| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 50:11:23 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,138 |
| Messages: | 111,312 |
When Shirley and I visited the Grand Canyon a few years back, I saw a
book on sale which as basically an attack on Creationism and, in
particular, Creationist idea on how the Canyon formed. It was rather too heavy to bring back in my luggage, but as soon as I returned home I
ordered it off Amazon and read it with interest.
In case you are wondering, the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years as the Colorado River slowly ate away at the rock as the rock was slowly uplifted, with the results that we can see today. Anyone who
thinks otherwise is a fool (the book didn't use that term but the
author's opinions were clear).
The trouble is that there are many anomalies which simply do not fit the gradualist view, so much so that non-Creationist scientists have felt obliged to come up with a new explanation that is as catastrophist as
any Bible-believing, Noah's Flood preaching, Creationist could wish.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14909763/Grand-Canyon- origin-revealed-study-meteor-crater.html
Oh well. Nice to know that the fools are not so wrong after all.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
The other is creationism, which is short and simple. God made it.-a 6000 years ago. It may be right, of course, but I find it less satisfying.Which shows how little you know about Creationism!
When Shirley and I visited the Grand Canyon a few years back, I saw a
book on sale which as basically an attack on Creationism and, in
particular, Creationist idea on how the Canyon formed. It was rather too heavy to bring back in my luggage, but as soon as I returned home I
ordered it off Amazon and read it with interest.
In case you are wondering, the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years as the Colorado River slowly ate away at the rock as the rock was slowly uplifted, with the results that we can see today. Anyone who
thinks otherwise is a fool (the book didn't use that term but the
author's opinions were clear).
The trouble is that there are many anomalies which simply do not fit the gradualist view, so much so that non-Creationist scientists have felt obliged to come up with a new explanation that is as catastrophist as
any Bible-believing, Noah's Flood preaching, Creationist could wish.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14909763/Grand-Canyon- origin-revealed-study-meteor-crater.html
Oh well. Nice to know that the fools are not so wrong after all.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 16/07/2025 18:13, GB wrote:
The other is creationism, which is short and simple. God made it.Which shows how little you know about Creationism!
6000 years ago. It may be right, of course, but I find it less
satisfying.
I would be very surprised if there was a single Creationist who
"explained" the Grand Canyon by saying "God made it". Rather they would
put it down to natural processes following Noah's Flood, though they
would probably also claim that conditions were different from what they
are today - for example, that newly formed rocks were softer and eroded
more easily.
You claim that the "scientific" view is the one to follow, but *which* scientific view?
The one propounded by that book, which posits millions
of years of slow erosion by a river which was essentially no different
from today's Colorado, or the latest one which I highlighted in my post, that it was all due to a meteor strike which formed a dam that then
burst unleashing vast quantities of water and more or less instant erosion?
Would it surprise you if I point out that the latest "scientific" theory
is much more in accord with Creationist beliefs? Perhaps it wasn't
softer rocks, just vastly more water?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
There is no single scientific view about anything, really. Science is a process.
I'm glad to hear it.Would it surprise you if I point out that the latest "scientific"
theory is much more in accord with Creationist beliefs? Perhaps it
wasn't softer rocks, just vastly more water?
Not in the least.
That said, I think it is worth pointing out that ALL Christians are 'Creationists'. That is, we all agree that God is is the source of all things 'Seen and unseen'. What we are disputing therefore, is interpretations of Genesis, and which parts need to be taken very
literally, and which parts (if any) are allegorical or perhaps more
'poetic' in nature.
The observations that have been made of the universe, both on Earth and cosmologically, certainly *appear* to indicate a universe of great antiquity. That, of course, does not disprove Genesis. But it does raise other questions.
You will probably remember that I said I could only accept Genesis as literal, regarding the age of the Earth and life upon it, IF the
environment in which we find ourselves is in fact a 'model' or
simulation. Rather like the Internet platform 'Second Life', but on a
vastly more grand scale.
But then, why would God seek to deceive us by telling us it's 6,000
years old, and then deliberately make it look as if it's billions of
years old?
Personally, I believe this life is a sort of 'testing ground', an opportunity for each of us to choose whether we want to submit to GodWhich, of course, is the purpose of a simulation! I have previously
and accept His love, or to reject it.
On 17/07/2025 10:41, GB wrote:
There is no single scientific view about anything, really. Science is
a process.
And the same is true of Creationism. In fact, that was one of the
criticisms I had about the book on the Grand Canyon. The author attacked Creationist theories that have been long abandoned, the equivalent of me attacking evolutionists for denying punctuated equilibrium or the possibility of catastrophes, both positions that mainstream science abandoned a long time ago.
Would it surprise you if I point out that the latest "scientific"
theory is much more in accord with Creationist beliefs? Perhaps it
wasn't softer rocks, just vastly more water?
Not in the least.I'm glad to hear it.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
I can understand why someone would want to write a book about how they
think the Grand Canyon was formed. I'm surprised they strayed from that
into dissing Creationism.
On 17/07/2025 08:11, Timreason wrote:
But then, why would God seek to deceive us by telling us it's 6,000
years old, and then deliberately make it look as if it's billions of
years old?
God has never "told us" that earth is 6,000 years old (let alone that
the universe is that old). The figure 6,000 comes from a summation of
the ages of the patriarchs, data which may well be incomplete. 6,000 is
a useful short-hand for "young earth" as opposed to the millions of year postulated by evolutionists.
So I remain open to the possibility of a literal Genesis, but my own
feeling is that the universe IS billions of years old and therefore I
favour a non-literal interpretation, (but accept I could be wrong.)
Back when I was a lad we were told that giraffes developed because some
form of antelope stretched up to get leaves off trees during drought and
so its neck got longer and gradually this passed down through the generations until you had giraffes. This nonsense is no longer official evolutionary teaching.
It never was official evolutionary teaching, of course. (Whatever
official means. )
When I was a child a teacher went out of his way to explain that thatHe did it because it had been taught so often and by so many people that
was NOT how evolution works. The only reason I can think of for him
doing that is because he thought that lots of people misunderstood evolution.
Does the list in Luke match the lifetime sof those mentioned?-a (Genuine question, I've never checked)1. The list in Luke does not give ages.
Genesis was written 2500 years after Adam and Eve were created. To me,
it's a story handed down by mouth over a long period, and as with
chinese whispers, myth has crept in.
For me, the great ages of the
earliest ancestors are clans rather than the physical ages of Adam,
Seth, Noah etc.
On 17/07/2025 08:11, Timreason wrote:
That said, I think it is worth pointing out that ALL Christians are
'Creationists'. That is, we all agree that God is is the source of all
things 'Seen and unseen'. What we are disputing therefore, is
interpretations of Genesis, and which parts need to be taken very
literally, and which parts (if any) are allegorical or perhaps more
'poetic' in nature.
I suggest you adopt the same approach to the theories (not the facts)
put forward by scientists. No one disputes the facts discovered by scientists; it is the interpretation of those facts on which we disagree.
The observations that have been made of the universe, both on Earth
and cosmologically, certainly *appear* to indicate a universe of great
antiquity. That, of course, does not disprove Genesis. But it does
raise other questions.
You forget that Genesis explicitly describes the terra-forming of planet earth and the creation of life on it. It merely hints at the creation of
the universe. So there is nothing in Genesis to prevent the universe
being as old as you claim. It is only life on earth to which the young
age applies.
You will probably remember that I said I could only accept Genesis as
literal, regarding the age of the Earth and life upon it, IF the
environment in which we find ourselves is in fact a 'model' or
simulation. Rather like the Internet platform 'Second Life', but on a
vastly more grand scale.
Indeed, and you are probably aware that I find the idea of a simulation
very attractive.
But then, why would God seek to deceive us by telling us it's 6,000
years old, and then deliberately make it look as if it's billions of
years old?
God has never "told us" that earth is 6,000 years old (let alone that
the universe is that old). The figure 6,000 comes from a summation of
the ages of the patriarchs, data which may well be incomplete. 6,000 is
a useful short-hand for "young earth" as opposed to the millions of year postulated by evolutionists.
how the giraffe got its neck
The evolution of the giraffe's long neck is explained through several scientific theories:
These theories collectively illustrate how the giraffe's neck evolved
over time through a combination of environmental pressures and genetic changes.
Fair comment. There are many scientific theories I have doubts about,
one being 'The Big Bang'. Also, explaining anomalies away by inventing
'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy' seems rather dubious to me.
Genesis seems to indicate the complete creation as being completed in
just six days. "He also made the stars." [Gen.1:16] Added almost as an afterthought! But I think that was on the 4th day. So, even if you want
to suggest the Earth was somehow already there, the Bible if taken very literally tells us the stars were all made on that day.
Well, let's not split hairs here. The genealogies indicate the time back
to Adam, who was created on the sixth day, is certainly thousands rather than millions of years. So I would argue that a plain and literal interpretation of Genesis does present creation of the entire Universe
as being just a few thousand years ago.
That's why I find it strange that God would present us with a Universe
that is apparently billions of years old, and then seem to tell us (indirectly) that it is only a few thousand years old...
UNLESS the 'days' are not *literal* 24 hour days, but undefined longNo, neither logic nor grammar would support that interpretation.
periods of time - but then you find yourself in my territory, of not interpreting Genesis absolutely literally!
