Currently, very young children haven't been around long enough that the environment and their nurturing can account for the fact that some of them have the brain structure of the opposite chromosomal sex.
Even if epigenetics can account for some of a young child's gender dysphoria, it is not the child's fault in this life that the child has gender dysphoria. Neither is it the child's responsibility to alter the child's brain structure to conform with the child's chromosomal sex. It is also not the responsibility, or even the unilateral right, of adults to decide to alter the child's brain structure to conform with the child's chromosomal sex.
Furthermore, as children age, they do not lose their rights.
Deu 22:5 The woman H802 shall not H3808 wear H1961 that which pertaineth H3627 unto a man, H1397 neither H3808 shall a man H1397 put on H3847 a woman's H802 garment: H8071 for H3588 all H3605 that do H6213 so H428 are abomination H8441 unto the LORD H3068 thy God. H430
H1397 ("man") is the operative term. Which connotation should be applied? H1397 ("man") is "geber" in transliterated Hebrew. According to Strong's, there are 65 occurrences of geber in the JKV. According to the King James Concordance, there are 70 occurrences. The connotation intended for each occurrence is debatable. Scholars disagree.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible states:
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man - כלי גבר keli geber, the instruments or arms of a man. As the word גבר geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armor is here intended.... It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa. This would have been impossible in those countries where the dress of the sexes had but little to distinguish it, and where every man wore a long beard.
Clarke highlights the debated issue. However, Deuteronomy was for the Israelites. They had a dress code of sorts, sorting out males and females.
It seems to me that Deu 22:5 was aimed at the Israelites to keep the men (sex) warriors and the women domestic. It seems to be extreme, militant nationalism for the sake of empire, which strikes me as anti-Christ: Old Testament versus New Testament.
So, does Deu 22:5 apply to Christians? If one considers circumcision, it certainly can't be ruled out that Deu 22:5 does not apply. The issue was never addressed the way circumcision was. If it had been, the same arguments today and the same logic then would probably have prevailed. Clarke's point about gentile nations with no truly distinct male/female dress codes would very likely have come up. I should think that the Christian council would have handled dress (men in what were unisex skirts) the way it handled circumcision. It officially/formally allowed the uncircumcised to become members of the church and did not require them to be circumcised (did not require them to follow the Jewish religious law regarding circumcision).
Gentile men in skirts were converting to Christianity in droves, and the fact that they were in skirts never came up as an obstacle or matter for debate. Jewish men were wearing tunics (open bottom, not pants). Jesus wore a tunic. Paul wore a tunic. Paul's concern was with effeminacy, which apparently wasn't determined by him to be a matter of whether one wore a skirt.
Regardless, we need to define the term effeminacy as he originally intended and more importantly determine whether every word that came out of the mouth of Paul jibed in letter and spirit with the Gospel message of Jesus. As far as I'm concerned, Paul made huge mistakes in his understanding of the message of Jesus. The most significant is where Paul tells us to obey the powers that be. Jesus didn't do that, and he told us to obey the higher law even if it meant being martyred for doing so.
Effeminacy clearly is not wearing a skirt, per se. Skirts are worn by plenty of males in the world who generally are not considered effeminate. However, is anti-male effeminacy (in the modern sense) the actual position of Jesus?
A male certainly didn't have to be a Deu 22:5 warrior in order to be accepted by Jesus. In fact, while Jesus would accept such a person, he would admonish that one not to engage in violence. How many people are confused today into thinking that the anti-violent male is necessarily feminine?
However, just how much may a male be in touch with his feminine side (in the modern sense) before crossing a forbidden line? I don't have the Christian answer to that (yet). I do accept transsexuals, as I accept intersex people.
Regardless, I have no problem with men in skirts or other open-bottom clothes whatsoever. Open-bottom clothes for men help raise their testosterone. Therefore, wearing open-bottom clothes cannot be inherently effeminate.
So, my last two posts have allowed trans women to express themselves, which, I believe, has helped clarify the language and clear up at least some misunderstandings and miscommunication.
