Gay activist calls for teen's parents to be prosecuted

[Traditio]

Annabenedetti: Note that, as a Catholic, you are not at liberty to agree with Selaphiel, etc. The Council of Vienne dogmatically asserts that the intellectual soul directly informs the body and makes it what it is. In speaking in this way, it at least implicitly presupposes some account of nature in the Aristotelian sense.

 

[Traditio]

So if you were a parent and your baby was diagnosed as intersex, with ambiguous sexual organs, would you choose the sex for your baby and take the necessary surgical steps to enforce your choice?

Or would you wait to see how your child identifies over time?

Matter: what a thing is made of
Form: What a thing is

What I am saying is that being "intersexed" is a case in which the form fails to dominate the matter. There really is a defect in the case of an intersexed person, and the failure is on the part of the matter. An intersexed person really is either male or female, but he or she has a serious physical defect (just as though a person were to grow an imperfectly formed, defective third arm).

Practically and medically speaking to your question in particular, I don't know what the right answer is.

 

[PureX]

1. General comment: it's a good idea to write out the acronyms, at least in the first occassion in which you use them. I wasn't immediately sure what those terms meant. For anyone reading, SRS means soemthing to the effect of "surgical (gender) reassignment," and HRT means something to the effect of "hormone (gender) therapy." He's referring to snipping vs. injecting a gender-confused individual.

2. You are mistaken. There's a number of ways that I could go with this, but here are a couple of thoughts:

A. Even you would have to admit that SRS and HRT are used to treat a healthy patient. If I were to ask you if the patient is sick, you would, perhaps, say "yes" for ideological (as opposed to medical) reasons. If I ask you what the sickness is, I won't accept "he has healthy male organs" or "she has healthy female organs" as an answer. Those aren't diseases.

B. Your answer demonstrates a failure to understand nature (in the Aristotelian sense). Note, I'm not faulting you with this: this is, of course, something which is, at least nowadays, fairly obscure. For Aristotle, nature is an intrinsic principle of motion and rest. Things develop in the way that they develop because of what they are.

Dogs naturally grow with four legs. Why? Because they are dogs.

So here, you'll perhaps tell me that it is unnatural for the patient to have male or female organs.

I'll ask you: are these organs healthy or unhealthy?

You'll have to say "healthy."

Why, then, did the patient develop healthy organs of that gender?

Because the patient is of that gender.

C. Finally, your answer presupposes a Cartesian splitting of mind and body as completely separate, autonomous substances (which you, as an atheist and a materialist, cannot grant). If it be granted that the intellectual soul directly informs the body and makes it what it is, then your answer becomes unintelligible.

This is all well and good, but dogs grow to be both male and female, naturally. Both are intrinsic to '"dogness". And with humans, it's more complicated still, because we also grow sophisticated self-conceptualizations that are part and parcel of our natures, along with our physical structures. So that we can not only grow into male or female, physically, we can grow into male or female psychologically. Which multiplies the likelihood of confusion, wherein the body grows into it's maleness, while the psychological self-conceptualization grows into it's femaleness (or conversely), causing a profound state of identity crisis.

And there is no moral or ethical reason that I can see why the path of physical development should trump the path of psychological development, as you seem to be suggesting. Because it's the intellect that must ultimately make the decision. And since it is the mind that decides, it would be logical to assume that it should also be the mind that prevails in the decision, over the body, as to the ultimate direction of growth and development.

 

[GFR7]

So if you were a parent and your baby was diagnosed as intersex, with ambiguous sexual organs, would you choose the sex for your baby and take the necessary surgical steps to enforce your choice?

Or would you wait to see how your child identifies over time?

From ALL accounts, the male teen in the OP - (as well as Angelina Jolie's 8 year old daughter [article posted in this thread ] - was born a normal, healthy, male, with male organs.

He asks to be called 'she' because he "identifies as female" - just as I might ask to be called black simply because I identify as African, though I am British.

Jolie's daughter is now their "son" simply because she asked to be viewed as a boy. What if she wanted to identify as a pony?? :think:

 

[Traditio]

This is all well and good, but dogs grow to be both male and female, naturally. Both are intrinsic to '"dogness". And with humans, it's more complicated still, because we also grow sophisticated self-conceptualizations that are part and parcel of our natures, along with our physical structures. So that we can not only grow into male or female, physically, we can grow into male or female psychologically.

