Transgender - Discussion/Education

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

10.27.2020 01:31PM

-->

@MisterChris

Except your entire reply is a huge non-sequitur - claiming that gender was not a word typically used does not at all mean that gender isn't an apt word to use. Have you at all demonstrated that there isn't a massive arbitrary assignment of roles based on gender? Not to mention do you not at all know what Gender Dysphoria is? It's existence as a serious and psychological condition literally proves you wrong. Your not wrong sex is based on chromosomes, no one cares about claims for 700 genders, I would argue saying any definitive number is a fallacy, considering the dimensions upon how you measure gender.

Also, you used one source that says this the entire psychological community disagrees with that one bud, and not to mention a huge part of gender is the identity of the person. As we can not yet talk or communicate complex thoughts between us and other species, it would be nearly impossible if not impossible to get the same headway into the actual gender of an animal that isn't human. This is from the AMA Journal of ethics:

"First though, it is necessary to point out that the terms sex and gender are not synonyms. Sex refers to the biological differences between males and females. Gender refers to the continuum of complex psychosocial self-perceptions, attitudes, and expectations people have about members of both sexes. Even the terms male and female, man and woman are not interchangeable. What it means to be male or female originates from physical characteristics derived from sex chromosomes and genes that lead to certain gonads, internal and external genitalia, and physiological hormones. Being a man or a woman holds broader meaning, with cultural concepts of masculinity and femininity coming into play. This issue of Virtual Mentor will not focus so much on why sex and gender should not be used interchangeably, but instead on how sex and gender together and to varying degrees influence today's practice of medicine [1]."

Last note, no, I do no think you radical or extremist (in fact I think you actually constitute a large percentage of the American people's), misinformed and incorrect perhaps, but not extremist or radical.

#63

MisterChris

Debates: 45

Posts: 2,897

MisterChris

10.27.2020 01:34PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

this reply seems pretty thought-through, I'll respond within the day. In class atm, though

Topic's author

#64

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

10.27.2020 01:41PM

-->

@Juice

Again, this falls in line with your usual fallacy making, this is a false equivalence.

I've pointed it out a lot, but you seem to ignore them, do you know what false equivalences are?

"An argument or claim in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. The confusion is often due to one shared characteristic between two or more items of comparison in the argument that is way off in the order of magnitude, oversimplified, or just that important additional factors have been ignored.

A kangaroo is a completely different species, and as of now, it is impossible to perform that surgery. Whereas intersex people exist, proving that male and female are NOT the only standards sex is applied too, we can use surgery to change the body from male to female, and as Kbub530 pointed out above, men who show all of the physical features of a male can have xx chromosomes, does that make him a woman?

Again, I credit the last argument to Kbub530, and ask you to look at her post in the second page here, it explains exactly what I'm talking about.

Topic's author

#65

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

10.27.2020 01:43PM

-->

@MisterChris

Of course, I'm all up to honest discourse and changing my mind when proper and valid evidence is proposed. Take all the time you need, it wasn't thorough so much as I've heard the argument you've used over and over and over again. So I'm pretty familiar with the rhetoric in general.

#66

Lemming

Debates: 6

Posts: 3,205

Lemming

10.27.2020 01:57PM

-->

@Juice

Is there anyone here who agrees with me? Or am I the only conservative around here.

No, I agree with you, though I don't consider myself a Conservative.

I've just already talked about this subject with people, enough that I don't have 'much interest in saying more.

#67

Kbub530

Debates: 1

Posts: 6

Kbub530

10.27.2020 02:05PM

-->

@Intelligence_06

Upon the arrival of the third page, we invite a transgender individual to argue in favour of transgenderism.

Yeah, this always seems to happen to me, lol. Sure, I’ll do a little arguing.

Topic's author

#68

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

10.27.2020 02:06PM

-->

@fauxlaw

First of all, all I was saying, and I even clarified that this was not your claim but if it were it would be an appeal to ignorance. You completely ignore my caveats like they aren't there.

Then it is you who does not understand me, because I claim that sex is determined by the result of the union of a makle and female gametes, and that gametes have only those designations but by mutation. That is not a function of society, or behavior choice, both of which you define as gender. I understand your distinction, but then you confuse societal choice with what is sex.

The first problem here, is that you're incorrect about how people determine female and male-ness, as Kbub530 used in her example: A person who has XX chromosomes but exhibits all of the phenotypes of male? Would they be a woman according to you, or a man? The difference is nearly arbitrary, not to mention you seem to be confused, gender and sex are separate.

Sex is how one is biologically determined, so to speak, Gender is what I've explained, multiple times, and you continue to say: "Yes, but sex" essentially, and that does. not. correlate. You are making a non-sequitur, your conclusion does not follow from the information you've provided.

Wrong, again. Sex is not a mater of arbitrary choice. It is two gametes, male and female, or one or both as mutations. Either way, it is pure, genetic combination, not arbitrary choice. It does not help that you confuse sex and gender.

See Kbub530's post, marked 35, for the best explanation.

till wrong, again, for the same reason as immediately above. Nothing is assumed by sex, but it is of gender. Your own source, [1] in your post #40 says as much: "...many who identify as transgender do not feel they are exclusively masculine or feminine. [An emotional choice, not bases on sex [cis], but on behavioral preferernce].

This is just blatant fallacies at this point - my source points out what the person feels this is not assumed by nature of what a feeling is. I would say it is typical for them to want their body to match what gender they are as to avoid stress, discrimination, etc, and that feeling isn't the choice, its to go through with it.

#69

Debates: 1

Posts: 63

10.28.2020 09:34AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

A kangaroo is a completely different species,

A man is a completly different sex to women.

and as of now, it is impossible to perform that surgery.

So the only thing stopping me from being a kangaroo is technology?

Whereas intersex people exist, proving that male and female are NOT the only standards sex is applied too,

You cannot use the minority to justify the majority. This is like saying "you shouldn't teach children that people have arms because some people are amputees". In fact, using your logic, there is NO way to define a male, female or even a human being as there are no constant characteristics that every single human being has. So I ask, how do you define a human being?

we can use surgery to change the body from male to female, and as Kbub530 pointed out above, men who show all of the physical features of a male can have xx chromosomes, does that make him a woman?

Topic's author

#70

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

10.28.2020 12:03PM

-->

@Juice

A man is a completely different sex to women.

Except no. The difference between a male and a female is xx chromosome pairing to xy chromosome pairing, this is not comparable to the different amount of chromosomes different species would have. Also, let's talk about the development of the brain. Their brains do not develop like human's do, as pnas.org notes:

"Marsupial and placental brain size partial correlations differ in that marsupials lack a partial correlation of BMR with brain size. "

Not to mention, there is no evidence, in fact, there is evidence to the contrary, that Kangaroos are capable of the intelligence humans are. From everything we know, it would not at all be comparable.

This is another false equivalence.

So the only thing stopping me from being a kangaroo is technology?

This is more of a red herring, but I'll answer it anyway. First of all, probably, but second of all, why would people want to regress into Kangaroos? People wouldn't want to do that? They would lose functionality in using tools, intelligence, and a complete sense of self. This is not a good argument.