On 20/07/2025 10:41, GB wrote:
The evolution of the giraffe's long neck is explained through several
scientific theories:
Indeed, but what either you or the site neglects to ex+plain is that
these "scientific" theories are only "scientific" because they have been proposed by scientists. The first two - Lamarck and Darwin - are now recognised as rubbish. Even the final one - Mating Fights - is now considered dubious as studies have shown that females do not show any preference for long necks or (in the case of peacocks) elaborate tails.
These theories collectively illustrate how the giraffe's neck evolved
over time through a combination of environmental pressures and genetic
changes.
No, these theories show how evolutionists desperately scrabble to
explain the giraffe's neck.
Incidentally, there was a joke on YouTube recently where some woman
reported a potential boyfriend (American, of course) boasting that their babies would be born with a good physique because he was assiduous in
going to the gym to ensure his children would have good muscle
development. You and I might laugh at his ignorance, but he was no more ridiculous than Lamarck's idea of stretched necks being passed down the generations.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
I'd agree that Lamarck has been debunked. Do you have a link to the
study about peacocks, please?
Their desperate scrabbling sure has fooled me! :)
It's a common misconception in real life, which is sadly not a joke. For example, an article says:
"new research confirms that people who grow up with books at home tend
to have higher reading comprehension and better mathematical and digital communication skills."
So, if you have no books in the house, but have a baby on the way,
should you rush out and buy 350 books, so as to give it the best
possible start in life?
It's a common misconception in real life, which is sadly not a joke.
For example, an article says:
"new research confirms that people who grow up with books at home tend
to have higher reading comprehension and better mathematical and
digital communication skills."
Not the same thing as thinking that building strong muscles yourself
will ensure that your baby inherits strong mucles.
So, if you have no books in the house, but have a baby on the way,
should you rush out and buy 350 books, so as to give it the best
possible start in life?
Yes - provided you read them all yourself (and that they are not trashy novels of the Barbara Cartland type).
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
My point was that the headline writer completely misconstrued the
article in exactly the same way as your youtube video, except the video
was intended as a joke.
On 22/07/2025 13:30, GB wrote:
My point was that the headline writer completely misconstrued the
article in exactly the same way as your youtube video, except the
video was intended as a joke.
My sense of humour must be slipping, as I saw nothing funny in either
place. Children brought up with plenty of books will do better at school
- after all, that is why the government at one time distributed packs of books to every newborn, hoping to encourage parents to read to their children.
Nevertheless I repeat that such post-natal influencing in no way
resembles the foolish expectation of that American that *his* pre-natal exercising would result in his child having a good physique. Genetics
just doesn't work that way.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
So, when you said "Children brought up with plenty of books will do
better at school", that's generally true, but don't fall into the trap
of thinking that the main driving force here is the books.
Reading to children probably helps them with their reading, but I don't
see how it would help them with mathematics, which the study says is
also enhanced.
I agree. However, it's worth noting that parental habits are learnt by children. So, by going to the gym, the American may well instil in his
child the idea that doing so is a normal part of life, and this may well have an effect on the child's physique, if not his genes.
And there was a feature article in New Scientist last year which claimed that parental influence was actually very minor. Having lots of books
and reading to your child gave them a 10% or 15% head start, but by the
end of adolesence that had dwindled to something like 1%!
Despite it being in New Scientist, I am dubious about the figures, but nevertheless that was what was claimed.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
You're probably aware of all the studies involving identical twins, who
have been brought up separately.-a The tl;dr answer is that both
upbringing and genetics are important, but for academic achievement
genetics is the more important of the two.
So, whether you are religious apparently depends more on who you are
than how you are raised.
On 23/07/2025 15:30, GB wrote:
You're probably aware of all the studies involving identical twins,
who have been brought up separately.-a The tl;dr answer is that both
upbringing and genetics are important, but for academic achievement
genetics is the more important of the two.
Yes, it is always wise to choose your parents carefully.
So, whether you are religious apparently depends more on who you are
than how you are raised.
That is an interesting statement and sort of brings us back to predestination v. freewill.
However I am afraid that would still come down on the side of freewill.
Your genes may make you more inclined to be religious, but even those
whose genes are otherwise can make the intellectual choice to seek
goodness actively.
Mind you, I would claim that the style of church you join is also
influenced by your genes. For some people it is the bells and smells
which are most satisfying while others go for the happy clappy, some for
the intellectual and others for the emotional, some for the more easy-
going liberal approach, others for a rigid black and white religion.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
I was really, really surprised by it. And, bear in mind that it came
from an AI LLM, so it may not be true at all. :)
On 24/07/2025 11:21, GB wrote:
I was really, really surprised by it. And, bear in mind that it came
from an AI LLM, so it may not be true at all. :)
Why quote AI if you cannot be sure it is true? You could just make up "facts" yourself without bothering with the global warming occasioned by using AI.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
I suppose that one answer is that AI produces useful results a lot of
the time, even if they are not 100% correct.
On 25/07/2025 12:48, GB wrote:
I suppose that one answer is that AI produces useful results a lot of
the time, even if they are not 100% correct.
AI no doubt has its uses, but to quote it as an authority does seem
rather suspect.
My son was describing how in previous years he would watch a video to
see if it was suitable for his class, then watch it again to jot down relevant questions. Now he just tells AI "List 20 questions for year 10
on Gone with the Wind" and half a minute later AI has watched the video
for him and come up with the 20 questions (which he then whittles down
to 10 or 15).
Amazing.
He also mentioned something interesting: according to him - so not a scientific study, just his impressions - anorexia has virtually
disappeared. Instead kids are self-harming and seeking to change gender.
His view is that the basic problem is lack of self-love or self-esteem
and anorexia, self-harm and sex change are just fashionable
manifestations of this underlying problem.
Discuss.
Wouldn't have thought wanting to have a sex change would be classed as similar, as that is a massive change in someones life, and I doubt that decision is taken lightly.
On 28/07/2025 00:17, John wrote:
Wouldn't have thought wanting to have a sex change would be classed as
similar, as that is a massive change in someones life, and I doubt
that decision is taken lightly.
Having bits cut off you is surely the ultimate in self-harm?
taking it lightly, have you seen the figures for the sudden boom in
young people claiming to be the wrong gender?
On 28/07/2025 06:57, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 28/07/2025 00:17, John wrote:
Wouldn't have thought wanting to have a sex change would be classed
as similar, as that is a massive change in someones life, and I doubt
that decision is taken lightly.
Having bits cut off you is surely the ultimate in self-harm?
Not really if medically done, and the accounts I've read have resulted
in such people living much more happier lives.-a Oh, I know there are bad examples, and you have in the past posted about them.-a Equally people
have bad experiences after becoming Christians, does that mean
Christiianity is bad?
Self harm results in people cutting themselves, not having a medical procedure.
As for
taking it lightly, have you seen the figures for the sudden boom in
young people claiming to be the wrong gender?
I haven't, what is the figure?
Having bits cut off you is surely the ultimate in self-harm?
Not really if medically done
and the accounts I've read have resulted
in such people living much more happier lives.
Oh, I know there are bad
examples, and you have in the past posted about them.-a Equally people
have bad experiences after becoming Christians, does that mean
Christiianity is bad?
Self harm results in people cutting themselves, not having a medical procedure.
As forNo, you do the research. Type "increase in transgender youth" into your favourite search engine and see what it says. A few facts might give you
taking it lightly, have you seen the figures for the sudden boom in
young people claiming to be the wrong gender?
I haven't, what is the figure?
On page 24 it gives figures for the number of referrals to the service.
In 2009, there were around 50. By 2016, this had risen to well over 1500.
On 28/07/2025 14:12, John wrote:
Having bits cut off you is surely the ultimate in self-harm?
Not really if medically done
What a silly answer! If you lose a leg, whether removed by a doctor
under anasthaesia or by falling under a train, you spend the rest of
your life on crutches. You have suffered harm.
You're over-generalising somewhat, as you can have bits cut off without suffering harm, and as a trivial example I'll choose toenails.
But this is not a hill worth dying for. Clearly, your point is not
really about whether there are bits of the body that can be cut off
without harm, but that genital surgery is harmful.
Having just had a bit of surgery 'down there', I can confirm it's all
quite tender and not somewhere you want to get anything done without
really good reason. :)
On 28/07/2025 14:12, John wrote:
Having bits cut off you is surely the ultimate in self-harm?
Not really if medically done
What a silly answer! If you lose a leg, whether removed by a doctor
under anasthaesia or by falling under a train, you spend the rest of
your life on crutches. You have suffered harm.
No, but some manifestations of Christianity are bad.
Self harm results in people cutting themselves, not having a medical
procedure.
Or in people persuading a doctor to cut them.
As for
taking it lightly, have you seen the figures for the sudden boom in
young people claiming to be the wrong gender?
I haven't, what is the figure?
No, you do the research. Type "increase in transgender youth" into your favourite search engine and see what it says. A few facts might give you
a more informed and balanced set of opinions.
And, of course, the harm is the same whether the various amputations are performed by a doctor or by yourself with a kitchen knife.
There are men with prostate issues (BPH) who self-catheterise, rather
than having surgery. They put the catheter in, pee, and take it out
again, so they are not walking around with a catheter 24/7. This is not something that would appeal to me, but it's a valid choice, approved of
by mainstream medicine.
