[Wondergirl]

Maybe you missed the topic of this thread, excon, but it is not "Let's Attack Christianity".

No, it's "Let's attack those who aren't fundamentalist Christians."

[asking]

I mistook it to be a book because you indicated earlier that it was.

I wrote: to quote your own quote of me in your next line:

Originally Posted by asking
The earlier information comes from a textbook of human development AND from research by a pediatric surgeon who does sex assignment surgery to intersex infants.

I capitalized "and" to help you see it.

Thus two sources.
1. A book (on human development) AND
2. research by a pediatric surgeon who does gender reassignment.

I hope this clarifies things.

It is also interesting to note that you reference a man named "Vilian" who is not even mentioned or acknowledged in the paper that you linked.

The paper wasn't meant to provide information about Vilain's credentials. His web page was. The paper was listed at his website under "additional information." As you'll see, most of the other papers listed there do have his name. I assume he probably reviewed this paper in manuscript. I listed it for informational purposes.

Here his website again, since you may have overlooked it.

UCLA Department of Urology Faculty Information - Eric Vilain, MD, PhD

The boy had damaged caused to his penis during electro-surgery when he was 7 months old, so they did further surgery to change him into a girl and his parents raised him as a girl. Here is an excerpt from the article:

Please give your references also.
There are hundreds of cases like this. I have heard of this particular case, as much has been made of it, probably because nothing seems worse to many people than condemning a man to be a woman. But there are many other people who feel they are women and were expected to behave like men.

These cases are very sad. It is especially sad when babies are born perfectly healthy but with mild intersex conditions, such as a micropenis in a boy or a too large clitoris in a girl. Often, looking at the genitals, the doctor has no idea what sex the child will feel s/he is when they grow up. Traditionally, surgeons have cut off a micropenis or large clitoris since they are "not big enough" for a man and "too big" for a woman, and attempted to turn boy and girl alike into proper girls. As you see by your own reading it often does not work and leads to terrible heartache.

That is why Vilain was saying that, in an ideal world, surgeons could wait until the child was old enough to say, "I am X." BUT, Vilain said, parents, grandparents, teachers and others will not put up with not knowing for several years. Indeterminancy creates serious social problems. Thus the feeling that surgery needs to be done early. He described gender assignment surgery as a sociomedical "emergency."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following the transition, John's father, on the advice of a psychiatrist, revealed what had happened during infancy. Until that moment her parents and clinicians had tried to conceal all that was problematic about her gender, to give her the unambiguous rearing as a girl they were told to provide.

Lying to children is generally a disaster!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The outcome of the John/Joan case has been observed with comparable patients. In a recent and ongoing study Reiner tracked six boys who had lost their penises in infancy and were being reared as girls.

Italics mine.

It's rare for boys to "lose their penises". They don't just fall down the toilet one day. It generally gets removed by a pediatric surgeon in an effort to turn an unsatisfactory boy into a girl.

I think it's important here to distinguish among the various kinds of sexual identity.
1. Genetic sex is simply if you are XX (female) or XY (male).
2. Does the person have testes or ovaries?
Oddly enough, these things need not be correlated.
3. Does the person have the external genitalia of just one sex or of two sexes (e.g. hermaphrodites--penis and vagina)
4. Which sex are the external genitalia?
5. The sex in which they are reared by the parents.
6. What is the self-identified gender of the child?
7. Legal sex.

And separately.
8. To which sex is the person attracted?

NONE of these things absolutely predict any of the others. They can all vary independently. As I mentioned earlier, a person who is genetically female can be fully male in all other respects and a genetic male can develop into a fully functional woman. Every other combination also occurs, including people with both sets of organs.

In MOST cases, however, things develop as we expect.

they believed they were boys."(Quoted in Colapinto.) [2]

Right. Likewise, there are "boys" who *know* they are girls. Transgender persons may be the victims of gender reassignment or they may simply be people who developed a gender identity different from their apparent sex. This is consistent with what I am saying about all these different kinds of sex identity being independent.

28] Unlike those with surgically corrected cleft palates, intersex patients are condemning physicians for their surgeries and for withholding the truth about their medical condition and treatment. The John/Joan case, the Reiner study, the activist protests and other cases reported in the literature, [29-31] strongly suggest that pediatric reassignment may often be failing the thank you test for clinical beneficence, [32] and that these poor outcomes may not be isolated droplets of misfortune in a downpour of excellent results.

Tom, I couldn't agree more. BUT, at the same time, society demands that we decide on a sex for an infant when it's still not clear. For now, there's just no way to tell if a baby is going to self identify as a girl or as a boy. If we could accept some indeterminancy and wait until a child is old enough to say, I am a girl or I am a boy, so much heartache could be avoided.

[asking]

The outcome of all these separate kinds of sexual identity is hard to predict and seems to result from processes that occur in the embryo/fetus during development. It's probably not all genetic. Just to give one non-genetic example, the youngest of several boys in a family (by the same mother) has a slightly increased probability of being gay. Something in the woman is slightly altered by carrying all those other boys for 9 months each.

