I refuse to subjugate my perception of reality to please a pathology. Woman- Adult human female. That's the definition. Don't give it up ladies. It's a game changer. Trans ideology is mysogny.
Excellent presentation, and timely. I'm glad this class was open-minded enough to invite you in. Incidentally, I'm not convinced there really is such a thing as polyamory. When a man (or woman) gets married, he doesn't stop being attracted to other women (or men). It's essential for the married couple to show restraint and practice self-control when it comes to other potential sexual partners and to give themselves completely to each other. But that attraction doesn't just go away. It strikes me more as an excuse for a man with multiple sexual partners to explain away why he doesn't think there's anything wrong with it.
It’s a clever title tho bc they “snuck in” a clever pair of orthodox Catholics to teach the real/true position of the Church. (Not twisted worldly logic).
I don’t think the mere existence of such a class has to be a bad thing. Trent implies this particular class might not adhere to Catholic teaching, but a class could go over Theology of the Body and other Catholic teachings on sex/gender. And students could read dissenting views (that they will likely encounter in the secular world regardless) and learn the Church’s response to them.
I was mandated to go to diversity training as a govt employee. The instructor said we can’t make fun of trans people. I raised my hand and asked “Can I be a woman on M-W-F only ?” The instructor laughed I said “You said we can’t laugh at them ?”
Protestant listener here. Love the content and your response (your response to that "suicide and orthodox teaching" question was especially enlightening). I would be really interested to see that whole Q&A section.
I wish I would’ve heard this when I went through my WGST classes at University, I was totally indoctrinated. Praise God for logic and his unending mercy.
I’m glad you talked to college students about this, I hope it clicked for some of them. Great breakdown. I’ll have to get your book for when I have kids.
At least for me, Q&A is when I get to better understand the material presented. It's not so much in the Answers as it is in the Questions being asked. The questions provide multiple perspectives that I perhaps would not have otherwise considered. I hope Trent posts Q&A in the future!
Can someone help me on this. I have never heard anyone use this kind of argument before. Here it goes - Bob - Abortion is woman's choice for whatever reason. Me - Do you think "sex-selective" abortion is wrong? If Bob says "Yes" - Bob - Yes Me - So there are some abortions that is not a woman's choice. If Bob says "No" - Bob - No Me - So, you think aborting an unborn girl child in favor of a boy is okay? Bob - Yes Me - Do you see a sex discrimination here?
a very concise, well-presented overview. I appreciate the emphasis on empathy for those who identify this way, without sacrificing our belief in God’s truth. We can do nothing without love!
You do a wonderful job of presenting and defending the beautiful graceful light of love Who shines through the Bride of Christ among us. She has so transformed and enlightened my mind and helps so much with the heart.
good stuff. The time constraint I guess dictated short shrift to natural law approach. That's the basis of everything moral... I think it helps to point out that what is "natural" is "that which prevails for the most part." It is not what always happens, for fallen nature miscarries at times, delivering exceptions to the rule or norm. Miscarriage doesn't mean there is no nature, just that nature has failed in some instance.
Trent, is there any way to collect data about suicide rates among homosexuals in counties where homosexuality is not widely appreciated or prohibited? I don't only think about Muslim countries, but Latin American and African countries. I think that would help contrasting the real reasons why these people suicide instead of blaming in it on homophobia. I'm sure the statistics will show interesting data people in Europe, Canada and the States haven't seen before.
From what I'm able to tell, that sort of data isn't recorded in Latin American countries by the authorities, maybe that's why the numbers are likely exaggerated since the only indirect way to tabulate them would be self reporting among homosexuals through activist NGO's
I can’t control how other parents “parent” their kid’s and I just worry about my daughter. Will she have to compete physically against males just because they want to define themselves as females? That’s absurd.
Great presentation, but it is somewhat disappointing to me that this needs to be taught at a Catholic college. If our Catholic high schools were more courageous this would both be more effective and relevant for younger minds, before they fully give into gender theory and the LGBT movement as so many do when they reach college. As someone who went to Catholic high school, every single kid is curious about these matters but when the one brave kid in class asks a poorly catechized theology teacher a good question and they are left without a compelling answer, many lose their faith on the spot and never look back.
