Genital mutilation.... (1 Viewer)

[Uncle Gizmo]

I just watched the attached YouTube clip with Jordan Peterson talking about the recent trend for converting males to female and females to male.

His words struck me. I recalled that 10 or 20 years ago there was a big hoo-ha about some cultures committing genital mutilation, a seriously bad practice that should be stamped out...

Isn't that what the LGBT types are proposing, Genital Mutilation?

Jordan Peterson blasts a "tolerant" host #shorts

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kqBAfRjiro&t=1100s&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson

youtube.com

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Uncle G, there are two parts to this question. Up front, let's be clear: I agree that doing it to kids is wrong. If they have that surgery, they are being forever physically changed. If later they realize it was a mistake, they cannot ever go back to exactly what they were. As Peterson mentioned, it is being done to 13-year-olds. With all of the other physiological changes that occur starting around that age, that kind of decision cannot possibly be made by those kids who at that age cannot possibly know with certainty that it is right for them. In fact, it has been shown that the human brain undergoes two significant changes. At (about) age 6, children gain the ability to learn by rote. At (about) age 13-15 they start gaining the ability to reason like an adult. Has to do with deferred development as the skull expands to make room for the structures required. That latter development ends in the 18-21 age range. The kids having the earlier surgery usually cannot have the adult viewpoint needed to avoid impetuous decisions.

The second part of the question has to do with a hard fact: The human brain has a physically testable gender based on brain structures that differ between men and women. When a gay person says "I feel I've been born in the wrong body" it might actually be true. It is possible to have a "brain" gender that differs from the apparent "genitalia" gender. This was shown over 30 years ago in the UK in a series of studies using Positron Emission Tomography (PET scans) to map living brains. (Web research: "homosexual + brain scan" to find many articles. May have to dig for the older ones in the 1990s.) If an adult makes the determination, with or without medical help, and is properly counseled on the one-way nature of that street - but still wants to go there - then at that point I think it is no longer classified as genital mutilation but rather genital reconstruction after a birth defect. Look at Olympian Bruce/Caitlin Jenner. Look at musician Walter/Wendy Carlos. There are many other examples.

Male and Female Genital Mutilation are different. Male circumcision has been around for millennia in the name of health. With modern knowledge of hygiene we know that the health issues of uncircumcised males can be avoided with improved cleanliness and, at worst, some antiseptic ointments. In some African tribes, female "circumcision" has been practiced as well. Frequently, FGM is done to make the woman less sensitive in the name of making her less promiscuous. I could go into greater detail but some might object to explicit discussions of human anatomy.

 

[Isaac]

@Uncle Gizmo it's so crazy right now. Our 3 major Medical Organizations, the types of organizations that certify doctors to specialize and be on Boards, etc., is now sending letters to the Dept of Justice of USA, asking them to prosecute people on social media who spread information that exposes their sick practices - even though in many cases, those people are literally quoting the medical organizations themselves.

Christians are often ridiculed for predicting persecution, but then it happens - and then it's neither false nor funny. We're getting to the point in this country where if you believe something that contradicts the current sickness of society, you may be prosecuted for it. Already happened in Canada, thank God we are not to that point yet.

At the end of the day it's pretty simple: Vote Republican to keep the crazy at-bay. That's the simplest action anyone can take to protect their freedoms.

And yes, there may be such a thing as feeling you are born in the wrong body. Problem is, that can be applied to ANY persistent impulse that ANYONE feels about doing ANYTHING that may or may not change the fact that doing so is inappropriate. Every serial killer, pedophile, rapist, anger management patient, wife abuser, or even addict or alcoholic - even in recovery - knows that doing the things they are or were doing comes perfectly naturally to them, much more naturally than the things they ought to naturally have been doing.
The illnesses and promiscuity that homosexually active lifestyles lead to is obvious and incontrovertible. As is evidenced (in small part) by every gay pride event that features a bunch of people naked going around wiggling parts of their bodies in public, dealing with a myriad of health effects and obviously not producing human offspring. Society and medicine tries really, really, really hard to "keep up" with these ill effects by a mixture of medical/technological miracles + simply claiming things are OK that clearly aren't, but it's hard pressed to keep up with the ever-increasing list of ills.