Cartesian confusion. The division of human beings into male and female belongs to us qua animal. It's something which we "share" even with the brute animals.

Which multiplies the likelihood of confusion, wherein the body grows into it's maleness, while the psychological self-conceptualization grows into it's femaleness (or conversely), causing a profound state of identity crisis.

Again, this is Cartesian confusion. If you understood what you were saying, you'd realize that what you are saying is unintelligible if properly understood. The intellectual soul directly informs the body and makes it what it is. If the body is female, it's because the intellectual soul is the soul of a female human being.

And there is no moral or ethical reason that I can see why the path of physical development should trump the path of psychological development, as you seem to be suggesting.

I deny that, properly understood, in this case, there's any such dichotomy. The person in question either is male or female. There's no decision to be made. For biblical support (not as though biblical support is needed), see Genesis 1:27.

 

[Morpheus]

Matter: what a thing is made of
Form: What a thing is

What I am saying is that being "intersexed" is a case in which the form fails to dominate the matter. There really is a defect in the case of an intersexed person, and the failure is on the part of the matter. An intersexed person really is either male or female, but he or she has a serious physical defect (just as though a person were to grow an imperfectly formed, defective third arm).

Practically and medically speaking to your question in particular, I don't know what the right answer is.

Here you presuppose that someone who doesn't fit a designated norm is subsequently defective. I suggest that in many cases those considered defective are, in fact, an individual, and that they have their own normality that should not be diminished by societal norms. Consider this; by Christian standards if God created them, and God does not make mistakes, then they are not defective, only different. Ultimately we are all different and individuals with our own quirks and anomalies.

I learned much from my late daughter who was born with cerebral palsy, and also from residents of an assisted living program diagnosed with everything imaginable. I finally realized that those who were injured in accidents or chemically after being born could be considered damaged, but those born with such things as CP or Down's are actually who they are meant to be. It is only pride and arrogance that makes some believe that they are somehow better than others who are not like them. Different is by no means lesser or defective. Creating a diagnosis is simply recognizing that some of us should not be expected to fit a predesignated pattern. Similarly, many artists, dancers or musicians do not excel in math or science, and many mathematicians and scientists cannot write a symphony or create a masterpiece. That doesn't mean that any of them are defective or deficient. Similarly, just because someone is born intersexed it doesn't make them "defective", only a different norm.

 

[Traditio]

I'm not an atheist, nor am I a materialist. The problem is that you assume a false dichotomy between Aristotelean metaphysics and materialism, as if there are not other positions.

Aristotelian physics, actually. He makes use of the matter-form distinction in metaphysics, but, properly speaking, it first arises in physics (that is, the study of nature or physis).

And it's not a false dichotomy.

Either things are what they are, or else, all differences are diverse configurations of matter and/or stuff.

Of course, there is the "third option" if Berkleyean idealism (there is no matter), but that's hardly under discussion.

Our understanding of nature has drastically progressed since Aristotle.

No, it hasn't. What happened is something like this: people 1. gradually began to misunderstand the Aristotelian account of nature (culminates in Suarez), and 2. enlightenment thinkers, mistaking Aristotle's philosophy of nature for natural science, mistakenly reject it, instead leaping to Cartesian view of the world as made up of indeterminate "extended stuff."

There are underlying assumptions behind statements like there being clear delineations between different species and genders of each species, they assume a far more static picture of the world where pre-existent forms unite with primal matter to create a thing of a particular nature. That is an antiquated understanding of nature.
Modern understanding of the relationship between species and genders of each species is one of biological continuum, there is not a clear delineation between species and sexes, at least not in the absolute sense you want.

What I am presupposing is that things are what they are. Let us grant that there is such a thing as a "gradient" in species. Fine. Nonetheless, this is a horse, and that is a dog. Their (alleged) evolutionary similarities, histories and dissimilarities being what they may, that doesn't change the fact that this is a horse, and that is a dog.

 

[Traditio]

Here you presuppose that someone who doesn't fit a designated norm is subsequently defective.