22.08 no this people often suffer no medical complication a large percentage of them go undiagnosed. They are in no need of surgery or any other treatment
Thanks for this content. Maybe it came out in the Q&A - what is the precise position of church doctrine on grown adult man (or woman) with gender dysphoria? Seems like it is “we have compassion for you, but figure out how to deal with it that involves continuing as a male in society and within the home and within your own mind”. Is that so? It seemed like the Spanish godparent ruling said someone dressing and “acting” as the opposite sex was not acceptable….at least to be a godparent. Taking hormones or other treatments? Clearly was stated that gender reassignment is not allowed.
Incipient in modern gender theories is a sort of Gnostic dualism, in which body and soul are view as separate, with in the case of gender identity the soul taking primacy. In contrast to this is the Catholic teaching of the essential metaphysical unity of body and soul in one essence, which we call _human._ Unfortunately, Trent’s presentation will, I fear, only resonate with students who are still open to the idea of an objective standard of truth.
Hey there my friend. I hope you and your family are well and safe. It is really unfortunate that some Christians have bought into this stuff. The reason that I say Christians is that until the last few decades, almost all Christian denominations agreed that same sex acts were wrong. Only after the sexual revolution and LGBT activism did the church start approving of such acts. These Christians say that we have been wrong about other things in history so why can't the text be wrong here. This is an association fallacy. X is not clearly understood and thus y is not clear either. Some of these revisionist Christians are reluctant with polyamory. Some Christians who defend polyamory are Brandan Robertson and theologian Dr. Jeff Hood. Perhaps Christians will defend polyamory in the future. The funny thing is that the revisionist Christians who argue against polyamory become the 'conservative' Christians.
Separate from issues of religious theology - this trans issue is way out of hand….especially with the young folks. The “LGB” cohort ought to be considered separate from the “TQ+” cohort. Gay and lesbian folks been around forever - they’ve just been closeted by societies until recently. And about 2% to 3% of population fits in LGB category. On the TQ+ side, the cohort with gender dysphoria is very, very small - though this condition is real. The problem is we see - especially with the girls - way too high of rate of teens saying they are transsexual - these are same girls who would get anorexia or self cutting. So especially if these minors are allowed informed consent for hormone therapy - this can cause lasting harm. It’s way overdone as is the non binary identification bit. These subjective determinations should be rejected. The empirical determination of male or female is what we ought to stick with. The more the wokesters try and push the far out TQ+ agenda - the more reasonable the church position appears as an alternative. Appreciation for the thoughtful presentation.
I hate it when idiots use the term "Roman Catholic" instead of "Catholic" without knowing what the heck they're talking about. It plays into the old Protestant attacks against the Church
Now I'm a little confused, how do we go about defending the perpetual virginity of Mother Mary if we define marriage as orientated to the sexual act? Would a Mary and Joseph type of marriage would be ok for the Church today?
I think it’s ok for some?? (I’m not a theologian) I did read that St Teresa of Lisoux’s (spelling..?) parents started out trying to have a Mary Joseph marriage and a priest told them to have children.
Technically she is spouse to the Holy Spirit. But you'll have to ask someone with theological knowledge to explain the dynamics at play there in proper terms.
Mary was betrothed to Joseph, who was in the weird situation where he shouldn't break the promise of marriage but at the same time he should not consider the Blessee Virgin on his own level. The Angel had to come to him to explain the correct behaviour in his situation, which was to raise Mary's son as his own, and love Mary as a wife.
I accept unity view (soul and body, not dualism). But, can be used, in apologetic "dualism" (in some sense) as an argument for the existence of the immaterial reality - the soul? How can I reconcile these two views? For example, christian apologetic J. Warner Wallace wrote: "As Christians, we believe hold a dual view of world around us. We believe in the existence of the brain and the mind, the body and the soul, a material world and a spiritual realm. This concept of dualism, the recognition of two co-existent realms and realities, is critical to our faith as Christians. If dualism is not true (the opposite view is often called ‘monism’ or ‘physicalism’), there is no realm in which God exists, we are not souls designed for salvation and life with God, and there is no life beyond this one." - is Wallace's view truly dualism which we Catholics do not accept? Read also this argument for existence of the soul: Difference Two: “I” Versus “My Body” (The First Person Argument) Like Everyone, I Only Use First Person Possessive Pronouns to Indicate Possession of Something Other Than “Me” I use expressions like, “This is my toothbrush,” or “This is my mom,” because I am describing someone or something other than me. Like Everyone, I Commonly Use First Person Possessive Pronouns When Describing My Body I also find myself using expressions like, “This is my body,” or “This is my hand” when describing my physical body or some portion of my body. THEREFORE: My Body Is Something Other Than “Me” Just like my toothbrush is something other than me, my physical body is also something other than me. I am not my body. These are two different things. There are two realities, the material and the immaterial. (By the way, although we sometimes use the expression, “my soul” this is an inaccurate use of the term. We don’t have souls, we are souls.)coldcasechristianity.com/writings/a-very-brief-review-of-arguments-for-the-existence-of-the-soul-bible-insert/
*I Only Use First Person Possessive Pronouns to Indicate Possession of Something Other Than "Me"* But then: *although we sometimes use the expression, "my soul" this is an inaccurate use of the term* is clearly special pleading. The whole argument is attempting to demonstrate that slapping "my" in front of something proves it’s "not me", but realizes "my soul" undercuts the argument, so it pleads it away, and its argument for doing so is the very point it’s trying to prove - a perfectly circular argument. *I am not my body* So, when my brother slaps my hand and I complain, "Ma! Tommy hit me!" I’m mistaken? He really only hit "my body"?