Cutting off breasts or a penis is in a different league, though. In any case, the penis is not cut off completely (I understand). There's a complicated operation to create an artificial vagina, incorporating part
of the penis. I think it's strange, and it's definitely not something I would want myself, but I can sympathise with someone who feels overpoweringly that their body is all wrong for them.
I can see that you might really strongly disapprove on religiousI am very sympathetic towards their feelings - but the correct treatment
grounds, but I don't see how you can be so unsympathetic with their
genuine feelings.
Having a gammy leg that needs to be amputated relieves that person from stress and pain, and crutches are a mere inconvenience.
My step dad lost his leg due to gangerine. He still cooked and did
eveything for my mum.-a Yes, he had a wheelchair and used crutches, but
it allowed him to continue life without the pain he had with the gammy leg.
Genuine question.-a If someone believes they're in the wrong body (regardless of whether you believe it's pretence or mental illness) and makes the decision to have surgery, then proceeds to live out the
remainder of their life as the opposite sex, entirely happy in their new status, where is the harm?
Again, I ask, where is the self harm?-a Doctors are not *persuaded* to
cut them just for the fun of it. Each case is considered on it's merit.
Whether its a gammy leg or having your penis chopped off, then if that person goes on to live a fruitful life free from pain (physically or mentally) then that is a good thing imo.
Typical deflection.
GB took the trouble to do so even though the question wasn't directed at him.-a I'll read that when I get the opportunity to.Exactly. Doing a simple web search is not rocket science, so why not do
On 30/07/2025 20:12, GB wrote:
feels overpoweringly that their body is all wrong for them.
The problem is not the body, it is the mind.
I think fewer people would want to chop their bodies about to 'conformThank you for your post, Tim, but throughout you showed a complete
to society', if that society was more accepting of them as they are.
On 31/07/2025 08:32, Timreason wrote:
I think fewer people would want to chop their bodies about to 'conformThank you for your post, Tim, but throughout you showed a complete
to society', if that society was more accepting of them as they are.
inability to recognise a few facts.
The whole problem with this "trans" issue is that I *do* want to accept these people *as they are* and I think that society at large also should accept them *as they are*. Above all, I think that the people themselves should be encouraged to accept themselves *as they are* - not as they pretend to be or as they wish to be, but *as they are*.
You very rightly point out that your problems would not be cured by
having bits chopped off you. Splendid. I agree. Yet somehow you seem to
feel that these other people *should* have bits chopped off them. A
touch of hypocrisy? Or simple inability to recognise facts?
And, of course, the increasing number of people who have had bits
chopped off them (or ruined by inappropriate hormones being introduced
into their bodies) and who then regret what they have done, merely
confirms that chopping people's bodies just because they are suffering a temporary mental aberration is *not* a good idea.
They should be helped to accept themselves "as they are", as you have so eloquently pointed out.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Fine - but would it not be even better if they could be cured of their mental illness and so live out the remainder of their life in harmonyDo you have a method for doing this? If so, how much testing has it
with their biological sex?
Do you have a method for doing this?-a If so, how much testing has it
had?-a Which journals has it been written up in?
Well, I'm pleased to hear it. So if a guy wants to wear a floral frock
and date other guys, fine. That's how he is. Or a woman who wants to
spend her life with another woman, also fine. That's how she is. No
nonsense about a man should be this, or a woman should be that. People
are what they are, and I'm glad to learn that actually you are more accepting than I thought you were.
Where did you ever get the idea that I think anyone 'should' get bits chopped off them? I'm actually saying this; if society was more willing
to accept them *as they are*, then they wouldn't even want to do that.
All I do defend is the right for *adults* to decide to have bits chopped off, if it's what they really want. You already know that I don't think
that should be done to kids, because I've already said so. Sometimes
when I see your responses I wonder if you actually read what I have
written.
I've met some for whom it went very well, and others for whom it was
indeed a disaster. But personally I've come across more successes than failures, even though I think it's a bit sad that they feel they have to
go to those lengths to fit in.
Then we are both agreed on that, and I find you to be more tolerant of difference than I thought. Good on you.
Yes, a man is a man, a woman is a woman and any doubts on the matter can
be easily resolved by a genetic test.[1]
Where did you ever get the idea that I think anyone 'should' get bits
chopped off them? I'm actually saying this; if society was more
willing to accept them *as they are*, then they wouldn't even want to
do that.
As they are, meaning that those who are really men should be accepted as men, no matter what they pretend.
I've met some for whom it went very well, and others for whom it was
indeed a disaster. But personally I've come across more successes than
failures, even though I think it's a bit sad that they feel they have
to go to those lengths to fit in.
Or you've come across more who *claim* that it was a success, possibly because they are too embarrassed to admit that after going to all the trouble of surgery and so on, they are now trapped in their web of lies
and see no way back to being what they really are.
Then we are both agreed on that, and I find you to be more tolerant of
difference than I thought. Good on you.
No, you are still confused. You think that "as they are" means "as they pretend to be".
Or do you recommend that we should say, "We don't have a cure for schizophrenia, so let's just accept this poor person - it's all
society's fault anyway (Tim) and a few deaths along the way are just the price we have to pay for accepting him *as he is*."
On 31/07/2025 08:32, Timreason wrote:
The whole problem with this "trans" issue is that I *do* want to accept these people *as they are* and I think that society at large also should accept them *as they are*. Above all, I think that the people themselves should be encouraged to accept themselves *as they are* - not as they pretend to be or as they wish to be, but *as they are*.
You very rightly point out that your problems would not be cured by
having bits chopped off you. Splendid. I agree. Yet somehow you seem to
feel that these other people *should* have bits chopped off them. A
touch of hypocrisy? Or simple inability to recognise facts?
And, of course, the increasing number of people who have had bits
chopped off them (or ruined by inappropriate hormones being introduced
into their bodies) and who then regret what they have done, merely
confirms that chopping people's bodies just because they are suffering a temporary mental aberration is *not* a good idea.
On 30/07/2025 12:41, John wrote:
Having a gammy leg that needs to be amputated relieves that person
from stress and pain, and crutches are a mere inconvenience.
Apples and pears.
My step dad lost his leg due to gangerine. He still cooked and did
eveything for my mum.-a Yes, he had a wheelchair and used crutches, but
it allowed him to continue life without the pain he had with the gammy
leg.
Your step-father had a genuine, life-threatening disease, for which amputation was, unfortunately, the only solution. In what way is that comparable to someone who has no physical defect, no disease, just
suffers from a mental illness?
Genuine question.-a If someone believes they're in the wrong body
(regardless of whether you believe it's pretence or mental illness)
and makes the decision to have surgery, then proceeds to live out the
remainder of their life as the opposite sex, entirely happy in their
new status, where is the harm?
Fine - but would it not be even better if they could be cured of their mental illness and so live out the remainder of their life in harmony
with their biological sex?
cut them just for the fun of it. Each case is considered on it's merit.
If you believe that I am astounded at your gullibility. The evidence
seems clear that places like the Tavistock Clinic are run by people who
have an ideological commitment rather than acting on any scientific or rational basis.
Whether its a gammy leg or having your penis chopped off, then if that
person goes on to live a fruitful life free from pain (physically or
mentally) then that is a good thing imo.
Yeah? So why are all these people so desperate to get hold of innocent children? They have made it impossible for themselves to naturally have children, so they demand to adopt some poor kid. A man who pretends to
be a woman has merely made it impossible for him to be either - after
the surgery he is no longer a man (a eunuch possibly) and it is
impossible for him to be a woman, no matter how many idiots refer to him
as "she"
Typical deflection.
No, if I quote figures at you, you will claim that I am misquoting or
being selective or something.
GB took the trouble to do so even though the question wasn't directed
at him.-a I'll read that when I get the opportunity to.
Exactly. Doing a simple web search is not rocket science, so why not do
it before shooting your mouth off with half-baked opinions that often contradict the facts?
On 31/07/2025 20:12, GB wrote:
Or do you recommend that we should say, "We don't have a cure for schizophrenia, so let's just accept this poor person - it's all
society's fault anyway (Tim) and a few deaths along the way are just the price we have to pay for accepting him *as he is*."
On 01/08/2025 04:05, Kendall K. Down wrote:
Or do you recommend that we should say, "We don't have a cure for
schizophrenia, so let's just accept this poor person - it's all
society's fault anyway (Tim) and a few deaths along the way are just
the price we have to pay for accepting him *as he is*."
Cruel and unnecessary to bring me into it, because you know my wife has schizophrenia. You REALLY have hit a new low.
May God forgive you, I'll try to, as well.
So no, you don't want to accept Trans people "as they are" because you believe that their belief is a pretend one.
Chalk and cheese. In Tim's case his brain is wired differently, so no
amount of bits cut off will change that. In the trans person their penis
or their breasts are the issue, and if these bits are removed it removes
the obstacle they are facing.
Temporary mental abberation?-a That just shows your ignorance on the subject.
Yes, in most cases biological sex can be determined. But I feel you are sidestepping from my core argument, which is not about that, it is about society's expectations of roles and behaviours, and how these should be accommodating of difference.
I'm no psychologist, but if it was generally accepted that a man could choose to live and dress in a way more usually associated with the
female sex, or a woman could choose to live in a way more usually
associated with the male sex, then the desire to physically alter their bodies might be less common.
