giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,157
|
Post by giramomma on Jun 3, 2015 6:34:38 GMT -5
For me, it wasn't the demise of family values specifically but the idea of what it is to be a man/woman and how we reproduce. I feel as though we are trying to biologically change the human race through science, technology, and medicine.
Does this mean you don't advocate for ART, either? Because trust me there's nothing natural about it. And as much as I complain about the peanut putting us in the poorhouse, OMG, I cannot imagine my life without her. It is SO trite to say, but she really does complete our family and delight us in ways I never thought imaginable. I'm thankful we had that option. International adoption is pretty steep these days. We have a lesbian couple across the street from us. I'm glad they have options. I also think, though, that we've evolved such that the instinct for sex is completely separate from the instinct to procreate. I don't think we can go back and unring that bell. And I do think you'd have to go back hundreds of years to do so.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Jun 3, 2015 6:42:54 GMT -5
I was wondering that also, has it been answered yet? I don't think so. I am guessing the demise of family values? For me, it wasn't the demise of family values specifically but the idea of what it is to be a man/woman and how we reproduce. I feel as though we are trying to biologically change the human race through science, technology, and medicine. Most of these advancements are great as they allow people to live longer (although I'm on the fence about trying to keep people alive who essentially have to live in a bubble), but I feel like we are trying to circumvent instinct and human nature. Actively suppressing any expression of gender to me is unnatural as they play essential roles in human survival. I'm not saying that the roles can't change around a bit, but they don't have to be so drastic. We've been around for 10,000+ years so I think humans have been doing it right for a while. Yes there is still famine and disease in a lot of places, and no we can't fix it all (and I'm not 100% sure we should from a biological perspective). But we're still here. So why are we trying to fix what isn't really broken? I hope I make sense. It's 7:10am and I'm typing on my phone. Well if you are trans because there was some sort of hormonal mix-up in the womb, and you feel comfortable being a man but dressing like a woman, I'm not sure how that's suppressing gender. However, I get what you're saying. I have an acquaintance who is on that gender neutrality train with her kids and I just don't get it. It seems like so much effort to try and force your son to play with a doll if he doesn't want to just so you can prove your point about how open minded you are. Yes, my DD plays with cars, a lot, it's because she has an older brother, it isn't because she's some sort of gender neutral superstar.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,593
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 3, 2015 7:27:08 GMT -5
Virgil I understand how hard it is to understand the mindset of someone like Jenner.
A while back I read "Middlesex" by Jeffrey Eugenides, and it was eye opening. I always thought of male and female as two opposites, when actually, there is a scale between very masculine and ultra feminine, and all of us are somewhere along that scale. A surprising number of people are born with parts of both sexes; traditionally, the surgery was easier to change the anatomical features to make a boy baby into a female baby, but that didn't change the interior structures or hormonal balance. Hence, someone (like the person in this book) might be raised as a girl, but might feel, their whole life, that a mistake had been made.
As someone who is hetero as hell, unmistakably female and who has never questioned either my sexual orientation or the fact that I was meant to be a girl, it's hard to put myself in the place of people who aren't certain like me. However, seeing what these people go through to try to correct what they feel is a mistake of nature, knowing the costs involved, both physically and economically, knowing that a big chunk of society will condemn and even belittle them, I figure this must be an overpowering feeling for them. If this is what it takes to make them comfortable in their skin, and they end up being a happy and productive human being, then I'm glad for them. I think the sin would be if these people despaired and killed themselves - rearranging their features and wearing different clothes, IMHO, isn't that important, in the grand scheme.
|
|
cael
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 9:12:36 GMT -5
Posts: 5,745
|
Post by cael on Jun 3, 2015 7:27:16 GMT -5
I guess I feel society and humanity is constantly evolving in so many different ways that something like this is not likely to actually change the course of human evolution... I doubt it will take place in numbers large enough to do so. We haven't seen the course of human evolution changed by gay/lesbian people, have we? You'd need some relatively large percentage of the population to decide they were transgender to make any real impact. 7 billion (plus) is a shitload of people and you can bet your ass not a significant enough number of them are trans so as to really affect anything (IMO). For example, cloning tech and the ethical implications of that would worry me more from an all-of-humanity POV than transgender people would. I guess I can't really equate individuals and their preference for their own bodies to something with such larger-scale implications like cloning or insane medical advances that let us live as a brain in a jar or something. (which I agree, that shit is cray.)