@@nathanaelculver5308 Just to jump off what Nathanael is saying, if we don't have souls and we don't have bodys than what do we have? We are souls but our bodies are part of us too!
@@thethreefriends3002 Exactly: any facet of us that we want to propose as our "true me" can be slapped with a "my", thereby rendering it "not me". Ultimately, we carve away everything that could be me and we’re left with nothing.
@@nathanaelculver5308 Thank you both for your answers. I am trying to understand. So, can we say, we are unity of soul and body, but, we are not just the body? (what some materialist teories claim, that our mind is just result of brain activity). Can we argue, for example, in favor of the existence of soul, that we can objectify and realize ourselves (self-awareness) and our bodies, so we are body, but we are more than just a body? I think, P. Kreeft and R. Tacelli used some form of this argument for the existence of soul - Soul has power objectify my body, so I am something more than a body. Thanks
bringing in transracialism is nonsensical, race and gender are not the same. race is a reading and categorizing of the body and place that has a specific colonial logic to it and makes certain characteristics inherent to a group for the purposes of dehumanization and justification, and race is also inherited. it is incoherent to say that i, a woman born to mexican american parents, who is regularly and consistently not READ by others as white, is white or black or asian or whatever. i am not the one who decides that! in fact, that reading of me is essential to the entire project of race (although racializing is not at all limited to phenotype; if someone hears me speak spanish that settles any ambiguity about me to people; i am “latina” and not Asian or any other race I am ambiguous enough be read as even if I might actually be those races too). in contrast humans have been “doing gender” for...as far back as i can think. it is an essential part of personality (perhaps it even IS personality in its entirety?) and is deeply personal.
You can surely bring in trans racial. Nothing about racial identity is more objectively biologically rooted than sexual or gender identity. So it's much easier to be trans racial and transsexual or transgender.
The end of your comment is very enlightening. If your gender is just your personality, then gender is a meaningless and unnecessary term. Therefore government, corporations, organizations, etc. should not care about or make any accomodations for any gender, only the biologically rooted sexual binary.
if u agree with me gender is largely personality why would we not accommodate personalities? plenty of ppl experience discrimination for their presentation or their identity or their gender so there must be protection for this. race wasn’t a reality before a certain time period in the same way but we must protect against racism. what is so upsetting about using someone’s pronouns or name or allowing people to use the bathrooms they’d like? i assume this is what ur talking about when u say “accommodate” but maybe i’m wrong. the video does affirm that unjust discrimination is wrong. also i’m not married to the position that gender is just personality necessarily. i’m not someone who studies this or thinks about it often outside of my own experience aka that of being a woman who is sometimes ambivalent about being seen as one and would like to present more masculine at times (again, i think i might just like expressing that aspect of my personality, which is influenced by my cultural context, and if that includes using more than just she/her pronouns and certain clothing and wearing a binder what’s the problem?). when i feel this way i don’t feel separate from my body. i also think the rigidity of the cultural context around what i SHOULD be used to be a source of a lot of stress. i have a lot more to read from trans people or non-binary people before i think i can speak with any authority as a whole. i think it’s clear there is something ephemeral ppl feel they are tapping into and many people do thoughtful work around this. and it isn’t even the same across contexts or cultures or time periods. it’s just a shame to me that the Church seems unwilling to rigorously engage with any of it :/ “trans ideology” is not even a unified ideology, there are trans people with differing opinions! mostly the Church seems content to add to harmful misinformation about the trans experience, encourages the restriction of their autonomy, and alienates them and drives them away from the pews in my experience (i’m a baptized Catholic). i’m not gonna speak on minors and surgery but re: adults i think if the decision is made with autonomy and it will reduce negative mental health outcomes and make someone happier i don’t see the big deal. it seems v strange to restrict trans folks autonomy because there are those who have regrets. there are many people many adults who say that they wish they had access to resources when they were younger and even in adulthood rn are fighting for access and their well-being and to leave those people out of the argument is disingenuous also just to clarify the term “transracial” was used before the last handful of years in instances like “transracial” adoption for example so adopting someone racially different. the reality is the definition being used in this video (and implied in my original comment) is not at all a common phenomenon (even though it’s now been very amplified) nor is it something legitimate for the reasons i already said above.