That's my point. Society accepting that they have a right to live and
dress in ways that are more usually associated with women (and vice-
versa). Also, they can date and live with whom they choose (provided
they are of age, of course, anticipating the possibility of tripe about paedophilia, which we are not discussing here.)
You seem unable to accept that it CAN be very beneficial, at least for
SOME people. I don't know, but I would guess that more have benefitted
than have suffered. That said, I sadly have met one or two in the latter category. But you seem totally unable to accept that it CAN work well
for some. It's their choice, not yours or mine.
It would be easier if society just accepted neurodivergents. But they
don't.
So yes, biologically the people being discussed here are theirAs I said, if some man wants to wear a dress for his personal
biological sex, but accepting them as they are means recognising that
some men want to live as women, and some women as men, and not try to
force them to conform to any perceived 'Norm'.
Cruel and unnecessary to bring me into it, because you know my wife has schizophrenia. You REALLY have hit a new low.
Schizophrenia is a recognised mental illness.-a Tim wasn't referring to mentally ill people when he says we should accept those who don't comply with societal norms.-a But seeing as you are so dead set against them,
why are you a Christian?-a I'm sure if Jesus walked the earth today he wouldn't be as condescending as you.
It is your opinion that it is a mental illness. Funnily enough it's not recognised medically as one.-a Are you more knowledgeable than the professionals?
Prove it's a mental illness and I will agree with you.
FFS, read the back story of Stephanie Hirst
And then ask yourself, what was better for Stephanie, living every day
in a nightmare or changing her life to become what she wanted to be?
Which is better, an adopted child brought up in loving surroundings
without reference to who the parents are, or a child brought up in a
broken home? (of which I was one)
On 31/07/2025 20:12, GB wrote:
Do you have a method for doing this?-a If so, how much testing has it
had?-a Which journals has it been written up in?
I could probably make a fortune if I had a successful method for curing
the mentally ill.
difficult-to-impossible to cure. However I do not see difficulty as a
reason for giving up the search. After all, look at all the other
illnesses that are difficult or even impossible to cure, from cancer to schizophrenia, but research continues.
Or do you recommend that we should say, "We don't have a cure for schizophrenia, so let's just accept this poor person - it's all
society's fault anyway (Tim) and a few deaths along the way are just the price we have to pay for accepting him *as he is*."
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 01/08/2025 08:09, Timreason wrote:
Yes, in most cases biological sex can be determined. But I feel you
are sidestepping from my core argument, which is not about that, it is
about society's expectations of roles and behaviours, and how these
should be accommodating of difference.
So as I suspected, you are *not* arguing for us to accept people *as
they are*. You want us to accept people *as they are not*.
I'm no psychologist, but if it was generally accepted that a man could
choose to live and dress in a way more usually associated with the
female sex, or a woman could choose to live in a way more usually
associated with the male sex, then the desire to physically alter
their bodies might be less common.
I'm sure people can dress how they please; it's when they demand that society go along with their fantasy and that women's spaces should be invaded by men in dresses, that's when I disagree.
As I said, people (non-Christian people) are free to dress how they
like, but they do not have the right to trample on other people's
rights. To take just one example, speech therapy for children is crying
out for therapists and funds, yet speech therapists are being diverted
to teach men how to talk like women! I bitterly resent that when
children who are emotionally deprived and intellectually challenged are being deprived of the therapy they need. (Not want; NEED!)
It would be easier if society just accepted neurodivergents. But they
don't.
I don't agree with the behaviour you call "torture", but I do think that people such as yourself have to fit in with the majority, not expect the majority to fit in with you.
On 31/07/2025 18:13, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 31/07/2025 08:32, Timreason wrote:
On 01/08/2025 08:11, Timreason wrote:
Cruel and unnecessary to bring me into it, because you know my wife
has schizophrenia. You REALLY have hit a new low.
If I knew it, I had forgotten it, but in any case the reference had
nothing to do with your wife and everything to do with your assertion
that it was all society's fault.
Still, a clever bit of smoke-screening.
On 01/08/2025 14:24, John wrote:
On 31/07/2025 18:13, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 31/07/2025 08:32, Timreason wrote:
The comment was from Kendall. Unfortunately you left the "Timreason
wrote:" bit in!
Thought I'd mention that...
On 01/08/2025 15:28, John wrote:
Schizophrenia is a recognised mental illness.-a Tim wasn't referring to
mentally ill people when he says we should accept those who don't
comply with societal norms.-a But seeing as you are so dead set against
them, why are you a Christian?-a I'm sure if Jesus walked the earth
today he wouldn't be as condescending as you.
He wouldn't have needed to be; He could cast out demons with a word.
On 01/08/2025 15:17, John wrote:
FFS, read the back story of Stephanie Hirst
Why, I wonder, do people say, "I'm in the right mind but the wrong
body"? Why not "I'm in the right body but the wrong mind"?
And then ask yourself, what was better for Stephanie, living every day
in a nightmare or changing her life to become what she wanted to be?
Or how about accepting herself "as she is"? Cheaper than surgery.
I tend to think only a truly evil person would respond like that.
So as I suspected, you are *not* arguing for us to accept people *as
they are*. You want us to accept people *as they are not*.
Eh? Explain yourself. You're not making sense. I just said accept them
as they are, and now you're claiming I said the opposite? What mushrooms
are you smoking?
I agree that there are issues about women's spaces and about sporting competitions. That's been discussed before. The best toilet option is probably individual cubicles with hand washing facilities included,
where possible.
Which is precisely what I had to learn how to do. I don't expect the majority to 'fit in' with me, I just require that they are not
deliberately cruel to me or to people like me. Kindness and
understanding go a long way.
But, then you say that there is no treatment.
Make your mind up, are trans people mentally ill or do they have demons?
Obviously you've never had to wrestle with suicide 5 days a week
Anyway I'm going to leave it there.-a All I can say is one day you'll be answerable to God, should such a being exist, and I pity you if that day comes for you, as you give Christianity a bad name.
On 01/08/2025 18:43, Timreason wrote:
obtuse because you've been caught out talking nonsens.
On 01/08/2025 18:48, Timreason wrote:
I tend to think only a truly evil person would respond like that.
You may think what you like,
On 01/08/2025 18:05, GB wrote:
But, then you say that there is no treatment.
So? The problem lies in the mind, so any treatment must be directed
towards the mind. The fact that no treatment has yet been developed does
not alter that fact.
On 01/08/2025 18:05, GB wrote:
But, then you say that there is no treatment.
So? The problem lies in the mind, so any treatment must be directed
towards the mind. The fact that no treatment has yet been developed does
not alter that fact.
As the figures
show, there has been a huge increase in people suddenly discovering that they are the wrong sex
On 01/08/2025 18:48, Timreason wrote:
I tend to think only a truly evil person would respond like that.
You may think what you like, but if you want to make the charge stick, please highlight the word "wife" in my original post.
On 01/08/2025 14:24, John wrote:
So no, you don't want to accept Trans people "as they are" because you
believe that their belief is a pretend one.
So I should accept that the chap who thinks he is Napoleon Buonaparte actually is Napoleon?
On 01/08/2025 17:14, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 01/08/2025 14:24, John wrote:
So no, you don't want to accept Trans people "as they are" because
you believe that their belief is a pretend one.
So I should accept that the chap who thinks he is Napoleon Buonaparte
actually is Napoleon?
I'm not trained in how to deal with people like that, but here's a
little (unfortunately completely true) anecdote.
When my aunt had pretty severe dementia, she said one day that she
hadn't seen her mother for a few days. Like an utter fool, I told her as kindly as I could that unfortunately her mum had died many years before
that date.
There was no need for me to say that at all. If she believed her mum was still alive, and upstairs in the old age home somewhere, that was
utterly harmless.
Of course, after being told her mum was dead, she collapsed in tears,
poor woman. As I said, I was a fool, and I was not intending to be unkind.
Can you see how this might be relevant to your (rhetorical) question?
Generally, as a rough rule of thumb, you don't challenge the delusion,
but gently change the subject, guide the person's attention away from
the delusional thinking. Get them thinking or chatting about something
else. You have to play it by ear, but usually you neither have to
support them in their delusion, or directly challenge them. You can
usually brush over it and go on to something else.
Can you see how this might be relevant to your (rhetorical) question?
Generally, as a rough rule of thumb, you don't challenge the delusion,
but gently change the subject, guide the person's attention away from
the delusional thinking. Get them thinking or chatting about something
else. You have to play it by ear, but usually you neither have to
support them in their delusion, or directly challenge them. You can
usually brush over it and go on to something else.
After all, when a person's delusion causes them to engage in unlawful activity, the courts are generally not at all reluctant to point out that it is a delusion. And anti-science delusion can be fatal[1]. Sometimes, there are cases where a delusion must be confronted.
So basically Ken is tarring all schizophenic people as murderers
(including Tim's wife) because a minority kill.
So? The problem lies in the mind, so any treatment must be directed
towards the mind. The fact that no treatment has yet been developed
does not alter that fact.
Says the expert on mental health.
If you're referring to the Cass Report figures I quoted, they don't show that at all, I'm afraid.
You are effectively saying that these people must not be helped. Why not just say that in simple terms, then?