My point is that none of these results is a "choice" made by an adult. I know that the question of whether someone can be ambivalent or bi in their sexual identity is controversial and I don't have anything to say about that. But it is clear that many people express at quite young ages an interest in a particular sex that does not change over their lifetime and which is independent of their own gender self identification ("I am a boy or girl").

My understanding is that Tom is saying that being born gay is no one's fault and not a sin. But acting on it is a sin comparable with other sins, neither better nor worse. I think this is a comparatively enlightened view.

My personal view is that acting on it is not sinful. But then I am not a Christian and basically do not believe in sin, at least not if it is defined as a narrow set of proscriptions from the Bible.

[Wondergirl]

My understanding is that Tom is saying that being born gay is no one's fault and not a sin. But acting on it is a sin comparable with other sins, neither better nor worse. I think this is a comparatively enlightened view.

No. Tom says sexuality is chosen by each individual, and, if the choice is homosexuality, that is, in and of itself, a sin. Tom himself has chosen to be heterosexual.

[Tj3]

Hello again, Tj:
Here's the thing. You don't seem to read very well. I was quite clear. I attacked YOU. NOT Christianity.... But, it's cool. I'm still on to you.

I see that you can't shake that obsession with me.

[Tj3]

He didn't ask about homosexuality. He asked about the behavior.

Read the context more carefully - he said:

"But, if God only designs people to be straight, then if they're OTHER than straight, it's by choice."

Heterosexuality is not a sin, but adultery is.

So is lust.

[Tj3]

Please give your references also.

Once again, read more carefully. I provided a link.

Right. Likewise, there are "boys" who *know* they are girls.

That is your claim. But so far you have not put forward a compelling argument which shows me that scripture is wrong when it makes it clear that such a decision is a choice.

[Tj3]

No. Tom says sexuality is chosen by each individual, and, if the choice is homosexuality, that is, in and of itself, a sin. Tom himself has chosen to be heterosexual.

Sigh! I wonder why people choose to mis-represent others. Is the truth just too hard? If you are unable to be honest about what I have said, why not simply let me present my position? Or is it important for you to tell me what I am to believe?

No, Tom does not and never has said that. What I have said, and what scripture says is that God created us male and female, and that some choose to homosexuality rather than how God created us.

Scripture says clearly that we can change and that when we receive Christ we do change.

Scripture says that homosexuality is a sin, and that the act is also a sin.

I accept God's word.

[Tj3]

My understanding is that Tom is saying that being born gay is no one's fault and not a sin. But acting on it is a sin comparable with other sins, neither better nor worse. I think this is a comparatively enlightened view.

No one is born "gay". Chosing to become so is a sin according to scripture. The same is true according to scripture for any sinful orientation (this is probably why some folk on here fear to discuss what an orientation is).

All sins, rather it be a sinful act or choosing a sinful orientation are equal sins regardless of what they may be - neither better nor worse whether your act on that chosen orientation.

[asking]

Quote:

Right. Likewise, there are "boys" who *know* they are girls.

That is your claim. But so far you have not put forward a compelling argument which shows me that scripture is wrong when it makes it clear that such a decision is a choice.

I am not arguing about whether scripture is right wrong. That's not my department. I'm just trying to provide accurate information about the biological processes of sex and gender determination.

Tom, you just posted a really long discussion about a person being raised as a girl who knew nonetheless that "she" was a boy.

Are you saying it can't happen the other way around?

I thought we were in agreement on this.

I find your arguments frustratingly oblique at times. It's hard to discuss anything if you don't seem to commit to a definite statement. That I have misunderstood your point after reading so much of what you wrote and, I thought, responding carefully makes me feel like I am wasting my time. I am disappointed.

[Akoue]

I am not arguing about whether scripture is right wrong. That's not my department. I'm just trying to provide accurate information about the biological processes of sex and gender determination.

Tom, you just posted a really long discussion about a person being raised as a girl who knew nonetheless that "she" was a boy.

Are you saying it can't happen the other way around?

I thought we were in agreement on this.

I find your arguments frustratingly oblique at times. It's hard to discuss anything if you don't seem to commit to a definite statement. That I have misunderstood your point after reading so much of what you wrote and, I thought, responding carefully makes me feel like I am wasting my time. I am disappointed.

Don't be disappointed, asking. It's not your fault. Apparently everyone on this board who doesn't agree with Tom is guilty of REFUSING to understand him. And so it must be, since we know it couldn't be Tom's fault for failing to make his points with adequate clarity and precision. That just could never be.

[Tj3]

I am not arguing about whether scripture is right wrong. That's not my department.

This is the "Religious Discussions" board and that is what the topic is.

I'm just trying to provide accurate information about the biological processes of sex and gender determination.

As am I.

Tom, you just posted a really long discussion about a person being raised as a girl who knew nonetheless that "she" was a boy.

Are you saying it can't happen the other way around?

What - that a person born as a girl gets mutilated as a baby and they try to raise here as a boy, but she subsequently wants to be as God created her - a girl? Sure that could happen.

It's hard to discuss anything if you don't seem to commit to a definite statement.

I got a laugh about that. That is probably the first time anyone has said that. I have been accused of being too clear and blunt.