@@TheFryedIScream "Not married to the position" this means you don't believe the definition is valid. It's so ridiculous having conversations with people steeped in post modern dogma. Nothing has to make sense to you.
@@LeonMortgage LMAO i was admitting that im actively thinking through it, I am not an expert. What's wrong with being humble and keeping my mind open? I know enough to know it's complicated. And I know that current mainstream Catholic thinking around this subject is lacking in consideration for the realities of not only my life but plenty of people I know and love to the point of harm. I'm sincere in trying to navigate it all.
I refuse to subjugate my perception of reality to please a pathology.
Woman- Adult human female.
That's the definition. Don't give it up ladies. It's a game changer.
Trans ideology is mysogny.
Excellent presentation, and timely. I'm glad this class was open-minded enough to invite you in.
Incidentally, I'm not convinced there really is such a thing as polyamory. When a man (or woman) gets married, he doesn't stop being attracted to other women (or men). It's essential for the married couple to show restraint and practice self-control when it comes to other potential sexual partners and to give themselves completely to each other. But that attraction doesn't just go away. It strikes me more as an excuse for a man with multiple sexual partners to explain away why he doesn't think there's anything wrong with it.
A catholic university having a “sex and gender studies” class is both funny and extremely sad.
It’s a clever title tho bc they “snuck in” a clever pair of orthodox Catholics to teach the real/true position of the Church. (Not twisted worldly logic).
Unfortunately I think any major Catholic university you can think of has a whole department. Catholics need to take back our universities.
$$$$$
Yeah, sad 😞
I don’t think the mere existence of such a class has to be a bad thing. Trent implies this particular class might not adhere to Catholic teaching, but a class could go over Theology of the Body and other Catholic teachings on sex/gender. And students could read dissenting views (that they will likely encounter in the secular world regardless) and learn the Church’s response to them.
I was mandated to go to diversity training as a govt employee.
The instructor said we can’t make fun of trans people.
I raised my hand and asked
“Can I be a woman on
M-W-F only ?”
The instructor laughed
I said
“You said we can’t laugh at them ?”
My favorite apologist!
amen.
Protestant listener here. Love the content and your response (your response to that "suicide and orthodox teaching" question was especially enlightening). I would be really interested to see that whole Q&A section.
I wish I would’ve heard this when I went through my WGST classes at University, I was totally indoctrinated. Praise God for logic and his unending mercy.
Great presentation. The point about the body being actually part of the person instead of an accessory to the person was something new to think about.
Great presentation, as always. Thanks Trent!
I wish Trent was my highschool teacher.
I’m glad you talked to college students about this, I hope it clicked for some of them. Great breakdown. I’ll have to get your book for when I have kids.
Love you Trent!
Awesome resource for all educating our children!
At least for me, Q&A is when I get to better understand the material presented. It's not so much in the Answers as it is in the Questions being asked. The questions provide multiple perspectives that I perhaps would not have otherwise considered. I hope Trent posts Q&A in the future!
Can someone help me on this. I have never heard anyone use this kind of argument before. Here it goes -
Bob - Abortion is woman's choice for whatever reason.
Me - Do you think "sex-selective" abortion is wrong?
If Bob says "Yes" -
Bob - Yes
Me - So there are some abortions that is not a woman's choice.
If Bob says "No" -
Bob - No
Me - So, you think aborting an unborn girl child in favor of a boy is okay?
Bob - Yes
Me - Do you see a sex discrimination here?
Only twenty or so minutes, but packed with content, thank you
Great presentation!