You cannot use the minority to justify the majority. This is like saying "you shouldn't teach children that people have arms because some people are amputees". In fact, using your logic, there is NO way to define a male, female or even a human being as there are no constant characteristics that every single human being has. So I ask, how do you define a human being?

Incorrect, I was not using them to prove anything about the majority, I was proving, as a principle, that men and women are not the only biological sexes a human is capable of being. As intersex individuals prove that there is a spectrum from man to woman, as in, an in-between. You made a blanket claim, there is are men and women for sexes no others (not exactly that, just in general), intersex individuals disproves that claim.

we can use surgery to change the body from male to female, and as Kbub530 pointed out above, men who show all of the physical features of a male can have xx chromosomes, does that make him a woman?

You don't cite anything from my argument, so I'll respond in general. According to your argument, yes, according to me not inherently.

#71

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

secularmerlin

10.28.2020 01:03PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Gender and sex would appear to be more of a spectrum and less of a binary than many people (especially those who disapprove of the transgender community or "lifestyle") seem to think.

Topic's author

#72

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

10.28.2020 01:21PM

-->

@secularmerlin

You would be very correct, most people tend to use old science or interrupt science incorrectly in order to make some kind claim about it, making basic fallacies that they wouldn't make without the bias of being transphobic.

Yes gender is definitionally not a binary, and sex is very likely a spectrum as well.

#73

Debates: 1

Posts: 63

https://www.debateart.com/debates/2562-resolved-a-trans-person-is-the-gender-they-identify-of

11.01.2020 08:18AM

#74

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

11.02.2020 02:10AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

This is going to be somewhat unorthodox and I'm sure some might find this very strange but I don't really mind that, I'm just warning you before I say anything lol. Unfortunately your profile says you are an atheist so I can't really ask if you are into spiritual stuff. But TBH if you were open to it, it could help you understand much of the controversy surrounding the topic. And not that this is particularly relevant but it also could help shed light on why individuals have homosexual tendencies.

Due to the nature of this phenomenon the physicality of it are too overly emphasized which is why there seems to be no clear cut answers. Because in reality the immediate physicality is somewhat irrelevant so it doesn't really get to the core of what people experience.

I'll say/ask this first, did you know the actual soul of an individual is non-gender? and only when a soul enters a physical body it takes on a male or female role?

Did you know the soul can have several experiences within creation once the soul leaves its Creator? I know in this culture the idea of reincarnation and past lives is shunned but follow me here. Not getting caught up in any particular fundamentalist ideas of religion, you should give this some thought.

Believe this or not, but a soul can gravitate towards either or, a combination of, or a specific role or "gender" type despite the physical body it was given. Most of the time a souls perceptions are subjugated or influenced by the upbringing role it took on at birth but not always. You might assume that a created soul was created male or female but that's actually not true because it is not possible, because the soul has no gender, male or female parts that is only relevant to physical embodiments when the soul enters creation to any given location. This is also true of the Creator as well, believe it or not God has no male or female parts and because of that no particular gender....those are only created things as God saw it useful for whatever means. Mainly for reproduction.

But as you left the Creator as a soul you too had no physical parts, and as the soul becomes intertwined within the physical body it inhabits it begins to identify primarily to that gender psychologically but not truly inwardly. Meaning the reality that the soul is genderless never dissipates, the soul just begins to think and act according to its perceptions of that body (most of the time). As a matter of spiritual fact you could have had several other experiences before this one as either male or female "roles", and even though you are inhabiting a certain physical body you may not feel connected to that role or relate to that role, but more towards another or even a mixture of both as in not really accepting either or.

This is true for homosexuals as well, a "man" may possess a male physique but feel attracted to males instead of women or maybe both. A person could have lived a previous life as a male or female role, then was killed in an accident and sent back into another body of a different gender and begin to feel as if it relates more to that previous role for whatever reason, or more attracted to a certain gender despite its own gender. Or as I said, may not fully embrace either or.

This is surprisingly simplistic, since the soul itself is non-gender it doesn't have to conform to any particular role, but at the same time can gravitate to whatever role it is attracted to. Attributes of the soul is what usually pushes a soul to accept what it becomes. This is true of the Creator as well, God has attributes but not a gender, no physical parts that make God either or. Generally it is accepted or asserted that God is male, but that's primarily because God is depicted as a provider, leader role or of strong disposition. So most revere God as a "He", ironically God has all aspects/expressions of Itself not just only a male or female expression. Again those are only roles and qualities that are derived from created forms in terms of reducing oneself to one or the other.

You may ask then what is God if not a male or a female? well God is not a who, rather God is simply consciousness, or conscious awareness. Consciousness (soul) of itself has no gender or male/female roles. God is basically a conscious Being with no embodiment, no location within creation rather all of creation is within God. God can incarnate, as to take on a particular role/embodiment but the Creator Itself is purely awareness, you can say intelligence without a physical body. Of course a physical body would exempt God from being what God is and how God is defined.

Anyways before I write anything else I'll see if you are interested in any of that. I know atheists generally scoff at spiritual concepts and Theistic propositions lol, so I hope this is not confusing or offensive to you.

Topic's author

#75

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.02.2020 02:16AM

-->

@EtrnlVw

Thank you for your opinion. Unfortunately for you, that is all it is. An opinion. I see no reason to believe that a soul exists, and you have provided no evidence for such. As a pansexual male (Someone who is cis-male for their gender identity and attracted to people regardless of gender), all I can tell you is that people are sexually and romantically attracted to different things. This is for psychologists, neurosurgeons, and biologists to study, not theologians.

The entire axiom of your argument has not been justified, the soul thing, and therefore the rest of it is bunk anyway. I will, out of respect for the time you presumably took out of your day to address me specifically on this topic, give you my opinions on each of your claims and conclusions regarding all topics involved. Before I do I must ask, would you like them privately addressed in PM, or discussed here in the forum?

I disagree with you heavily, but I hope you have a nice evening.

#76

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

11.02.2020 02:27AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Thank you for your opinion. Unfortunately for you, that is all it is. An opinion.

You're welcome, but just because it's my opinion doesn't disqualify it as being true, after all that's what you asked for.

I see no reason to believe that a soul exists, and you have provided no evidence for such.

I understand that, why would I need to hand over evidence for a soul just to give you my opinion? lol, is that how you handle all discussions? we can get there, but first I was giving you my thoughts on the matter.

This is for psychologists, neurosurgeons, and biologists to study

Pardon me, but I'm not ignorant to those studies and IF the soul does exist it has a say in the matter. And to be frank, should help you understand what is going on.

The entire axiom of your argument has not been justified

Have I had the chance to justify it in a y way? first things first right?

and therefore the rest of it is bunk anyway

Lol wow, hasty hasty....is that how you handle new information?

I must ask, would you like them privately addressed in PM, or discussed here in the forum?

I addressed your topic here, you can reply to whatever it is you wish to. But please, don't blow me off as if you know what I'm saying has no merit, that reduces your topic to nothing worth commenting on. Especially in a debate forum, where I would hope you evaluate and respond to information based on its insights and not reject it because of your own biases.

