Saturday, April 5, 2014

Simple Logic

[re-posted from a comment section I replied to - I thought it worthy of preservation]

You claim to be educated, but you make false analogies and offer simplistic reasoning which suggests possibly otherwise. In any case, almost no one who isn’t directly involved in this phenomena is educated ON THIS SUBJECT. The amount of ignorance afield in the general population is staggering to contemplate.
That said, an educated person should be acquainted with the need for, and the methodology of, clear reasoning. So let me offer you a logical thesis, based only on facts you already know and accept, for why transsexuals are legitimately what they claim to be (for this purpose lets lay aside drag queens and so forth – I speak of people with actual incongruity between their brain and their gonads)

1. Intersex people exist. this needs little explanation since you acknowledged it earlier, however others may read this so let me briefly elaborate. Babies are born in which we may visibly and scientifically identify that some gender specific characteristics of one sex, and some of the other sex.. what was once referred to as “hermaphrodite” and now is called intersex. birth “defects” can and do affect sex-specific organs in a way which produces a “mismatch”

2. Babies are born with rare but legitimate conditions which affect their brain in a way which deviates from the statistical norm. for example, autism. Birth “defects” can and do affect the brain.

3. The human brain is known to be a sex specific organ, which is to say that the make brain is physically and functionally different from the female brain.

In light of these three firmly established and non-controversial realities, it is not only logically possible, but indeed logically inevitable that some babies, on rare occasions, will be born with birth “defects” which affect the sex-specific construction of their body in those areas of the brain which are sex-specific. in plain terms, a female brain in a male-gonad body, or vice versa.

We even have some pretty solid hypothesis options for how this happens. Science has demonstrated that every fetus is female from conception, and further that the potentially male fetus is masculinized via hormone “washes” which happen twice during pregnancy, at two separate times, one affecting the brain and one affecting the gonadal sex. It is a perfectly reasonably hypothesis to suspect that something occasionally goes wrong with that process resulting in transsexual conditions. it doesn’t take any sort of wild speculation, or any sort of wishful thinking about some as yet undiscovered gene or combination of genes (albeit genetics may play SOME role) in order to account for the outcomes we see.

There’s only two major reasons why any of this isn’t considered self-evident common sense by the general population: (1) religious traditions; and (2) the fact that the condition isn’t visible to the naked eye (as likewise not a few other “defects” of the brain are not readily visible) and some folks just refuse to acknowledge anything they cannot see.
Neither of which are positions which reflect well on one who professes to be educated. I don’t really expect to change the views of the irrationally biased, but I do think the case is strong for those who are interested in truth rather than tradition. I have no idea which side of that line you stand on.


  1. in plain terms, a female brain in a male-gonad body, or vice versa.

    I don't see how this makes any sense. How does one find out whether one has a "female brain"?

    I was born with a violent temper. Should I push for churches to issue resolutions that say it's OK for me to engage in violent outbursts, because that's my birth defect?

    Peace to you,

  2. (Posted by Tammy, via a different Google account)

    My apologies for not having previously replied - and you may never see this now - but so seldom do people comment on my posts that I sometimes don't look back for them.

    The answer to your question is not just one but several:

    First, scientific research has confirmed the physical evidence for this supposition. The tests are wildly expensive and not commonly available but they do exist;

    Second, there are rigorous standards which are applied by professionals in mental and emotional health in order to screen for authenticity, one might question this until one considers that many medical conditions are diagnosed in a similar fashion without readily available conclusive tests which prove a condition exists - medicine does not reject diagnosis based largely on patient testimony;

    Finally, a personality trait such as you mention is distinguished in that (a) it does only cause debilitating mental stress on the individual afflicted; (b) it is not corrected by "giving into it" because to do so cause potential for harm to self and others (unlike transsexual transition); and (c) can display no track record of having resulted in well-balanced and healthy individuals when having been treated by "giving in to it" as some would say transition treats the transsexual.

  3. saving here, in this seldom seen place, another variation of the same case which I posted elsewhere just today - this is the same case but framed within an overtly Evangelical theological point of view.
    I am again forced to repeat things I have said many many times before, and I do hope that this time your husband will read this and be fully informed.

    Being transsexual (not transgender, there is a difference though transsexual is listed among that broad group of people labeled transgender) is an anomalous physical condition present from birth (a "birth defect" though I find that term ugly and try to avoid it). Some will dispute this so let me support the claim logically first:

    1. we know that some people are born with conditions in which some of the sex-specific (called sexually dimorphic by scientists) characteristics of their body are typical of one sex, and some of the other. These can be outwardly visible, or visible upon cursory medical exam, or they can only be detectable under close examination as in chromosome level "defects" (for example, women who are XY) , or they can be essentially undetectable until they manifest some symptom later in life. NO ONE disputes such people exists, though some don't realize it can be ANY sexually dimorphic characteristic.

    2. We know that some people are born with "birth defects" which affect the brain (e.g. autism among many others) No one disputes this happens.

    3. we know that the brain is sexually dimorphic. Again, this is not in dispute among scientists or medical professionals or anyone that respects science. Both on a physical level (including both gray and white matter regions) and on a functional level.

    Given these three realities, logic demands the conclusion that not only is it POSSIBLE that a rare few would be born with a male structured genitalia and/or chromosomes and a female type brain (or vice-versa) but indeed inevitable.

    Further, there is considerable scientific research, amassed in the last 20 years due to advances in medical technology, that confirm this hypothesis with actual findings. (links available upon request)

    to be continued...

  4. continued...

    Moreover, the assertion that this constitutes a claim that "god made a mistake is, to be frank, ludicrous. If your child is born with a cleft palette and the doctor says "we need to repair this" one does not reply "No. God does not make mistakes. Clearly this was is intention for my child." Why? Because we all kn ow innately that God is not the Author of such defects.No one would say that when the child dies, many years hence, he will stand before God with a cleft palette. So clearly we do not theologically or otherwise classify birth defects as "God's mistakes" - rather we realize that these occur as a result of natural processes in a corrupted world.

    So when I say to you "my condition is a birth defect" it does not follow for you to reply "God does not make mistakes" because there is no context in which I claimed that he did.

    Now, some will surely say "the difference is that a birth defect causes a dysfunction of some part of the body and you were a perfectly functional man" however the same people will say "you have a mental problem and need help" which is a contradictory position. A dysfunction is exactly what the transsexual has - either their brain or their gonads went haywire in the womb and as such, such people suffer from a dysfunction which needs some sort of correction. Since we know of no method whatsoever in which he structure and function of the brain may be modified, there is only two recurses - allow the subject to suffer, or modify to the extent we are able, the physical structure in order to relieve the distress.

    In the same sense that the condition is not "God's mistake" likewise treatment of the condition is not an affront to God's intent.

    Finally, I agree wholeheartedly that when I - and you - stand before God we will appear as HE sees us and not as we see ourselves, but I remind you that Scripture says "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks upon the heart." No one can say whether God see the "real me" according to what my brain says, or what my mirror says - indeed no one can say whether or not any of us will even HAVE a gender as we understand it on That Day. What I DO know is that he knows every tiny facet of my struggle, He knows the sincerity of my heart through every one of those prayers, he knows the depth of my willingness to seek His truth no matter the cost - and He and I both know that if, after all that, I screwed it up, He has forgiven me anyway.

    What I have on my mind, concerning The Accounting is this: for almost 20 years of my life I told people (when occasion arose) from lectern and pulpit and directly that God had forbid "all this LGBT stuff" and that those who were involved in it must repent of it and come to God in obedience and not practice abominations. In so doing, I am firmly convinced, I placed myself as a stumbling block between that person and God's grace and it's not impossible that some turned away from Him entirely because of me.

    Now I tell people as the occasion arises just the opposite - that I don't serve a God who condemns people for something they were born with and that He will meet them where they are, trusting His Holy Spirit to convict of sin, if sin there be.

    In the former case, there may be people who leave this world without knowing Him directly because of me - in the latter case there may be people who came to Him while in the midst of sinning and needed the Holy Spirit to intervene and help them repent.

    On That Day, I'd rather give account for the latter than for the former.