You do such a great job! Very clear, logical, and charitable. Keep it up, Trent :)
a very concise, well-presented overview. I appreciate the emphasis on empathy for those who identify this way, without sacrificing our belief in God’s truth. We can do nothing without love!
You do a wonderful job of presenting and defending the beautiful graceful light of love Who shines through the Bride of Christ among us. She has so transformed and enlightened my mind and helps so much with the heart.
good stuff. The time constraint I guess dictated short shrift to natural law approach. That's the basis of everything moral... I think it helps to point out that what is "natural" is "that which prevails for the most part." It is not what always happens, for fallen nature miscarries at times, delivering exceptions to the rule or norm. Miscarriage doesn't mean there is no nature, just that nature has failed in some instance.
Thank you Trent! Great work!
Trent, is there any way to collect data about suicide rates among homosexuals in counties where homosexuality is not widely appreciated or prohibited? I don't only think about Muslim countries, but Latin American and African countries. I think that would help contrasting the real reasons why these people suicide instead of blaming in it on homophobia. I'm sure the statistics will show interesting data people in Europe, Canada and the States haven't seen before.
From what I'm able to tell, that sort of data isn't recorded in Latin American countries by the authorities, maybe that's why the numbers are likely exaggerated since the only indirect way to tabulate them would be self reporting among homosexuals through activist NGO's
I can’t control how other parents “parent” their kid’s and I just worry about my daughter. Will she have to compete physically against males just because they want to define themselves as females? That’s absurd.
Great presentation, but it is somewhat disappointing to me that this needs to be taught at a Catholic college. If our Catholic high schools were more courageous this would both be more effective and relevant for younger minds, before they fully give into gender theory and the LGBT movement as so many do when they reach college. As someone who went to Catholic high school, every single kid is curious about these matters but when the one brave kid in class asks a poorly catechized theology teacher a good question and they are left without a compelling answer, many lose their faith on the spot and never look back.
I think you really did a great job with this presentation. Please upload the Q and a
The best!
Good distinction between sex and gender at 7.00
22.08
no this people often suffer no medical complication a large percentage of them go undiagnosed. They are in no need of surgery or any other treatment
It was actually very good.
No dislikes! Yassa
God Bless you.
Where can we find the full presentation with the talk of your colleague?
Thanks for this content. Maybe it came out in the Q&A - what is the precise position of church doctrine on grown adult man (or woman) with gender dysphoria? Seems like it is “we have compassion for you, but figure out how to deal with it that involves continuing as a male in society and within the home and within your own mind”. Is that so? It seemed like the Spanish godparent ruling said someone dressing and “acting” as the opposite sex was not acceptable….at least to be a godparent. Taking hormones or other treatments? Clearly was stated that gender reassignment is not allowed.
😇
Incipient in modern gender theories is a sort of Gnostic dualism, in which body and soul are view as separate, with in the case of gender identity the soul taking primacy. In contrast to this is the Catholic teaching of the essential metaphysical unity of body and soul in one essence, which we call _human._
Unfortunately, Trent’s presentation will, I fear, only resonate with students who are still open to the idea of an objective standard of truth.
I bet the talk was at Notre Dame
Hey there my friend. I hope you and your family are well and safe.
It is really unfortunate that some Christians have bought into this stuff. The reason that I say Christians is that until the last few decades, almost all Christian denominations agreed that same sex acts were wrong. Only after the sexual revolution and LGBT activism did the church start approving of such acts.
These Christians say that we have been wrong about other things in history so why can't the text be wrong here. This is an association fallacy. X is not clearly understood and thus y is not clear either.
Some of these revisionist Christians are reluctant with polyamory. Some Christians who defend polyamory are Brandan Robertson and theologian Dr. Jeff Hood. Perhaps Christians will defend polyamory in the future.
The funny thing is that the revisionist Christians who argue against polyamory become the 'conservative' Christians.
@@computationaltheist7267
The church doesn’t approve of such acts
Super good
Separate from issues of religious theology - this trans issue is way out of hand….especially with the young folks. The “LGB” cohort ought to be considered separate from the “TQ+” cohort. Gay and lesbian folks been around forever - they’ve just been closeted by societies until recently. And about 2% to 3% of population fits in LGB category.
On the TQ+ side, the cohort with gender dysphoria is very, very small - though this condition is real. The problem is we see - especially with the girls - way too high of rate of teens saying they are transsexual - these are same girls who would get anorexia or self cutting. So especially if these minors are allowed informed consent for hormone therapy - this can cause lasting harm. It’s way overdone as is the non binary identification bit.