Topic's author

#77

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.02.2020 02:36AM

-->

@EtrnlVw

Perhaps you don't understand. The claims you make are an important part of the discussion. Whenever people fundamentally misunderstand an issue, I'd like at least some kind of justification behind a claim. I don't dismiss what you are saying as bunk out of hasty work, but out of an unproven and unjustified axiom. Why should I care what a spirit has to do with it if I don't believe in spirits?

I mean no disrespect towards you or your beliefs, but before one can extrapolate these beliefs justifiably, one must have some reason that is justified validly that they believe in

#78

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

11.02.2020 02:43AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Perhaps you don't understand. The claims you make are an important part of the discussion.

Perhaps it's not me who doesn't understand, isn't that what our discussion will consist of? I give my opinion, and you respond as you see appropriate. I address your response, as of yet you have given me no response to argue or answer. You can claim it's all bunk, but you have in no way shown that, you haven't even addressed or asked one single thing. I have no idea what you even disagree with other than you are an atheist so I'm sure you reject any Theistic propositions.

Whenever people fundamentally misunderstand an issue, I'd like at least some kind of justification behind a claim.

Which part did I fundamentally misunderstand lol?

I don't dismiss what you are saying as bunk out of hasty work, but out of an unproven and unjustified axiom. Why should I care what a spirit has to do with it if I don't believe in spirits?

That's how you learn new things, you don't just dismiss them due to your chosen worldview. You have to address the contents of my post.

I mean no disrespect towards you or your beliefs, but before one can extrapolate these beliefs justifiably, one must have some reason that is justified validly that they believe in

I guess you never have discussions in debate forums? this is a forum with a wide range of beliefs, you find the truth behind those claims by debating them, not dismissing them. I'm still waiting for your response, as of yet you have not touched any contents of my post.

Topic's author

#79

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.02.2020 02:49AM

-->

@EtrnlVw

I apologize, they weren't aimed at you specifically, but in general. People are drastically misinformed. And yes, I understand the process of learning, however, I am not open to things that are not justified or at all demonstrated. Every tested claim had a basis or hypothesis that proceeded it.

What's yours?

Regardless I assure you I am working on a detailed response, if you would just be patient with me I will have it posted here soon. I apologize for the delay.

#80

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

11.02.2020 02:51AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

For all you know, souls could exist and you'll never know anything about that because you dismiss the very possibility. If there's truth to what I'm saying it should at the very least make sense. Maybe you should read that again, being open-minded to the possibility and see what you think of my premises.

#81

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

11.02.2020 03:00AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

I apologize, they weren't aimed at you specifically, but in general. People are drastically misinformed. And yes, I understand the process of learning, however, I am not open to things that are not justified or at all demonstrated. Every tested claim had a basis or hypothesis that proceeded it.

Again, your claim that it is unjustified is just a claim. I have yet to support my claims with an argument, an argument would necessitate a rebuttal on your part. Hopefully they won't be narrow minded.

What's yours?

I demonstrate it first by giving you relevant content that deals directly with your topic, if you want me to demonstrate a soul exists it's not that simple unfortunately, maybe you're not too acquainted with how spiritual discussions go lol? this is not a topic where I can just hand over peer reviewed studies that something exists. You'll have to argue content not demand some external justifications. There's good reasons to believe a soul exists but we will get to that when I see some content from you.

Regardless I assure you I am working on a detailed response, if you would just be patient with me I will have it posted here soon. I apologize for the delay.

I'm in no rush, just not sure why you decided to blow me off just because you're an atheist. As if there's no possibility I have legit knowledge and information, please take your time. If you wish not to respond at all that's fine too.

Topic's author

#82

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.02.2020 03:07AM

-->

@EtrnlVw

Just one real objection, when I mean proven, I don't just mean peer-reviewed papers. Even a valid and sound syllogism would work, and while fascinating your points are all claimed. They do not actually prove anything regarding the matter.

However, for most of my response, I presumed the existence of a soul for the sake of conversation. I will not throw your views away because they are unjustified, I will simply consider them with less weight than I would otherwise.

Topic's author

#83

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.02.2020 03:33AM

-->

@EtrnlVw

In response -

This is going to be somewhat unorthodox and I'm sure some might find this very strange but I don't really mind that, I'm just warning you before I say anything lol.

That’s fine, normal is boring, I would prefer a perspective that’s strange and true to one that’s normal and flawed.

Unfortunately your profile says you are an atheist so I can't really ask if you are into spiritual stuff. But TBH if you were open to it, it could help you understand much of the controversy surrounding the topic.

Interesting, both the concept that me being an atheist is unfortunate and that if I were open to it I would understand things. To clarify - being an atheist does not inherently mean that you don’t believe in spirits, it means you don’t believe in god(s). Full stop.

I understand the concept perfectly well, people are misinformed and don’t understand transgender people. People react to things they don’t understand very differently, some are afraid, some lash out at it, some deny it in some hopes of it going away as long as they don’t acknowledge it, whatever.

. And not that this is particularly relevant but it also could help shed light on why individuals have homosexual tendencies.

Not really, but I’ll try not to dismiss it. “Homosexual tendencies” I find that phrase a bit more insulting than any claim you make of spirits. It might just be me, but it just gives me a feeling of the whole, “It’s just a phase!” thing ya know? I could answer why people are homosexual. Because some people like the same gender that they are romantically and/or sexually. Boom done, no souls required.

Due to the nature of this phenomenon the physicality of it are too overly emphasized which is why there seems to be no clear cut answers. Because in reality the immediate physicality is somewhat irrelevant so it doesn't really get to the core of what people experience.

Definitely an interesting take; however, there is no other realm but the physical. Your mind is simply a connection of high-speed transmission of nerves and the like. I don’t see another realm to particulate someone’s experience in. I think there is a clear-cut answer. If someone’s gender identity is that of a female and their sex expressed phenotype is male, that person is a female.

I'll say/ask this first, did you know the actual soul of an individual is non-gender? and only when a soul enters a physical body it takes on a male or female role?

Pursuing that spirits exist, I would assume so. It also depends on what type of soul you are talking about. This seems like an obvious extrapolation from most beliefs of reincarnation and the like. I would also argue that there are clearly individuals who do not have a clear gender or even sex, what happened to the soul there? I am genuinely curious about your opinion regarding the matter.

Did you know the soul can have several experiences within creation once the soul leaves its Creator? I know in this culture the idea of reincarnation and past lives is shunned but follow me here. Not getting caught up in any particular fundamentalist ideas of religion, you should give this some thought.

Like I said, an interesting take, not one I buy, but I’ll grant for the sake of discussion. This is practically where I went in my last response. To elaborate on my own response. Gender is not binary, regardless of how one attains it, it is clearly a complex scale of spectrums that determine gender. How does the reincarnated soul interact with this?