Presumably, you are against Wegovy and other proven weight loss drugs, because the problem lies in the eating?Actually, given the problems that are surfacing with this "wonder drug",
On Sun, 3 Aug 2025 18:35:29 +0100, Timreason <timreason@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
Generally, as a rough rule of thumb, you don't challenge the delusion,
but gently change the subject, guide the person's attention away from
the delusional thinking. Get them thinking or chatting about something
else. You have to play it by ear, but usually you neither have to
support them in their delusion, or directly challenge them. You can
usually brush over it and go on to something else.
What do you do, though, when someone's delusion includes a (mis)belief that they are entitled to a certain course of action, and they attempt to engage in that course of action despite not, in fact, being entitled to? Or when their delusion leads to harmful action?
After all, when a person's delusion causes them to engage in unlawful activity, the courts are generally not at all reluctant to point out that it is a delusion. And anti-science delusion can be fatal[1]. Sometimes, there are cases where a delusion must be confronted.
[1] eg, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd6nqz0j03xo
Mark
On Sun, 3 Aug 2025 18:35:29 +0100, Timreason <timreason@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
Generally, as a rough rule of thumb, you don't challenge the delusion,
but gently change the subject, guide the person's attention away from
the delusional thinking. Get them thinking or chatting about something
else. You have to play it by ear, but usually you neither have to
support them in their delusion, or directly challenge them. You can
usually brush over it and go on to something else.
What do you do, though, when someone's delusion includes a (mis)belief that they are entitled to a certain course of action, and they attempt to engage in that course of action despite not, in fact, being entitled to? Or when their delusion leads to harmful action?
After all, when a person's delusion causes them to engage in unlawful activity, the courts are generally not at all reluctant to point out that it is a delusion. And anti-science delusion can be fatal[1]. Sometimes, there are cases where a delusion must be confronted.
[1] eg, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd6nqz0j03xo
Mark
Did you see, by the way, that some chap pretending to be a woman has
been excluded from women's snooker competitions, sued and lost. Sanity
is returning.
On 02/08/2025 17:45, GB wrote:
You are effectively saying that these people must not be helped. Why
not just say that in simple terms, then?
If anything, I am urging more research.
Presumably, you are against Wegovy and other proven weight loss drugs,Actually, given the problems that are surfacing with this "wonder drug",
because the problem lies in the eating?
I might very well be against Wegovy. I certainly wouldn't take it myself!
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 02/08/2025 18:13, GB wrote:
If you're referring to the Cass Report figures I quoted, they don't
show that at all, I'm afraid.
No, I'm referring to the figures turned up by a quick search of the internet.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 03/08/2025 00:00, John wrote:
So basically Ken is tarring all schizophenic people as murderers
(including Tim's wife) because a minority kill.
If you had the intelligence to read the posts in context, you would see
that the deaths in question were suicides, not murders.
But there, I do not worship at the god of trans, so any lie will do to
beat me.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 03/08/2025 20:13, Mark Goodge wrote:
What do you do, though, when someone's delusion includes a (mis)belief that >> they are entitled to a certain course of action, and they attempt to engage >> in that course of action despite not, in fact, being entitled to? Or when
their delusion leads to harmful action?
After all, when a person's delusion causes them to engage in unlawful
activity, the courts are generally not at all reluctant to point out that it >> is a delusion. And anti-science delusion can be fatal[1]. Sometimes, there >> are cases where a delusion must be confronted.
[1] eg, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd6nqz0j03xo
Fortunately, I personally was never in that situation where I was alone
with someone in that position. What has happened in practice is that the >mental health professionals and the police were notified, and if
necessary the individual would be detained under the mental health act
(I think it was Section Three).
What we called a person being "Sectioned".
On 03/08/2025 20:46, Kendall K. Down wrote:
Did you see, by the way, that some chap pretending to be a woman has
been excluded from women's snooker competitions, sued and lost. Sanity
is returning.
That's an incredibly silly ruling, as there's no real advantage for one
sex or the other in snooker.
Nobody is suggesting that trans people are unable to weigh up the consequences of their actions in a rational way, so it is right that
they are free to seek surgical intervention.
Perhaps, Ken could redirect his considerable energy into helping smokers?
That's an incredibly silly ruling, as there's no real advantage for one
sex or the other in snooker.
On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 13:28:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/08/2025 20:46, Kendall K. Down wrote:
Did you see, by the way, that some chap pretending to be a woman has
been excluded from women's snooker competitions, sued and lost. Sanity
is returning.
That's an incredibly silly ruling, as there's no real advantage for one
sex or the other in snooker.
It's a bit more nuanced than that. All ranking professional snooker tournaments are fully open, they're not restricted to men. Women can, and
do, enter them. It's just that no woman has ever won one, or even got beyond the early stages.
Why that's the case is open to debate, and the comments of Steve Davis and Reanne Evans are pertinent. But the reality is the nobody really knows whether men do have a genuine physical or mental advantage or whether it is, as Davis and Evans suggest, primarily a matter of culture and lifestyle. We may never know, without a lot more detailed research.
However, precisely because the open tournaments are dominated by men, there is a separate women's snooker tour that is restricted to women. The argument in favour of this is that it gives women the opportunity to compete at tournament level against their peers, thus encouraging more female entrants into the game and helping to raise standards.
That's the context of the ban on transwomen in women's tournaments. In the case cited by Ken, the person concerned would not be misgendering themself
by entering an open tournament. They could enter as a woman and nobody would bat an eyelid. So could any other transgender person. They're not being told "You must enter the men's tournament", because there are no men's tournaments. They're simply being told that they don't qualify for a particular restricted entry tournament. There are, after all, other non-ranking tournaments that are restricted to entrants in a particular category, such as age and nationality.
So there are two primary grounds for basing the eligibility criteria for women's tournaments on biological sex rather than gender. The first is that we still don't, yet, know for certain whether or not men do have an inherant advantage, and until that question is settled it's sensible to avoid any possibility of it being a factor in the outcome of any competition. And the second is a concern that someone who is eligible to compete, but not good enough to win, at open level is attempting to enter a restricted category simply in order to improve their probability of winning. Which would not be fair on other competitors.
second is a concern that someone who is eligible to compete, but not good enough to win, at open level is attempting to enter a restricted category simply in order to improve their probability of winning. Which would not be fair on other competitors.
I'm all in favour of brevity, but you do tend to snip away a lot of the context.
As you know, correlation does not imply causation. Unfortunately, that's
a trap many people fall into.
On 04/08/2025 13:18, GB wrote:
Nobody is suggesting that trans people are unable to weigh up the
consequences of their actions in a rational way, so it is right that
they are free to seek surgical intervention.
If they are over 21 - and provided my NHS money isn't being used for it
- I don't care what people do, though as I have already pointed out, the
law has been used against people who were engaging in consensual self-harm.
Perhaps, Ken could redirect his considerable energy into helping smokers?
For many years I was involved in the "Five Day Plan to Stop Smoking", a reasonably successful intervention that did what it said and had a high success rate. Nicotine patches led to its demise.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 04/08/2025 13:31, GB wrote:
As you know, correlation does not imply causation. Unfortunately,
that's a trap many people fall into.
Nonetheless, there must be some reason why the number of cases has been steady at several hundred per year for many years, but in the last few
years has shot up to several thousand per year.
And, if my son is to be believed, at the same time anorexia cases have dwindled to virtually nothing.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 04/08/2025 13:34, GB wrote:
I'm all in favour of brevity, but you do tend to snip away a lot of
the context.
I do my fellow posters the credit of believing that they have better memories and longer attention spans than a mentally disabled cricket.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Should NHS care be rationed, so it's only available to people who
"deserve" it? There could be quite a long list of excluded people:
McFarland was an SDA. Was that the connection?
If the trans woman doesn't have a significant advantage, it seems a bit petty to exclude her from the woman's circuit?-a Did she win a lot, perhaps?
That is misplaced credit, at least in my case.
So, how do you know the number of cases has shot up?
We know the number of people referred for help within the NHS has gone
up, but that could be simply because they think they'll get better help
than before.
I don't want to doubt your son's general truthfulness, but:
On 04/08/2025 17:18, GB wrote:
Should NHS care be rationed, so it's only available to people who
"deserve" it? There could be quite a long list of excluded people:
Generally the NHS doesn't perform electives (unless they are the woke fashion of the month), so women who want a breast enlargement or
reduction are not usually done on the NHS, likewise with facelifts or
other cosmetic procedures.
McFarland was an SDA. Was that the connection?
Yes. And the plan he came up with was remarkably successful, with 60-70% quitting by the end of the five days (and sometimes more) and 20-30%
staying off long-term. There were other interventions where the long-
term success rate was in low single figures!
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 04/08/2025 16:53, GB wrote:
If the trans woman doesn't have a significant advantage, it seems a
bit petty to exclude her from the woman's circuit?-a Did she win a lot,
perhaps?
According to the judge, the trans man did have a significant advantage
over biological women. I don't have any figures for his number of wins.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 04/08/2025 17:38, GB wrote:
So, how do you know the number of cases has shot up?
The census, which only happens every ten years, is probably not the best source for such information.
We know the number of people referred for help within the NHS has gone
up, but that could be simply because they think they'll get better
help than before.
It could be. Or it could be that the publicity has made it a fashionable thing to do.
