problems) to help him sound like a woman. He is not a woman and will
never be a woman, as the New Scientist piece admits.

I remember my mother telling me of a British agent in occupied France
who was disguised as a woman but was caught when he dropped something
while seated on a bus. He instantly snapped his legs together to catch
it whereas a real woman would spread her legs to catch it in her skirt!

I don't know whether that story is true or not, but it illustrates a
second point: real women have a lifetime of developing female attitudes
and behaviours. A man pretending to be a woman is unlikely to develop
them overnight, even if he was aware of them!

So both physically he remains a man and psychologically he will remain a
man for a very long time if not to the end of his life.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/07/2022 13:42, John wrote:

> Up thread, when I asked you whether people would have to revert back to
> their original sex you said "I suspect that if the person has undergone
> extensive surgery and other interventions it may simply not be possible
> for him/her to go back.."  Have you changed your mind?

Your question concerned a person becoming a Christian. The discussion
then moved on to post resurrection, when we will all have new bodies.
They are two different scenarios, for which I gave two different answers.

Are you surprised?

> But we're not talking about cross dressing, are we?  We're talking about
> people that have transitioned from one sex to another.

Except that they have done nothing of the sort. He may speak with a
squeaky voice, he may wear a dress, he may have had his willy chopped
of, but every cell in his body proclaims that he is still a man.

Perhaps you ought to study a bit of basic biology?

> Side note:  I do hope that any woman wearing trousers is kicked out
> before you take a service.

In India, where I grew up, she would be kicked out if she turned up
wearing a skirt.

As I said to Tim, modern western fashions are not the determining factor.

[Stuart]

In article <tbhrj4$4ug7$1...@dont-email.me>,

John <mega...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why, isn't the slate wiped clean when they become a Christian?

As we believe that all sins, if sincerely repented on during a persons
life, can be forgiven, then I guess that would be so.

> Not that there's anything in the bible that forbids someone becoming a
> trans person of course.

However, if we believe that God carefully made each and everyone us as the
individuals He wanted us to be, including our sex, imagine how He feels if
His careful construction is messed about with. I doubt He is very happy
about it

Consider, if you made a great and beautiful sculpture of a man and someone
comes along, cuts of it's balls and sticks fake breasts on it's chest, or
similarly, suppose you sculpted a "Venus" and someone chopped its' breasts
off, how would YOU feel.

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[Stuart]

In article <tbioi0$ef3t$2...@dont-email.me>,

Kendall K. Down <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Actually, there is. Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits cross dressing

That is indeed true, though one has to be careful about culture, tradition
and fashion. If I, being 50% scottish, choose to put on a skirt, a Kilt,
is that sin?

It is now normal, in the West, for ladies to wear slacks, trousers, jeans,
often for quite practical reasons, is that wrong too?

Where do pantomime dames and principal boys fit in?

However, I am aware that a late colleague of mine used to wear female
clothing at home and his wife knew and used to help him. He used to try to
keep his fetish a secret but somehow it got out. That clearly was wrong as
is all this cross dressing for "Sexual" reasons.

[Stuart]

In article <tbipgj$ep4t$2...@dont-email.me>,

Timreason <timr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> Didn't Jesus wear some sort of one-piece garment that was probably very
> much like what we would call 'A dress'?

I think you will find my post about culture and tradition covers that. I
think we would refer to Jesus' clothing as a robe.

[Stuart]

In article <tbjel8$jqcu$1...@dont-email.me>,

John <mega...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not something I agree with, but there are older children who have
> expressed a wish to be the opposite sex, and as long as it's dealt with
> properly the child should be supported (and undergo counselling just to
> ensure it's genuine) but re-assignment shouldn't take place until they
> are adult. Just my opinion.

I myself do recall as a child wishing I had be born a girl for a period of
time.

[Stuart]

In article <tbk6l3$pibt$1...@dont-email.me>,

Kendall K. Down <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I remember my mother telling me of a British agent in occupied France
> who was disguised as a woman but was caught when he dropped something
> while seated on a bus. He instantly snapped his legs together to catch
> it whereas a real woman would spread her legs to catch it in her skirt!

Many years ago that was story line in the ITV series "Robin Hood", Robin
was played by Richard Green "Robin dressed up in a kilt as disguise while
meeting Rob Roy. If my memory is correct, a ball or something was thrown
to Robin whilst he was seated and he instinctively snapped his knees
together.

The theme song should it help anyone remember:

Robin Hood, Robin Hood riding through the glen.
Robin Hood, Robin Hood with his band of men.
Feared by the bad, loved by the good,
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood

[John]

On 24/07/2022 20:17, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 24/07/2022 13:41, John wrote:
>
>> Could you cite me a single case where someone has transitioned *just*
>> so they can compete in professional sports of their chosen sex?
>
> There are several suspects. Read the news.

I do, and I'm much more widely read than the daily fail. I've not read a
single news item where someone has stated they want/have become trans
just so they can compete in sports in their new sex. So prove it
otherwise I'll just put it down to a "mistake" on your part.
>

Re children being allowed to determine their chosen sex at the age of 2.

>> Not something I agree with
>
> Good, but unfortunately the trans scene is not made up of you, but of
> fanatics who make life hell for anyone who disagrees with them.

What, all of them? I don't believe you.

>> You're being silly again. That wouldn't happen until they had
>> transitioned.
>
> And exactly how long does it take for their muscles to become like those
> of their chosen sex? How is that tested for?

I don't follow. You said "there are all sorts of protests about men not

being allowed to compete in women's sports just because they have
started to wear a dress"

Pre transition that isn't true, and you know it isn't.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/07/2022 20:58, Stuart wrote:

> I myself do recall as a child wishing I had be born a girl for a period of
> time.

Probably everyone goes through a phase of wondering what it would be
like to be the opposite sex - as well as wondering what it would be like
to be Superman or a bird or ...

Just be glad you didn't have the modern trannies and their sympatisers
or today you'd be wearing a dress.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/07/2022 20:46, Stuart wrote:

> That is indeed true, though one has to be careful about culture, tradition
> and fashion. If I, being 50% scottish, choose to put on a skirt, a Kilt,
> is that sin?

Quite so - and if art of the period is to be believed, back in Bible
times both sexes wore similar wrap-around garments that didn't require
sewing. Nonetheless, the distinction between male and female garb was
real and visible.

> It is now normal, in the West, for ladies to wear slacks, trousers, jeans,
> often for quite practical reasons, is that wrong too?

No, there is no particular garment that is male or female (and in any
case, there are subtle differences between slacks and trousers). As you
note below, it is the cross-dressing for sexual purposes or for
confusing the onlooker that is wrong.

> Where do pantomime dames and principal boys fit in?

It is no more wrong for an actor to dress as a woman than it is for him
to dress as a dragon or as James Bond. Everyone what he really is once
the performance is over.

> However, I am aware that a late colleague of mine used to wear female
> clothing at home and his wife knew and used to help him. He used to try to
> keep his fetish a secret but somehow it got out. That clearly was wrong as
> is all this cross dressing for "Sexual" reasons.

It probably is covered by the Deuteronomic prohibition, though I
personally would prefer to ignore such private behaviours so long as
they harm nobody. God can deal with such a person if He sees fit.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/07/2022 20:30, Stuart wrote:

>> Why, isn't the slate wiped clean when they become a Christian?

> As we believe that all sins, if sincerely repented on during a persons
> life, can be forgiven, then I guess that would be so.

"Sincerely repented", of course, implies cessation of the behaviour in
question.

> However, if we believe that God carefully made each and everyone us as the
> individuals He wanted us to be, including our sex, imagine how He feels if
> His careful construction is messed about with. I doubt He is very happy
> about it

That is certainly true, though it is capable of very wide application.
Is God happy when you imperil your life by driving at more than 20mph?
Or if you vandalise your brain by drinking alcohol. And so on.

