An absurd dualist claim
Another conversation with Humanists UK:
Gender identity is an absurd dualist claim that relies on the proposition that boy gender souls end up in girl bodies and vice versa. There is no scientific test for a gender identity and it cannot be falsified. You are practicing cult level religion.
— Dennis Noel Kavanagh (@Jebadoo2) January 10, 2025
You are rather avoiding my point.
You appear to be saying the criminal law of the United Kingdom should concern itself with gender souls where it would not with the equivalent religious concept.
Do I have your position correct?
A yes or no please
— Dennis Noel Kavanagh (@Jebadoo2) January 10, 2025
With the greatest of respect, the term we were discussing was not “sex/gender”, it was “gender identity”.
You introduced the term gender identity
I explained that was a soul like concept
Do you agree with my criticism or do you think humans have gender souls?
— Dennis Noel Kavanagh (@Jebadoo2) January 10, 2025
So you agree with me humans do not have gender souls (often called gender identities)
Do I have your position correctly?
— Dennis Noel Kavanagh (@Jebadoo2) January 10, 2025
With very great respect, you are avoiding my question, I shall rephrase it as simply as I can and those watching can judge for themselves if you are choosing to answer or not:
Do humans have a gender identity/soul?
Yes or no please.
— Dennis Noel Kavanagh (@Jebadoo2) January 10, 2025
But look, I don’t with to be rancorous, we’re both believers in reason so it’s only fair I give rationalists such as you one more chance to answer the question, so in the spirit of friendship I ask a simple question again
Do humans have gender souls/identities?
Yes or no
— Dennis Noel Kavanagh (@Jebadoo2) January 10, 2025
I was raised to consider homosexuality as both a mental health disorder, and a sin if the attraction was acted upon. I’m ashamed that I was well into adulthood before exposure to a wider range of people and reading materials enabled me to change my mind. Now? I would be proud to have Dennis as a son. He’s a gentleman, and tenacious in his determination to protect children and young adults from the gender cult.
I believe it was Kavanagh who once came up with the following illustration of how the whole “gay” thing it supposed to work according to gender ideology (from memory): two gay men watch a hot dude walk by, and one says to the other “Check out the pronouns on that one!” :D
Like Noel, I’d like to hear Humanist UK’s definition of “gender identity.” The definitions of woman, “adult human female” and homosexuality, “same sex attraction” posit no new entities or beings. Try refraining from doing so while defining “gender identity.” While the brevity of a definition doesn’t guaranty its accuracy or truthfulness, conciseness certainly makes it harder to smuggle in assumptions and unexamined premises. Kavanagh’s questioning lays this bare for all to see.
I wonder how many of these organizations who’ve blithely accepted the LGBTetc. forced teaming realized exactly what they were signing up for? Self proclaimed “rationalist” and “skeptical” organizations have discovered that they’re sliding down Occam’s Razor, unwittingly, and literally “multiplying entities” by accepting the whole “gender identity/soul” concept without thinking through the very steps through which Noel Kavanagh is walking Humanists UK. For other organizations I’m not as surprised, but for those which supposedly dedicate themselves to the examination of knowledge claims and matters of belief itself as their mission statement, this is damning.
Surrender to gender ideology has greater consequences than betraying one’s institutional integrity and reputation. There are lives at stake. This failure of responsibility and duty to care is shared more broadly, encompassing government and legal institutions, not just private, voluntary groups and organizations. Here we see Humanist UK’s thoughtless acceptance of the genderists’ definition of “conversion therapy.” This definition has the force of law in too many jurisdictions. This is a re definition which conveniently protects a belief system that is based on little more than conversion therapy. Transing away the gay is conversion therapy. Stunting and inhibiting the normal, human processes of growth and sexual maturation while treating it as some kind of disease to be cured is also conversion therapy. So is short-circuiting desistance, which resolves most instances of dysphoria without resorting to drastic, harmful, and dangerous body modification. Trying to convince anyone that they possess a non-existant “gender identity” is conversion therapy. Yet all of these claims, practices and interventions are now protected and shielded from scrutiny by using its real and potential victims as human shields. What a wickedly clever, devious, cynical, evil tactic. I could almost admire it, if it didn’t result in so many damaged and destroyed bodies and lives.
Language games: by shuffling ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ we can avoid seeing that gender ‘affirmation’ is indistinguishable from ‘sex change.’ Hormonal and surgical interventions ARE conversion therapy.’
There’s enough hot air there to have a balloon race, and still no closer to answering the question.
Ouch, sliding down Occam’s razor…
So does that mean that it will apply equally to the ‘experts’ in gender ‘healthcare’ who are enthusiastically convincing children that they are really girls in boys’ bodies and vice versa? Or is it a one-way street cunningly disguised as a two-way road?
Bjarte, I clearly remember the scene in Prick Up Your Ears, the Joe Orton biopic, when Orton calls out in the park “nice pronouns” to an attractive young man. OK, it might have been “nice bum” but I’m sure Minitru will have fixed that by now.
Hmm. Now I’m wondering if the Humanists would have objections to people setting about questioning or discouraging faith, religion, or religious practices? Considering they believe it to be bad on its face to persuade (or attempt to persuade) someone to abandon their belief in a personal gendered soul and attempts to make it congruent with their body, wouldn’t they deem it likewise bad on its face to persuade a man against his new beliefs in Judaism and planned circumcision?