There is an "I feel like" category and an "I ought to/no" category - and growing up requires we recognize in ourselves that the two don't sometimes meet.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Problem is, that can be applied to ANY persistent impulse that ANYONE feels about doing ANYTHING that may or may not change the fact that doing so is inappropriate. Every serial killer, pedophile, rapist, anger management patient, wife abuser, or even addict or alcoholic - even in recovery - knows that doing the things they are or were doing comes perfectly naturally to them, much more naturally than the things they ought to naturally have been doing.

The distinction, Isaac, is that for the specific case of a person who believes their current physical genital configuration is incorrect, that a PET scan often CAN confirm that there is a physical mismatch between brain structures and primary/secondary sexual characteristics. The serial killer may indeed have a brain lesion that triggers bad behavior. The pedophile or abuser may indeed have a problem with impulse control. But we have not identified the trigger areas so well.

For a homosexual, it is possible (and in fact more likely than not) that their attraction to an apparently incorrect gender of partner is due to a tangible physiological cause. A cause that CANNOT have occurred because of making a bad choice. Brain structures are settled (if not complete) by the end of the sixth month of gestation. NO amount of thinking you are gay will cause the brain to develop in a way to lead to sexual dysphoria. Just like no amount of thinking or cognitive therapy will "cure" you of being a homosexual, which is something that some terribly misguided theologians tried to push some years ago. Fortunately, the American Psychiatric Association has formally declared that Gay Conversion Therapy does not work and could never work.

The illnesses and promiscuity that homosexually active lifestyles lead to is obvious and incontrovertible.

But the illnesses and promiscuity (and unwanted pregnancies) brought about by heterosexually overactive lifestyles is ALSO obvious and incontrovertible. Have you NEVER run across the libidinous lothario who loves 'em and leaves 'em, to the point that the young victims to those charms suddenly have to consider abortion as an option? Or the promiscuous Pete who spreads disease everywhere he comes and goes? Or goes and comes, if you prefer.

This is a sore spot for me. Maybe I've just been lucky to meet so many people, but I have become friends with many homosexuals when I was a Bourbon Street musician back in my college days. I met a lot of gays in college, too, including some tournament-level bridge players. And I have a gay person in my family. EVERY ONE of the gay folks I have talked to always agreed. They never felt there was a choice involved and they didn't "covert" to homosexuality. Most of them knew they were "different" before they turned 18. Many were brought up in a religiously strict household but that didn't matter. The heart wants what it wants.

The attitude that ignores - or even condones - the bragging office lothario but demeans and degrades the unashamed gay who ALSO just wants a little bit of human companionship? That tells me that you don't want to consider that maybe there is a REASON why gays want better treatment, or maybe at least equal treatment. And sometimes that equal treatment isn't to demean the gays but to shame the office lothario for unwise sexual activity. Sometimes that treatment is to treat the lothario as 50% monetarily liable for every baby he fathers. If you are going to condemn those who enjoy sex then you need to rip that passage out of the Bible that tells everyone to go forth and multiply.

 

[Isaac]

But we have not identified the trigger areas so well.

I would agree and say that's about the only difference ultimately, just about everything we think or want or feel or desire etc etc all eventually will be completely visible and traceable to biology. I'm not denying that, that doesn't make it okay.

The brain truly is a biological organ. Everything we do or want or wish for in any moment is in a sense completely organic.

The questionable part becomes when society slowly decides one by one to make certain things okay and come up with a lot of the organic mapping to make it appear justifiable, but leaves other things alone even though they are just as easily mapped to the organic biology of it all

 

[Isaac]

If you are going to condemn those who enjoy sex t

I have no idea how anything I said could possibly have been interpreted that way, nor why it is necessary to pretend as if I did in order to be persuasive

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Statements like this indicate your position:

The illnesses and promiscuity that homosexually active lifestyles lead to is obvious and incontrovertible. As is evidenced (in small part) by every gay pride event that features a bunch of people naked going around wiggling parts of their bodies in public, dealing with a myriad of health effects and obviously not producing human offspring.