[John]

On 24/07/2022 20:58, Stuart wrote:

> In article <tbjel8$jqcu$1...@dont-email.me>,
> John <mega...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not something I agree with, but there are older children who have
>> expressed a wish to be the opposite sex, and as long as it's dealt with
>> properly the child should be supported (and undergo counselling just to
>> ensure it's genuine) but re-assignment shouldn't take place until they
>> are adult. Just my opinion.
>
> I myself do recall as a child wishing I had be born a girl for a period of
> time.

What happened, did you grow out of it or consider it too big a step to
take to transition? I've read the story of Stephanie Hirst, a hugely
popular radio presenter who for many years knew she was trapped in a
man's body.

She revealed she was very close to suicide, wanting to crash her car as
she drove home every day. Eventually she chose to transition, and feels
much more comfortable now in her chosen sex.

[John]

On 24/07/2022 20:30, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 24/07/2022 07:37, Timreason wrote:


>> So you can accept differences in the body, but not in the brain or
>> mind. OK, but personally I don't find that logical. For one thing, the
>> brain is part of the body, and you don't know (or I, for that matter)
>> that there just could be some physical differences that affect ONLY
>> the brain or mind development.
>
> I have had no particular feelings on the subject for a long time (and
> have been aware for many years of people who have "transitioned"). It is
> the sudden explosion of people - particularly children and young people
> - who claim to be the opposite gender or no gender or one of the 105
> genders recognised by the BBC that leads me to believe that we are not
> facing genuine problems but a fashion. (I think you would agree that
> those with genuine differences would be a very rare phenomenon.)

Binary issues are a different subject that I agree are a fad. That's not
to distract from the trans issue, which is a different subject.

>> I don't feel qualified to dismiss it as 'nonsense'
>
> It is nonsense to claim that a person *becomes* the opposite gender just
> by saying that they are. A trans-woman is still a man, whether or not he
> has had bits chopped or wears a dress or has speech therapy (as if there
> isn't enough for speech therapists to do helping people with genuine
> problems) to help him sound like a woman. He is not a woman and will
> never be a woman, as the New Scientist piece admits.

If you've gone through the life changing decision to grow breasts, have
your penis chopped off and have a vaginal passage made then in my eyes
that makes you a woman, and the law recognises they are.

> I remember my mother telling me of a British agent in occupied France
> who was disguised as a woman but was caught when he dropped something
> while seated on a bus. He instantly snapped his legs together to catch
> it whereas a real woman would spread her legs to catch it in her skirt!
>
> I don't know whether that story is true or not, but it illustrates a
> second point: real women have a lifetime of developing female attitudes
> and behaviours. A man pretending to be a woman is unlikely to develop
> them overnight, even if he was aware of them!
>
> So both physically he remains a man

Obviously you've not seen someone who has had gender reasignment. I saw
one on TV the other week, and if they hadn't said she was trans I would
never have known.

Here's a little test for you, which one of these two people has had
gender reasignment?

https://i.imgur.com/hHIhsj2.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Brs49tU.jpg

and psychologically he will remain a
> man for a very long time if not to the end of his life.

Phycologically she would be a woman way before undergoing gender
reasignment.

[John]

On 24/07/2022 20:40, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 24/07/2022 13:42, John wrote:
>
>> Up thread, when I asked you whether people would have to revert back
>> to their original sex you said "I suspect that if the person has
>> undergone extensive surgery and other interventions it may simply not
>> be possible for him/her to go back.."  Have you changed your mind?
>
> Your question concerned a person becoming a Christian. The discussion
> then moved on to post resurrection, when we will all have new bodies.
> They are two different scenarios, for which I gave two different answers.
>
> Are you surprised?

Ah I see, when you said there would be an embarrassing interview on the
way in I said why, isn't the slate wiped clean...? I was still referring
to when they became a Christian.

Why would there be an embarrassing interview? God accepts the
individual and if that individual is trans then I see absolutely no
reason why God would have an objection to that. Jesus looks at what is
in their heart and soul, not their physical appearance.

Now, moving to your claim that they would revert back to their birth
state. Given that the ressurected body will be different to the human
body and will be like angels, then men may not have penises at all.

>
>> But we're not talking about cross dressing, are we?  We're talking
>> about people that have transitioned from one sex to another.
>
> Except that they have done nothing of the sort. He may speak with a
> squeaky voice, he may wear a dress, he may have had his willy chopped
> of, but every cell in his body proclaims that he is still a man.
>
> Perhaps you ought to study a bit of basic biology?

And perhaps you ought to study the changes the human body goes through
when transitioning. This is a man who used to be a woman, I think the
facial hair and masculine chest debunks your claim that every cell
proclaims he's still a woman

https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/transgender-man-before-and-after-jamie-wilson-597ecfe92811a__700.jpg

[John]

On 24/07/2022 20:30, Stuart wrote:

> In article <tbhrj4$4ug7$1...@dont-email.me>,
> John <mega...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why, isn't the slate wiped clean when they become a Christian?
>
> As we believe that all sins, if sincerely repented on during a persons
> life, can be forgiven, then I guess that would be so.
>
>> Not that there's anything in the bible that forbids someone becoming a
>> trans person of course.
>
> However, if we believe that God carefully made each and everyone us as the
> individuals He wanted us to be, including our sex, imagine how He feels if
> His careful construction is messed about with. I doubt He is very happy
> about it

Well, I think science has developed sufficiently enough to debunk the
theory that when I was created God decided that I should be male.

As Tim said a few days ago our sex is determined by chromosomes. Someone
of my acquaintance gave me an interesting link to check out, which
suggests it goes further.

"A newly fertilized embryo initially develops without any indication of
its sex. At around five weeks, a group of cells clump together to form
the bipotential primordium. These cells are neither male nor female but
have the potential to turn into testes, ovaries or neither. After the
primordium forms, SRY—a gene on the Y chromosome discovered in 1990,
thanks to the participation of intersex XX males and XY females—might be
activated."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

> Consider, if you made a great and beautiful sculpture of a man and someone
> comes along, cuts of it's balls and sticks fake breasts on it's chest, or
> similarly, suppose you sculpted a "Venus" and someone chopped its' breasts
> off, how would YOU feel.

So do you believe that God determines the sex of every individual on
earth? What about hermaphrodites? Besides, Jesus was in favour of
some people removing their genitals.
>

[John]

On 25/07/2022 04:04, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 24/07/2022 20:30, Stuart wrote:
>
>>> Why, isn't the slate wiped clean when they become a Christian?
>
>> As we believe that all sins, if sincerely repented on during a persons
>> life, can be forgiven, then I guess that would be so.
>
> "Sincerely repented", of course, implies cessation of the behaviour in
> question.





>> However, if we believe that God carefully made each and everyone us as
>> the
>> individuals He wanted us to be, including our sex, imagine how He
>> feels if
>> His careful construction is messed about with. I doubt He is very happy
>> about it
>
> That is certainly true, though it is capable of very wide application.
> Is God happy when you imperil your life by driving at more than 20mph?

As I will be driving almost the entire length of the M1 today I think
there's a fair chance I will meet Him sooner than anticipated if I stick
to 20mph.

> Or if you vandalise your brain by drinking alcohol. And so on.

Drinking in moderation does not vandalise your brain.

[John]

Emotive language using a derogatory term. Methinks you doth protest too
much. You're not a secret transexual are you? It would explain it.

[Timreason]

On 24/07/2022 20:30, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 24/07/2022 07:37, Timreason wrote:
>
>> Surely you can accept that if the body can develop differently, so can
>> both the brain and the mind?
>
> Yes, it's called mental illness.
>

I don't know what qualifications you have in psychology and psychiatry,
perhaps you can enlighten me.

As for me, I don't have any, apart from having worked as a (non-medical)
Mental Health Support Worker, and a Community Support Worker. (I have
also been treated for anxiety and depression in the past.)

What I am discussing are naturally occurring variations within the
population. Logically, then, it follows from your statement that any
variation (physical or mental) away from some perceived 'Ideal' is an
"Illness" and presumably should be 'treated' or 'corrected' in some way.

History has shown the mistake of trying to create 'Ideal' humans...