(I haven't looked up data to back this up, this is just my opinion at first blush)
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jun 3, 2015 7:30:27 GMT -5
For me, it wasn't the demise of family values specifically but the idea of what it is to be a man/woman and how we reproduce. I feel as though we are trying to biologically change the human race through science, technology, and medicine.
Does this mean you don't advocate for ART, either? Because trust me there's nothing natural about it. And as much as I complain about the peanut putting us in the poorhouse, OMG, I cannot imagine my life without her. It is SO trite to say, but she really does complete our family and delight us in ways I never thought imaginable. I'm thankful we had that option. International adoption is pretty steep these days. We have a lesbian couple across the street from us. I'm glad they have options. I also think, though, that we've evolved such that the instinct for sex is completely separate from the instinct to procreate. I don't think we can go back and unring that bell. And I do think you'd have to go back hundreds of years to do so. Art's been around since prehistoric man as well. I thought it was used in storytelling/description of something...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 15:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2015 7:33:12 GMT -5
Since civilizations have been leaving oral and written histories there have been gay, lesbian and transgendered people... They might have used different terms, think two spirit people of the Native American tribes, etc. But they have been there, and less outcasts of their society than we try/have tried to make them.
As for gender roles, no two societies have ever conceptualize them exactly the same, nor have they remained consistent.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Jun 3, 2015 7:34:57 GMT -5
Virgil I understand how hard it is to understand the mindset of someone like Jenner. A while back I read "Middlesex" by Jeffrey Eugenides, and it was eye opening. I always thought of male and female as two opposites, when actually, there is a scale between very masculine and ultra feminine, and all of us are somewhere along that scale. A surprising number of people are born with parts of both sexes; traditionally, the surgery was easier to change the anatomical features to make a boy baby into a female baby, but that didn't change the interior structures or hormonal balance. Hence, someone (like the person in this book) might be raised as a girl, but might feel, their whole life, that a mistake had been made. As someone who is hetero as hell, unmistakably female and who has never questioned either my sexual orientation or the fact that I was meant to be a girl, it's hard to put myself in the place of people who aren't certain like me. However, seeing what these people go through to try to correct what they feel is a mistake of nature, knowing the costs involved, both physically and economically, knowing that a big chunk of society will condemn and even belittle them, I figure this must be an overpowering feeling for them. If this is what it takes to make them comfortable in their skin, and they end up being a happy and productive human being, then I'm glad for them. I think the sin would be if these people despaired and killed themselves - rearranging their features and wearing different clothes, IMHO, isn't that important, in the grand scheme. That was a good book
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Jun 3, 2015 7:35:30 GMT -5
I can't bold on my tablet, but Jesus did go out of his way to hang with the perceived sinners. The woman at the well, Zacchius, he even sought out Matthew the tax collector to be his disciple. To say he wasn't hanging in the red light district is ludicrous, he spent time in Samaria which was considered the same thing. Yes he was saying change. He was all about change. He came to change the world. For it to stay the same would mean his life and ministry was completely in vain. For someone to accept Jesus as their personal savior and not have their life changed, means they didn't really give him control of their life. He is the great changer. But don't think for a second that didn't start with love for the person. And if we don't start with love for the person, then you never get the opportunity to let Jesus make the change in them. End of theological rant. I'm not going to rebut your individual contentions. There's a whole thread in there. I absolutely agree with you that Christ had a great love for sinners. It's important that Christians examine how he manifested that love. What he did and didn't tolerate. What his focus was. The prevailing attitude today is "oh, well, he just loved and tolerated everything". Well bull honky on that. I realize that people on my side of the argument have to be careful about judging too harshly, being unforgiving, hating, self-righteousness, and substituting our own laws for the laws of God, and it's not lost on me that Christ said it would be more tolerable in the Day of Judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah than for the zealots in Capernaum. But the Bible is absolutely uncompromising in its statement that love does not compromise and tolerate acts that scripture condemns. As I say, I don't go around condemning transgendered people or trying to upset them by using gender pronouns they don't like, but if the topic comes up for discussion, to heck with hedging my words. I don't know if there's anyone left reading