Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: Transgenderism on the Good Doctor

  1. #1
    Department Head Apologiaphoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Corryton
    Faith
    Trinitarian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,319
    Amen (Given)
    285
    Amen (Received)
    2588

    Transgenderism on the Good Doctor

    Is a he a she?

    The link can be found here.

    ------

    Was the right diagnosis made? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    Generally, my wife and I enjoy watching The Good Doctor. It's a great new series about a surgeon who is a savant and who is autistic. What is most interesting is not the diagnoses per se, although it is interesting to see the symbology that shows that he's thinking about the case and picturing it all, but how he relates to others and how he speaks and understands messages around him.

    In the latest episode called "She" the team starts to investigate a young girl who was brought into the hospital by her grandmother. As they start to check out the pain the patient has, they have to uncover her lower regions and lo and behold, they notice that she has male genitalia. Shaun Murphy, the good doctor, says that most everyone should know immediately.

    The patient is a boy.

    Now some might say that the person who is autistic does not understand how society works, but on the other hand, we could say that person is going to be less clouded by political correctness and such. Over and over, Shaun will regularly refer to the patient as he. Other doctors will correct him, but he will insist that this is the case.

    Of course, every other doctor and even the president of the hospital and all involved from the hospital's side are wanting to be politically correct. The patient says he's a girl, so by golly, he is a girl. (Please note that that sentence doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It is crazy to even have to say he is a girl unless you're talking about someone doing an acting job.) The parents also have been going along with this since the patient, Quinn, decided years ago that he was really a girl.

    The grandmother in this episode normally plays the role of the villain. Why? Because the grandmother in this episode is guilty of the awful heresy of telling the truth. She is guilty of saying that Quinn is really a boy. I think I once read a quote from Chesterton about how a madman would be one day someone who stood on top of a tower and proclaimed that two plus two equals four. The rest of the world would gasp at such a claim.

    Now we are in the position that we believe in such claims often as assigned sex. It is as if the doctors see the baby coming out of the womb and look at the body and just say to each other "Well what do you think? Is it a boy or a girl?" It's as if there's no objective criteria to tell what someone really is. (You know, things that normally don't change like DNA and genitalia.)*

    "But what about intersex?" Yes. I know about cases like that, but for the overwhelming majority of these cases, there is no problem with the DNA and genitalia. We're not talking about intersex here. We're talking about someone with no ambiguity in their bodies, but ambiguity in their feelings.*

    The story also goes on to say that Quinn due to his condition tried to commit suicide rather than live like a boy. The parents had then put him on puberty blockers which the grandmother was horrified to learn of. (We can think the grandmother is a person obviously still living in the past and not aware of how progressive we are.) Yet one has to wonder, are we going to say that because one person tried to commit suicide, their reasoning for it was right?

    Let's be clear. People who think that they are the opposite sex of their body do need compassion and understanding. Yes. Bullying is always wrong. On the other hand, so is coddling and giving in to demands. If an alcoholic was wanting to commit suicide rather than live without alcohol, that would not mean we freely give them the bottle.*

    The episode also dealt with if the patient should have both testicles removed or just one due to a cancerous growth. In the end, only one was removed unless the mind was changed later on. Let's keep in mind that people think a decision like this should be given to a teenager when many a teenager has a hard time even deciding what they're going to wear to school the next day.*

    I find it amazing in the field of apologetics how much we have to defend today and how much we have to defend is that which is often the most obvious. I thought it odd enough when we had to defend that marriage is a man-woman relationship. Now we have to defend that the man is a man and the woman is a woman.*

    Unfortunately, many of our people are going to be educated through pop culture rather than think through the issues themselves. It is another reason why Christians need to learn how to use the mediums that we have today to better communicate the Christian claim instead of just preaching to ourselves. At this point, I wonder how long it will be before future historians will look back on some of the things that were defended in the popular culture and ask "What were they thinking?"

    In the end, Shaun says he is working on understanding. By all means, try to understand what is going on when a boy thinks that he is a girl. Try to understand the person and what they're going through and how to help them. Don't try to understand the boy being a girl. You might as well try to understand 2 + 2 being 5.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  2. Amen Jedidiah, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  3. #2
    Oops....... mossrose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    slave & child of Christ
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    17,033
    Amen (Given)
    12485
    Amen (Received)
    7309
    I was disappointed in that episode.


    Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

  4. #3
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,890
    Amen (Given)
    2312
    Amen (Received)
    1420
    Quote Originally Posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    I find it amazing in the field of apologetics how much we have to defend today and how much we have to defend is that which is often the most obvious.
    Why do you feel you "have to defend" on this issue? One would think in a Western world that is rapidly becoming atheist, that you would have bigger fish to fry. Is there something particular in the bible that makes you think you really have to put great effort into defending one particular stance on medical treatment of people with these issues?

  5. #4
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,890
    Amen (Given)
    2312
    Amen (Received)
    1420
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    Why do you feel you "have to defend" on this issue? One would think in a Western world that is rapidly becoming atheist, that you would have bigger fish to fry. Is there something particular in the bible that makes you think you really have to put great effort into defending one particular stance on medical treatment of people with these issues?
    Let me elaborate on this because I think it's quite an important issue.

    Let's imagine the Good Doctor program had been about treating a patient who had cancer. Would you write a rant about "the doctor treated the cancer wrongly! I've read all the latest medical journal articles and he should have prescribed drug XXX instead!" No, because you're not a medical professional. But for some reason, you seem to see fit to stick your oar in regarding the treatment of patients when it comes to transgenderism. Why? You're not a clinical psychologist.

    If you'd written a little sermon about the episode that taught the lesson of "sometimes like the Good Doctor we might think of ourselves as wise and having all the answers, but then people come to us with problems that challenge our preconceptions and that leads us to rethink our ideas. So we should be open to listening, and not prejudging what others are going through" I'd have said fine, that sort of thing's in your wheelhouse as a preacher, or if you'd drawn the lesson of "everyone is at a different place on their journey through life and as Christians we need to meet them where they're at" sure, or if you'd gone for something like "lots of us may know someone who is transgender or grappling with gender issues, and it's important to be sympathetic, compassionate, and loving, and be there for them and supportive of them" then I'd say great.

    But instead you go with what very much comes across as: "gosh those people with so-called transgender issues and the clinical psychologists dealing with them are all stupid, it's so frustrating that I, the all-wise Nick, need to correct all these doctors and scientists and people going through these issues. I'm no expert on the topic and I'm not a clinical psychologist or anything, but I totally know the Truth waaaaay better than these people or the doctors or scientists treating them. The truth is that They Just Need To Be Told The Gender Of Their Bodies. These patients basically need to be told to man-up and snap out of it. And I'm not an expert or anything on this subject, but I know this just because I'm a preacher. Well, okay, the bible doesn't really say anything specifically on this topic, but it totally has some general ideas in it, sort of. I Totally Promise I'm not peddling snake oil and making up my silly views on transgenderism and pushing them on others as if they were true, and aren't just being a complete jerk to transgender people for the sake of it."

    My view would be that as a Christian apologist you need say zero on the topic of transgenderism because the Bible doesn't have "thou shalt not be transgender" as the 11th commandment, and so there are no atheists attacking the Bible's teachings on transgenderism because there aren't any. So as an apologist you are totally free to never talk about the subject. You don't have to attack transgender people or transgenderism. You don't have to try and pretend to know how to treat transgenderism better than clinical psychologists do. You don't have to advocate people being jerks to transgender people by trying to force them to identify with their body's sex. But as a preacher, you might want to consider giving some nice sermons about being supportive and compassionate towards people who are going through stuff, listening to other people's problems, and not being too arrogant in assuming that you have the answer to somebody else's problems.

  6. #5
    Department Head Apologiaphoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Corryton
    Faith
    Trinitarian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,319
    Amen (Given)
    285
    Amen (Received)
    2588
    I like that part about forcing them to identify with their body's sex. What other kind of sex could they have? Do we have a scientific test that rules that one's feelings are accurate descriptions of one's sex?

    The thing is transgenderism does affect all of us on a serious level and that little bit of yeast can damage a society. I would consider it not loving to say absolutely nothing.

    But hey, feel free to tell me the test whereby you can tell if someone is truly transgender instead of just going with something seen as a fad.