I don't want to doubt your son's general truthfulness, but:
I have no doubt of my son's truthfulness, but he was speaking of his experience in one school (or possibly in the group of schools). And, of course, his remarks only referred to young people of school age.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On Sun, 3 Aug 2025 18:35:29 +0100, Timreason <timreason@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
Generally, as a rough rule of thumb, you don't challenge the delusion,
but gently change the subject, guide the person's attention away from
the delusional thinking. Get them thinking or chatting about something
else. You have to play it by ear, but usually you neither have to
support them in their delusion, or directly challenge them. You can
usually brush over it and go on to something else.
What do you do, though, when someone's delusion includes a (mis)belief that they are entitled to a certain course of action, and they attempt to engage in that course of action despite not, in fact, being entitled to? Or when their delusion leads to harmful action?
After all, when a person's delusion causes them to engage in unlawful activity, the courts are generally not at all reluctant to point out that it is a delusion. And anti-science delusion can be fatal[1]. Sometimes, there are cases where a delusion must be confronted.
[1] eg, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd6nqz0j03xo
On 04/08/2025 15:28, Mark Goodge wrote:
So there are two primary grounds for basing the eligibility criteria for
women's tournaments on biological sex rather than gender. The first is that >> we still don't, yet, know for certain whether or not men do have an inherant >> advantage, and until that question is settled it's sensible to avoid any
possibility of it being a factor in the outcome of any competition. And the >> second is a concern that someone who is eligible to compete, but not good
enough to win, at open level is attempting to enter a restricted category
simply in order to improve their probability of winning. Which would not be >> fair on other competitors.
Interesting. But, really you are just saying there's a niche for a
"Second Division" tournament, below the Premier League. I'm not sure
about the rationale for restricting that to women, rather than all
players who are not top notch.
If the trans woman doesn't have a significant advantage, it seems a bit >petty to exclude her from the woman's circuit? Did she win a lot, perhaps?
On 03/08/2025 00:00, John wrote:
If you had the intelligence to read the posts in context, you would see
that the deaths in question were suicides, not murders.
But there, I do not worship at the god of trans, so any lie will do to
beat me.
They certainly do, when medically justified. For example:
However, in the kind of situation GB describes, I think it much kinderPerhaps you failed to notice that he *did* tell them they were wrong,
to accept their delusion, rather than tell them they're wrong.
According to the judge, the trans woman did have a significant advantage over biological women. I don't have any figures for her number of wins.Me, I'm a scientist, I stick to facts.
I've looked it up - it wasn't snooker, it was pool
You've upset a fellow brother of Christ with your insensitive remarks,
maybe not deliberately but when it was pointed out to you, rather than apologise you continued to sneer at him.
The only information we really have is the number of people seeking help from the NHS, which I agree has shot up. My point is that that may
simply reflect a greater *proportion* of trans people seeking help.
I really wasn't doubting his honesty, at all. I just phrased it like
that (rather badly).
On 04/08/2025 21:06, GB wrote:
They certainly do, when medically justified. For example:
In which case it is no longer an elective but a medical procedure.
On 04/08/2025 21:51, John wrote:
However, in the kind of situation GB describes, I think it much kinderPerhaps you failed to notice that he *did* tell them they were wrong,
to accept their delusion, rather than tell them they're wrong.
just in a kind and roundabout way.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 04/08/2025 22:05, Mark Goodge wrote:
I've looked it up - it wasn't snooker, it was pool
There's a difference? It's all balls and tables and poking the balls
across the tables with poles.
I saw a cartoon the other day showing a beat-up old banger with a sign
stuck to it saying, "I self-identify as a Ferari".
I'll bet GB would buy it at a Ferari price!
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 04/08/2025 21:23, GB wrote:
The only information we really have is the number of people seeking
help from the NHS, which I agree has shot up. My point is that that
may simply reflect a greater *proportion* of trans people seeking help.
One can always find a way to evade statistics. After all, the numbers in
the census might have been skewed by changing attitudes towards +X population group.
A car capable of thought at that level might be worth it.
Elective doesn't mean what you think it means, which is where some of
the confusion in your mind arises. Elective surgery is simply a planned, non-urgent procedure.
I'm just pointing out that there's no real basis for you saying that the number of trans people has shot up.-a I'd say they've gained more
attention, but that's possibly because of a small proportion of people reacting strongly against them.
On 05/08/2025 10:54, GB wrote:
Elective doesn't mean what you think it means, which is where some of
the confusion in your mind arises. Elective surgery is simply a
planned, non-urgent procedure.
If you are right, then I am mistaken. Nevertheless there have been
plenty of stories of women who wanted breast reduction but were refused
and outrage over women who wanted - and received - breast enlargement.
I don't - and didn't in my post - deny that sometimes both happen, but
my impression is that it is the exception rather than the rule. Which
makes sense; why would a cash-strapped NHS offer non-essential procedures?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 05/08/2025 11:23, GB wrote:
I'm just pointing out that there's no real basis for you saying that
the number of trans people has shot up.-a I'd say they've gained more
attention, but that's possibly because of a small proportion of people
reacting strongly against them.
No, that is a false statement. There *is* a real basis for what I said.
You have attempted to provide an alternative explanation for the
figures, but the figures are real, they are facts.
Unless you can provide evidence to back up your interpretation, my interpretation - and, I think, the interpretation of others - remains
valid.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
I'll comment once you have produced your sources, but I suspect that you
are using a proxy, such as number of referrals to the NHS.
The point where you depart from NHS thinking is that you regard gender reassignment surgery as always being non-essential, whereas the NHS is
more flexible.
On 06/08/2025 10:54, GB wrote:
I'll comment once you have produced your sources, but I suspect that
you are using a proxy, such as number of referrals to the NHS.
Yes, but those referrals are not imaginary. They are actually taking
place and have actually gone up 10-fold in a few years.
I don't believe that your proposed explanation is sufficient to account
for such a large increase.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 06/08/2025 10:48, GB wrote:
The point where you depart from NHS thinking is that you regard gender
reassignment surgery as always being non-essential, whereas the NHS is
more flexible.
It is a nice point.
There was a case a couple of years back where some poor chap became convinced that he had a dead leg in bed with him and sometimes realised
that this foreign dead leg was actually attached to him. Eventually,
after trying all sorts of psycho-therapy, the doctors gave in and
amputed his perfectly good leg.
Unfortunately there have been no follow-up reports, so I don't know
whether the surgery resolved the poor chap's problems or not. I strongly suspect not, his delusions would simply come back in some other form.
So were they right to amputate or not? I'm glad I didn't have to make
the decision.
If, after similar attempts at resolution, the doctors concluded that
gender reassingment surgery was necessary, my reponse would be the same. However it seems obvious from the press that doctors are rushing to join
the trans bandwaggon and whisk as many people as possible into
increasingly complex and dangerous surgeries. Instead of last resort, it
is now first port of call!
I regard that as an unmitigate evil.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
That 10 fold increase - what's your source?
This last point rather supports your views about gender surgery -
ethically fraught! The parallels with gender dysphoria are quite striking.
The latest figure given is 355. That's not very many compared to the
number of trans people in the UK (somewhere in the region of 200,000).
That 10 fold increase - what's your source?
On 06/08/2025 20:58, GB wrote:
This last point rather supports your views about gender surgery -
ethically fraught! The parallels with gender dysphoria are quite
striking.
Thank you.
The latest figure given is 355. That's not very many compared to the
number of trans people in the UK (somewhere in the region of 200,000).
The number of operations has doubled, but you provide no figures for the number claiming to be trans. I believe that has also increased.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 06/08/2025 20:20, GB wrote:
That 10 fold increase - what's your source?
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/
Gender dysphoria cases increase from 15,172 in 2017 to 42,157 in 2021, gender blocker prescriptions were 633 in 2017 and went up to 1,390 in 2021.
So unless I found some previous source which validated that figure, I
admit I was mistaken; the real figure is between 2x and 3x increase in
five years. Still pretty unbelievable.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 06/08/2025 20:20, GB wrote:
That 10 fold increase - what's your source?
You may be interested in this site: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culture-mind-and-brain/201811/ why-is-transgender-identity-the-rise-among-teens? msockid=3f05af6a8bbe6dbc00c4bbaf8a086cdc
Scroll down to the paragraph beginning, "The plot thickens again" and
read the next couple of paragraphs, which rather support my contention
that the problem is one of fashion, not of reality.
Note particularly:
"Littman raises cautions about encouraging young peoplerCOs desire to transition in all instances. From the cases reviewed in her study, she concluded that what she terms rCLrapid-onset gender dysphoriarCY (ROGD) appears to be a novel condition that emerges from cohort and contagion effects and novel social pressures. From this perspective, ROSD likely exhibits an aetiology and epidemiology that is distinct from the
"classical" cases of gender dysphoria documented in the DSM."
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
There's no doubt the number of people seeking help from the NHS has increased, but that's possibly because the NHS has offered a different
type of help, which has had a greater uptake.
The treatment options for trans people changed, so that must account for
at least part (possibly all) of the change in the number of trans people seeking treatment.
Similarly, the number of people seeking medical help with weight loss
has literally skyrocketed in the last couple of years, because of the
GLP-1 jabs, and of course it would be silly to infer the number of fat people has suddenly skyrocketed.