Natural vs. customary "norms." It's not the case that all "norms" are mental/psychological impositions. There are natural "norms" which the mind does not make, but rather recognizes. Heavy bodies fall. Fire rises. Sickness and health are different.

I suggest that in many cases those considered defective are, in fact, an individual, and that they have their own normality that should not be diminished by societal norms.

It's not a matter of societal norms. I'm talking about nature. For more on this, see below.

Consider this; by Christian standards if God created them, and God does not make mistakes, then they are not defective, only different. Ultimately we are all different and individuals with our own quirks and anomalies.

1. God permits evil for the greater good.
2. This doesn't change the fact that evil (whether physical or moral) is evil.

God permitted Judas to betray Jesus. That doesn't change the fact that what Judas did was a horrible thing, and "it were better for him, if that man had not been born" (Matthew 26:24).

I learned much from my late daughter who was born with cerebral palsy

Did you take your late daughter to a doctor and seek out medical treatment? If so, then what you did contradicts what you are saying. Unless, perhaps, you wish to say that, given the choice, you would not have brought her to the doctor? If you assert that you still would have brought her to a doctor, then you must admit that cerebral palsy is a defect and a disease.

I finally realized that those who were injured in accidents or chemically after being born could be considered damaged

They are damaged. Injuries, cerebral palsy, etc. are physical defects. They are states of impaired health. This doesn't, of course, make the person "bad" as a whole (only sin can do that). But it does indicate that something is defective.

Similarly, just because someone is born intersexed it doesn't make them "defective", only a different norm.

What you are saying might be true if the division of animals into male and female were purely based on societal custom, but that's not the case. :idunno:

 

[GFR7]

The opening to this piece really offends me.

This was a child born as a normal, male infant, with normal genitalia, who as a teen begins to "identify as female" (thanks to the new Transgender Lobby) and these journalists have the nerve to call him a "daughter" - there wasn't even any sex change therapy (hormones, surgery).

Leelah Alcorn’s mother speaks out about her child’s death

Carla Alcorn has given an interview in which she discusses her daughter’s suicide: ‘People need to know that I loved him. He was a good kid, a good boy’

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/...-her-child’s-death020115#sthash.tsUOtvFd.dpuf

 

[Selaphiel]

Aristotelian physics, actually. He makes use of the matter-form distinction in metaphysics, but, properly speaking, it first arises in physics (that is, the study of nature or physis).

And it's not a false dichotomy.

Either things are what they are, or else, all differences are diverse configurations of matter and/or stuff.

Of course, there is the "third option" if Berkleyean idealism (there is no matter), but that's hardly under discussion.

It is a false dichotomy. It is simply not the case that you have to be either a reductionist materialist or an Aristotelian (or Berkleyean). You could also for example be a Whiteheadian (which I identify with, not dogmatically, but I think he had some great insights), in which case things are temporal societies of events or processes, whose natures are constituted by relations to other things and thus changes over time.

Also, materialism is an elusive term, I don't think there are many (at least not who are familiar with the definition) materialists in the Cartesian sense of extended matter. Physicalism is, as you should know, not the same thing (granted that I think physicalism is a vague term lacking any clear definition). Things as understood by physics are not simply extended solid stuff, they are energy events, what seems like solid matter to us is a buzzing field of events.

No, it hasn't. What happened is something like this: people 1. gradually began to misunderstand the Aristotelian account of nature (culminates in Suarez), and 2. enlightenment thinkers, mistaking Aristotle's philosophy of nature for natural science, mistakenly reject it, instead leaping to Cartesian view of the world as made up of indeterminate "extended stuff."

While I agree that there are misunderstandings of Aristotle in some modern thinkers, it does not follow from that that our understanding of reality hasn't drastically changed. As I said above, there aren't many Cartestian materialists today. That you do not seem to know that thinking has progressed since Descartes, seems only to indicate that you are not very familiar with currents dialogues between science and philosophy.

What I am presupposing is that things are what they are. Let us grant that there is such a thing as a "gradient" in species. Fine. Nonetheless, this is a horse, and that is a dog. Their (alleged) evolutionary similarities, histories and dissimilarities being what they may, that doesn't change the fact that this is a horse, and that is a dog.