  7. Amen Jedidiah, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  8. #6
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,564
    Amen (Given)
    18982
    Amen (Received)
    6145
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    Why do you feel you "have to defend" on this issue? One would think in a Western world that is rapidly becoming atheist, that you would have bigger fish to fry. Is there something particular in the bible that makes you think you really have to put great effort into defending one particular stance on medical treatment of people with these issues?
    Why would one ignore one of countless ways in which our society is failing. The PC approach to transgenderism is a sad symptom of the illness of our society. True it is only one among many but that is no reason not to address it.
    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

  9. Amen mossrose amen'd this post.
  10. #7
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,890
    Amen (Given)
    2312
    Amen (Received)
    1420
    Quote Originally Posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    The thing is transgenderism does affect all of us on a serious level and that little bit of yeast can damage a society.
    I don't at all agree with this and would be interested in seeing an explanation from you as to why you feel this is. And even if it did, why would you feel as a Christian apologist that it is your duty to rescue society from this damage? Do you see yourself as being a political and social activist? After all, there are many things that happen politically and socially which damage or help society in various ways that don't really have anything to do with Christian apologetics per se...

    I would consider it not loving to say absolutely nothing.
    I am a bit disturbed by how often I see this sort of sentiment coming from evangelicals in the US...

    The logic of it tends to run "I am morally obligated to undertake action X, which at face value is not a loving action, but I subscribe to some convoluted logic Y, that tells me that the 'truly loving' thing to do is to do the action that doesn't look loving."

    Another case I see this logic applied by US evangelicals is when they kick their homosexual children out of their homes and cut off communication with them / acceptance of them until they stop being gay. (This is apparently the number one cause of teenage homelessness in the US... very much a cultural difference to my country where the average Christian would be absolutely horrified and appalled (and would likely ring the police to report the crime) if someone told them they had kicked their child out of their house and onto the street for being gay)

    But for me, the logic of "the Truly Loving thing to do, is an action which looks the opposite of loving" immediately raises a massive red flag. What it's essentially saying is, that instead of just being a kind and compassionate and loving person, and taking the obvious action in the circumstances that kindness and love and compassion would typically dictate (e.g. being kind to, nice to, and accepting of, the transgender or gay person), instead we should place a high level of reliance on the convoluted and potentially error prone logic that we have constructed about what's "Truly Loving, Despite How It Looks". So we then end up taking an action that looks horrendous (e.g. kicking our own children out of our home and onto the street; being a jerk to transgender people), because we are such zealous believers in the Truth of our logic that This Is Really The Right Thing To Do Despite How It Looks.

    My thought is that we better be really, really, really, really sure that taking such horrendous, apparently anti-loving, actions are truly the right thing before we do them, because otherwise we are doing horrendous and anti-loving actions. Because what if we're wrong in our logic!? The much safer path is just to be a kind and loving person and treat these people with love and respect and empathy and listen to their problems. We aren't required to have all the answers and be able to tell others the truth of what's best for them and how they should live - we can instead just treat them with kindness and respect.

    And in fact, in these instances, the state of current science suggests that yes, US evangelicals are indeed wrong in their reasoning that these anti-loving actions are in fact the Truly Loving actions, and suggests that the US evangelicals are pretty actively hurting these minority groups by carrying out their anti-loving actions towards them. So we have moved on from the massive red flag regarding the dangerous reasoning leading to anti-loving actions, and have moved to knowing that the logic was indeed wrong and that these anti-loving actions are indeed the anti-loving approach. We've gone from "woah, this is dangerous territory, are you REALLY sure you want to do this and trust your 'logic' over common sense?" to "ABORT!!! ABORT!!! WRONG!! ERROR! NOT LOVING!! YOU WERE WRONG!! STOP NOW! REVERSE! PANIC! DON'T DO THIS!!! CANCEL!!"

    Yet to this day I see lots of US evangelicals saying "this is the Truly Loving thing to do..." It's horrifying.

    But hey, feel free to tell me the test whereby you can tell if someone is truly transgender instead of just going with something seen as a fad.
    I am skeptical that there is anyone in the world who chooses to spend decades taking hormone medicines and visiting psychologists, and who subsequently opts to pay to have their bits chopped off and reshaped surgically, and who puts themselves through all the pain and suffering of intolerance of society and the jibes that come their way and the psychological stress and trauma of all the abuse... simply because they think it's "cool" or want to be part of a "fad". Anyone that committed, isn't faking it. Cross-dressing for a year or 10 might be a fad for some people, but going through the decades of abuse and critique from jerks like you in society who think they're doing the Truly Loving thing by taking unloving actions, and actually undergoing medical transition, is hardly a 'fad'.