Believe this or not, but a soul can gravitate towards either or, a combination of, or a specific role or "gender" type despite the physical body it was given. Most of the time a souls perceptions are subjugated or influenced by the upbringing role it took on at birth but not always

Hmm, again, interesting, Not really debatable, many people who are brought up as their assumed gender happen to be that gender, sometimes it so happens that it's not true. As for gravitating towards one or the other, could I ask why? Why does the soul do this specifically? You have some kind of principals behind whatever souls you are using, so I’m curious about a lot.

You might assume that a created soul was created male or female but that's actually not true because it is not possible, because the soul has no gender, male or female parts that is only relevant to physical embodiments when the soul enters creation to any given location. This is also true of the Creator as well, believe it or not God has no male or female parts and because of that no particular gender....those are only created things as God saw it useful for whatever means. Mainly for reproduction.

I wouldn’t assume that no. Gender is societally constructed, therefore any base layer or model would not have one. I agree. I agree, if there were a god, they would recognize the need to reproduce, and therefore create us with organs in order to accomplish that My question, if the creator is not bound by normal rules, why not make us capable of sexual pleasure and able to reproduce asexually? It would be less hassle in the long run.

But as you left the Creator as a soul you too had no physical parts, and as the soul becomes intertwined within the physical body it inhabits it begins to identify primarily to that gender psychologically but not truly inwardly. Meaning the reality that the soul is genderless never dissipates, the soul just begins to think and act according to its perceptions of that body (most of the time)

So in other words, the foundation of the human is never truly changed, parts and other things are simply added as they gain physical being? A truly fascinating take, however, I would pose a different interpretation. I would say that if reincarnation is how the soul moves after their original body is gone, that they would collect kind of like an echo of all of their past lives, and slowly build up towards some maximum or unstable state, similar to atoms or molecules.

As a matter of spiritual fact you could have had several other experiences before this one as either male or female "roles", and even though you are inhabiting a certain physical body you may not feel connected to that role or relate to that role, but more towards another or even a mixture of both as in not really accepting either or.

So in other words, perhaps my theory wasn’t as far off as according to you? That past lives might be the reason that trans individuals exist? That might explain it, but again, perhaps a different perspective? I would think that the relation between a soul and their gender is in psychological terms, so would the soul that is more separate from its host be one that is more fluid regarding the identities of its physical body? If that makes any sense, it was more of a note.

This is true for homosexuals as well, a "man" may possess a male physique but feel attracted to males instead of women or maybe both. A person could have lived a previous life as a male or female role, then was killed in an accident and sent back into another body of a different gender and begin to feel as if it relates more to that previous role for whatever reason, or more attracted to a certain gender despite its own gender. Or as I said, may not fully embrace either or.

This kind of goes back to what I was saying before, with the echoes and all. Even with souls, I do feel the simpler answer is that the body has different preferences according to a host of genetic, psychological, and other factors. Of course, I may also just go back to what I was talking about in my last response, More separate and therefore the identities that one has is not as rigidly instructed by the body.

This is surprisingly simplistic, since the soul itself is non-gender it doesn't have to conform to any particular role, but at the same time can gravitate to whatever role it is attracted to. Attributes of the soul is what usually pushes a soul to accept what it becomes.

So a soul does build up some kind of attributes, as it goes through bodies, it is no longer the blank canvas it started out as? I’m curious, could a serial killer be reincarnated as a good person? Or vice versa? Or would the attributes, the taint, so to speak, prevent something like that from happening?

This is true of the Creator as well, God has attributes but not gender, no physical parts that make God either-or. Generally, it is accepted or asserted that God is male, but that's primarily because God is depicted as a provider, leader role or of strong disposition. So most revere God as a "He", ironically God has all aspects/expressions of Itself not just only a male or female expression. Again those are only roles and qualities that are derived from created forms in terms of reducing oneself to one or the other.

In all honesty, I would not care for any god regardless if there were any souls. This god does not seem to care about any of us, and I will do them a favor and revere them as much as they revere me. To say- not at all. It is a tad bit patriarchal that a god was depicted as such. I think we both agree that typically god is seen as a parent or parental, and isn’t it true that women are seen as more parently? Even if that isn’t the case? If it’s often portrayed, why isn’t god seen as female then? It would only make sense for a god to not have any sex, a gender perhaps if it were conscious, but not sex.

You may ask then what is God if not a male or a female? well God is not a who, rather God is simply consciousness or conscious awareness. Consciousness (soul) of itself has no gender or male/female roles. God is basically a conscious Being with no embodiment, no location within creation rather all of creation is within God.

Hmm, not much to note on this, I guess if the god we are defining is by definition having no embodiment then they wouldn’t have a gender? Eh, I suppose so, basic thought was that that god would still be aware and even interact with the same concepts that inform human identity, so I would assume it would be possible for any god to develop one.

God can incarnate, as to take on a particular role/embodiment but the Creator Itself is pure awareness, you can say intelligence without a physical body. Of course, a physical body would exempt God from being what God is and how God is defined.

I suppose it really depends on how you define god in that case. Could a god simply not control its mas of powers and consciousness in a physical body? Seems like an arbitrary limit to me. Why is this the case? Could you elaborate?

Anyways before I write anything else I'll see if you are interested in any of that. I know atheists generally scoff at spiritual concepts and Theistic propositions lol, so I hope this is not confusing or offensive to you.

Not necessarily scoff, I at least, consider it with less weight due to the inherent assumption it forces the wearer to presume, but it at least seems like a new perspective, so I’d be interested in having the conversation.

Please note: No I do not believe a soul exists, this is simply granting a proposition for the sake of discussion. Thank you.

#84

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

11.08.2020 08:36PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Thanks for the reply I'm going to split this into two posts assuming I'll hit a characters limit...

Even a valid and sound syllogism would work, and while fascinating your points are all claimed. They do not actually prove anything regarding the matter.

But you just said a sound syllogism would work, so here that's what I will do as opposed to "proving" something for you. Again I can't prove to you there is a soul all I can do is point to you the implications, and in that alone everything should make sense, be perfectly clear to you. Reading over your post I'm not sure if you fully absorbed the simplicity of my propositions as being clear answers for this topic. Having said that, I think there are clear forms of evidence for considering the existence of the soul.

Interesting, both the concept that me being an atheist is unfortunate and that if I were open to it I would understand things. To clarify - being an atheist does not inherently mean that you don’t believe in spirits, it means you don’t believe in god(s). Full stop.

I only meant unfortunate in terms of you dismissing my posts, which at first seemed like the way you were going. I'm glad you decided to keep this flexible :) just don't assume at any point I'm being insulting because that's not my intentions.

I would argue though, spirits or souls existing without God involved makes for an illogical premise. Because now you have multiple layers of reality that somehow began to exist, I don't think it's worth arguing but maybe later I could elaborate on that. For now, lets just assume if the soul exists, it's more than likely it is because God exists. No need to make things more complicated.

I understand the concept perfectly well, people are misinformed and don’t understand transgender people. People react to things they don’t understand very differently, some are afraid, some lash out at it, some deny it in some hopes of it going away as long as they don’t acknowledge it, whatever.

Hopefully you don't see me as being any of that. I'm not reacting to it really more than just showing you the implications of an existing soul how it is in reality and how it effects our experience. And many religious types would never even go this far with you, TBH. Most would probably just call it an abomination or some rebellion to God's will. Perhaps a sin or some perversion. I've gathered a lot of information believe it or not to articulate this simplistically.

Not really, but I’ll try not to dismiss it. “Homosexual tendencies” I find that phrase a bit more insulting than any claim you make of spirits. It might just be me, but it just gives me a feeling of the whole, “It’s just a phase!” thing ya know? I could answer why people are homosexual. Because some people like the same gender that they are romantically and/or sexually.

If what I'm saying is true, would it not be plausible? all I'm really saying is to put less emphasis on the physical side of our existence, whether we have a male or female body, that should resonate with you so I wonder why you didn't really ponder about it more. I certainly wasn't using the term "tendencies" to be insulting, what would you rather me say? I just mean an attraction to a certain gender....

Boom done, no souls required.

The conclusion to you might be that simple, and I would agree if we were to assume no soul exists. But, in a world where we have to face a variety of worldviews we can't afford to just assume things. I am trying to show you it's just as simple though, even if we have a soul. Basically I'm trying to get the point across that there is a compatibility here, between a soul and what transgenders and homosexuals experience. Most religious sources would never offer a compatible platform, they would mostly just reject any thought of being either. And mainly I'm referring to religious people.

Definitely an interesting take; however, there is no other realm but the physical.

This is something you've assumed and really for no good reason. It definitely does not explain the full scope of human experience or account for it. I don't think it is a good practice to simply ignore testimonial evidence, especially when it is so widely recorded and so well established, at the very least one should consider a transcendent reality as being possible. This would obviously account for such a wide date base of religious and spiritual experience. Not even getting into NDE's or OBE's, but certainly those are included.

NDE's would be a very clear point of reference supporting the claim that the soul exists independent of the physical body, no other clear reason should this phenomenon happen at all. At face value, it's a perfect match for this premise.

Your mind is simply a connection of high-speed transmission of nerves and the like. I don’t see another realm to particulate someone’s experience in. I think there is a clear-cut answer. If someone’s gender identity is that of a female and their sex expressed phenotype is male, that person is a female.

I don't believe that is more clear cut at all. If the soul is non-gender (which it is) then that is a much more direct answer. That would explain why in some instances, a person does not really identify with their born gender role because at the center of their being nothing of the sort exists. Basically then, gender and preferences are just a superficial occurrence at one level.

BTW, I'm not using another realm of existence to articulate what one experiences in their mind per say rather what one experiences in their immediate conscious experience. The physical body and or the brain is just a conduit, a component that confines a souls experience to this world. The conscious awareness of a person is always connected to the soul, where the soul goes there the conscious experience follows. The mind is only a piece of machinery, the soul uses the mind to navigate creation but the conscious soul is the one observing the mind. The mind is really more of a storage compartment for memory and information, it is inanimate.

Pursuing that spirits exist, I would assume so. It also depends on what type of soul you are talking about. This seems like an obvious extrapolation from most beliefs of reincarnation and the like. I would also argue that there are clearly individuals who do not have a clear gender or even sex, what happened to the soul there? I am genuinely curious about your opinion regarding the matter.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, it should be clear what I'm saying. The only time you have a gender (identity) is when you have a physical body. Consciousness (soul) does not have body parts, which is what reflects a gender. Reincarnation is just the placement of the soul in any given part of creation, once the soul is placed within an embodiment that's what dictates what gender that soul will possess, but again just at the physical level not the soul itself. However, many times the physical body morphs from what people normally expect, because there is never perfection at the physical level. And often times, a persons Karma dictates what that soul must experience within the physical world.

Like I said, an interesting take, not one I buy, but I’ll grant for the sake of discussion. This is practically where I went in my last response. To elaborate on my own response. Gender is not binary, regardless of how one attains it, it is clearly a complex scale of spectrums that determine gender. How does the reincarnated soul interact with this?

I agree, but remember much of ones identity rests at the physical surface layer (psychological) at least superficially, because like you say it's a complex configuration, much of which is influenced by ones surroundings. Since a souls perception is confined primarily to the physical experience it is tossed about like the wind with much of what it observes. What I'm saying here might not ever even cross the mind of most souls experiencing what they are experiencing, they may inadvertently feel it but not know it. This of course is how the physical world and bodies were created, so that the soul believes that what it is experiencing is what reality is. This helps one keep their focus and attention on the physical world while they are here.

Again, reincarnation is simply the destination of the soul, it is just a term used to describe the transmigration of where the soul goes next. The only interactions are the soul itself and with the embodiments of that soul. Which include the mind and emotions.

As for gravitating towards one or the other, could I ask why? Why does the soul do this specifically? You have some kind of principals behind whatever souls you are using, so I’m curious about a lot.

The soul instinctively may gravitate towards a masculine or feminine characteristic because of what it desires or what attributes interest it, but again it may want to express both. So this is why I say this answers many questions about transgenders. Because the physical body may not always determine anything.

I wouldn’t assume that no.

Well maybe you wouldn't assume it, but I would guess most religious people would assume it and why they tend to look down on the topic altogether and why they judge it wrongly.

Gender is societally constructed,

That may be true, but gender "identity" is usually assumed with what physical apparatus one is born with. Whether a person is "male" or "female". Since the soul has no physical apparatus gender doesn't exist, however a soul may have natural attributes, and those attributes may reflect a masculine or feminine role or even both.

therefore any base layer or model would not have one. I agree. I agree, if there were a god, they would recognize the need to reproduce, and therefore create us with organs in order to accomplish that My question, if the creator is not bound by normal rules, why not make us capable of sexual pleasure and able to reproduce asexually? It would be less hassle in the long run.

That's a good question and much of what could be explained by experience alone. In creation God does things primarily for the pure experience not really by what may be more efficient. What you propose may be true of another species and even somewhere else in creation, but God wanted it this particular way for whatever experience it brings forth on this planet.

So in other words, the foundation of the human is never truly changed, parts and other things are simply added as they gain physical being? A truly fascinating take, however, I would pose a different interpretation. I would say that if reincarnation is how the soul moves after their original body is gone, that they would collect kind of like an echo of all of their past lives, and slowly build up towards some maximum or unstable state, similar to atoms or molecules.

Yes they do collect a trail of experience that the soul carries in their consciousness unconsciously. What that amounts to I can't say, all I can say is that you are what you are through all of your experiences. I don't think it amounts to some usable state, that seems illogical to me. It may lead to a certain state, but your journey in creation is long and tailored for you specifically. The end of your state of being is actually where you originated.

So in other words, perhaps my theory wasn’t as far off as according to you?

Our implications are much the same, just with different foundations. That's kind of what I'd like to point out. I am not really trying to prove you wrong more than I am trying to resonate with you.