These subjective determinations should be rejected. The empirical determination of male or female is what we ought to stick with. The more the wokesters try and push the far out TQ+ agenda - the more reasonable the church position appears as an alternative.
Appreciation for the thoughtful presentation.
You mentioned about your colleague and his website, but haven't mentioned his name...
has the Q&A sesh come out yet?
Nice dr pepper shirt
I hate it when idiots use the term "Roman Catholic" instead of "Catholic" without knowing what the heck they're talking about. It plays into the old Protestant attacks against the Church
very sad that we even need to discuss this and try to define the catholic position to catholic university sad sad
My god father was married to a woman when he became mine, but now he lives a life of homosexuality, what do i do?
Now I'm a little confused, how do we go about defending the perpetual virginity of Mother Mary if we define marriage as orientated to the sexual act? Would a Mary and Joseph type of marriage would be ok for the Church today?
I think it’s ok for some?? (I’m not a theologian)
I did read that St Teresa of Lisoux’s (spelling..?) parents started out trying to have a Mary Joseph marriage and a priest told them to have children.
Technically she is spouse to the Holy Spirit. But you'll have to ask someone with theological knowledge to explain the dynamics at play there in proper terms.
Mary was betrothed to Joseph, who was in the weird situation where he shouldn't break the promise of marriage but at the same time he should not consider the Blessee Virgin on his own level. The Angel had to come to him to explain the correct behaviour in his situation, which was to raise Mary's son as his own, and love Mary as a wife.
i think we just gotta gotta call it the 'holy' catholic church instead of roman.
I accept unity view (soul and body, not dualism). But, can be used, in apologetic "dualism" (in some sense) as an argument for the existence of the immaterial reality - the soul? How can I reconcile these two views?
For example, christian apologetic J. Warner Wallace wrote:
"As Christians, we believe hold a dual view of world around us. We believe in the existence of the brain and the mind, the body and the soul, a material world and a spiritual realm. This concept of dualism, the recognition of two co-existent realms and realities, is critical to our faith as Christians. If dualism is not true (the opposite view is often called ‘monism’ or ‘physicalism’), there is no realm in which God exists, we are not souls designed for salvation and life with God, and there is no life beyond this one."
- is Wallace's view truly dualism which we Catholics do not accept?
Read also this argument for existence of the soul:
Difference Two: “I” Versus “My Body”
(The First Person Argument)
Like Everyone, I Only Use First Person Possessive Pronouns to Indicate Possession of Something Other Than “Me”
I use expressions like, “This is my toothbrush,” or “This is my mom,” because I am describing someone or something other than me.
Like Everyone, I Commonly Use First Person Possessive Pronouns When Describing My Body
I also find myself using expressions like, “This is my body,” or “This is my hand” when describing my physical body or some portion of my body.
THEREFORE: My Body Is Something Other Than “Me”
Just like my toothbrush is something other than me, my physical body is also something other than me. I am not my body. These are two different things. There are two realities, the material and the immaterial. (By the way, although we sometimes use the expression, “my soul” this is an inaccurate use of the term. We don’t have souls, we are souls.)coldcasechristianity.com/writings/a-very-brief-review-of-arguments-for-the-existence-of-the-soul-bible-insert/
*I Only Use First Person Possessive Pronouns to Indicate Possession of Something Other Than "Me"*
But then:
*although we sometimes use the expression, "my soul" this is an inaccurate use of the term*
is clearly special pleading. The whole argument is attempting to demonstrate that slapping "my" in front of something proves it’s "not me", but realizes "my soul" undercuts the argument, so it pleads it away, and its argument for doing so is the very point it’s trying to prove - a perfectly circular argument.
*I am not my body*
So, when my brother slaps my hand and I complain, "Ma! Tommy hit me!" I’m mistaken? He really only hit "my body"?
@@nathanaelculver5308 Just to jump off what Nathanael is saying, if we don't have souls and we don't have bodys than what do we have? We are souls but our bodies are part of us too!
@@thethreefriends3002 Exactly: any facet of us that we want to propose as our "true me" can be slapped with a "my", thereby rendering it "not me". Ultimately, we carve away everything that could be me and we’re left with nothing.
@@nathanaelculver5308 extremely well said!