What do you mean "alleged"? Their similarities are not alleged, it is a scientific fact.

The problem arises when you start talking about things like "horseness" as an absolutely defined form or nature, there is no such thing. Every horse is unique in its genetic make-up and the whole points of the theory of evolution is that you go back generation after generation of a particular animal, the more different they will be. What we classify as a horse arose as a particular animal that diversified from an ancestor that it has in common with certain other species, all the way back to a common ancestor of all species, including man. The stability of those species depend on their environment and how well they are adapted to it. Long stories short, horseness is an abstraction, a tool for classifying animals. There is no such thing as a perfect horse.

 

[Traditio]

It is a false dichotomy. It is simply not the case that you have to be either a reductionist materialist or an Aristotelian (or Berkleyean). You could also for example be a Whiteheadian (which I identify with, not dogmatically, but I think he had some great insights), in which case things are temporal societies of events or processes, whose natures are constituted by relations to other things and thus changes over time.

I have no idea what those words mean.

Also, materialism is an elusive term, I don't think there are many (at least not who are familiar with the definition) materialists in the Cartesian sense of extended matter. Physicalism is, as you should know, not the same thing (granted that I think physicalism is a vague term lacking any clear definition). Things as understood by physics are not simply extended solid stuff, they are energy events, what seems like solid matter to us is a buzzing field of events.

There are nuances, but moderns tend to be basically Cartesians or Cartesian spin-offs in their understanding of matter and causality. It's all just stuff pushing, pulling, exploding and mixing.

Nothing more.

While I agree that there are misunderstandings of Aristotle in some modern thinkers, it does not follow from that that our understanding of reality hasn't drastically changed.

I fully grant that the modern conception of reality is drastically different from Aristotle's. The question is whether the moderns have "advanced" towards greater understanding or greater misunderstanding. I assert the latter.

If you abolish Aristotelian form, reality becomes unintelligible and all natural "science" is a mockery.

What do you mean "alleged"? Their similarities are not alleged, it is a scientific fact.

"Alleged" was more immediately modifying "evolutionary."

The problem arises when you start talking about things like "horseness" as an absolutely defined form or nature, there is no such thing. Every horse is unique in its genetic make-up and the whole points of the theory of evolution is that you go back generation after generation of a particular animal, the more different they will be. What we classify as a horse arose as a particular animal that diversified from an ancestor that it has in common with certain other species, all the way back to a common ancestor of all species, including man. The stability of those species depend on their environment and how well they are adapted to it. Long stories short, horseness is an abstraction, a tool for classifying animals. There is no such thing as a perfect horse.

I'm less interested in all of that, and more interested in this: is B a horse or not? Does it have features x, y and z? Does it have features x, y and z because it is a horse?

I understand the direction that you're trying to go, but I'm simply not going there. Let us set aside the question of species and universals. We don't even need to go there.

Is this particular thing what it is, independently of our mental conceptions? Yes.

Because it is what it is, does it have and do things which are consequent on its being what it is? Yes.

We don't have to start talking about species and evolutionary biology to know that cancer is a sickness, and if an animal has cancer, it is sick, and not in a state of good health. Those are obvious facts.

 

[resodko]

I have no idea what those words mean.

:think:

 

[rexlunae]

1. General comment: it's a good idea to write out the acronyms, at least in the first occassion in which you use them. I wasn't immediately sure what those terms meant. For anyone reading, SRS means soemthing to the effect of "surgical (gender) reassignment," and HRT means something to the effect of "hormone (gender) therapy." He's referring to snipping vs. injecting a gender-confused individual.

As another general comment, if you plan to speak with any kind of authority about an issue, it does pay to know the basic terminology. And I don't feel too obligated to specify easily googleable terms in forum posts. I actually consider that a fairly useful exercise for your own edification. But, just so we're on the same page, SRS stands for Sex Reassignment Surgery, while HRT stands for Hormone Replacement Therapy.

2. You are mistaken. There's a number of ways that I could go with this, but here are a couple of thoughts:

A. Even you would have to admit that SRS and HRT are used to treat a healthy patient.

It depends on what you mean by "healthy", but ultimately this just begs the question. The patients are suffering from gender dysphoria. SRS and HRT are widely-accepted and well-established means of treating that condition.