#85

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

11.08.2020 08:39PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

That past lives might be the reason that trans individuals exist? That might explain it,

My point is that the soul is genderless, but that past lives may influence what that soul chooses.

but again, perhaps a different perspective? I would think that the relation between a soul and their gender is in psychological terms

That's what I said, yes.

so would the soul that is more separate from its host be one that is more fluid regarding the identities of its physical body? If that makes any sense, it was more of a note.

Exactly true. Very good.

This kind of goes back to what I was saying before, with the echoes and all. Even with souls, I do feel the simpler answer is that the body has different preferences according to a host of genetic, psychological, and other factors. Of course, I may also just go back to what I was talking about in my last response, More separate and therefore the identities that one has is not as rigidly instructed by the body.

With my premise I'm not negating genetic, psychological, and other factors. Only that they aren't the only factor involved, at least the main factor. I completely agree with your last sentence. A person may wonder about the core of themselves, not just external factors.

So a soul does build up some kind of attributes, as it goes through bodies, it is no longer the blank canvas it started out as? I’m curious, could a serial killer be reincarnated as a good person? Or vice versa? Or would the attributes, the taint, so to speak, prevent something like that from happening?

A serial killers immediate perceptions through a new body are new just like that of a babies, but yes their previous tendencies will arise in their consciousness. Actually their new role is meant for that soul to be able to change their old tendencies so they choose to. Many times a male that killed females will be given a female body so they gain a particular experience that may help them choose different paths.

In all honesty, I would not care for any god regardless if there were any souls. This god does not seem to care about any of us, and I will do them a favor and revere them as much as they revere me.

God experiences everything through you, there is no real distinction lol. So you only avoid your true self not some Being that has no connection to you.

To say- not at all. It is a tad bit patriarchal that a god was depicted as such. I think we both agree that typically god is seen as a parent or parental, and isn’t it true that women are seen as more parently? Even if that isn’t the case? If it’s often portrayed, why isn’t god seen as female then? It would only make sense for a god to not have any sex, a gender perhaps if it were conscious, but not sex.

God is portrayed as a variety of things and personalities and really it's because God reflects all these things not one or the other but typically in this culture we use the Bible as the main reference of how we portray God....the war God, God of vengeance, maybe love, God of power and masculinity.....the God that will devour you if you screw up lol.

Creation is simply a play at the basic level, a movie if you will with actors and roles, how we portray God is often how God wants to experience something through you. God simply observes through every channel of experience, God is not removed from anything that's why God creates, is to have a form of experience away from the alone state. In pure consciousness there is only one Reality like in pure energy, yet both consciousness and energy exist independent of form and within form, one singular reality yet many, many observations. Whatever the point of form is the point of observation. Both have distinct observation points which create distinct experiences for consciousness.

So you're right, there is no mommy God or lover partner for God, and therefore no sex or opposing roles. That is all created within creation through embodiments and opposing forces/contrast using the "soul" as a point of observation.

Hmm, not much to note on this, I guess if the god we are defining is by definition having no embodiment then they wouldn’t have a gender? Eh, I suppose so, basic thought was that that god would still be aware and even interact with the same concepts that inform human identity, so I would assume it would be possible for any god to develop one.

Only attributes sure, God may have more masculine attributes than female but I doubt it. There would be no real reason to believe so. Either way, if there is no body and just one singular Reality then there is no point of reference really. That only applies to creation and created things.

I suppose it really depends on how you define god in that case.

Well how do you define a singular reality? what reference point could you possibly use to define it? it's easy for us humans in creation to define things because we have many points of contrast to make descriptions.

Could a god simply not control its mas of powers and consciousness in a physical body? Seems like an arbitrary limit to me. Why is this the case? Could you elaborate?

If and when God incarnates it basically reduces Itself and as a result reduces It's abilities. If you picture consciousness like that of electricity or energy, every time you add a component to confine it you reduce its power. You take something that is the All and reduce it to form, then you reduce it to less than what It previously was. It's not arbitrary, God doesn't want to be God in creation, that's the point lol. That's what gives God a fresh experience, whatever you yourself (soul) experiences. If you were God that would be no real experience.

Not necessarily scoff, I at least, consider it with less weight due to the inherent assumption it forces the wearer to presume, but it at least seems like a new perspective, so I’d be interested in having the conversation.

I'll give you credit, you took this very, very well and I am excited you are open-minded enough to play around with the implications of it being a possibility. Thank you for that I only apologize for not replying sooner.

Please note: No I do not believe a soul exists, this is simply granting a proposition for the sake of discussion. Thank you.

I figured, but don't let your worldview or ideology suppress that which could be true. You seem like a very bright person.

Topic's author

#86

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.08.2020 08:52PM

-->

@EtrnlVw

Just kind of a preface before I spend a while on responding, lol, is that first of all: Thank you for your compliments, very kind of you. Second of all: I am glad you decided to respond at all, I remember being distinctly disappointed that you wouldn't respond. So I'm pretty happy you decided to, thank you. :)

#87

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

11.08.2020 10:54PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

BTW I plan on getting to your other topic "Is God Real" soon, I'm glad to see it sparks your interest. One thing to remember though is the nature of such a question and the nature of spirituality in general. When trying to make observations about it or inquiries it is not the same as what we are used to dealing with on a physical level like when we observe something say through the scientific method, since there is no observable physical base to obtain. There is a science to it all just not tangible in the physical sense. That's not to say it's just a nothing, because it is simply a matter of a transcendent reality evading the immediate physical sense perceptions not that there is nothing to observe.

The ranges of energetic frequencies that manifest within the spiritual planes happen at much finer vibrational frequencies so we are dealing with a nature one would assume simply doesn't exist. But like much of the full spectrum of color is invisible to the human range of visible sight so is the transparency of the more subtle observation of the higher worlds. Even the spirit bodies, that cover the soul are much more subtle than the physical body (look up the term subtle body).....the atoms that make up that form spin at much finer, lighter, higher frequencies so not only are they transparent to the physical sight they last eons longer than our physical, dense limited bodies. So that's why when you study NDE's and spirituality you hear of the spirit body "floating" or hovering, that's due to the lightness of that covering/body. Also why they appear transparent looking or "ghostly" in appearance.

As we discussed about the soul, consciousness is much more akin to energy or electricity rather than physical objects that we can look at and grasp. And because of the lightness and rate of energetic frequencies that make up the spiritual worlds as well as the conscious worlds it makes it near impossible to prove something you can't visually detect or observe on a physical level. But because of the soul existing independent of the physical body it can and does make observations of that reality. So I say all this just keep that in mind when expecting anyone to demonstrate God exists in a way where anyone could prove it. You have to rely more on evidence that correlates with that nature as well as commonsense and rationale.

And these types of observations happen within a persons conscious field, at various levels and channels of experience. Just be open minded about that, I will say other than that everything about it is logical and well perceived. You should be willing to follow arguments that simply make sense and fit within our reality.

Topic's author

#88

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.10.2020 04:10AM

-->

@EtrnlVw

Thank you for such a long and comprehensive response! :)

Even a valid and sound syllogism would work, and while fascinating your points are all claimed. They do not actually prove anything regarding the matter.
But you just said a sound syllogism would work, so here that's what I will do as opposed to "proving" something for you. Again I can't prove to you there is a soul all I can do is point to you the implications, and in that alone everything should make sense, be perfectly clear to you. Reading over your post I'm not sure if you fully absorbed the simplicity of my propositions as being clear answers for this topic. Having said that, I think there are clear forms of evidence for considering the existence of the soul.