The questionable part becomes when society slowly decides one by one to make certain things okay and come up with a lot of the organic mapping to make it appear justifiable, but leaves other things alone even though they are just as easily mapped to the organic biology of it all

As it happens, my wife and I haven't produced any offspring either. I'm a step-dad but not a dad. People who dance modern dances might or might not be naked but they go around wiggling body parts and modern fashions can be pretty skimpy sometimes. Some non-gay events occur in New Orleans that involve parades, marching bands, and a bunch of people acting out as part of a group. We have Irish-American parades, Italian-American parades, "Mardi-Gras Indians" parades (you have to actually live here to understand that one), the Blessing of the Fleet (with people getting rowdy on fishing and shrimping boats), ... In New Orleans proper, we have not less than 50 parades per year that count as festivals, sometimes as many as 5 in one day in different locales. The Gay Pride parades are a bunch of people who want to be able to party with their friends and have a good time raising a little ruckus without being violent. They generally don't riot, smash windshields, or set fires. They MAY get a little tipsy but usually their friends make sure they get home safely.

It is not always what you say but the nuances of how you say it that reveal your distaste. I simply take a Zen approach. If they ain't attacking me or tossing bottles around to be broken, I count it as a parade to celebrate something even if I happen to not recognize the event.

As to mapping... as we learn more, we might be able to better understand and control such things as sociopaths, child molesters, rapists, etc. But that mapping takes time. We HAVE sufficient knowledge to know that gays ARE born that way. {echoes of Lady Gaga in the distance...} And for those whose reasons are known, perhaps it is time to be more forgiving of them.

I get triggered a bit because I've seen my friends lose jobs and have painful lives because of the hatred that abounds for people who, if you get to know them, are among the least offensive persons most of the time - and the most oppressed.

 

[Isaac]

Statements like this indicate your position:





As it happens, my wife and I haven't produced any offspring either. I'm a step-dad but not a dad. People who dance modern dances might or might not be naked but they go around wiggling body parts and modern fashions can be pretty skimpy sometimes. Some non-gay events occur in New Orleans that involve parades, marching bands, and a bunch of people acting out as part of a group. We have Irish-American parades, Italian-American parades, "Mardi-Gras Indians" parades (you have to actually live here to understand that one), the Blessing of the Fleet (with people getting rowdy on fishing and shrimping boats), ... In New Orleans proper, we have not less than 50 parades per year that count as festivals, sometimes as many as 5 in one day in different locales. The Gay Pride parades are a bunch of people who want to be able to party with their friends and have a good time raising a little ruckus without being violent. They generally don't riot, smash windshields, or set fires. They MAY get a little tipsy but usually their friends make sure they get home safely.

It is not always what you say but the nuances of how you say it that reveal your distaste. I simply take a Zen approach. If they ain't attacking me or tossing bottles around to be broken, I count it as a parade to celebrate something even if I happen to not recognize the event.

As to mapping... as we learn more, we might be able to better understand and control such things as sociopaths, child molesters, rapists, etc. But that mapping takes time. We HAVE sufficient knowledge to know that gays ARE born that way. {echoes of Lady Gaga in the distance...} And for those whose reasons are known, perhaps it is time to be more forgiving of them.

I get triggered a bit because I've seen my friends lose jobs and have painful lives because of the hatred that abounds for people who, if you get to know them, are among the least offensive persons most of the time - and the most oppressed.