[Tj3]

Don't be disappointed, asking. It's not your fault. Apparently everyone on this board who doesn't agree with Tom is guilty of REFUSING to understand him. And so it must be, since we know it couldn't be Tom's fault for failing to make his points with adequate clarity and precision. That just could never be.

Yep, here we go again, go after the person when you cannot deal with the issue.

[NeedKarma]

I have been accused of being too clear...

Wow, one really like to compliment one's self. Show where that has happened (being accused of being "too clear").

[Tj3]

Wow, one really like to compliment one's self. Show where that has happened (being accused of being "too clear").

I could not care less whether you believe it or not. If you are under the mis-understanding that I am on here to defend the homosexual rights lobby of the American Atheists Association, then clearly you have not been reading clearly enough. That is not my issue.

[CSlager]

in anybodys eyes do you think its right to be gay?

posted this for the "pet expert" but anybody can answer

Depending on which bible translation you read, homosexuality is not found in the translations although it's assumed sexual perversion holds the same meaning. I am not too sure of that since the Talmud makes pretty clear the sin of the Sodomites is the transgression of inhospitability not homosexuality. In fact the bible never really makes a clear line or distinction even in 1st Corinthians where various translations have interpreted the language as either homosexuality, sexual perversions, with no definite type, and bestiality. Since bestiality is clearly defined biblically and in the Talmud I am guessing this is one of the transgressions that would be considered sexual perversion, as well as what Paul would have done himself in the same time period: rape as a form of tax collection, bestiality, prostitution, orgies which were gaining popularity at the time, virgin baths, pedophilia. When he converted to Christianity he was probably still yearning for many of the sexually abusive temptations available to tax collectors at the time. It was Josephus who first put the world onto the notion that Homosexuality took place in Sodom. Considering the speed at which everything occurred within the passages leading up to sodom's destruction and the fact that Jesus himself called Sodom's transgression inhospitability, I am guessing that Sodom at the time of it's destruction was little more than a war ravaged town suffering from Drought and avarice of in Jesus's words "overfed and unconcerned women", they had recently been pillaged by foreign armies and only ten years previous within biblical context they had suffered a great drought and famine. So I am guessing with their relatively weak king that the city was destitute and made it's living as a port of sin, brothels, gang warfare, brigandry drugs and nationalism. Place reminds me of modern Thailand or Somalia, where daughters are sold as sex slaves to pay for parents drug addictions, and boys six and seven years old are sold to foreigners for sex to feed the family.

Is homosexuality a sin? Can't really tell you. If there was ever any biblical evidence that the 12 apostles had male sexual relations it was never mentioned and neither was it mentioned whether they had female sexual relations. That could mean that they did and it was not discussed or they did and it was removed, or they didn't have any relations at all. However the sin of coveting is discussed and to covet a neighbors manservant is a sin. That always made me wonder if manservant had more of a sexual connotation. Therefore it is all right for you to have a manservant (your boi) but you can't steal someone else's gay manservant. Again can't prove that either. Heck I can't even prove that the bible disapproves of incest since at least three relationships are incestous.

The point is you do what you believe, but Jesus himself said let he without sin cast the first stone, before you dig the thorn out of my pull the log out of your own. So regardless of whether it is a sin, I question whether a person should attack others for their beliefs. As for hand holding, they could be sisters. The fear of homosexuality has obviously insinuated itself in so much that people are willing to be inhospitable, which is a great sin according to Jesus.

[NeedKarma]

... the homosexual rights lobby of the American Atheists Association,

There is no such thing - you made that up.

[Tj3]

It was Josephus who first put the world onto the notion that Homosexuality took place in Sodom. Considering the speed at which everything occurred within the passages leading up to sodom's destruction and the fact that Jesus himself called Sodom's transgression inhospitability, I am guessing that Sodom at the time of it's destruction was little more than a war ravaged town suffering from Drought and avarice of in Jesus's words "overfed and unconcerned women", they had recently been pillaged by foreign armies and only ten years previous within biblical context they had suffered a great drought and famine. So I am guessing with their relatively weak king that the city was destitute and made it's living as a port of sin, brothels, gang warfare, brigandry drugs and nationalism. Place reminds me of modern Thailand or Somalia, where daughters are sold as sex slaves to pay for parents drug addictions, and boys six and seven years old are sold to foreigners for sex to feed the family.

Wow - what a story.

Scripture is quite clear about the reason for Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction:

Jude 5-8
5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
NKJV

[talaniman]

My Christian friends are always reminding me to love the sinner, but hate the sin. Sounds good to me, but then I ask what is the sin, and that answer requires much discussion.

[asking]

in anybodys eyes do you think its right to be gay?

posted this for the "pet expert" but anybody can answer

Bobbalina,

Yes. It is right to be gay.

It is as right to be gay as it is right to be straight, to have brown hair or white or dark skin, to be a man or to be a woman. It is right to be smart and it is right to be not so smart. It is right to carry one of 16 different alleles for the same gene. It is right to carry another of the 16 alleles. It is right to be different.

It is right to be human.
It is not wrong.