Interesting - What I was saying is that whenever there is something proposed, say the existence of a soul, it is then necessarily true that the person who made the claim has now a burden of proof to make that claim true. Regardless of one's implications, you would have to do the leg work to make this certain.

As for any evidence you have for a soul, while that would be interesting to discuss, I'm not certain if it would muddle the other part of this conversation, so I'd ask we address that separately, we can always visit your evidence for it, but I'd rather we discuss what we already have.

Interesting, both the concept that me being an atheist is unfortunate and that if I were open to it I would understand things. To clarify - being an atheist does not inherently mean that you don’t believe in spirits, it means you don’t believe in god(s). Full stop.
I only meant unfortunate in terms of you dismissing my posts, which at first seemed like the way you were going. I'm glad you decided to keep this flexible :) just don't assume at any point I'm being insulting because that's not my intentions.

I would argue though, spirits or souls existing without God involved makes for an illogical premise. Because now you have multiple layers of reality that somehow began to exist, I don't think it's worth arguing but maybe later I could elaborate on that. For now, lets just assume if the soul exists, it's more than likely it is because God exists. No need to make things more complicated.

That does make sense I know of certain users who would no doubt stop the train at the very beginning of the conversation. I think there is a certain value in regarding propositions that you believe to not be evidenced. A) Because you could always be incorrect, and B) Because they could offer a perspective on grounds agreed. So I try not to dismiss claims due to something like that.

Unfortunately, I would disagree, I presume the implication that we wouldn't, therefore, know where or why these souls or spirits existed without a god? The problem with that is that regardless of what may or may not be more complicated it's just the truth of the word, others have their ways of justifying it, me myself do not accept either proposition, so I suppose this is a nonpoint.

I understand the concept perfectly well, people are misinformed and don’t understand transgender people. People react to things they don’t understand very differently, some are afraid, some lash out at it, some deny it in some hopes of it going away as long as they don’t acknowledge it, whatever.
Hopefully you don't see me as being any of that. I'm not reacting to it really more than just showing you the implications of an existing soul how it is in reality and how it effects our experience. And many religious types would never even go this far with you, TBH. Most would probably just call it an abomination or some rebellion to God's will. Perhaps a sin or some perversion. I've gathered a lot of information believe it or not to articulate this simplistically.

Again - you insinuate some larger research or insight, as well as presume the soul and such, which, given my framing of this conversation I will grant. I don't see you as someone who particularly fits into the brand of someone who doesn't understand transgender people, well, I suppose that you have a take on the situation, but I do not see it as valid per se, at least not with the same weight that I give to the psychological perspectives

Not really, but I’ll try not to dismiss it. “Homosexual tendencies” I find that phrase a bit more insulting than any claim you make of spirits. It might just be me, but it just gives me a feeling of the whole, “It’s just a phase!” thing ya know? I could answer why people are homosexual. Because some people like the same gender that they are romantically and/or sexually.
If what I'm saying is true, would it not be plausible? all I'm really saying is to put less emphasis on the physical side of our existence, whether we have a male or female body, that should resonate with you so I wonder why you didn't really ponder about it more. I certainly wasn't using the term "tendencies" to be insulting, what would you rather me say? I just mean an attraction to a certain gender....

It was really supposed to be a note, a side point, that people used phrases like, "Homosexual life style" and "Homosexual behaviors" to insuinate that once chooses their sexuality, which is very untrue. As for do I think its plausible given your view of souls/spirits? I suppose, but I don't really think it resonates with me. I'm granting a position for the sake of discussion, I'm actually heavily and solidly against the proposition that a soul exists.

Boom done, no souls required.
The conclusion to you might be that simple, and I would agree if we were to assume no soul exists. But, in a world where we have to face a variety of worldviews we can't afford to just assume things. I am trying to show you it's just as simple though, even if we have a soul. Basically I'm trying to get the point across that there is a compatibility here, between a soul and what transgenders and homosexuals experience. Most religious sources would never offer a compatible platform, they would mostly just reject any thought of being either. And mainly I'm referring to religious people.

I agree that most relgious people and organizations wouldn't give it a second thought, and I applaud you for your obvious thought to the matter. However, whereas you see me as assuming souls don't exist, I presume you are assuming they do (A note, I will get to your post on my "Does God exist" page, I had a set back and most of my response was deleted, but it'll take a little bit longer to get to.)

While I don't disagree that your idea of a soul and transgender don't contradict one another, I want to point out that it adds another, unneccesary level to the equation, similar to what you noted earlier, except this time it;s with regards to the plausibility and not simply how a position works intrinsinically.

Definitely an interesting take; however, there is no other realm but the physical.
This is something you've assumed and really for no good reason. It definitely does not explain the full scope of human experience or account for it. I don't think it is a good practice to simply ignore testimonial evidence, especially when it is so widely recorded and so well established, at the very least one should consider a transcendent reality as being possible. This would obviously account for such a wide date base of religious and spiritual experience. Not even getting into NDE's or OBE's, but certainly those are included.
NDE's would be a very clear point of reference supporting the claim that the soul exists independent of the physical body, no other clear reason should this phenomenon happen at all. At face value, it's a perfect match for this premise.

Um... just because something is a possibility, that does not make it a likely possibility. Something which is supernatural is by the laws of physics: impossible, and therefore if anyone were to claim it would need strong evidence than an appeal to populum. Else, one could also justify: The earth being flat, aliens visiting earth, the sun revolving around the sun, etc, etc... My point is, tesimonial "evidence" which is so loose 95% of the time isn't trust worthy in the first place, the other 5% that have other plausible reasonings not to mention.

Your mind is simply a connection of high-speed transmission of nerves and the like. I don’t see another realm to particulate someone’s experience in. I think there is a clear-cut answer. If someone’s gender identity is that of a female and their sex expressed phenotype is male, that person is a female.
I don't believe that is more clear cut at all. If the soul is non-gender (which it is) then that is a much more direct answer. That would explain why in some instances, a person does not really identify with their born gender role because at the center of their being nothing of the sort exists. Basically then, gender and preferences are just a superficial occurrence at one level.

BTW, I'm not using another realm of existence to articulate what one experiences in their mind per say rather what one experiences in their immediate conscious experience. The physical body and or the brain is just a conduit, a component that confines a souls experience to this world. The conscious awareness of a person is always connected to the soul, where the soul goes there the conscious experience follows. The mind is only a piece of machinery, the soul uses the mind to navigate creation but the conscious soul is the one observing the mind. The mind is really more of a storage compartment for memory and information, it is inanimate.

The problem with the first claim is that is lacks evidence, the second question is a misunderstanding: Something which is simpler is not always the preferred solution, something with the least amount of assumptions are. One way is based on multi-layered scientifically verrified fact, one is based on the (to me at least) assumption that sould exist, but I digress.