@@nathanaelculver5308 Thank you both for your answers. I am trying to understand. So, can we say, we are unity of soul and body, but, we are not just the body? (what some materialist teories claim, that our mind is just result of brain activity).
Can we argue, for example, in favor of the existence of soul, that we can objectify and realize ourselves (self-awareness) and our bodies, so we are body, but we are more than just a body? I think, P. Kreeft and R. Tacelli used some form of this argument for the existence of soul - Soul has power objectify my body, so I am something more than a body. Thanks
Cough cough (Georgetown) cough cough
bringing in transracialism is nonsensical, race and gender are not the same. race is a reading and categorizing of the body and place that has a specific colonial logic to it and makes certain characteristics inherent to a group for the purposes of dehumanization and justification, and race is also inherited. it is incoherent to say that i, a woman born to mexican american parents, who is regularly and consistently not READ by others as white, is white or black or asian or whatever. i am not the one who decides that! in fact, that reading of me is essential to the entire project of race (although racializing is not at all limited to phenotype; if someone hears me speak spanish that settles any ambiguity about me to people; i am “latina” and not Asian or any other race I am ambiguous enough be read as even if I might actually be those races too).
in contrast humans have been “doing gender” for...as far back as i can think. it is an essential part of personality (perhaps it even IS personality in its entirety?) and is deeply personal.
You can surely bring in trans racial. Nothing about racial identity is more objectively biologically rooted than sexual or gender identity. So it's much easier to be trans racial and transsexual or transgender.
The end of your comment is very enlightening. If your gender is just your personality, then gender is a meaningless and unnecessary term. Therefore government, corporations, organizations, etc. should not care about or make any accomodations for any gender, only the biologically rooted sexual binary.
if u agree with me gender is largely personality why would we not accommodate personalities? plenty of ppl experience discrimination for their presentation or their identity or their gender so there must be protection for this. race wasn’t a reality before a certain time period in the same way but we must protect against racism. what is so upsetting about using someone’s pronouns or name or allowing people to use the bathrooms they’d like? i assume this is what ur talking about when u say “accommodate” but maybe i’m wrong. the video does affirm that unjust discrimination is wrong.
also i’m not married to the position that gender is just personality necessarily. i’m not someone who studies this or thinks about it often outside of my own experience aka that of being a woman who is sometimes ambivalent about being seen as one and would like to present more masculine at times (again, i think i might just like expressing that aspect of my personality, which is influenced by my cultural context, and if that includes using more than just she/her pronouns and certain clothing and wearing a binder what’s the problem?). when i feel this way i don’t feel separate from my body. i also think the rigidity of the cultural context around what i SHOULD be used to be a source of a lot of stress. i have a lot more to read from trans people or non-binary people before i think i can speak with any authority as a whole. i think it’s clear there is something ephemeral ppl feel they are tapping into and many people do thoughtful work around this. and it isn’t even the same across contexts or cultures or time periods. it’s just a shame to me that the Church seems unwilling to rigorously engage with any of it :/ “trans ideology” is not even a unified ideology, there are trans people with differing opinions! mostly the Church seems content to add to harmful misinformation about the trans experience, encourages the restriction of their autonomy, and alienates them and drives them away from the pews in my experience (i’m a baptized Catholic). i’m not gonna speak on minors and surgery but re: adults i think if the decision is made with autonomy and it will reduce negative mental health outcomes and make someone happier i don’t see the big deal. it seems v strange to restrict trans folks autonomy because there are those who have regrets. there are many people many adults who say that they wish they had access to resources when they were younger and even in adulthood rn are fighting for access and their well-being and to leave those people out of the argument is disingenuous
also just to clarify the term “transracial” was used before the last handful of years in instances like “transracial” adoption for example so adopting someone racially different. the reality is the definition being used in this video (and implied in my original comment) is not at all a common phenomenon (even though it’s now been very amplified) nor is it something legitimate for the reasons i already said above.
@@TheFryedIScream "Not married to the position" this means you don't believe the definition is valid. It's so ridiculous having conversations with people steeped in post modern dogma. Nothing has to make sense to you.
@@LeonMortgage LMAO i was admitting that im actively thinking through it, I am not an expert. What's wrong with being humble and keeping my mind open? I know enough to know it's complicated. And I know that current mainstream Catholic thinking around this subject is lacking in consideration for the realities of not only my life but plenty of people I know and love to the point of harm. I'm sincere in trying to navigate it all.
BEWM