Humanity is naturally diverse, extremely complex and hugely varied.

So I reject your terse notion that any development of a person that
doesn't fit your 'Ideal' is an 'Illness'.

Tim.

[Stuart]

In article <tbl17f$11n62$1...@dont-email.me>,

Kendall K. Down <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 24/07/2022 20:30, Stuart wrote:

> >> Why, isn't the slate wiped clean when they become a Christian?

> > As we believe that all sins, if sincerely repented on during a persons
> > life, can be forgiven, then I guess that would be so.

> "Sincerely repented", of course, implies cessation of the behaviour in
> question.

Absolutely. It may not be possible to reverse the damage of course but
they can at least sincerely regret what they have done, as some obviously
have. I guess the doctors who carry out such mutilation also have a case
to answer before God.

> > However, if we believe that God carefully made each and everyone us as
> > the individuals He wanted us to be, including our sex, imagine how He
> > feels if His careful construction is messed about with. I doubt He is
> > very happy about it

> That is certainly true, though it is capable of very wide application.
> Is God happy when you imperil your life by driving at more than 20mph?
> Or if you vandalise your brain by drinking alcohol. And so on.

I don't believe I necessarily imperil mine, or anyone else's life, by the
act of driving at more than 20mph as I always drive as safely as possible,
with a close eye on road conditions and speed limits.

Plenty do drive dangerously of course.

Yesterday my wife and I were coming back down the M1 from Alfreton, there
were plenty of cars about though I wouldn't describe it as particularly
busy and most were cruising along at around 70mph, though there were a few
travelling slower. There was, I would almost say suddenly, a loud noise
and a motorcycle came hurtling down the outside lane going unbelievably
fast. If something had decided to move out into that lane, they would have
checked their mirrors, seen nothing more than a speck in the distance and
moments later that motorcyclist would have been dead!

Drinking alcohol to excess is a different matter and we are warned about
it in the bible, though it is the effect on our behaviour that seems to be
the consideration of it's effects on our bodies, I guess cirrhosis of the
liver was not understood then. The same applies to drug taking, including
smoking, but I'm not sure about climbing mountains!

[Stuart]

In article <tbl0hc$11gpa$1...@dont-email.me>,

Kendall K. Down <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:

I sure am but worry so much about today's children.

[Stuart]

In article <5a0d7611...@argonet.co.uk>,

Stuart <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <tbl17f$11n62$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Kendall K. Down <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 24/07/2022 20:30, Stuart wrote:


"it is the effect on our behaviour that seems to be the consideration of
it's effects on our bodies,"

That should, of course, read

"it is the effect on our behaviour that seems to be the consideration

rather than it's effects on our bodies,"

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/07/2022 03:50, John wrote:

> I do, and I'm much more widely read than the daily fail. I've not read a
> single news item where someone has stated they want/have become trans
> just so they can compete in sports in their new sex. So prove it
> otherwise I'll just put it down to a "mistake" on your part.

Of course they are not going to confess to their perfidy, but just look
at the facts: failing athletes suddenly deciding to "change gender" and
stringing up victories over women. It's pathetic.

>> Good, but unfortunately the trans scene is not made up of you, but of
>> fanatics who make life hell for anyone who disagrees with them.

> What, all of them?  I don't believe you.

Did I say "all of them"? So tell me about J.K.Rowling or Sharron Davies.
Who is persecuting them?

> I don't follow.  You said "there are all sorts of protests about men not
> being allowed to compete in women's sports just because they have
> started to wear a dress"
> Pre transition that isn't true, and you know it isn't.

No, they take a few drugs supposed to lower their testosterone level -
but it does nothing to reduce their muscles.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/07/2022 09:19, Stuart wrote:

> I sure am but worry so much about today's children.

Who are being brainwashed into thinking that all this is normal!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/07/2022 05:25, John wrote:

> Binary issues are a different subject that I agree are a fad. That's not
> to distract from the trans issue, which is a different subject.

It is part of the same phenomenon of "suddenly it's trendy to be what
you are not".

> If you've gone through the life changing decision to grow breasts, have
> your penis chopped off and have a vaginal passage made then in my eyes
> that makes you a woman, and the law recognises they are.

No, it makes you a mutilated man - as shown by your chromosomes.

> Obviously you've not seen someone who has had gender reasignment. I saw
> one on TV the other week, and if they hadn't said she was trans I would
> never have known.

So? Go look at photos of some of the entertainments put on in POW camps
during WWII. Some of those guys dressed up as women and really looked
the part - but did that make them women? Of course not. At the end of
the production they changed back into uniform.

> Phycologically she would be a woman way before undergoing gender
> reasignment.

No, he would be a man pretending - with varying degrees of success - to
be a woman.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/07/2022 06:06, John wrote:

> Now, moving to your claim that they would revert back to their birth
> state. Given that the ressurected body will be different to the human
> body and will be like angels, then men may not have penises at all.

Your premise is false. Jesus merely said that we would be like the
angels and not marry - concluding that that requires a bodily difference
is your choice, it is not dictated by what Jesus said.

That said, it is possible that the sexual differences between men and
women may disappear at some point in eternity. We'll see when we get there.

> And perhaps you ought to study the changes the human body goes through
> when transitioning.  This is a man who used to be a woman,  I think the
> facial hair and masculine chest debunks your claim that every cell
> proclaims he's still a woman

Go on. Tell me what her chromosomes say?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/07/2022 07:48, Timreason wrote:

> What I am discussing are naturally occurring variations within the
> population. Logically, then, it follows from your statement that any
> variation (physical or mental) away from some perceived 'Ideal' is an
> "Illness" and presumably should be 'treated' or 'corrected' in some way.

Certainly. If a man thinks he is Napoleon we call him insane. If a man
thinks he is a woman we jump through hoops to agree with him. Napoleon
gets treatment, the woman gets surgery.

The world has gone mad.

> History has shown the mistake of trying to create 'Ideal' humans...

Really? So you reject all forms of plastic surgery? all psychological
counselling? A somewhat radical position, but you may have a point.

> So I reject your terse notion that any development of a person that
> doesn't fit your 'Ideal' is an 'Illness'.

So someone born with a club foot should be denied surgery and told to
celebrate their diversity? Having seen adult Indians with untreated club
feet, I reject your cruel determination to stop people becoming "ideal".

Of course, as the Miss BumBum competitions in Brazil show, the quest for
the ideal can take dangerous and unwarrented extremes. Unless there is
actually something physically wrong with the person - like a club foot
or displaced hips or strabismus - they should remain as God created them
and be glad for life and health.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/07/2022 10:09, Stuart wrote:

> Absolutely. It may not be possible to reverse the damage of course but
> they can at least sincerely regret what they have done, as some obviously
> have. I guess the doctors who carry out such mutilation also have a case
> to answer before God.

I agree.

> I don't believe I necessarily imperil mine, or anyone else's life, by the
> act of driving at more than 20mph as I always drive as safely as possible,
> with a close eye on road conditions and speed limits.

The Welsh government is planning on introducing a nation-wide 20 mph
limit (instead of the 30 mph limit) in a year or so. Personally I think
they are idiots. Pollution is going to go up, the limit will be
regularly broken. I suspect it is just a ploy to raise revenue from
"speeding" fines.

> Yesterday my wife and I were coming back down the M1 from Alfreton, there
> were plenty of cars about though I wouldn't describe it as particularly
> busy and most were cruising along at around 70mph, though there were a few
> travelling slower. There was, I would almost say suddenly, a loud noise
> and a motorcycle came hurtling down the outside lane going unbelievably
> fast. If something had decided to move out into that lane, they would have
> checked their mirrors, seen nothing more than a speck in the distance and
> moments later that motorcyclist would have been dead!

Exactly. Speed kills.

> Drinking alcohol to excess is a different matter and we are warned about
> it in the bible, though it is the effect on our behaviour that seems to be
> the consideration of it's effects on our bodies, I guess cirrhosis of the
> liver was not understood then. The same applies to drug taking, including
> smoking, but I'm not sure about climbing mountains!