Sorry, I'm just having a rant about the misuse of statistics. There's
often more than one reason why some number changes over time, but people latch onto just one reason.
On 08/08/2025 11:26, GB wrote:
There's no doubt the number of people seeking help from the NHS has
increased, but that's possibly because the NHS has offered a different
type of help, which has had a greater uptake.
So the *facts* support my assertion and you are attempting to explain
away the facts by proposing alternative explanations - which may, or may not, be valid.
It seems rather like arguing with a flat earther; the facts support a
round earth, but he (or she) has alternative explanations that enable
him to avoid the facts.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
I feel like that, too. The facts have multiple explanations/causes. All
I was doing was arguing with your insistence (some time back in this thread!)-a that only one of those is the actual explanation/cause.
On 13/08/2025 10:42, GB wrote:
It's a sort of infernal loop: people identify as trans, that provokes sympathetic doctors to invent new "treatments", that encourages people
to leap on the bandwagon and identify as trans, that provokes ... etc.
The largest problem is that these "treatments" are not designed to cure people who have the mistaken idea that they are the wrong gender, but to reinforce their delusion. "Treatment" is probably the wrong word to use
in this context!
On 13/08/2025 10:42, GB wrote:
I feel like that, too. The facts have multiple explanations/causes.
All I was doing was arguing with your insistence (some time back in
this thread!)-a that only one of those is the actual explanation/cause.
I think you were doing rather more than that, by insisting that there
was no actual increase and citing an old census as evidence for the
current situation.
Now that the facts are inescapable you are insisting that there are
multiple explanations, though you have only advanced one - that
different treatment options mean more people come forward as trans. Yet
even that does not eliminate my assertion - that the increase in people identifying in this way is due to fashion.
It's a sort of infernal loop: people identify as trans, that provokes sympathetic doctors to invent new "treatments", that encourages people
to leap on the bandwagon and identify as trans, that provokes ... etc.
The largest problem is that these "treatments" are not designed to cure people who have the mistaken idea that they are the wrong gender, but to reinforce their delusion. "Treatment" is probably the wrong word to use
in this context!
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
There are lots of mental illnesses, but gender dysphoria isn't one of them.-a There's probably a good reason for that, and the logical
conclusion is it isn't a mental illness.-a Prove me wrong!!
Does God care?-a If He exists then I don't believe He does quite
honestly, I don't think He gives a flying fig what's on the outside as
it's the inside that counts.
I actually cited the most recent census (not an old one), and the point
was that we don't have any old ones to compare it with.
So, there's no *direct* evidence of an increase in the number of trans people, and we have to fall back on proxies such as medical treatment records.
The grandson of a friend of ours had to be very strongly persuaded not
to wear a dress for his bar mitzvah. Talk about having your cake and
eating it!
You claim these people are deluded/mentally ill but have have absolutely
no evidence to back it up. which makes it simply an opinion.
There are lots of mental illnesses, but gender dysphoria isn't one of them.-a There's probably a good reason for that
Does God care?-a If He exists then I don't believe He does quiteYou may think what you please, but where God has spoken on the subject
honestly, I don't think He gives a flying fig what's on the outside as
it's the inside that counts.
On 14/08/2025 15:24, GB wrote:
I actually cited the most recent census (not an old one), and the
point was that we don't have any old ones to compare it with.
It may be the most recent census, but it is still several years old and
its usefulness is even less because, as you point out, there is no
previous census which addressed the issue.
So, there's no *direct* evidence of an increase in the number of trans
people, and we have to fall back on proxies such as medical treatment
records.
As I presume that it is only trans people who are seeking this
"treatment", it is not a proxy, it is actual facts.
The grandson of a friend of ours had to be very strongly persuaded not
to wear a dress for his bar mitzvah. Talk about having your cake and
eating it!
If he was serious, it should have been a Bat Mitzveh, no?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 14/08/2025 14:17, John wrote:
There are lots of mental illnesses, but gender dysphoria isn't one of
them.-a There's probably a good reason for that, and the logical
conclusion is it isn't a mental illness.-a Prove me wrong!!
Does God care?-a If He exists then I don't believe He does quite
honestly, I don't think He gives a flying fig what's on the outside as
it's the inside that counts.
I do not consider gender dysphoria to be any kind of illness, any more
than my being neurodivergent (autistic). It's just a difference.
My view is change attitudes, not people. But I respect the rights of
adults to make their own decisions.
On 14/08/2025 16:45, Timreason wrote:
On 14/08/2025 14:17, John wrote:
There are lots of mental illnesses, but gender dysphoria isn't one of
them.-a There's probably a good reason for that, and the logical
conclusion is it isn't a mental illness.-a Prove me wrong!!
Does God care?-a If He exists then I don't believe He does quite
honestly, I don't think He gives a flying fig what's on the outside
as it's the inside that counts.
I do not consider gender dysphoria to be any kind of illness, any more
than my being neurodivergent (autistic). It's just a difference.
There is a suggestion that my wife may be on the autism spectrun, but
was never diagnosed for it, although she was tested for mental capacity following a pip review as she does have learning difficulties and also
some physical illnesses.-a I don't consider someone with learning difficulties to be mentally ill, and hope it didn't come across as such.
My view is change attitudes, not people. But I respect the rights of
adults to make their own decisions.
I think it goes a lot deeper than that in a trans person who genuinely believe sthey are in the wrong body, and it isn't something that changed attitudes will solve.
I mentioned Stephanie Hirst recently, and she had
two choices, to change her body or to spend every day contemplating
suicide. This is one of the reasons I speak up for them quite strongly.
I tried to commit suicide twice as a young person, and believe me you
have to be at rock bottom to want to do that. Fortunately, it didn't
happen, but my whole attitude to life changed afterwards, and now I am
far more positive and laid back (some people think too much so,
including my wife!)
You are missing the point that the trans population may be the same, but
a larger proportion seek treatment.
Good point. Although I do feel we can go some way to encourage society
not to expect rigidly fixed gender expectations. Beliefs that 'A man
should be this' and 'a woman should be that'. Indeed, much progress has
been made in the last half-century.
I think it goes a lot deeper than that in a trans person who genuinely believe sthey are in the wrong body, and it isn't something that changed attitudes will solve.-a I mentioned Stephanie Hirst recently, and she had two choices, to change her body or to spend every day contemplating
suicide.
On 14/08/2025 14:17, John wrote:
You claim these people are deluded/mentally ill but have have
absolutely no evidence to back it up. which makes it simply an opinion.
If someone says that he is Napoleon and insists upon it, what is your opinion? Is he really truly Napoleon or is he deluded?
If someone says that he is an alsation and insists upon it, what is your opinion? Is he really truly an alsation dog or is he deluded?
If a man, with all the outward appurtenances of a man and the
chromosomes of a man, says that he is a woman and insists upon it -
well, we already know what you think. Logic, common sense, science, are
all against you, but for some twisted reason of your own you are
determined to claim that he is not deluded!
There are lots of mental illnesses, but gender dysphoria isn't one of
them.-a There's probably a good reason for that
Yes, we live in an evil world where the enemy wants to destroy God's creation.
I do hope you are as faithful applying the other 612 laws. Did yourDoes God care?-a If He exists then I don't believe He does quite
honestly, I don't think He gives a flying fig what's on the outside as
it's the inside that counts.
You may think what you please, but where God has spoken on the subject
He forbids men to wear women's clothing (or vice versa).
On 15/08/2025 20:25, John wrote:
On 14/08/2025 16:45, Timreason wrote:
On 14/08/2025 14:17, John wrote:
There are lots of mental illnesses, but gender dysphoria isn't one
of them.-a There's probably a good reason for that, and the logical
conclusion is it isn't a mental illness.-a Prove me wrong!!
Does God care?-a If He exists then I don't believe He does quite
honestly, I don't think He gives a flying fig what's on the outside
as it's the inside that counts.
I do not consider gender dysphoria to be any kind of illness, any
more than my being neurodivergent (autistic). It's just a difference.
There is a suggestion that my wife may be on the autism spectrun, but
was never diagnosed for it, although she was tested for mental
capacity following a pip review as she does have learning difficulties
and also some physical illnesses.-a I don't consider someone with
learning difficulties to be mentally ill, and hope it didn't come
across as such.
That's OK, I didn't see it that way.
My view is change attitudes, not people. But I respect the rights of
adults to make their own decisions.
I think it goes a lot deeper than that in a trans person who genuinely
believe sthey are in the wrong body, and it isn't something that
changed attitudes will solve.
Good point. Although I do feel we can go some way to encourage society
not to expect rigidly fixed gender expectations. Beliefs that 'A man
should be this' and 'a woman should be that'. Indeed, much progress has
been made in the last half-century.
I mentioned Stephanie Hirst recently, and she had two choices, to
change her body or to spend every day contemplating suicide. This is
one of the reasons I speak up for them quite strongly.
As I've said elsewhere, over the years I have known several trans
people, and some who have transitioned. For most, it transformed their
lives and they were much happier. But for one or two, it didn't go so well.
I tried to commit suicide twice as a young person, and believe me you
have to be at rock bottom to want to do that. Fortunately, it didn't
happen, but my whole attitude to life changed afterwards, and now I am
far more positive and laid back (some people think too much so,
including my wife!)