this message board even slightly receptive to my arguments, but there were at least a few I was able to connect with in days gone by. But why is their "sin" more worthy of rebuke than yours? Jesus also said not to be so concerned with the speck in your neighbors eye that you miss the plank in yours. While I was engaged, my husband and I were in a bible study about the book of Matthew. When the leader of the study got to the point on premarital sex, he went on and on about. When he got to the part about divorce he said "I don't believe in this section, so we are going to skip it". Likewise I see a lot of harping on homosexuality and transgender, but ignoring those other sins that apply to us. God doesn't rank sin. Sin is sin no matter if applies to you or not. I believe that you should show people Jesus, but let him convict them if their ways need to be changed. Don't decide for them. After thatbible study, DH and I went around saying "plank" to each other a lot.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jun 3, 2015 7:42:42 GMT -5
I guess I feel society and humanity is constantly evolving in so many different ways that something like this is not likely to actually change the course of human evolution... I doubt it will take place in numbers large enough to do so. We haven't seen the course of human evolution changed by gay/lesbian people, have we? You'd need some relatively large percentage of the population to decide they were transgender to make any real impact. 7 billion (plus) is a shitload of people and you can bet your ass not a significant enough number of them are trans so as to really affect anything (IMO). For example, cloning tech and the ethical implications of that would worry me more from an all-of-humanity POV than transgender people would. I guess I can't really equate individuals and their preference for their own bodies to something with such larger-scale implications like cloning or insane medical advances that let us live as a brain in a jar or something. (which I agree, that shit is cray.) (I haven't looked up data to back this up, this is just my opinion at first blush) I'm more or less saying that this is one of the ways in which we are making changes to the human race. To me it's just one more drop in the proverbial bucket, but there are already a lot of drops in there. We already do stuff that I'm against from an evolutionary perspective (like using medicine to help women past a certain age having kids for the first time, how we accommodate people with life threatening allergies to common allergens, how people can sit on their asses and eat crap but can take pills to lower blood pressure and regulate blood sugar, etc.). I don't know.... I feel like we are getting weaker as a species, and if some huge catastrophe happens and people will have to survive similar to how we were as cavemen, most of us wouldn't make it.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jun 3, 2015 7:44:51 GMT -5
Since civilizations have been leaving oral and written histories there have been gay, lesbian and transgendered people... They might have used different terms, think two spirit people of the Native American tribes, etc. But they have been there, and less outcasts of their society than we try/have tried to make them. As for gender roles, no two societies have ever conceptualize them exactly the same, nor have they remained consistent. Not exactly the same but most are very similar.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jun 3, 2015 7:56:40 GMT -5
Does this mean you don't advocate for ART, either? Because trust me there's nothing natural about it. And as much as I complain about the peanut putting us in the poorhouse, OMG, I cannot imagine my life without her. It is SO trite to say, but she really does complete our family and delight us in ways I never thought imaginable. I'm thankful we had that option. International adoption is pretty steep these days. We have a lesbian couple across the street from us. I'm glad they have options. I also think, though, that we've evolved such that the instinct for sex is completely separate from the instinct to procreate. I don't think we can go back and unring that bell. And I do think you'd have to go back hundreds of years to do so. Art's been around since prehistoric man as well. I thought it was used in storytelling/description of something... ART - Assisted reproductive technology
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 3, 2015 7:58:45 GMT -5
Does this mean you don't advocate for ART, either? Because trust me there's nothing natural about it. And as much as I complain about the peanut putting us in the poorhouse, OMG, I cannot imagine my life without her. It is SO trite to say, but she really does complete our family and delight us in ways I never thought imaginable. I'm thankful we had that option. International adoption is pretty steep these days. We have a lesbian couple across the street from us. I'm glad they have options. I also think, though, that we've evolved such that the instinct for sex is completely separate from the instinct to procreate. I don't think we can go back and unring that bell. And I do think you'd have to go back hundreds of years to do so. Art's been around since prehistoric man as well. I thought it was used in storytelling/description of something... She's talking about fertility treatments...I think it's an acronym for assisted reproductive technology. So IUI IVF and those things. Probably genetic screening too. Ahhhh! Mid beat me while I was typing.