I don't see how the text that you quoted leads to that at all. One thing causes promiscuity, promiscuity does not equal sex. Promiscuity is something totally different and at a totally different level. Nobody is saying that people cannot enjoy sex but enjoying sex is totally different than saying that people should be promiscuous. Homosexual events and parades tend to be extremely promiscuous and they stand out for that obviously as opposed to events from straight people. Meaning that one sexual orientation seems to wind up in a certain place and the other one doesn't. Both people are enjoying sex, there's no difference there and that's not the issue nor the point.
Have a look at certain web pages where people hook up and you will see quite a difference between the gay and the straight sections.

but frankly I'm pretty sure you already knew what I meant... I suspect this is like Colin just egging me on which I won't take the bait.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Rather than allow this to get nasty, I won't continue to bait you. I simply believe that your remarks reveal a certain bias and if you can't see it then I can't show it to you. This would quickly devolve to a Monty Python routine regarding the Argument Clinic.

 

[JonXL]

The brain truly is a biological organ. Everything we do or want or wish for in any moment is in a sense completely organic.

Then what role plays the soul?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

First you must prove that a soul exists. In most religions, it is an initial assumption. However, its non-material, non-measurable nature makes it impossible to prove by direct means. That leads to inferential proofs that, in the end analysis, wind up with tautological statements which are inherently suspect.

 

[JonXL]

First you must prove that a soul exists. In most religions, it is an initial assumption. However, its non-material, non-measurable nature makes it impossible to prove by direct means. That leads to inferential proofs that, in the end analysis, wind up with tautological statements which are inherently suspect.

I guess I was mostly going with the assumption, based on the posts of his I've read, that @Isaac believes in souls.

Maybe he doesn't, in which case, as you've noted, it's something of a non-point.

 

[Isaac]

Then what role plays the soul?

The soul plays a role .. it's not solely organic .. it just is organic in the sense that it's partially organic in every moment.

 

[Isaac]

The soul plays a role .. it's not solely organic .. it just is organic in the sense that it's partially organic in every moment.

I guess I was mostly going with the assumption, based on the posts of his I've read, that @Isaac believes in souls.

Maybe he doesn't, in which case, as you've noted, it's something of a non-point.

Trust me I believe in the soul, but my line of talking about organic is a way of pushing back against people who believe that oh because we found out that something is connected with actual brain chemistry and biology then that must make it totally fine and okay.
That is their most recent argument about this whole topic. Because we found it somewhere in the DNA that must make it fine.

I chuckle when I see society and medicine and science trying so hard to keep up with the things people feel like doing on impulse and then trying to justify it because of what they find.

I'm suggesting eventually we will be able to trace everything that every serial killer or Hitler does to something in their brain chemistry and that still won't make it okay.

Precisely because we do have a soul and God gave us a part of our brain that can reason and make judgments based on what is in our soul therefore we do not have to act on every single impulse that we have. Recently I had an impulse to have a small bowl of ice cream. I acted on it and I now regret it because I had two bowls yesterday. I'm pretty sure that you can find the impulse tied to something in my brain, but that doesn't mean that it was a good thing to do.

 

[JonXL]

Trust me I believe in the soul, but my line of talking about organic is a way of pushing back against people who believe that oh because we found out that something is connected with actual brain chemistry and biology then that must make it totally fine and okay.
That is their most recent argument about this whole topic. Because we found it somewhere in the DNA that must make it fine.

Is that really the argument? Or is the argument more "it really doesn't hurt anybody else so why care?"

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'm suggesting eventually we will be able to trace everything that every serial killer or Hitler does to something in their brain chemistry and that still won't make it okay.

I actually don't believe that we can come up with explanations for everything we do. The question hasn't been solved precisely because there are two factors that make it insoluble even without considering the existence of a soul. Rather than digress into that sinkhole, I'll try to focus. I'm briefly going to put on my "chemist" hat.

First, saying something is due to brain chemistry is a narrow viewpoint that excludes that we are creatures for whom chemical reactions can be marginally triggered. Chaos theory as applied to brains says that the margin for some brain events is sensitively dependent on initial conditions (SDIC). If this neuron fires but some other neuron doesn't, you have a pathway problem and the thought you were about to think doesn't happen, or at least doesn't happen in the same way. SDIC is the hallmark of chaotic behavior. This alone would be enough to make your actions incompletely predictable.