Well, I was, and remain, a strong supporter of the totally anti-capitalist position of "equal time for opposing views." The word equal there is impossible to reach, but giving time and space to people with differing views to discuss and debate is generally a good thing.
With that in mind, here's a presentation by someone who clearly identifies as "conservative" speaking to a more than receptive audience. For my part, I think it's a bit hyperbolic by misunderstanding the modern-socialist movement, which is democratic rather than Stalinist.
There's plenty more I could say about the following video, just as there was plenty more I could have chimed in about the previous videos "supporting" transgenderism, but I'm finding it easier to learn about things by doing more listening.
Science, the Transgender Phenomenon, and the Young | Abigail Shrier - YouTube
Trans people require a great deal of patience while the rest of us learn and contemplate what they're saying (and feeling). Of course, there are those who don't really want to consider the trans' side of things or if they do consider it, they want to reject all of it regardless and to twist it and mischaracterize it, etc.
Honesty is the better policy.
Trans Woman Debunks Ben Shapiro Debunking Transgender Ideology
I was holding off writing this simply because I've had, and still have, a great deal on my plate and have been, and still am, trying to work on things in order of survival-priority. However, there's a great deal happening in this gender-identity sphere right now. It's pulled this post forward.
For me, the fact of inter-sexed people has always been the pivotal issue. It's a fact that the human race is not born simply binary. There's a spectrum upon which everyone falls. In addition, that spectrum is not fixed but subject to constant changes, individually and societally.
The hard, "conservative" position that there is only a strict, unchanging binary is simply untenable. It's intellectually dishonest. It's a contrived, arbitrary cultural construct with no basis in reality.
Yes, there is the Y chromosome, but that is not the be-all and end-all of the matter. Real people range from one end of that "binary" to the other and every place in between. They range that way physically, psychologically, socially, and culturally.
I will share my own testimony concerning myself right here to help make the point. I am gender nonconforming. I'm not a trans person, but I'm still gender nonconforming in that I totally disagree that men can't or shouldn't wear open bottom clothes known as skirts and dresses. Men have worn skirts and dresses throughout more of prehistory and history than not. It was only recently and in only certain societies that the prohibition against men in open bottom clothes arose.
The truth of the matter is that open bottom clothes for men are actually healthier. The testes require cooling in order to properly perform their function to the fullest. I'm not sure of all the different changes in the environment and culture that have contributed to it, but males, and I use the term loosely rather than the hard-binary, have much less naturally occurring testosterone in their systems than in previous generations. The slide downward has been happening for several generations now. When I was a fairly young man, it was said that we weren't half the men our grandfathers were, testosterone speaking.
In addition to fully opposing the ridiculous rule against open bottom clothes for men (by the way, Jesus wore open bottom clothes), I also totally reject the ban by "macho men" of pinks and violets and such for males. I love those colors. That doesn't make me trans, not that I'm saying people can't be freely trans. They can.
The "masculine" was hijacked somewhere along the line to exclude any signs of "weakness." Well, those think typically considered feminine in a male don't make that male necessarily weaker. There are plenty of very strong people who like soft, comfortable, delicate, even "frilly" things for and on themselves.
The video did a good job concerning sexual orientation and gender identity. I don't need to go into it further. It's a fact that many trans women and men pass, meaning one can't readily tell there's been a transition but rather take the person as having been born that way.
Over the last few months, I've become a great deal more sympathetic. It's been a process of facing the fact that arbitrary dictators have been mentally and physically indoctrinating generations into believing there are only male and females and each is born fixed and shouldn't even ponder what their true, natural selves might be absent that extremely harsh indoctrination.
Personally, I think the whole process started so that rulers would have more subjects and larger armies so those rulers could further enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.
As for the new laws discussed in the linked article, it's true that children change their minds. However, more don't than do and by magnitudes of order.
There's no perfect solution right now. One size doesn't fit all. But believing only in the hard binary is to live in denial of truth, and that's never good.