Depends if you take the train or the north face of the Eiger.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/07/2022 06:42, John wrote:

> Well, I think science has developed sufficiently enough to debunk the
> theory that when I was created God decided that I should be male.

The information you give is very interesting, but in no way negates the
theory you mention above. It merely means that the moment when God
decided is not at conception but at five weeks. (Which, if true, may
have a relevance to the abortion debate!)

> So do you believe that God determines the sex of every individual on
> earth?  What about hermaphrodites?   Besides, Jesus was in favour of
> some people removing their genitals.

Really? In favour of it? What is your reference?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/07/2022 06:51, John wrote:

> As I will be driving almost the entire length of the M1 today I think
> there's a fair chance I will meet Him sooner than anticipated if I stick
> to 20mph.

I wish you a safe journey, whatever your speed.

> Drinking in moderation does not vandalise your brain.

“We need to be very careful when suggesting there is a ‘safe’ level of
drinking for the population. Rather, we need to explain that there are
risks associated with alcohol consumption, and that the less you drink
the lower your risk is of developing health problems.” ... Dr Nick
Sheron, who runs the liver unit at Southampton General Hospital, agrees:
“There is no such thing as a safe level, but the government has got to
draw a line somewhere. It’s a balance. People like having a drink, but
they have to accept there’s a risk-benefit ratio.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15114325

The page is still there on the internet if you want to check.

[Timreason]

On 25/07/2022 20:12, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> Really? So you reject all forms of plastic surgery? all psychological
> counselling? A somewhat radical position, but you may have a point.
>

Good. I've successfully shown up the flaw in your argument.

For you, correcting club feet by surgery is acceptable, but correcting
gender dysphoria by surgery is not. So you get to pick and choose.

Except you don't, because it's not your choice to make.

Noting the snipping, we all know that you are NOT a medical professional.

However, I do agree that IMO children should not be mutilated. Any
reassignment should wait until adulthood, or at the very least perhaps
age 16. But then again, I am NOT a medical professional, either.

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/07/2022 21:19, Timreason wrote:

> Good.  I've successfully shown up the flaw in your argument.
> For you, correcting club feet by surgery is acceptable, but correcting
> gender dysphoria by surgery is not. So you get to pick and choose.

The difference is that a club foot - or any of the other conditions I
mentioned - is a physical problem. It can be seen by the naked eye, it
shows up in x-rays, and it can be demonstrably cured by surgery. Even
more telling, no one who has had their club-foot cured ever desires to
go back to having a club foot again. And, of course, the surgery
improves their life.

So-called "gender dysphoria" is not a physical condition; it is a mental
one. It cannot be seen or detected using any tests or scans. What is
worse is that at least some of those who have had "treatment" - whether
surgery or merely hormonal treatment - regret it and wish they could
undo it. And, of course, the "treatment" can - and frequently does -
result in life-long and life-changing harm to the individual.

> However, I do agree that IMO children should not be mutilated. Any
> reassignment should wait until adulthood, or at the very least perhaps
> age 16.

Why is it "mutilation" when done to a child but not "mutilation" when
done to an adult?

[Timreason]

On 26/07/2022 05:46, Kendall K. Down wrote:

>
> So-called "gender dysphoria" is not a physical condition; it is a mental
> one. It cannot be seen or detected using any tests or scans. What is
> worse is that at least some of those who have had "treatment" - whether
> surgery or merely hormonal treatment - regret it and wish they could
> undo it. And, of course, the "treatment" can - and frequently does -
> result in life-long and life-changing harm to the individual.
>

So you think that tampering with the mind is preferable to tampering
with the body, even though the body is much better understood than the
brain or mind.

You seem to object to messing with the body on the grounds that it is
damaging, but you seem to ignore the potential damage of messing with
the head.

Well, you're of course entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. But at
the end of the day neither your, nor my, *non-medical* opinion counts
for much.

>> However, I do agree that IMO children should not be mutilated. Any
>> reassignment should wait until adulthood, or at the very least perhaps
>> age 16.
>
> Why is it "mutilation" when done to a child but not "mutilation" when
> done to an adult?

Did I say it's not mutilation when done to an adult? I think a tattoo is
'mutilation' for example, but the difference is an adult has a right of
choice that it would be unwise to trust children with, when their minds
are not adequately developed.

But if altering the body's appearance genuinely helps some people, then
it's a good thing for them, so the question becomes who is it right for.

Tim.

[John]

On 26/07/2022 05:46, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 25/07/2022 21:19, Timreason wrote:
>
>> Good.  I've successfully shown up the flaw in your argument.
>> For you, correcting club feet by surgery is acceptable, but correcting
>> gender dysphoria by surgery is not. So you get to pick and choose.
>
> The difference is that a club foot - or any of the other conditions I
> mentioned - is a physical problem. It can be seen by the naked eye, it
> shows up in x-rays, and it can be demonstrably cured by surgery. Even
> more telling, no one who has had their club-foot cured ever desires to
> go back to having a club foot again. And, of course, the surgery
> improves their life.
>
> So-called "gender dysphoria" is not a physical condition; it is a mental
> one. It cannot be seen or detected using any tests or scans. What is
> worse is that at least some of those who have had "treatment" - whether
> surgery or merely hormonal treatment - regret it and wish they could
> undo it. And, of course, the "treatment" can - and frequently does -
> result in life-long and life-changing harm to the individual.

Your source for that please? I have read of one case where someone has
regretted having gender reasignment. I have read a few cases where
doing so has dramatically transformed their lives. It's an extremely
drastic step to take, but I personally (and I respect your right to
disagree) believe that if it transforms their lives then that's a good
thing.

But tell me, why has this attracted your ire so much? It affects less
than 1% of the population, and presumably a lot rarer in Christians. I
don't see steam coming out of your ears over those "living in sin" fpr
example, or feral kids roaming neighbourhoods because our stupid
Government a/ doesn't give courts the power to nip it in the bud at an
early stage and b/ a former PM thinking it a good idea to axe 20,000
police officers (partially restored by the current caretaker)

The way you're ranting on its as if the whole world, and especially
children, are going to be "brainwashed" into cross dressing and
eventually to gender reassignment. Whilst I've no doubt that a small
percentage children may be influenced I reject your idea that it's
widespread.

>> However, I do agree that IMO children should not be mutilated. Any
>> reassignment should wait until adulthood, or at the very least perhaps
>> age 16.
>
> Why is it "mutilation" when done to a child but not "mutilation" when
> done to an adult?
>
> God bless,
> Kendall K. Down

Because when they become an adult they have the capability to make an
informed decision. We don't let them drive cars until they're 17 either.

If you read the back story of Stephanie Hirst she "knew" she was in the
wrong body at the age of 3-4, and told her mum how she felt (and 44
years ago there wasn't the Stonewall activists you mention) At the age
of 17 she saw a specialist but they put her off having gender
reasignment, but after wanting to kill herself "every" day she finally
took the decision to have gender reasignment in her late 30's.

She is a much happier place now.

[John]

On 25/07/2022 20:16, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 25/07/2022 06:06, John wrote:
>
>> Now, moving to your claim that they would revert back to their birth
>> state. Given that the ressurected body will be different to the human
>> body and will be like angels, then men may not have penises at all.
>
> Your premise is false. Jesus merely said that we would be like the
> angels and not marry - concluding that that requires a bodily difference
> is your choice, it is not dictated by what Jesus said.
>
> That said, it is possible that the sexual differences between men and
> women may disappear at some point in eternity. We'll see when we get there.

So do you think that Ken Down will still look like Ken Down, with your
penis still attached?

Unless procreation continues, I really can't see the point of including
the dangly bit.

>> And perhaps you ought to study the changes the human body goes through
>> when transitioning.  This is a man who used to be a woman,  I think
>> the facial hair and masculine chest debunks your claim that every cell
>> proclaims he's still a woman
>
> Go on. Tell me what her chromosomes say?

Chromosones determine the body we are born with. I don't know if they
change after gender reasignment but there is a physical change, and
unless you knew the person was trans, you would assume they are the sex
they have changed to.