Will I scratch that itch or ignore it? Depends on what else I'm doing. Well, if I am exploring an old Egyptian tomb (think Raiders of the Lost Ark as an example) and the ground below me is writhing with snakes, I might not let go of the rope to scratch. But sitting here at my computer, I might just indulge in a good scratch. So it should be obvious that I am a proponent of EFFECTIVE free will whether or not it is all based on chemical pathways. Because if you cannot predict my actions even with perfect knowledge of my body chemistry, then IN EFFECT I have free will.

Second, focusing on the biochemistry of the nerves ignores something else entirely. Taking off "chemist" hat and putting on "system analyst" hat.

Factors have to be considered including some that are not directly sourced within the brain. Human behavior depends on factors learned at an early age. The nature/nurture question is relevant here. The brain is an impressive bit of "hardware" (OK, "mushware") but its operation is the sum of its natural "neural wiring" PLUS any knowledge inputs to date PLUS the ability to apply reason. I.e. we are programmed by our lifetime experiences.

If you look at Transactional Analysis you see that they theorize (and have good evidence for) a tripartite brain - which they enumerate as "Child self", "Parent self", and "Adult self." These three parts contribute to any decisions we make. The child self is the "wants/needs" and emotional contributor. The parent self is the "I was taught to do it this way" contributor. The adult self is the logical, analytical contributor. Our choices come from emotion, rote learning, and logic. Each will be at a different level within us for each situation we face.

Your actions will depend on the balance that each contributor offers whenever there is an action, decision, word, or deed to consider. Our intelligent behavior is a second-order phenomenon not fully described by the biochemistry of the brain. That is, the biochemistry of the brain depends on what has been learned because that knowledge has to reside in a physical place to be persistent. But if that learning has affected something in the biochemistry then at a fundamental level it has to alter the behavioral properties of the brain in ways that cannot be known. We don't understand the effect of information in the brain. However, if learning can affect our actions and our actions stem from biochemistry, then that learning must affect our biochemistry.

Therefore, I don't think it will be possible to fully identify and characterize either social OR anti-social behaviors by any amount of study of brain chemistry. Some things, we can learn. Some things, we can't. We CANNOT assess the effect of specific learning a priori. We MIGHT explain some behavior after-the-fact, but not beforehand.

How does the soul enter into this discussion? Who knows? Since I don't believe one exists, I think you can guess my answer. But playing Devil's Advocate, the soul could simply be something in the brain's BOOT ROM, a pre-loaded pile of information that is not learned but by definition must be innate. I.e. pre-stored knowledge that affects behavior and thought. If we take the genetic anthropologist viewpoint, it is something in our DNA that imparts that pre-loaded information.

Back to the question of the thread: We will never be fully able to predict human behavior, but to the extent that we can verify certain influences as part of a structural issue, we should at least recognize those issues and adapt accordingly.

 

[ColinEssex]

Doc - how many hats do you own?
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If we limit the question to hats... four. If we include caps, then over a dozen.

 

[Isaac]

Is that really the argument? Or is the argument more "it really doesn't hurt anybody else so why care?"

You have a good point, I think between the two arguments, it covers 99.9% of how "they" feel (gee it feels bad to say They about Doc, but you guys know I'm only talking in context, here, and with respect).

To the "it's not normal" crowd, they have preached the scientific basis. To the "it's wrong", they have preached the "it's not hurting anyone else, so why regulate or even eschew it in society". Their stronger argument varies depending on the audience.

And truly, those are compelling arguments to many people. 1) Science backs up that it is, at least part, biological, and 2) Who does it hurt.