If I were to ask you if the patient is sick, you would, perhaps, say "yes" for ideological (as opposed to medical) reasons. If I ask you what the sickness is, I won't accept "he has healthy male organs" or "she has healthy female organs" as an answer. Those aren't diseases.

Well, what you accept doesn't control medical diagnostic standards, thankfully. Possessing a particular set of sex organs isn't the issue, the issue is a disconnect between what a person feels their gender to be and what gender their bodies manifest, and deliberately missing this point doesn't help your case.

B. Your answer demonstrates a failure to understand nature (in the Aristotelian sense).

Specifically?

Note, I'm not faulting you with this: this is, of course, something which is, at least nowadays, fairly obscure. For Aristotle, nature is an intrinsic principle of motion and rest. Things develop in the way that they develop because of what they are.

It really wouldn't matter. The Aristotelian view is incorrect. There are no ideal forms that all things are aspiring to be.

Dogs naturally grow with four legs. Why? Because they are dogs.

Unless they have a mutated gene, or other developmental condition.

So here, you'll perhaps tell me that it is unnatural for the patient to have male or female organs.

No.

I'll ask you: are these organs healthy or unhealthy?

What does it matter? You guys sure are good at missing the point.

Why, then, did the patient develop healthy organs of that gender?

Probably due to an underlying genetic cause.

Because the patient is of that gender.

When all else fails, loop back to the beginning assertion, huh?

C. Finally, your answer presupposes a Cartesian splitting of mind and body as completely separate, autonomous substances (which you, as an atheist and a materialist, cannot grant). If it be granted that the intellectual soul directly informs the body and makes it what it is, then your answer becomes unintelligible.

It doesn't. It presupposes that there is some distinction between the physical body and the mind. It doesn't discuss, nor does it concern the nature of that distinction. As a monist, I believe that the mind and the body are fundamentally made of the same things, albeit in different forms, the mind of information and the body of matter and energy (which are, by the way, physically interchangeable). That's a bit of an oversimplification, but it should be good enough to get the gist. Other people may have a different opinion, and this thread isn't the place to raise that issue, as it isn't especially relevant.

 

[Selaphiel]

I have no idea what those words mean.

Which is probably why Whitehead wrote multiple works, not just a sentece.

There are nuances, but moderns tend to be basically Cartesians or Cartesian spin-offs in their understanding of matter and causality. It's all just stuff pushing, pulling, exploding and mixing.

Nothing more.

Who are the moderns you are talking about? The man in the street and the occasional scientists that doesn't do much philosophical thinking? Sure, just like the average guy in the street usually is, at least implicitly, a dualist. Far more interesting to see what the people that does serious philosophical reflection in light of modern cosmology thinks, they arent Cartesian materialists, nor do they only speak of billiard ball causality.

If you abolish Aristotelian form, reality becomes unintelligible and all natural "science" is a mockery.

Assuming that all other alternatives are wrong. Is that a conclusion you have drawn based on knowing those alternatives?

I'm less interested in all of that, and more interested in this: is B a horse or not? Does it have features x, y and z? Does it have features x, y and z because it is a horse?

You cannot separate that question from what I just wrote.

Is this particular thing what it is, independently of our mental conceptions? Yes.

No, not if you mean that there is such a thing as "horseness" that exists as some objective reality in which all particular horses participate.

We don't have to start talking about species and evolutionary biology to know that cancer is a sickness, and if an animal has cancer, it is sick, and not in a state of good health. Those are obvious facts.

The problem is that you define good health as natural and placing it in opposition to cancer as unnatural. Cancer is every bit as natural, it arises from the same natural processes that are necessary for that animal to exist. The chance to develop cancer is a side-effect of a process that is necessary for the animal to be at all. We try to disrupt the natural process of cancerous cell growth based on our desire, and our wise conclusion, that death is not desireable.

So you are using subjective value judgments when you condemn one disruption of natural processes in the case of gender confusion disorders, but condone it in the case of chemotherapy. Both are disruption of natural processes, we decide what disruptions are wise using our judgment based on many factors, not based on whether they are natural or not.