I find each of these claims interesting, but even if I were to presume a soul, I'd have to ask, why are all of these seemingly arbitrary properties being ascribed to it? Not to mention, how could we detect this soul? You're saying there isn't another plane of existence, or at least you're not using it for souls, but then there should be some physical basis for souls, plasma, wavelength, etc, etc, can we detect them? I would say no.

1st of however many this takes......

Topic's author

#89

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.10.2020 04:13AM

-->

@EtrnlVw

Pursuing that spirits exist, I would assume so. It also depends on what type of soul you are talking about. This seems like an obvious extrapolation from most beliefs of reincarnation and the like. I would also argue that there are clearly individuals who do not have a clear gender or even sex, what happened to the soul there? I am genuinely curious about your opinion regarding the matter.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here, it should be clear what I'm saying. The only time you have a gender (identity) is when you have a physical body. Consciousness (soul) does not have body parts, which is what reflects a gender. Reincarnation is just the placement of the soul in any given part of creation, once the soul is placed within an embodiment that's what dictates what gender that soul will possess, but again just at the physical level not the soul itself. However, many times the physical body morphs from what people normally expect, because there is never perfection at the physical level. And often times, a persons Karma dictates what that soul must experience within the physical world.

No. Body parts do not reflect a gender, they reflect sex. I don't know if that was just misspoken, but it was incorrect. Also, Karma? That's another new topic, what proves Karma? What determines who gets what Karma? Why is Karma fairer to some and not to others? Is Karma operating on another plane of existence or does it also have some sort of physical presence we can detect?

The reason I'm confused is that I have no idea what concept of soul you were talking about before you clarified, again, I have no idea where you getting the properties of this apparent soul, so I have no way to fully parse what it is until you give me some kind of general description or something like it. I was essentially shooting in the dark based on what I saw as most likely given your text.

Like I said, an interesting take, not one I buy, but I’ll grant for the sake of discussion. This is practically where I went in my last response. To elaborate on my own response. Gender is not binary, regardless of how one attains it, it is clearly a complex scale of spectrums that determine gender. How does the reincarnated soul interact with this?
I agree, but remember much of ones identity rests at the physical surface layer (psychological) at least superficially, because like you say it's a complex configuration, much of which is influenced by ones surroundings. Since a souls perception is confined primarily to the physical experience it is tossed about like the wind with much of what it observes. What I'm saying here might not ever even cross the mind of most souls experiencing what they are experiencing, they may inadvertently feel it but not know it. This of course is how the physical world and bodies were created, so that the soul believes that what it is experiencing is what reality is. This helps one keep their focus and attention on the physical world while they are here.

Again, reincarnation is simply the destination of the soul, it is just a term used to describe the transmigration of where the soul goes next. The only interactions are the soul itself and with the embodiments of that soul. Which include the mind and emotions.

Mind and emotions are just the physicals, again, it's presumptuous to assume otherwise, but once more granting the soul. Why is it so dependent on the body to drive it? Why isn't the soul more in control if it literally the person behind the face? Essentially you're saying that the soul is based on it's surroundings. But so is the brain, so what is the difference between the two?

So then let me rephrase the question, how does the soul interact with the gender spectrum? which the answer seems to be, reflect what the brain says? But that really isn't a unique or interesting interaction. Does it just copy the brain but less effectively? How does the soul uniquely interact with the gender identity, if it doesn't interact with one's gender identity uniquely from the brain, then how do you know a soul even interacts with gender identity?

As for gravitating towards one or the other, could I ask why? Why does the soul do this specifically? You have some kind of principals behind whatever souls you are using, so I’m curious about a lot.
The soul instinctively may gravitate towards a masculine or feminine characteristic because of what it desires or what attributes interest it, but again it may want to express both. So this is why I say this answers many questions about transgenders. Because the physical body may not always determine anything.

Okay.... but that wasn't my question (the last part), my question was why, to which you responded essentially because the soul wanted to. But earlier you said the soul started as a blank slate? So why did it gravitate towards one then? Because it interested them? That seems kind of like a weak basis for someone's gender identity to be determined. Especially whenever a god was the reason we assume the soul is there.

I wouldn’t assume that no.
Well maybe you wouldn't assume it, but I would guess most religious people would assume it and why they tend to look down on the topic altogether and why they judge it wrongly.

Fair enough

Gender is societally constructed,
That may be true, but gender "identity" is usually assumed with what physical apparatus one is born with. Whether a person is "male" or "female". Since the soul has no physical apparatus gender doesn't exist, however a soul may have natural attributes, and those attributes may reflect a masculine or feminine role or even both.

Why does it have natural attributes? A couple of quiotes up you said that the soul may gravitate towards certain attributes, but why? Is it just the random will of the soul? Is there any real reason at all? I'm really curious as I have no real idea about what these souls really are or what attributes they have besides a few basic ones we've discussed.

therefore any base layer or model would not have one. I agree. I agree, if there were a god, they would recognize the need to reproduce, and therefore create us with organs in order to accomplish that My question, if the creator is not bound by normal rules, why not make us capable of sexual pleasure and able to reproduce asexually? It would be less hassle in the long run.
That's a good question and much of what could be explained by experience alone. In creation God does things primarily for the pure experience not really by what may be more efficient. What you propose may be true of another species and even somewhere else in creation, but God wanted it this particular way for whatever experience it brings forth on this planet.

So essentially - because god said so? That isn't really a very compelling answer. If this god wanted to maximize a process or even make the experience better, then having our sexual pleasure and reproduction entirely separate would have been her best bet. It just doesn't make sense why any intelligent god would do it as she did.

So in other words, the foundation of the human is never truly changed, parts and other things are simply added as they gain physical being? A truly fascinating take, however, I would pose a different interpretation. I would say that if reincarnation is how the soul moves after their original body is gone, that they would collect kind of like an echo of all of their past lives, and slowly build up towards some maximum or unstable state, similar to atoms or molecules.
Yes they do collect a trail of experience that the soul carries in their consciousness unconsciously. What that amounts to I can't say, all I can say is that you are what you are through all of your experiences. I don't think it amounts to some usable state, that seems illogical to me. It may lead to a certain state, but your journey in creation is long and tailored for you specifically. The end of your state of being is actually where you originated.

I meant the end of the soul, it is seemingly arbitrarily selecting its next soul, gathering characteristics and such. Would that mean that the more bodies a soul has inhabited the more aspects the body would attain from the soul? Wouldn't that mean that transgender people would become less and less apparent, even though the opposite has happened? In regards to the unstable thing, it makes perfect sense, it is slowly gathering "things" just like an atom collecting electrons, either the decay would outrun it, destroying it, or it would achieve balance.

So in other words, perhaps my theory wasn’t as far off as according to you?
Our implications are much the same, just with different foundations. That's kind of what I'd like to point out. I am not really trying to prove you wrong more than I am trying to resonate with you.

I'm not necessarily trying to disagree with or prove you wrong, I just want things that make logical sense is all.

Part two of however long this takes

#90

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869