Well I could preach a 50-page sermon book on who it hurts, but why go there, I've posted many times before and there are myriad of studies that easily show people, for anyone willing to see, just how traditional nuclear families are the way to go and make 99% of all good-life metrics, about 99% more likely. There are always exceptions, yes, certainly there are the happy, stable, well heeled, faithful gay couples, I'm not saying there aren't. But anyone who has been alive for more than 3 weeks knows full well what is the general 'sex and romance' scene between homo versus hetero sexual people. One is about 10x more wild and chaotic than the other, and I think we all know without me going into the various practical dangers of that.

No matter who may say what about me, and how imperfect and flawed I may be (and am, I'm sure) as a human being and a Christian, I still believe that God meant a man to be with a woman, for life, barring certain extreme cases where marriages must terminate.
I see society trying hard to prove that wrong, and failing miserably, by a million metrics both religious and secular but widely visible to all.

I am not unsympathetic at all to a man who wakes up and feels attracted to another man. As I have stated many times before, the mere feeling or desire is not "wrong" - it can't be, any more than it is wrong for me to be conscious of the fact that the pastor's wife is gorgeous (and in case you're wondering, she is). It's all about what happens from there, of course, is where the rubber meets the road. Those men should be welcome into churches and communities exactly identical to everyone else - including the people still struggling with Rage, Jealousy, Dishonesty, Adultery, Lust, general Meanness or any other wrong. However, that church or community should be under no "unwritten rule" that the gay man's struggle must be embraced as not-a-struggle, or right or good, any more than they should be expected to wear tshirts celebrating anger, jealously, dishonesty, abuse, lust, or any other wrong. There's a huge difference between accepting the person with love, versus celebrating their struggle with wrongs as if it were not wrongs. Despite it being long out of vogue, I'm still a fan of the saying "love the sinner, hate the sin". It's possible to do that correctly, although the vast majority of Christians have not done that correctly and thus deserve the frustration vented upon them by the secular world.

While society has done a VERY good job of convincing most that trying to become "un-gay" is a no-go, and proposes many studies to "prove" it, I lean on some of what Doc has posted to question that. What society tells you is normal, or abnormal, or possible, or impossible, will have MUCH to do with a self-fulfilling prophesy. I believe if you could create a magic "go back in time" situation to the 1950's, and you could interview 1000 people who got counseling from a trusted Christian friend about homosexual feelings, you might find that actually, quite a number of them successfully got out of it and were happily married. But of course, that's hard to find now, since 1) in many jurisdictions the mere counseling would be outlawed, and 2) few are those who would seek the counseling with an open heart and without the current baggage of being told all their life non-stop that there was no point in trying. Also, I'll admit it could be true that the majority of "un-gaying counseling" may have been done in the worst possible ways. There are different ways to do things, some hammer the person with a moral club and some may take a holistic and compassionate approach - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, despite what a tiny baby may have been in a large tub.

Trust me, if I was raised from the time of infancy to believe that every time I saw a gorgeous woman I simply must drool and sometimes pounce, I'm totally positive that I would believe there was no going back, and that any attempt I made to counsel myself out of that drive would result in complete and abject failure (enter the 'studies to prove' concept) - but would those studies be TRUE? Not really, they'd be based on everything I'd been told all my life. The position of your heart and what you believe is possible is everything.
Add to that the fact that nobody who has actually been through this will speak up if it goes positive, because that's too embarrassing for them at that point. The only people who will speak up for statistic-counting-purposes will be those who "I tried it and it was horrible, and eventually I accepted it and now I'm happier" - well of course you're going to get studies saying it's 0% possible. This all seems obvious in a way...

 

[Isaac]

If we limit the question to hats... four. If we include caps, then over a dozen.

I am an oddball in that topic. I probably only have 2 caps I wear regularly and actually look OK in, but I've tried "hats" galore - probably 7-8 of them in my closet now, always thinking I could pull it off. "How about the Irish-looking hat?" - Nope, I look ridiculous. "How about the 60's-70's short brimmed hat?", well, when I was drinking I thought I looked fabulous. Upon sobering up for good, the hat makes me feel silly - but perhaps that's more due to the bad memories than the mirror. There you go - honest about hats and more!