 

[GFR7]

Your threads are basically just a succession of phony sensationalist "news stories" which do nothing to illuminate actual events, and are instead intended to stir up sanctimonious outrage against anything of a sexual nature that people don't understand, and therefor fear. The media does it to sell advertising. You're doing it just to spread the fear and indignation, I guess. Though why you have chosen this quest for yourself is a mystery to me.

No, I'm not interested in sensationalism. Many are drawn to these stories because they are trying to understand.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Possessing a particular set of sex organs isn't the issue, the issue is a disconnect between what a person feels their gender to be and what gender their bodies manifest

Everyone but you realizes that the "gender their bodies manifest" results in "Possessing a particular set of sex organs".

If the problem is a disconnect between what gender a person is and what the person believes that their gender should be, then the problem is the delusion the person is having about his/her gender.

The best thing for the person is to try to rid the person of the delusion they have.

 

[republicanchick]

Nobody should be prosecuted for another's suicide unless an actual crime was committed. We need to quit blaming other people for one person's decision.

that sounds reasonable UNLESS we are speaking of children

and teens are children. They are vulnerable, impressionable, sensitive to criticism and etc... far morethan adults are. They should be protected. But to blame the parents in a case like this and ridicule them for calling their son their son is absolute demonic ABSURDIty

among other things



:argue:

 

[Morpheus]

Natural vs. customary "norms." It's not the case that all "norms" are mental/psychological impositions. There are natural "norms" which the mind does not make, but rather recognizes. Heavy bodies fall. Fire rises. Sickness and health are different.



It's not a matter of societal norms. I'm talking about nature. For more on this, see below.



1. God permits evil for the greater good.
2. This doesn't change the fact that evil (whether physical or moral) is evil.

God permitted Judas to betray Jesus. That doesn't change the fact that what Judas did was a horrible thing, and "it were better for him, if that man had not been born" (Matthew 26:24).



Did you take your late daughter to a doctor and seek out medical treatment? If so, then what you did contradicts what you are saying. Unless, perhaps, you wish to say that, given the choice, you would not have brought her to the doctor? If you assert that you still would have brought her to a doctor, then you must admit that cerebral palsy is a defect and a disease.



They are damaged. Injuries, cerebral palsy, etc. are physical defects. They are states of impaired health. This doesn't, of course, make the person "bad" as a whole (only sin can do that). But it does indicate that something is defective.



What you are saying might be true if the division of animals into male and female were purely based on societal custom, but that's not the case. :idunno:

I wasn't saying that there aren't injuries or defects; I do assert that many things that are absolutely normal for some, given that those things existed naturally at birth, are wrongly considered defects by many who have a narrow view of so-called "normal". Some of us need extra considerations with learning; many are not athletes. Simply because we require special considerations due to individual weaknesses doesn't make those weaknesses "defects". They are only considered defects by the prideful, narrow-minded among us. That consideration is societal. People used to (and some still do) consider being Black a defect. They did so because they wished to consider themselves somehow superior. That is the essence of the sin of pride. Humility is realizing that none of us is perfect, whether it's physically, mentally, emotionally, or with regard to sin. We all have our own weaknesses; yet those weaknesses are not defects. We can't accurately designate particular weaknesses or differences as defects. To do so is nothing but an arbitrary judgement based on our own experience. Society could just as easily judge your arrogance a defect. Yet they might have a better argument considering that you weren't born arrogant; you developed it later, and it isn't a natural stage of life. Arrogance might actually be damage done to the natural state to which one is born. Also, if you were born with a complete cerebrum, and then when that cerebrum became damaged through accident or disease, then it might be considered a defect. But when someone's natural-born state is that their cerebrum differs in shape, size, and/or function that is not a defect; it is their norm. We are not all identical and can not be judged by our differences as defective.

 

[rexlunae]

Everyone but you realizes that the "gender their bodies manifest" results in "Possessing a particular set of sex organs".

If the problem is a disconnect between what gender a person is and what the person believes that their gender should be, then the problem is the delusion the person is having about his/her gender.

The best thing for the person is to try to rid the person of the delusion they have.

Why limit their options when SRS and HRT are well established and effective? There's no known procedure for eliminating gender dysphoria otherwise.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Why limit their options when SRS and HRT are well established and effective?

Body mutilation is not effective, it is insane.