  11. #8
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,658
    Amen (Given)
    151
    Amen (Received)
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    Is a he a she?

    The link can be found here.

    ------

    Was the right diagnosis made? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    Generally, my wife and I enjoy watching The Good Doctor. It's a great new series about a surgeon who is a savant and who is autistic. What is most interesting is not the diagnoses per se, although it is interesting to see the symbology that shows that he's thinking about the case and picturing it all, but how he relates to others and how he speaks and understands messages around him.

    In the latest episode called "She" the team starts to investigate a young girl who was brought into the hospital by her grandmother. As they start to check out the pain the patient has, they have to uncover her lower regions and lo and behold, they notice that she has male genitalia. Shaun Murphy, the good doctor, says that most everyone should know immediately.

    The patient is a boy.



    In Christ,
    Nick Peters
    I don't recall an episode where Shaun made a wrong call.
    και εκζητησατε με και ευρησετε με οτι ζητησετε με εν ολη καρδία υμων

  12. #9
    Department Head Apologiaphoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Corryton
    Faith
    Trinitarian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,319
    Amen (Given)
    285
    Amen (Received)
    2588
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    I don't at all agree with this and would be interested in seeing an explanation from you as to why you feel this is. And even if it did, why would you feel as a Christian apologist that it is your duty to rescue society from this damage? Do you see yourself as being a political and social activist? After all, there are many things that happen politically and socially which damage or help society in various ways that don't really have anything to do with Christian apologetics per se...
    Why I feel this? I don't feel it. I think it. My concern is with protecting the family and the freedoms many of us have. When a woman goes into Planet Fitness and goes to the locker room to change and comes out terrified because she sees a man in there and she becomes the villain because of that, I have concerns. When a child can freely switch genders back and forth and demand people use the pronoun of the day or hour or whatever, I have a concern. When because of this boys can just claim to be transgender and then go and shower with the girls, I have a concern. If the State wants to get more power, it needs to eliminate the family.

    I am a bit disturbed by how often I see this sort of sentiment coming from evangelicals in the US...

    The logic of it tends to run "I am morally obligated to undertake action X, which at face value is not a loving action, but I subscribe to some convoluted logic Y, that tells me that the 'truly loving' thing to do is to do the action that doesn't look loving."
    And how do you define loving?

    Another case I see this logic applied by US evangelicals is when they kick their homosexual children out of their homes and cut off communication with them / acceptance of them until they stop being gay. (This is apparently the number one cause of teenage homelessness in the US... very much a cultural difference to my country where the average Christian would be absolutely horrified and appalled (and would likely ring the police to report the crime) if someone told them they had kicked their child out of their house and onto the street for being gay)
    Which is something I don't endorse at all. If you think it's the #1 cause, I would love to see the source on that.

    But for me, the logic of "the Truly Loving thing to do, is an action which looks the opposite of loving" immediately raises a massive red flag. What it's essentially saying is, that instead of just being a kind and compassionate and loving person, and taking the obvious action in the circumstances that kindness and love and compassion would typically dictate (e.g. being kind to, nice to, and accepting of, the transgender or gay person), instead we should place a high level of reliance on the convoluted and potentially error prone logic that we have constructed about what's "Truly Loving, Despite How It Looks". So we then end up taking an action that looks horrendous (e.g. kicking our own children out of our home and onto the street; being a jerk to transgender people), because we are such zealous believers in the Truth of our logic that This Is Really The Right Thing To Do Despite How It Looks.
    The key word here is accepting and that's been the problem. Much of the left pushed tolerance for a long time, but then when they got into power, those who opposed were shut down for disagreeing and there was no tolerance. As soon as the State affirms a behavior, then the Christian bakers and florists are in trouble and tolerance isn't an issue. One can accept that a transgender feels such and such a way, but that does not mean they are obligated to accept that the beliefs are true.

    My thought is that we better be really, really, really, really sure that taking such horrendous, apparently anti-loving, actions are truly the right thing before we do them, because otherwise we are doing horrendous and anti-loving actions. Because what if we're wrong in our logic!? The much safer path is just to be a kind and loving person and treat these people with love and respect and empathy and listen to their problems. We aren't required to have all the answers and be able to tell others the truth of what's best for them and how they should live - we can instead just treat them with kindness and respect.
    The problem here is you've assumed I back the actions. I don't. What if we're wrong giving pre-teens puberty blockers? What if we're wrong when all of a sudden several girls who are best friends all decide they're transgender? This becomes more of a fad then. What is the test whereby you know the real ones from the phonies?