|
|
cael
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 9:12:36 GMT -5
Posts: 5,745
|
Post by cael on Jun 3, 2015 8:33:25 GMT -5
I guess I feel society and humanity is constantly evolving in so many different ways that something like this is not likely to actually change the course of human evolution... I doubt it will take place in numbers large enough to do so. We haven't seen the course of human evolution changed by gay/lesbian people, have we? You'd need some relatively large percentage of the population to decide they were transgender to make any real impact. 7 billion (plus) is a shitload of people and you can bet your ass not a significant enough number of them are trans so as to really affect anything (IMO). For example, cloning tech and the ethical implications of that would worry me more from an all-of-humanity POV than transgender people would. I guess I can't really equate individuals and their preference for their own bodies to something with such larger-scale implications like cloning or insane medical advances that let us live as a brain in a jar or something. (which I agree, that shit is cray.) (I haven't looked up data to back this up, this is just my opinion at first blush) I'm more or less saying that this is one of the ways in which we are making changes to the human race. To me it's just one more drop in the proverbial bucket, but there are already a lot of drops in there. We already do stuff that I'm against from an evolutionary perspective (like using medicine to help women past a certain age having kids for the first time, how we accommodate people with life threatening allergies to common allergens, how people can sit on their asses and eat crap but can take pills to lower blood pressure and regulate blood sugar, etc.). I don't know.... I feel like we are getting weaker as a species, and if some huge catastrophe happens and people will have to survive similar to how we were as cavemen, most of us wouldn't make it. Yeah, I see what you're saying. I guess in my head I wouldn't lump transgender people in with that kind of issue. I'm not sure they contribute to weakening the species. Changing our perception of our species sure, but I don't feel there are enough transgender people to affect our population.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,776
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 3, 2015 8:40:46 GMT -5
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 3, 2015 8:48:27 GMT -5
Art's been around since prehistoric man as well. I thought it was used in storytelling/description of something... ART - Assisted reproductive technology Oh, thank you. I had no clue what this stood for and kept reading posts hoping I'd figure it out.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Jun 3, 2015 8:48:50 GMT -5
Since civilizations have been leaving oral and written histories there have been gay, lesbian and transgendered people... They might have used different terms, think two spirit people of the Native American tribes, etc. But they have been there, and less outcasts of their society than we try/have tried to make them. As for gender roles, no two societies have ever conceptualize them exactly the same, nor have they remained consistent. The Greeks had people who were gay and transgendered. As did the Romans. From my point of view (as an agnostic) it wasn't until the abrahamic religions (and I'm sure others) started determining what was acceptable in society and wasn't acceptable that these things became wrong.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jun 3, 2015 8:56:25 GMT -5
Art's been around since prehistoric man as well. I thought it was used in storytelling/description of something... ART - Assisted reproductive technology LMAO, I really thought we were talking about painting and sculpting!
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jun 3, 2015 9:03:27 GMT -5
I'm more or less saying that this is one of the ways in which we are making changes to the human race. To me it's just one more drop in the proverbial bucket, but there are already a lot of drops in there. We already do stuff that I'm against from an evolutionary perspective (like using medicine to help women past a certain age having kids for the first time, how we accommodate people with life threatening allergies to common allergens, how people can sit on their asses and eat crap but can take pills to lower blood pressure and regulate blood sugar, etc.). I don't know.... I feel like we are getting weaker as a species, and if some huge catastrophe happens and people will have to survive similar to how we were as cavemen, most of us wouldn't make it. Yeah, I see what you're saying. I guess in my head I wouldn't lump transgender people in with that kind of issue. I'm not sure they contribute to weakening the species. Changing our perception of our species sure, but I don't feel there are enough transgender people to affect our population. no, it's not that trans people are contributing to the weakening of the species. It's that it's one more thing that will change what we do in terms of procreation. Trans people can't have kids naturally, so if they wanted a biological child they would have to rely on a surrogate, or maybe a test tube type incubation thing. I just see a lot of roads leading to more and more kids being created through artificial means and that doesn't sit comfortable with me. I know it's not something really significant right now, but I can already see the writing on the wall. I guess you could say that being able to raise a test tube baby could allow you to select for preferable features, which one could use to eradicate certain illnesses, I just don't think that process is right. I hope I don't sound as crazy as I think I do.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Jun 3, 2015 9:05:59 GMT -5