[John]

On 25/07/2022 20:21, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 25/07/2022 06:51, John wrote:
>
>> As I will be driving almost the entire length of the M1 today I think
>> there's a fair chance I will meet Him sooner than anticipated if I
>> stick to 20mph.
>
> I wish you a safe journey, whatever your speed.

Thank you, got there and back safely, apart from someone pulling out on
me when I was 5 yards away. I still need to check the dashcam for that
to see what actually happened.

Safe levels of alcohol snipped but read.

[John]

On 25/07/2022 10:09, Stuart wrote:

> In article <tbl17f$11n62$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Kendall K. Down <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 24/07/2022 20:30, Stuart wrote:
>
>>>> Why, isn't the slate wiped clean when they become a Christian?
>
>>> As we believe that all sins, if sincerely repented on during a persons
>>> life, can be forgiven, then I guess that would be so.
>
>> "Sincerely repented", of course, implies cessation of the behaviour in
>> question.
>
> Absolutely. It may not be possible to reverse the damage of course but
> they can at least sincerely regret what they have done, as some obviously
> have. I guess the doctors who carry out such mutilation also have a case
> to answer before God.

Why do you think God would be bothered about it? It's a human body,
created so we can live on earth, it doesn't follow you into heaven.
Surely whats more important is the mind and soul of that person.

Do you think that a transgender person will be less worthy of knowing Jesus?

[John]

On 25/07/2022 20:28, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 25/07/2022 06:42, John wrote:
>
>> Well, I think science has developed sufficiently enough to debunk the
>> theory that when I was created God decided that I should be male.
>
> The information you give is very interesting, but in no way negates the
> theory you mention above. It merely means that the moment when God
> decided is not at conception but at five weeks. (Which, if true, may
> have a relevance to the abortion debate!)

So at 5 weeks God says, I want that one to be a boy and that one to be a
girl? I don't believe that, I think it's purely random.

(An exception may have been Jesus)

>
>> So do you believe that God determines the sex of every individual on
>> earth?  What about hermaphrodites?   Besides, Jesus was in favour of
>> some people removing their genitals.
>
> Really? In favour of it? What is your reference?

Actually it was the testicles, sorry. The reference is Matthew 19:12

[steve hague]

I'm trying my best, but I can't see any reference to testicles in Matt
19:12. As far as I understand it, it's about the Good Sheperd going
after a lost sheep.
Steve Hague

[John]

Definitely Matthew 19:12 Steve

https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-12.htm

[steve hague]

My Bible has Matt 19:12 as "What do you think? If any man has a hundred
sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the
ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is
straying?"
Steve Hague

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 16:23:39 +0100, steve hague <steveh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

That's Matthew 18:12.

Mark

[steve hague]

Apologies. I was looking at Matt 18:12. My bible has the chapter heading
at the top of the page, but 19 doesn't commence until near the bottom.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/07/2022 09:19, Timreason wrote:

> So you think that tampering with the mind is preferable to tampering
> with the body, even though the body is much better understood than the
> brain or mind.

I didn't say anything about tampering with the mind. Unless there is
clear evidence (genetic or physical) of a confused gender identity, I
think people should be told to get on with life *as they are*.

>> Why is it "mutilation" when done to a child but not "mutilation" when
>> done to an adult?

> Did I say it's not mutilation when done to an adult? I think a tattoo is
> 'mutilation' for example, but the difference is an adult has a right of
> choice that it would be unwise to trust children with, when their minds
> are not adequately developed.

I presumed that you would object to the term being used for those who
undergo surgery in pursuit of an alternative gender. (I agree with you
on tattooes, by the way. My wife attended a gathering of speech
therapists yesterday and was appalled to see a young ST with a tattoo!
Back when she was a young therapist, the accepted dress code was
twin-set and pearls!)

> But if altering the body's appearance genuinely helps some people, then
> it's a good thing for them, so the question becomes who is it right for.

There's some character been in the news recently who desires to look
like an alien. In pursuit of this aim he has had his nose and ears
amputated, he is covered with tattooes, and now he wants to have one leg
amputated (aliens, apparently, only have one leg). He admits that his
altered appearance means that he is unemployable, so at the very least
he should be denied any state hand-outs, but I think he is mentally ill
and the sort of thing he is doing to himself should not be allowed.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/07/2022 12:42, John wrote:

> So do you think that Ken Down will still look like Ken Down, with your
> penis still attached?
> Unless procreation continues, I really can't see the point of including
> the dangly bit.

I remember when these
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Obbsen-Urination-Reusable-Standing-Camping/dp/B092VJZ1KR/ref=asc_df_B092VJZ1KR?tag=bingshoppinga-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=80058300059562&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4583657836201522&psc=1
things first came out, one woman welcoming them by exclaiming, "I've
always wanted to write my name in the snow."

>> Go on. Tell me what her chromosomes say?

> Chromosones determine the body we are born with. I don't know if they
> change after gender reasignment but there is a physical change, and
> unless you knew the person was trans, you would assume they are the sex
> they have changed to.

You really are ignorant! Do you think that your chromosomes change if
you cut your finger off? What about if your leg is amputated in an
accident? Or perhaps you think that you run the risk of being turned
into a woman if you cut your finger while slicing onions?

Come back when you've learned some basic science and you might be worth
debating with.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/07/2022 13:06, John wrote:

> So at 5 weeks God says, I want that one to be a boy and that one to be a
> girl? I don't believe that, I think it's purely random.

Christians worship a God Who knows how many hairs you have on your head
moment by moment, Who sees the sparrow fall, Who keeps the stars in
space. Even if He allows a degree of randomness, He is still in control
and it is He Who allows a pregnancy to come to term.

I think it is legitimate to say that God has given you your body,
whether male or female.

>>> So do you believe that God determines the sex of every individual on
>>> earth?  What about hermaphrodites?   Besides, Jesus was in favour of
>>> some people removing their genitals.

>> Really? In favour of it? What is your reference?

> Actually it was the testicles, sorry.  The reference is Matthew 19:12

And exactly which phrase in that verse tells us that Jesus was in favour
of self-emasculation?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/07/2022 12:52, John wrote:

> Why do you think God would be bothered about it?  It's a human body,
> created so we can live on earth, it doesn't follow you into heaven.
> Surely whats more important is the mind and soul of that person.

I take it that you have never recited the Creed, which states, "I
believe in the resurrection of the body".

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/07/2022 16:23, steve hague wrote:

> My Bible has Matt 19:12 as "What do you think? If any man has a hundred
> sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the
> ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is
> straying?"

It's a bit like the jots and tittles in Hebrew, Steve. 8 has an extra
little bit in the bottom left which 9 lacks.

[Timreason]

On 26/07/2022 21:33, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 26/07/2022 09:19, Timreason wrote:
>
>> So you think that tampering with the mind is preferable to tampering
>> with the body, even though the body is much better understood than the
>> brain or mind.
>
> I didn't say anything about tampering with the mind. Unless there is
> clear evidence (genetic or physical) of a confused gender identity, I
> think people should be told to get on with life *as they are*.

In fact, to some extent there you are talking my language. People should
live as they are, and that means society should accept them as they are.

So, some men are woman-like, and some women are man-like. I don't think
they should be 'told' that they have to 'conform' to some perceived
'Norms', though. But in a society that genuinely accepts them without
judgement, many may not feel the need to be chopped about.

>
>>> Why is it "mutilation" when done to a child but not "mutilation" when
>>> done to an adult?
>
>> Did I say it's not mutilation when done to an adult? I think a tattoo
>> is 'mutilation' for example, but the difference is an adult has a
>> right of choice that it would be unwise to trust children with, when
>> their minds are not adequately developed.
>
> I presumed that you would object to the term being used for those who
> undergo surgery in pursuit of an alternative gender.

I consider circumcision also to be a 'mutilation'. Sometimes it's
medically necessary, but often it's just done for religious or cultural
reasons.