I never got to that point, although being neurodivergent did cause me to suffer and lose out on what should have been some of the best years of
my life. I would sometimes get to the point of wishing I could just go
to sleep and never wake up. There are some people who absolutely love to make neurodivergent people suffer, believe me! Especially as they can do
so without necessarily resorting to physical violence and thus avoid
getting into trouble. Some people love to harm others.
Interestingly, in the context of the 80th commemoration of the end of
WW2, I remember that, as a youngster, I dreaded there being another war
and conscription. I was no more scared of combat than anyone else would
be, but I was terrified of having to be continually in a barracks
somewhere with a group of others who, I'm certain, would have made my
life hell. As a young person at school or on apprenticeship, at least I
got respite by going home at the end of the day and over weekends, where
I didn't have to 'put on an act' and could just be the person I
naturally am.
On 14/08/2025 18:39, GB wrote:
You are missing the point that the trans population may be the same,
but a larger proportion seek treatment.
Yes, and of course these numbers may have been swelled by the arrival of little green men from Mars who really wish to little green women. Once
we get into the realm of "may" and "might" anything is possible -
unless, of course, you have some evidence for your theories which you
are keeping hidden.
On 14/08/2025 18:39, GB wrote:
You are missing the point that the trans population may be the same,
but a larger proportion seek treatment.
Yes, and of course these numbers may have been swelled by the arrival of little green men from Mars who really wish to little green women.
Once
we get into the realm of "may" and "might" anything is possible -
unless, of course, you have some evidence for your theories which you
are keeping hidden.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Exodus 22:21
On 15/08/2025 20:25, John wrote:
I think it goes a lot deeper than that in a trans person who genuinely
believe sthey are in the wrong body, and it isn't something that
changed attitudes will solve.-a I mentioned Stephanie Hirst recently,
and she had two choices, to change her body or to spend every day
contemplating suicide.
Actually, he/she has three choices. The third - which you failed to
mention - is to accept the body he/she has and get on with life.
Of course, it would help if he/she was a Christian with the assurance
that God has lovingly crafted his/her body. Idiots who believe that all
of life is an accident have, I suppose, some excuse for their foolishness.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
A great outlook Tim, and I'm sorry that your earlier life wasn't one
where you could naturally be yourself.
On 16/08/2025 10:13, John wrote:
Exodus 22:21
Itamar Ben Gvir should bear that in mind, although I'm sure he'd come up with other verses to justify his position.
I saw a picture of the Gonorrhea bacterium. Did God lovingly craft it?
As Napoleon has already lived and died then I would say deluded.
As we are not the same species then yes, he is deluded.
I disagree with *your* logic.-a It's only those with transphobic views
like yourself yourself who have an issue. A fair amount of people are
more accepting of trans people thankfully.
-aI don't think science is against me.
Your claim that trans people are
deluded is just your opinion and view is my opinion.-a It is disengenious
to suggest that my view is twisted just because you disagree with me.
We've always lived in a world like that, it's strange that you rile
against trans people (and homosexuals, your other pet subject) but I've
yet to see posts from you regarding other sections of the public you perceive to be sinners.
You are aware of course that trans people make up only around 0.7% of
the population, yet you make such a song and dance about it you'd think
it was the most heinous sin against God ever.
But I have to ask you this, if people are trans what concern is it what other non Christians get up to? I might be wrong but I don't think the
bible says you should condemn people who's lifestyles you disagree with.
And if you are to take these verses literally, it also means God detests trans people, which I don't think is true.
Itamar Ben Gvir should bear that in mind, although I'm sure he'd come up with other verses to justify his position.I have no idea who the gentleman you mention is, but the point is that
Of course little green men from Mars exist, have you not read your bible?
Exodus 22:21 and 1 Peter 2:9-12 for starters, and not forgetting theIf your Biblical exegsis is as dodgy as your grammar, I think I am on
sons of God who impregnated the Earthlings, who's offspring became giants.
I thought Creationists think that the only men are the ones on Earth?
You have a remarkable propensity to see only black and white, eschewingI prefer an evidence-based scientific point of view. So if you have
all possibilities of greyness in between.
On 16/08/2025 11:48, GB wrote:
I thought Creationists think that the only men are the ones on Earth?
Quite so. My tongue was firmly in my cheek when I spoke of little green
men wishing to become little green women.
You have a remarkable propensity to see only black and white,I prefer an evidence-based scientific point of view. So if you have
eschewing all possibilities of greyness in between.
evidence for all these shades of gray, please produce it.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 16/08/2025 10:13, John wrote:
Of course little green men from Mars exist, have you not read your bible?
I venture to suggest that I have read my Bible more often and more diligently than you.
Exodus 22:21 and 1 Peter 2:9-12 for starters, and not forgetting theIf your Biblical exegsis is as dodgy as your grammar, I think I am on
sons of God who impregnated the Earthlings, who's offspring became
giants.
safe ground.
On 16/08/2025 09:58, John wrote:
As Napoleon has already lived and died then I would say deluded.
And yet the person will insist that he is really Napoleon. In other
words, he self-identifies. Why do you deny one form of impossible self- identification but allow another?
As we are not the same species then yes, he is deluded.
Speciesist! No more delusional (or foundational) than to claim to be of
a different gender.
I disagree with *your* logic.-a It's only those with transphobic views
like yourself yourself who have an issue. A fair amount of people are
more accepting of trans people thankfully.
The fact that a large number of people will follow fashion is a pretty
weak argument. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, look how many
people were accepting of the Nazi party!
-a-aI don't think science is against me.
So when a scientist peers down his microscope and says, "This cell is XY
and that cell is XX" he is lying? Or deluded? Or XX and XY are not indicators of sex?
Your claim that trans people are deluded is just your opinion and view
is my opinion.-a It is disengenious to suggest that my view is twisted
just because you disagree with me.
Your view is twisted because it denies basic biology.
We've always lived in a world like that, it's strange that you rile
against trans people (and homosexuals, your other pet subject) but
I've yet to see posts from you regarding other sections of the public
you perceive to be sinners.
As I've always said, you put up a post defending pride or theft or
gluttony and I'll respond appropriately.
You are aware of course that trans people make up only around 0.7% of
the population, yet you make such a song and dance about it you'd
think it was the most heinous sin against God ever.
I am not aware that numbers are the measure of the seriousness of any
sin. Paedophiles only make up a small percentage of the population; does that mean we should regard their offences as unimportant?
But I have to ask you this, if people are trans what concern is it
what other non Christians get up to? I might be wrong but I don't
think the bible says you should condemn people who's lifestyles you
disagree with.
In one sense what people outside the church get up to is no concern of
mine and I'll *cheerfully* let them go to hell in a handbasket.
Unfortunately when some sin becomes popular you will immediately get pressure on the churhces to accept it. For example, the previous
archbishop of Wales had to resign because of complaints about
paedophilia (which is still unfashionable) being ignored, so now we get
an archbishop who is openly lesbian (which is fashionable).
And if you are to take these verses literally, it also means God
detests trans people, which I don't think is true.
You think, versus God says. Guess which one I regard as the more reliable?
Are there degrees of seriousness in God's eyes?
I'm truly gobsmacked by that assertion, I really am.-a I've emphasised
the cheerfully, but even without that word, I can't believe that has
come from someone who claims to be a Christian.
But regarding your comment, why are you so het up about it then? It
doesn't affect your daily life in any way, shape or form.
Being a lesbian isn't a sin, and I doubt very much that most are just because it's fashionable.
I'll ask you again, as you didn't answer.-a Did your wife wear trousersI didn't see the first occasion. Sorry.
on occasion?
As was John when he referred to Exodus. The relevant word in that
passage can be translated as 'stranger', 'foreigner', or 'alien'.
Your approach is actually based on what fits in with your philosophy,
which is fair enough, but it's not scientific.
You leave my grammar out of this, she was a lovely lady and I will not
have her memory sullied like that!!
On 17/08/2025 12:14, John wrote:
You leave my grammar out of this, she was a lovely lady and I will not
have her memory sullied like that!!
Who is sullying anyone's memory?
And if you don't like comments on your grammar, improve it.
I think you've had a humour bypass operation, the comment was a play on
the word grammar and grandma.
On 17/08/2025 14:03, John wrote:
I'll ask you again, as you didn't answer.-a Did your wife wear trousers
on occasion?
I didn't see the first occasion. Sorry.
No, my wife never wore trousers. She did wear slacks from time to time.
So she wore something that is generally worn by men.-a Didn't it bother
you that she was disobeying the scripture about wearing mens clothing?
On 21/08/2025 18:29, John wrote:
So she wore something that is generally worn by men.-a Didn't it bother
you that she was disobeying the scripture about wearing mens clothing?
You may speak for yourself, of course, but I have never worn slacks. I
wear trousers. If you are not familiar with the differences, ask your
wife or girl-friend.
I would, in addition, point out that God does not specify trousers or skirts, merely men's clothing and women's clothing. Both are cultural artefacts. When I walked Hadrian's Wall recently, I paid tribute to my Scottish roots by wearing a kilt. I invite you to accuse a brawny
Scotsman of wearing women's clothing!
On 23/08/2025 09:25, John wrote:
Strangely, the text doesn't say that.
Ah I see, you've interpreted it that way.
Always wise to see what people say before jumping in with uninformed comments.