I was wondering that also, has it been answered yet? I don't think so. I am guessing the demise of family values? For me, it wasn't the demise of family values specifically but the idea of what it is to be a man/woman and how we reproduce. I feel as though we are trying to biologically change the human race through science, technology, and medicine. Most of these advancements are great as they allow people to live longer (although I'm on the fence about trying to keep people alive who essentially have to live in a bubble), but I feel like we are trying to circumvent instinct and human nature. Actively suppressing any expression of gender to me is unnatural as they play essential roles in human survival. I'm not saying that the roles can't change around a bit, but they don't have to be so drastic. We've been around for 10,000+ years so I think humans have been doing it right for a while. Yes there is still famine and disease in a lot of places, and no we can't fix it all (and I'm not 100% sure we should from a biological perspective). But we're still here. So why are we trying to fix what isn't really broken? I hope I make sense. It's 7:10am and I'm typing on my phone. I get what you are saying on a macro level. Taken individually, though, it's difficult to agree with you. Should we not have antibiotics? Should we nix vaccinations? My appendix was taken out when I was 11 - should I have been allowed to die to "strengthen the human race?" Medical care is a wonderful thing. Personally, I consider trans just a simple birth defect. Somewhere in the gestational timeline there was a goof in fetal development. 100 years ago there weren't any medical interventions for this. Now there are. So if you are trans and have the option of taking hormones to repair your birth defect, wouldn't you want to? Everyone is making this into a huge evolutionary/societal issue but it is really simple. Someone has a medical problem and they want help. It really isn't that big of a deal.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jun 3, 2015 9:08:55 GMT -5
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,776
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 3, 2015 9:09:05 GMT -5
Wait - educate me. I thought they were transgendered if they had medical procedures or not. In which case - they can reproduce as normal, but only by acting as the gender that matches their organs. Bruce fathered 6 kids naturally. Caitlyn will never have a baby.
Is that right, or are they something else until they go through hormones and what-not and then they are trans?
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Jun 3, 2015 9:13:14 GMT -5
Yeah, I see what you're saying. I guess in my head I wouldn't lump transgender people in with that kind of issue. I'm not sure they contribute to weakening the species. Changing our perception of our species sure, but I don't feel there are enough transgender people to affect our population. no, it's not that trans people are contributing to the weakening of the species. It's that it's one more thing that will change what we do in terms of procreation. Trans people can't have kids naturally, so if they wanted a biological child they would have to rely on a surrogate, or maybe a test tube type incubation thing. I just see a lot of roads leading to more and more kids being created through artificial means and that doesn't sit comfortable with me. I know it's not something really significant right now, but I can already see the writing on the wall. I guess you could say that being able to raise a test tube baby could allow you to select for preferable features, which one could use to eradicate certain illnesses, I just don't think that process is right. I hope I don't sound as crazy as I think I do. Or they could adopt an orphan. ART is a COMPLETELY separate issue from this thread. I'd guess many more test tube babies happen because women are waiting until their 30s to have children (vs 18). Also, I'd bet that infertility is a sign of our polluted environment. Regardless...has nothing to do with trans. I agree with you that as medical science gets more sophisticated we start to edge towards medical ethics questions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 15:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2015 9:14:46 GMT -5
Yeah, I see what you're saying. I guess in my head I wouldn't lump transgender people in with that kind of issue. I'm not sure they contribute to weakening the species. Changing our perception of our species sure, but I don't feel there are enough transgender people to affect our population. no, it's not that trans people are contributing to the weakening of the species. It's that it's one more thing that will change what we do in terms of procreation. Trans people can't have kids naturally, so if they wanted a biological child they would have to rely on a surrogate, or maybe a test tube type incubation thing. I just see a lot of roads leading to more and more kids being created through artificial means and that doesn't sit comfortable with me. I know it's not something really significant right now, but I can already see the writing on the wall. I guess you could say that being able to raise a test tube baby could allow you to select for preferable features, which one could use to eradicate certain illnesses, I just don't think that process is right. I hope I don't sound as crazy as I think I do. So you are against ART. For all people I'm assuming....
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,776
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 3, 2015 9:17:00 GMT -5
I couldn't get all the way through that. I can't help to think about a teacher I had - the first paper I did was well thought out, painfully researched, probably the best paper I ever wrote. I had multiple people proof read it. I had never put more time or effort into a paper - but I took a conservative viewpoint. I got a B-, and a lecture about what I terrible person I was. The next assignment, I threw together shit with absolutely no research and no original or even cognizant thought process. There were typos, and the whole thing was a mess. I got an A. That shaped not only the rest of my college career, but how I view professors. He is afraid of liberal students, but his example was of his conservative student. I didn't see another real example in there. Poor him. His job is hard. Welcome to the world.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jun 3, 2015 9:17:03 GMT -5
Caitlin's probably would have turned out better
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jun 3, 2015 9:17:55 GMT -5
no, it's not that trans people are contributing to the weakening of the species. It's that it's one more thing that will change what we do in terms of procreation. Trans people can't have kids naturally, so if they wanted a biological child they would have to rely on a surrogate, or maybe a test tube type incubation thing. I just see a lot of roads leading to more and more kids being created through artificial means and that doesn't sit comfortable with me. I know it's not something really significant right now, but I can already see the writing on the wall. I guess you could say that being able to raise a test tube baby could allow you to select for preferable features, which one could use to eradicate certain illnesses, I just don't think that process is right. I hope I don't sound as crazy as I think I do. Or they could adopt an orphan. ART is a COMPLETELY separate issue from this thread. I'd guess many more test tube babies happen because women are waiting until their 30s to have children (vs 18). Also, I'd bet that infertility is a sign of our polluted environment. Regardless...has nothing to do with trans. I agree with you that as medical science gets more sophisticated we start to edge towards medical ethics questions. It's not just the women. When DH was getting checked out (for the record, even though we're old, we never used any ART ), his urologist told him that men have a lot less swimmers than they had 100 years ago. Sounds environmental to me, or maybe due to crappy diet.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jun 3, 2015 9:18:18 GMT -5
no, it's not that trans people are contributing to the weakening of the species. It's that it's one more thing that will change what we do in terms of procreation. Trans people can't have kids naturally, so if they wanted a biological child they would have to rely on a surrogate, or maybe a test tube type incubation thing. I just see a lot of roads leading to more and more kids being created through artificial means and that doesn't sit comfortable with me. I know it's not something really significant right now, but I can already see the writing on the wall. I guess you could say that being able to raise a test tube baby could allow you to select for preferable features, which one could use to eradicate certain illnesses, I just don't think that process is right. I hope I don't sound as crazy as I think I do. Or they could adopt an orphan. ART is a COMPLETELY separate issue from this thread. I'd guess many more test tube babies happen because women are waiting until their 30s to have children (vs 18). Also, I'd bet that infertility is a sign of our polluted environment. Regardless...has nothing to do with trans. I agree with you that as medical science gets more sophisticated we start to edge towards medical ethics questions.re: the first bolded part - I was talking about if they wanted a biological child. Of course they are free to adopt. re: the second bolded part - that is my overall issue. I feel that this is one more ethically questionable procedure because it will interfere with that person's ability to reproduce.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Jun 3, 2015 9:20:16 GMT -5
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jun 3, 2015 9:20:24 GMT -5
I couldn't get all the way through that. I can't help to think about a teacher I had - the first paper I did was well thought out, painfully researched, probably the best paper I ever wrote. I had multiple people proof read it. I had never put more time or effort into a paper - but I took a conservative viewpoint. I got a B-, and a lecture about what I terrible person I was. The next assignment, I threw together shit with absolutely no research and no original or even cognizant thought process. There were typos, and the whole thing was a mess. I got an A. That shaped not only the rest of my college career, but how I view professors. He is afraid of liberal students, but his example was of his conservative student. I didn't see another real example in there. Poor him. His job is hard. Welcome to the world. Sorry you had that experience. I was thinking that the times I learned the most were the times I was most challenged. If he's scared to challenge anyone, I'm afraid his students are not learning much that they didn't already know.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,776
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 3, 2015 9:21:29 GMT -5
his urologist told him that men have a lot less swimmers than they had 100 years ago. Sounds environmental to me, or maybe due to crappy diet. Is that documented? Is it based on the thing from the 1960's?
|
|