> (I agree with you
> on tattooes, by the way. My wife attended a gathering of speech
> therapists yesterday and was appalled to see a young ST with a tattoo!
> Back when she was a young therapist, the accepted dress code was
> twin-set and pearls!)
>
>> But if altering the body's appearance genuinely helps some people,
>> then it's a good thing for them, so the question becomes who is it
>> right for.
>
> There's some character been in the news recently who desires to look
> like an alien. In pursuit of this aim he has had his nose and ears
> amputated, he is covered with tattooes, and now he wants to have one leg
> amputated (aliens, apparently, only have one leg). He admits that his
> altered appearance means that he is unemployable, so at the very least
> he should be denied any state hand-outs, but I think he is mentally ill
> and the sort of thing he is doing to himself should not be allowed.

Yes, I've seen some horrendous pictures of people who have opted to be
mutilated. I don't even like those horrid stretched ear-lobes with rings
in that you see sometimes. But restricting adult choices is a serious
matter, even so.

But I do believe there are some people who genuinely DO experience
'Gender Dysphoria', and are genuinely helped by surgery that changes
their appearance. The other thing being, in such cases they usually look
much better after the 'change' is complete, because they may be happier
and much more comfortable living as they feel they are.

I agree with you however, that occasionally some people have gone the
'transition' route, and when it's too late have found it wasn't right
for them.

That's why I say (a) it's a case-by-case matter, and (b) a medical
matter on which neither you or I am qualified to judge.

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/07/2022 07:54, Timreason wrote:

> In fact, to some extent there you are talking my language. People should
> live as they are, and that means society should accept them as they are.

No, society should not "accept them as they are". Should society accept
paedophiles or necrophiles "as they are"? Society has the right to
demand certain norms of behaviour - it does not have to dance to the
demands of a tiny minority.

> I consider circumcision also to be a 'mutilation'. Sometimes it's
> medically necessary, but often it's just done for religious or cultural
> reasons.

I would agree with you except that a) God mandated circumcision (of
males), and b) there are health benefits for women in having men
circumcised.

> Yes, I've seen some horrendous pictures of people who have opted to be
> mutilated. I don't even like those horrid stretched ear-lobes with rings
> in that you see sometimes. But restricting adult choices is a serious
> matter, even so.

Oh nonsense. We force young adults to go to school, we force all adults
to wear seat belts, we are having a good stab at banning smoking and are
heading towards banning drinking. When there are good enough reasons, we
restrict choices without a qualm.

> But I do believe there are some people who genuinely DO experience
> 'Gender Dysphoria', and are genuinely helped by surgery that changes
> their appearance. The other thing being, in such cases they usually look
> much better after the 'change' is complete, because they may be happier
> and much more comfortable living as they feel they are.

Being happier is not the be-all and end-all. There was something in the
paper the other day about some chap in Australia who has finally broken
his habit - he was huffing several hundred nangs[1] a day and was
perfectly happy doing so. Didn't even mind the loss of his job and his
marriage.

Finally a health scare persuaded him to quit and guess what? He's
discovered that he is far happier now than when he was out of his head.
I suspect that if these people could stop obsessing about their supposed
"wrong gender", they too would be far happier.

> That's why I say (a) it's a case-by-case matter, and (b) a medical
> matter on which neither you or I am qualified to judge.

Surprisingly, I agree with you. My concern is, however, that because it
is "flavour of the month", everyone is rushing to dole out hormones and
surgery and people are *not* being given the impartial advice they need.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

Note 1: A "nang" is one of those shiny cylindrical containers that
provide the buzz in your SodaStream. I don't know what they contain -
CO2 or nitreous oxide or something - but apparently breathing them in
gives you a feeling of euphoria. Why people need chemicals to feel happy
- alcohol or anything else - I simply do not know.

[Timreason]

On 27/07/2022 08:26, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 27/07/2022 07:54, Timreason wrote:
>
>> In fact, to some extent there you are talking my language. People
>> should live as they are, and that means society should accept them as
>> they are.
>
> No, society should not "accept them as they are". Should society accept
> paedophiles or necrophiles "as they are"?

A different question altogether, as well you know. Criminal acts against
children, etc., are a different matter altogether. For society to
function, criminal behaviour must be opposed.

But you are talking rather about enforcing on others your own beliefs
about morality. For example, I consider promiscuous sex to be 'immoral',
but I wouldn't support making it illegal.

> Society has the right to
> demand certain norms of behaviour - it does not have to dance to the
> demands of a tiny minority.

Some sorts of behaviour, yes, such as not stealing, etc. But it doesn't
matter if a bloke chooses to wear a pretty floral frock, or a woman
decks out in hobnail boots and lumberjack shirts. They're harming nobody.

>
>> I consider circumcision also to be a 'mutilation'. Sometimes it's
>> medically necessary, but often it's just done for religious or
>> cultural reasons.
>
> I would agree with you except that a) God mandated circumcision (of
> males), and b) there are health benefits for women in having men
> circumcised.

In the UK, most boys are not circumcised. I find it odd that God
designed us with a bit of skin, and then requires it to be cut off. Even
Paul said Christians do not need to be circumcised (even though he
arranged for Timothy to be circumcised.)

>
>> Yes, I've seen some horrendous pictures of people who have opted to be
>> mutilated. I don't even like those horrid stretched ear-lobes with
>> rings in that you see sometimes. But restricting adult choices is a
>> serious matter, even so.
>
> Oh nonsense. We force young adults to go to school,

Do we? I'm probably out of date. Maybe it's 18 now, but in my day it was
16. But I've always maintained that employment should be provided for
adults if it cannot be got on the open market. (If they refuse to work
they get no money, one of my more right-wing views. Does that surprise you?)

> we force all adults
> to wear seat belts, we are having a good stab at banning smoking and are
> heading towards banning drinking. When there are good enough reasons, we
> restrict choices without a qualm.

Safety reasons mainly. But how far do you want to dictate? Do you want
to ban ear-piercings? Women using lipstick? You're sounding a bit like
the Taliban!

>
>> But I do believe there are some people who genuinely DO experience
>> 'Gender Dysphoria', and are genuinely helped by surgery that changes
>> their appearance. The other thing being, in such cases they usually
>> look much better after the 'change' is complete, because they may be
>> happier and much more comfortable living as they feel they are.
>
> Being happier is not the be-all and end-all. There was something in the
> paper the other day about some chap in Australia who has finally broken
> his habit - he was huffing several hundred nangs[1] a day and was
> perfectly happy doing so. Didn't even mind the loss of his job and his
> marriage.
>
> Finally a health scare persuaded him to quit and guess what? He's
> discovered that he is far happier now than when he was out of his head.

The stuff you are referring to is Nitrous Oxide, I think, 'Laughing
Gas', the stuff dentists used to use to knock people out when I was a
kid. It's common place here in the UK too, since you often see the
little canisters discarded by the roadside.

I know about smoking, I quit 35 years ago, and am much better for
quitting. But again, it's an entirely different subject from the one we
are discussing here.

> I suspect that if these people could stop obsessing about their supposed
> "wrong gender", they too would be far happier.

Well, that's the point, really. They can stop 'obsessing' when they can
live according to the gender they feel they are.

>
>> That's why I say (a) it's a case-by-case matter, and (b) a medical
>> matter on which neither you or I am qualified to judge.
>
> Surprisingly, I agree with you. My concern is, however, that because it
> is "flavour of the month", everyone is rushing to dole out hormones and
> surgery and people are *not* being given the impartial advice they need.

Yes, I do share some of your concerns. But I don't think it's as bad as
you portray. Sometimes mistakes are made, but I've met several people
over the years who 'transitioned', and most are much better since. (I
can think of one example that maybe wasn't so successful).

Tim.

[John]

On 27/07/2022 08:26, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 27/07/2022 07:54, Timreason wrote:
>
>> In fact, to some extent there you are talking my language. People
>> should live as they are, and that means society should accept them as
>> they are.
>
> No, society should not "accept them as they are". Should society accept
> paedophiles or necrophiles "as they are"? Society has the right to
> demand certain norms of behaviour - it does not have to dance to the
> demands of a tiny minority.

But doesn't society in fact dictate what is right and wrong for them.
The society of 50-70 years ago is vastly different to the society of today.

Two aposite (if that's the right word) society changes. 40-50 years ago
you could be lewd towards women and be sexist towards them, and even
mildly grope them and it was acceptable. Now that is very much taboo.
Even a wolf whistle is frowned upon.

60-70 years ago it was abhorent to have a child outside of wedlock or to
live together before marriage. A single mother was very much frowned
upon, now its very much the norm.

Is society right to bring both these changes in?

[John]

On 27/07/2022 04:22, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 26/07/2022 12:42, John wrote:
>
>> So do you think that Ken Down will still look like Ken Down, with your
>> penis still attached?
>> Unless procreation continues, I really can't see the point of
>> including the dangly bit.
>
> I remember when these
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Obbsen-Urination-Reusable-Standing-Camping/dp/B092VJZ1KR/ref=asc_df_B092VJZ1KR?tag=bingshoppinga-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=80058300059562&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4583657836201522&psc=1
>
> things first came out, one woman welcoming them by exclaiming, "I've
> always wanted to write my name in the snow."
>
>>> Go on. Tell me what her chromosomes say?
>
>> Chromosones determine the body we are born with. I don't know if they
>> change after gender reasignment but there is a physical change, and
>> unless you knew the person was trans, you would assume they are the
>> sex they have changed to.
>
> You really are ignorant! Do you think that your chromosomes change if
> you cut your finger off?

Moron! Of course I don't, but for the male, they take harmones to grow
breasts, proper ones. Is that part of the male chromosome?!!! For the
woman, they take harmones to grow beards, is that part of the female
chromosome?!!!

> What about if your leg is amputated in an
> accident? Or perhaps you think that you run the risk of being turned
> into a woman if you cut your finger while slicing onions?

Do you really need to be so offensive? Can't you debate with someone
without being childish? We disagree with each other, I put my view, you
put your view, that's what debate is. But mighty superior lofty Ken Down
has to go futher with his stupid put downs. It's a trait in some people
when they know they're losing the argument.

> Come back when you've learned some basic science and you might be worth
> debating with.

That's fine - your loss. It won't be much longer before you're on your
own on this ng, you've pissed a lot of people off over the years

God must be really proud of you!!!!

[Mike Davis]

On 27/07/2022 14:20, John wrote:
>
> Of course I don't, but for the male, they take hormones to grow

> breasts, proper ones.  Is that part of the male chromosome?!!!  For the

> woman, they take hormones to grow beards, is that part of the female
> chromosome?!!!

Just for information; the sex genes are embedded in the DNA codes that
are present in (nearly) every cell and are reproduced as the cells
divide and repair.

AIUI, giving hormones overrides the natural chemicals/ hormones that the
body uses to continuously generate new tissues. So the birth hormones
are always there XX, XY, XXY etc. but just overridden.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/07/2022 09:49, Timreason wrote:

> But you are talking rather about enforcing on others your own beliefs
> about morality. For example, I consider promiscuous sex to be 'immoral',
> but I wouldn't support making it illegal.

I think it would be a very good idea to make it illegal - a real blow
for women's rights!

So I presume you disapprove of this chap being interrupted as he
indoctrinated children with his particular perversion?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11052687/Police-forced-escort-Drag-Queen-safety-protesters-storm-childrens-event.html

> Some sorts of behaviour, yes, such as not stealing, etc. But it doesn't
> matter if a bloke chooses to wear a pretty floral frock, or a woman
> decks out in hobnail boots and lumberjack shirts. They're harming nobody.

In private, no. In public - and more importantly, demanding that
everyone respect them for dressing up in drag - yes, they are harming
society.

> In the UK, most boys are not circumcised. I find it odd that God
> designed us with a bit of skin, and then requires it to be cut off. Even
> Paul said Christians do not need to be circumcised (even though he
> arranged for Timothy to be circumcised.)

The claimed health benefits were probably not a problem in Eden, but the
arrival of sin and germs meant that things changed and therefore
circumcision became a good idea. I don't know when it started, but up
until fairly recently most Australian boys were circumcised.

As you very well know, St Paul was not condemning circumcision per se,
but circumcision as a means of earning favour with God.

> Do we? I'm probably out of date. Maybe it's 18 now, but in my day it was
> 16. But I've always maintained that employment should be provided for
> adults if it cannot be got on the open market. (If they refuse to work
> they get no money, one of my more right-wing views. Does that surprise
> you?)

No, it pleases me that you have sensible ideas.

> Safety reasons mainly. But how far do you want to dictate? Do you want
> to ban ear-piercings? Women using lipstick? You're sounding a bit like
> the Taliban!

Ear-piercing for adults. Why would we ban lipstick - it's not permanent.

> The stuff you are referring to is Nitrous Oxide, I think, 'Laughing
> Gas', the stuff dentists used to use to knock people out when I was a
> kid. It's common place here in the UK too, since you often see the
> little canisters discarded by the roadside.

And I'll bet it's not dentists who are discarding them by the roadside.

> I know about smoking, I quit 35 years ago, and am much better for
> quitting. But again, it's an entirely different subject from the one we
> are discussing here.

Good for you.

It is relevant as an example of governments (aka society) forcing adults
to conform to certain behaviours.

> Well, that's the point, really. They can stop 'obsessing' when they can
> live according to the gender they feel they are.

No, they need to stop obsessing right now. Some woman is suing FaceBook
for promoting unreal body images and causing her daughters harm. Far
better if the daughters could have accepted that they have a certain
body type and just been happy with it instead of obssessing over waist
size and bust size and all the rest of it. It's exactly the same with
those who wish they had a body of a different sex.

> Yes, I do share some of your concerns. But I don't think it's as bad as
> you portray. Sometimes mistakes are made, but I've met several people
> over the years who 'transitioned', and most are much better since. (I
> can think of one example that maybe wasn't so successful).

And the unfortunate person is now stuck with the "not so successful"
situation.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/07/2022 14:02, John wrote:

> Is society right to bring both these changes in?

Society is right to bring in the first - no lewd behaviour towards
women, though I just hope that it doesn't go overboard. It is wrong to
make single-parenting acceptable; never mind the morals, the children
are harmed by only having one parent.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/07/2022 14:20, John wrote:

>> You really are ignorant! Do you think that your chromosomes change if
>> you cut your finger off?

> Moron! Of course I don't, but for the male, they take harmones to grow
> breasts, proper ones.  Is that part of the male chromosome?!!!  For the
> woman, they take harmones to grow beards, is that part of the female
> chromosome?!!!

See what I mean about ignorance? You can take hormones and override the
ones naturally produced by your chromosomes (or take hormone-blockers
and stop the action of the natural ones) but you have not in any way
changed your chromosomes. Stop taking the hormones or the blockers and
your natural hormones will start up again.

> Do you really need to be so offensive?

Let me quote your statement: "Chromosones determine the body we are born
with. I don't know if they change after gender reasignment." If you
"don't know" something as basic as that, why are you debating the
subject? Sit back and learn from those who *do* know a bit of basic
science (or better still, subscribe to New Scientist and learn from real
scientists).

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/07/2022 16:22, Mike Davis wrote:

> Just for information; the sex genes are embedded in the DNA codes that
> are present in (nearly) every cell and are reproduced as the cells
> divide and repair.
> AIUI, giving hormones overrides the natural chemicals/ hormones that the
> body uses to continuously generate new tissues. So the birth hormones
> are always there XX, XY, XXY etc. but just overridden.

Exactly.

[Stuart]

In article <tbs3np$2jrcn$1...@dont-email.me>,

Kendall K. Down <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > Do we? I'm probably out of date. Maybe it's 18 now, but in my day it was
> > 16. But I've always maintained that employment should be provided for
> > adults if it cannot be got on the open market. (If they refuse to work
> > they get no money, one of my more right-wing views. Does that surprise
> > you?)

> No, it pleases me that you have sensible ideas.

I think that is actually Scriptual.

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[John]

Well I was nearly there, the chromosomes are overridden, although from
what Mike says the original chromosomes are still there, just suppressed.

[John]

On 27/07/2022 16:22, Mike Davis wrote:

Thanks Mike.

As an aside, I was having a discussion with one of my friends the other
day and we got on the subject of Adam and Eve. He said if Eve cme from
Adam's rib then surely they would have exactly the same DNA, and then
Cain and Abel came along who would also have the same DNA etc

An interesting thought.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/07/2022 21:41, Stuart wrote:

>> No, it pleases me that you have sensible ideas.

> I think that is actually Scriptual.

Of course - Scripture is sensible. That is why God can so confidently
invite us to "Come now and let us *reason* together".

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/07/2022 23:27, John wrote:

> Well I was nearly there, the chromosomes are overridden, although from
> what Mike says the original chromosomes are still there, just suppressed.

You claimed that they were changed. Overriding them is comparable to
dying blonde hair black or wearing blue contact lenses over brown eyes.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/07/2022 23:24, John wrote:

> As an aside, I was having a discussion with one of my friends the other
> day and we got on the subject of Adam and Eve.  He said if Eve cme from
> Adam's rib then surely they would have exactly the same DNA, and then
> Cain and Abel came along who would also have the same DNA etc
> An interesting thought.

Obviously Eve was not a clone of Adam, otherwise she would have been he!
However I agree that she would have been a very close copy - which is
hardly surprising, for if Adam had a perfect genome, why introduce
unnecessary alterations?

I believe that genetic similarity leads to enhanced compatibility, one
reason why long-term husbands and wives often end up looking very
similar, another reason why God might choose to give Adam and Eve
similar genes.

However I believe that the real reason God went through the rib business
was to emphasise to Adam that Eve was indeed "flesh of my flesh", the
perfect partner created especially for him. I can imagine that from time
to time Adam and Eve had those loud discussions to which even the
best-matched couples are prone, especially after the Fall, but divorce
was not an option.

I also like that idea put forward by someone or other, that Eve was not
created from Adam's head, to rule over him, nor from his foot, to be
trampled on by him, but from closest to his heart. (Cue long-drawn Ahhhhhh.)

[Timreason]

But don't forget that other point I made, that jobs at basic living wage
should be a right, and should be provided if they cannot be got on the
open market. There would be no such thing as 'unemployment'. Employment
at a loss is preferable, IMO, to the total financial loss of handouts.

I believe it is preferable that there is always a link between
contribution to society and payment, rather than just handouts.

The reason I believe that is it gives a person greater self-worth if
they feel they are contributing, and they remain used to the discipline
of working. But in a country as rich as ours, they should be paid
sufficient for a reasonable standard of living.

The incentive being still there to go for better jobs on the open market
when they become available.

I've seen an example of a scheme where one of the people I helped as a
Support Worker was employed as a car valet and general assistant by a
local garage, where half his wage was met by the garage, and half by
subsidy. He was doing something useful, had a good sense of self-worth
as a result, and the garage got a useful worker they could not have
afforded at full cost. The cost to authorities to support him was
halved. Win all round.

Tim.

[Stuart]

In article <tc2qnl$3q80e$1...@dont-email.me>,

Timreason <timr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> But don't forget that other point I made, that jobs at basic living wage
> should be a right, and should be provided if they cannot be got on the
> open market. There would be no such thing as 'unemployment'. Employment
> at a loss is preferable, IMO, to the total financial loss of handouts.

From what I have seen recently, there seems to be more jobs available than
there are unemployed so no one has any excuse not to be working.

OK. some jobs like HGV driving do require specialist training which costs
a fair amount of money but perhaps the government should step in here and
provide financial assistance.

[John]

No I did not!!!! I said I didn't know, and you attacked me for not
knowing. Do you make it up as you go along?

[John]

On 30/07/2022 05:24, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 29/07/2022 23:24, John wrote:
>
>> As an aside, I was having a discussion with one of my friends the
>> other day and we got on the subject of Adam and Eve.  He said if Eve
>> cme from Adam's rib then surely they would have exactly the same DNA,
>> and then Cain and Abel came along who would also have the same DNA etc
>> An interesting thought.
>
> Obviously Eve was not a clone of Adam, otherwise she would have been he!

He he, so Eve was the first transgender. God added the bits Adam didn't
have.

(that's written tongue in cheek btw)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/07/2022 09:39, Timreason wrote:

> I've seen an example of a scheme where one of the people I helped as a
> Support Worker was employed as a car valet and general assistant by a
> local garage, where half his wage was met by the garage, and half by
> subsidy. He was doing something useful, had a good sense of self-worth
> as a result, and the garage got a useful worker they could not have
> afforded at full cost. The cost to authorities to support him was
> halved. Win all round.

I completely agree with what you have said. The only point I would make
is that the Russian (and other communist) economies were crippled by
this sort of full employment where you ended up with two or three
workers doing a job that only needed one, with consequent extra
production costs and inefficiencies.

If we are to provide workfare, the work has to be something that would
not otherwise be done - which, unfortunately, is usually something as
unappealing as road-side litter clearing. Turn something appealing into
workfare and you are likely putting genuine workers out of business!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/07/2022 12:54, Stuart wrote:

> From what I have seen recently, there seems to be more jobs available than
> there are unemployed so no one has any excuse not to be working.

Yes, and some reports speak of potential recruits demanding totally
unrealistic working conditions - 4 day weeks, 6 hour days, massage
parlours in the work place, and all that sort of thing. This is why
Tim's suggestion of workfare instead of welfare is such a good idea:
take a genuine job at £100 or be compelled into something tedious and
unpleasant at £20.

> OK. some jobs like HGV driving do require specialist training which costs
> a fair amount of money but perhaps the government should step in here and
> provide financial assistance.

I am all for free education, right through university level. I regret
that when it was available, so many people abused it, making an arts
degree the excuse for four years of drinking and clubbing at tax-payer
expense.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/07/2022 17:52, John wrote:

> No I did not!!!!   I said I didn't know, and you attacked me for not
> knowing. Do you make it up as you go along?

Sorry, you are correct. Mind you, I still think that ignorance in such a
simple matter is culpable.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/07/2022 18:05, John wrote:

>> Obviously Eve was not a clone of Adam, otherwise she would have been he!

> He he, so Eve was the first transgender.  God added the bits Adam didn't
> have.

He he indeed.

Not exactly, as Eve's chromosomes were changed, something that modern
transgender clinics are unable to do.

[John]

It was an interesting discussion, but the question I really wanted
answering is, does God really care, and if so, why?

If a person has gender reasignment then of course their physical
appearance changes but it's still the person inside that counts, and
that is ultimately the one who will be saved should they come to God at
a future date (or indeed may already have)

If a person is so uncomfortable in the body they're born in, to the
point where suicidal thoughts and depression are the norm, isn't it
better for that person to undergo gender reasignment so they DO feel
comfortable in their "new" body and can live a fulfilled life thereafter?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/08/2022 16:09, John wrote:

> It was an interesting discussion, but the question I really wanted
> answering is, does God really care, and if so, why?

Given that there is no specific statement in Scripture on the issue -
plastic surgery had not been invented back then - one cannot give a
definitive answer to your question. However one can get a hint of the
answer by considering other things of which God disapproved.

God banned:
tatoos
scarification
cross-dressing

Taken together, they seem to me to indicate that God *does* care about
what we do with the bodies He has given us.

> If a person has gender reasignment then of course their physical
> appearance changes but it's still the person inside that counts, and
> that is ultimately the one who will be saved should they come to God at
> a future date (or indeed may already have)

If they come to God and repent, then yes, even a self-mutilated person
can be saved.

> If a person is so uncomfortable in the body they're born in, to the
> point where suicidal thoughts and depression are the norm, isn't it
> better for that person to undergo gender reasignment so they DO feel
> comfortable in their "new" body and can live a fulfilled life thereafter?

Which is the same sort of argument advanced by those in favour of
homosexual marriage.