    And in fact, in these instances, the state of current science suggests that yes, US evangelicals are indeed wrong in their reasoning that these anti-loving actions are in fact the Truly Loving actions, and suggests that the US evangelicals are pretty actively hurting these minority groups by carrying out their anti-loving actions towards them. So we have moved on from the massive red flag regarding the dangerous reasoning leading to anti-loving actions, and have moved to knowing that the logic was indeed wrong and that these anti-loving actions are indeed the anti-loving approach. We've gone from "woah, this is dangerous territory, are you REALLY sure you want to do this and trust your 'logic' over common sense?" to "ABORT!!! ABORT!!! WRONG!! ERROR! NOT LOVING!! YOU WERE WRONG!! STOP NOW! REVERSE! PANIC! DON'T DO THIS!!! CANCEL!!"
    Since I have not accepted the premise, the conclusion is in error. You have not defined loving (And such isn't the realm of science either) and have taken an extreme case, assumed it's the norm justified by many evangelicals, and ran with it.

    Yet to this day I see lots of US evangelicals saying "this is the Truly Loving thing to do..." It's horrifying.
    To this day, I see atheists bombing churches saying it's the right thing to do.

    Oh. Sorry. I figured if you were going to say all of us agreed with that, I just figured I'd say all atheists would agree with what Russia did when Communism came to power.

    Or is it wrong to paint all atheists the same but okay to do it to Christians?

    I am skeptical that there is anyone in the world who chooses to spend decades taking hormone medicines and visiting psychologists, and who subsequently opts to pay to have their bits chopped off and reshaped surgically, and who puts themselves through all the pain and suffering of intolerance of society and the jibes that come their way and the psychological stress and trauma of all the abuse... simply because they think it's "cool" or want to be part of a "fad". Anyone that committed, isn't faking it. Cross-dressing for a year or 10 might be a fad for some people, but going through the decades of abuse and critique from jerks like you in society who think they're doing the Truly Loving thing by taking unloving actions, and actually undergoing medical transition, is hardly a 'fad'.
    I am not at all because of cases like the one I described above. Also, the more and more society pushes a narrative, the more and more people get special attention and acceptance.

  13. Amen Cerebrum123, mossrose, Jedidiah, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  14. #10
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,890
    Amen (Given)
    2312
    Amen (Received)
    1420
    Quote Originally Posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    If the State wants to get more power, it needs to eliminate the family.


    Much of the left pushed tolerance for a long time, but then when they got into power, those who opposed were shut down for disagreeing and there was no tolerance.
    You're now dealing with a different generation of people who have different views to the generation who came before them. I had the pleasure of meeting a couple of year ago, shortly before he died, a man who'd been a prominent gay activist in my city in the 70s and 80s. I imagine his goals were probably limited to tolerance and acceptance of himself and others. However, I see zero reason why the views he held should be at all binding on my own political philosophy.

    So when you say that the "left" used to do X and now does Y, what it really means is that overall most people who identified as "left" however many decades ago it was, thought X, and now at the current time the majority of people who identify as "left" think Y. But you disingenuously phrase it as if the "left" is a singular monolithic entity that exists over time and that therefore any change in its position is some sort of trick on its part.

    And how do you define loving?
    With a dictionary.

    Since I have not accepted the premise, the conclusion is in error.
    It is nice to hear you don't support such nasty treatment of gay kids. I was dismayed, after reading an article about the mistreatment of gay kids in America by their Christian families, and posting a thread on it on this site a year or two ago, just how many 'Christians' on this site were supportive of such horrible treatment of gay kids by their families.

    However, the same type of 'logic' these Christians were using to justify their behavior to themselves is what I see you using in the case of your approach to transgender issues. That is, rather than approach the issue with humility and compassion and simply be kind to the kids and the people involved, you've decided that due to your high level of arrogant belief in yourself as having all the answers via your 'logical' analysis of the issue such that you know better than scientists and clinical psychology experts, that it's actually 'truly loving' to do what most people would regard as being a jerk to these people by trying to insist that you force your 'solution' on them by trying to force them to conform to the gender of their bodies.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •