Don't Listen to Carl Trueman: This is how the Left views Transgenderism
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 04. 2023
- Carl Trueman, in his book the Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self talks about a man who thinks he's trapped in a woman's body. His perspective on transgenderism is that it is an expression of radical individualism. I say, don't Listen to Carl Trueman. Listen to what people who think they're trans actually view themselves. They think gender is a social construct.
#carltrueman #transgenderism #riseandtriumph #mattwalsh
To Support the Podcast:
www.worldviewconversation.com...
Become a Patron
/ worldviewconversation
Follow Jon on Twitter: / jonharris1989
Follow Jon on Facebook:
/ worldviewconversation
Follow Jon on Gab:
gab.com/jonharris1989 - Zábava
How can he be a mother?
Narrator: “He can’t”
my heart breaks for whoever he is trying to 'mother' 💔😡
@@ybh8ful His child needs to be REMOVED from this abusive home and put in a home with sane parents who will try to undo the damage this wicked man has already done. It sickens me! That poor child!
People who think they're trans don't think they're trans because they chose to be trans.
On the contrary, they believe it was not their choice.
They think its who they actually are independent of any choice they made.
They believe gender is a social construct.
So they root their identity in social interactions. (i.e. how they "experience" the world).
This is why it is so important for them to receive social affirmation.
People must experience them as their trans identity if gender is a social construct.
Carl Trueman hinging this all on "radical individualism" is setting up Christians to make basic mistakes.
Mistakes like thinking Baptist theology leads to transgenderism because it supposedly bases Christian identity on choice.
Mistakes like mocking people who think they're trans by saying "if I chose to be a cat would I be?"
It's not about choice. It's about experience.
We need to clearly say, "You do not experience life as a trans person."
Often I hear Christians giving up the entire argument by saying things like, "That may be your experience, but what is true?"
What is true is that they experience the world according to the way they were designed.
Let's stop reinforcing delusion.
Very well said!
The last time I checked experience cannot be innate or biological. It is an issue of the mind, not biology or genetics. Secondly, they concede that their condition is not inborn when they use sociology to say that it is a social construct. In other words, this is both an individual and a mass delusion being pushed on society through propaganda.
Designed??? That's obviously baseless since there is absolutely no empirical science behind this empty assertion. It's basically an unproven axiom.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 “Obviously baseless???” that's ridiculous of course, because there's no empiricle evidence to the contrary, therefore your comment is pointless and it shows a remarkable lack of intelligence.
@Adam Johns The Bible makes it clear that cause of homosexuality is original sun and total depravity. Therfore your excuses won't work come Judgment Day.
Jon, congratulations! You said it would be short. You kept it under 20 minutes! 😂
LOL
Sin+Kinzy+Money= Where we are today!
It's like they are trying to create their own objective truth.
No. For them truth changes from person to person. It's called postmodernism and relativism.
People don't want to hurt him and so they affirm him. But, he is obviously a man.
He's a homosexual pretending to be a woman. LGBTQIA+ is evil through and through.
It also makes them feel virtuous and earns them cultural points to support their “trans friend”.
There was a battle for objective truth now we are seeing the consequences.
I think Jon may be splitting hairs here with Carl Trueman. Trueman is a philosopher, and he asks the question how did we, as Western society, come to the conclusion that your gender is determined by what you think you are inside, and not by your physical characteristics? And Trueman argues that it is an aspect of "Expressive individualism," which he traces back to Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He then shows how that modern secularists combined Freud and Marx to come up with the current transgender ideology. Trueman is basically giving us a philosophical analysis, and he is probably basically right.
As for the Transgender persons themselves, they may have all kinds of different reasons for thinking that they are the gender different from their physical characteristics. Some would have been "diagnosed" years ago with "gender dysphoria," and basically claim they are one gender trapped inside the other gender's body. They would argue that they were born that way. But in the modern scene people are encouraging young children to explore their own gender, and arguing that you can be bisexual or even "gender non-conforming," which would imply that gender is a matter of individual choice. But modern philosophy will try to argue that we are autonomous beings in an impersonal universe. And that, I think, is what Trueman is describing.
Trueman is a Theologian that: Sociologists, Philosphers and Anthropologists will be quoting fir tge next 25 years technically he is a Systematic theologian
Carl Trueman is a social justice warrior with leftist political inclinations. He is a fake Evangelical. Trueman never brings Scripture to bear in his book because for him common grace and the soft sciences are above Scripture.
He may be right but he is not a philosopher.
@@philagon His official title is"Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies" at Grove City College. The only point I was trying to make is that he was tracing the Philosophical roots of the modern transgender movement.
Trueman is an idiot. He completely ignores the fact that there is one single cause for all moral evil: The fall of Adam and it was God who foreordained the fall. Trueman is a social justice warrior.
Excellent insight. Thank you.
Jon, I had the same exact critique when I read Truemans book. I heard the phrase "man trapped in a woman's body" once. And it was over 20 years ago on the Tyra banks show. Tyra feigned shock but of course it was a show.
That happens all the time. I know many men who said they’re lesbians trapped in a man’s body. 😂
@@reys7510 well on Tyra's show, the woman said she was a gay man trapped in a woman's body. So you're on to something.
I suspect that framing was a way to justify transgenderism to audiences who still believed in objectively rooted genders. They don't say "trapped" anymore and I doubt they did much to begin with.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast they’ve come a long way beyond tolerance and now it’s acceptance of their mental illness
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast The bottom line here is that there is no excuse for sin and playing the victim won't work with God on the day of judgment.
Genesis 6:5 (KJV 1900)
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Don't they first need to put on the costume before being acknowledged as a woman? Why would they put on a costume if they didn't feel that they were in fact a woman in the first place?
It’s fundamentally a question of truth. Just because we call a dogs tail a leg doesn’t mean the dog now has 5 legs. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it true.
I think Matt needed to zero in on the fact that he decided he was a woman bc of what something else said, and that he only decided this 2 years ago.
Danya
Q. 24. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.
Q. 25. Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?
A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called Original Sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.
Did you say he? Yes, you are correct.
Your observations are very interesting.
Arbitrariness implies dubiety and conservatives tend to overlook that subjectiveness does not imply arbitrariness which is argued to decrease the credibility of the experience, though Carl primarily focuses about the perceived importance of experience rather than its actual validity.
Desires can very real and non-arbitrary, but we see that where hedonism grants the desire supreme authority and sovereignty over the external world, stoicism would strive to eliminate desires in the name of reason's or virtue's supreme authority.
Similarly, we can compare the idea of objective scientific ontology, how we used to look at stars and animals and physics to better understand ourselves, to the idea of learning about ourselves through introspection. Some years ago the argument was that trans people's brain scans more similar to the gender they identify with. But now you just don't hear it, nor any other scientific claims, nor any attempt to create such evidence. Rather you hear how objective, scientific ontology, is "reducing" the person and "robbing" him of his inner world and "imposing" on him, and how experience-based definition of self is perhaps more comprehensive and most definitely should have more authority in decision making.
When Carl was talking about a man trapped in a woman's it was an example of how the external world must be overcome (transition - sin) instead of the self (therapy - the Word). Whether or not actually being a man depends solely on subjective experience is another topic but the idea is the same.
And here I agree with you that trans people tend not to know what they experience. At the very least the are unable to describe what they feel in explicit terms other than neologisms. Basically alexithymia, which is a real psychological phenomenon and rather widespread. And I think it's sad and unfair that trans ideology promotes this, but it's somehow unsurprising, because if the experience is alexithymic, well guess what it's valid and should have authority in that the external world shouldn't try to change it. And that's a point where playing this subjectivity game is very harmful.
That gender is a social construct, I think people cling to this jargon because it helps to further subjectivise and generalise what they are not able to express in objective, concrete words. It perfectly fits the experience, which is alexithymic, vague, potentially dynamic, using a dynamic, subjectived concept with no concrete meaning other than the notion of the concept. It's mesmerising because I think every trans person has an idea of what a woman is but they are too afraid to articulate it because it would make objective what is subjective and again we see objectivity as a threat to the self. Though, I think that in reality it's less complicated than that, and the philosophical game is mostly for people to pretend they are smart, when really it's histrionic patterns.
I think social validation has two parts to it. The negative part which usually takes place in pronoun play, where disagreeing with a belief, that has become a core part of the identity, constitues a personal attack. So again it's this malevolent objectivity interfering with the subjective self.
Now the attention seeking part is just histrionic behaviour which I think "new" transgenderism is mostly about considering it's not really about liking trucks over dolls and wanting to undergo surgery.
As for the correct approach yes it's possible to challenge the experience. Some gay men experience gay desires but what they really experience is sexual confusion or fluidity, or seemingly unrelated psychological burdens that can be resolved. It's effective in that it doesn't require the sacrifice of the self. It's some sort of epicureanism which tries to refine raw hedonism. But in the end it's an attempt eliminate the conflict between self and Word. Carl says, first let the Word win, then try to get rid of the dissonance, in other words apatheia is better than contentment.
Men have a prostate. Women don't. Yet another difference between men and women.
I remember as a teen (late 70s-mid 80s) watching 60 minutes (I think) and there was someone on claiming to be a 'girl born in boy's body'. I lived in a lot of places growing up, but I remember it because I had no idea what they were talking about. I remember talking with my Mom about what we were watching.. Now, I believe it was the 'long game' set up.
Snowflakes can make an avalanche, and that is what has happened over the last (however many) decades with this........ I did not care (though it made me sad and I would pray for them) if someone was 'gay' or 'trans' for many years. Now that there are far too many going for children, I struggle to do that (pray for them)
No one respects a cosplay as reality, but they respect the cosplay as a cosplay. They respect the pretending, and they play along out of that respect, but the very thing being respected is a cosplay. It's not like they think the cosplay is reality, they simply respect the cosplay for what it is, and so they play along. It's a most condescending form of politeness.
If the one being polite deludes himself into thinking he no longer has awareness that the cosplay is not reality, that doesn't mean he has actually lost the awareness, but it just means he is dishonest with himself. At some point, some people may actually lose the awareness that there is a distinction between cosplay and reality, but in that case they have gone drastically insane. I was never insane to genuinely believe in Santa, but I wanted to believe, so I convinced myself I believed; I wanted to believe so I tried to choose to, but I was never genuinely persuaded of the fact (on a side note: this is the type of belief known as "Decisionism" where one thinks he can save himself by choosing to be a believer, but in reality one must be genuinely persuaded that the Gospel is true).
Typically, no one is genuinely persuaded that men may be women, but they are "polite" enough to be dishonest.
@C P They desire to pretend something which is obviously just pretend, not because social conventions somehow make the pretense seem to be real, but because they hate the God of reality and so they pretend in order to throw a tantrum against the God Of Reality. If they thought their fake gender was real, then they would not think it rebellion against God, and they would therefore not bother with it. They pretend because they know its pretend.
They also want to use social-pressure to coerce others to rebel against reality, by coercing others to also pretend. The motive is not that they believe reality can be altered by social conventions, but the motive is that they think God can be insulted by social conventions.
Thanks for helping me to more clearly articulate, and thereby more clearly understand, how what we see outwardly relates to the spiritual root of the matter. Do you agree with my answer?
I think people have it exactly right when they say things like, "What if I just choose to pretend to be a woman and go into the women's locker room", because pretense really is the entire (entire) purpose of the whole thing.
Everyone knows that gender is called "gen"-der because it's related to procreating the next "gen"-eration by transmitting "gen"-etics which impart en-"gen"-dered characteristics. Jon seems to be thinking that the lie is somehow sincere but confused, but it's actually just a lie. When one says, "What if I just pretend to be a woman and go into the women's locker room?" one is simply not bending to the gaslighting. I don't think Jon understands that it is specifically a gaslight, and perhaps the gaslighters often delude themselves into pretending not to know it's specifically a gaslight (when I was a child, I wanted to believe in Santa; deep down, I knew in my heart it was fake, but I pretended to myself that I didn't know better, but I knew better the entire time).
It is unwise to attribute to absurd stupidity what can be attributed to common evil. We are called to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves, because He sends us out as sheep amongst wolves.
The honesty that these deceivers need, is for their gaslighting to be honestly pointed out for exactly what it is, and for the facts to be framed up factually, and that includes the fact that they are gaslighting us with mere cosplay. They are not going to benefit from us pretending that they are sincere about the whole "social-construct" thing. We need to insist that they ask for fish and bread. We should not appeal to them in a way which gives allowance for them to ask for serpents and stones. In their heart, they are being dishonest, and that heart must be changed by God's Gospel power.
So, in short: their motive is to gaslight everyone (in some cases, that may even include themselves).
They want us to stop recognizing it as a gaslight, they want us to treat them as if they are being sincere, but first they must choose sincere choices, or else we are pretenders if we pretend they are sincere. If we love them, we should point out their insincerity for what it is.
What do you think of the contrast between Jon's explanation and mine? How might you explain it?
I haven’t read the book but I normally highly recommend Trueman and find him to be more focused on rediscovery and importance of philosophical realism - with which I think you agree. It’s important to stress the matter that “experience” must be tethered to reality itself. When you start to separate “feeling” and “experience” of the world you end up with some form of post modern idealism.
When are we going to wake up regarding the worthlessness of standpoint epistemology ?
It is just a consumeristic choice. The delusional aspects are just the "sell" (the "sell" is when an actor or stuntperson makes a show of acting like a fake event is real, in order to "sell" it to the audience). We shouldn't buy the sell. It's as much a simple choice as any other cosplay is, and it's up to us to be the ones who do not let that distinction be blurred in our eyes. I understand that the cosplayers don't describe it as a simple choice, but they are simply wrong about that.
"Yes, we all rolled our eyes at Justice Jackson’s inability to answer the question, What is a woman? But she is hardly to blame. Her confusion arises out of a deeper confusion that permeates our culture, a confusion over what it means to be human." - Carl Trueman
Trueman may have been influenced by his buddy, Tim Keller.
Yes, and Trueman has another antinomian best bud named R. Scott Clark.
Very good!
I could not bear to see/hear that person. (Especially hearing that he has CHILDREN in his care that he is destroying.) I had to turn on the captions. How these sexual deviants anger me. Why did we put up with this for one day?! No one ever heard of this a few years ago and now it's EVERYWHERE. Why is anyone coddling them and agreeing with their delusions?! It makes me sick.
I thank God for Matt Walsh. He's doing what pastors should be doing! I wish he would get out of the Catholic Church and come to true saving faith in Christ!
Matt Walsh is a coward as well and is brave when it benefits him. I never heard him call out Dave Rubin by saying what he is doing is an abomination as well.
@@danpena10565 I can't recall what he said or didn't on that. Nor did I say he was doing everything perfectly. We need to pray for his salvation.
The reason why the Church has utterly failed is because of dispensationalism. This heretical notion infected the American Church in the early 20th century & it has slowly emasculated the Church by convincing Christians that they can do nothing to hold back the tide & can only wait for the rapture instead of advancing Christendom.
@C P Nope that’s what you are ‘brave and stunning.’
How about your DNA.
Well, sometimes I get the menstrual cramps real hard….
5:45 minutes so just because he is delusional and has found some nice people, who themselves might be delusional. Or simply are scared of being cancelled, that makes him a woman?
Where is logic? Reasoning? More importantly where’s God?
Epistemological problems abound. How do you know???
Sidestep?
Poignant
Jon, you nailed it, that term "man or woman trapped in another body is an old term. I'm 54 2 years younger than Trueman and that term is something we would have used back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Hence, it's entirely understandable for Trueman to use that term because he grew up with that being how crossdressers or early transgender people identified themselves. This ideology or concept of transpeople has sharply changed with the supreme court decision on homosexuality where it has to turn into an emotional social construct with the idea of trying to link it to the same issues minorities had with civil rights during and before the 1960s. It has to be a social construct because they have to prove they are the minority worth looking at, that's why these people can shoot up a Christian school one day and then have the white house press secretary call out how oppressed trans people are the next day.
Rather than tell us that you disagree with Carl Truman why not tell us what you believe and then explain how that differs from Karl Truman.
👍 Trueman missed it at Grove City as well.
Trueman appears to explain the psychological grounding by which the LGBQT community can be understood. That you take exception to certain points or ways Trueman attempts to describe things doesn’t invalidate his overall analysis of things. While normally universal acclaim for his works would seem indicate that it’s leftist, Trueman’s intent is to describe (and more importantly, reach the left) not promote the left. If it were me, I would invite Carl Trueman on your show, but only after doing a thorough scrub of your initial arguments and motives.
Blessings of the free market.. 😅
I think you're quibbling. This doesn't invalidate Trueman's book.
I think you are not understanding this correctly. I just finished an 8 part lecture series from Carl Truman through my christian counselling coarse I am taking. I then had to write a paper on it. I think he would not disagree with you. I believe it is both - They believe they are the opposite sex trapped in the wrong body and they confirm that by their own feelings and then the affirmation of everyone else.
You and Carl are not at odds over this issue. He is a conservative and reformed christian. I don't understand your critic.
I had heard it said that his book is the most important christian book in 10 years. I think you need to endorse this book. It is helpful and necessary to see how we have arrived at this point .
Sola Experientia vs Sola Scriptura
The creation worshiping pantheistic people that attempt to live as if there is no inherent built in ontology or teleology in the world only have experience and self or collective definition to manufacture purpose and meaning out of thin air.
Christianity has a Creator and creation binary ontology where the creator reveals the purpose and nature of his creation. We can only know what a woman is by the design and revealed definition of the woman's maker. Any attempts to live outside of that reality will be futile.
You have made a chicken / egg argument when you say that their experience forces companies and government to acknowledge it. Do they not force people to let them go to the bathroom of their choice and thereby create the experience?
Why are you on about Trueman? It's not really advancing anything. You can do what you want with your podcast, but...meh.
Carl Trueman is British, they view tge world differently. Do not expect him to wrote like an American. Please get a clue.
This is some good, and deep, analysis right here. Very important to dismiss the criticism of individualism that both leftists and limp wristed “conservatives” maintain... Individualism isn't the #1 enemy with this social contagion we are facing!
Jon needs to study logic and epistemology.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 - tell me you know nothing about logic without telling me you know nothing about logic...
@@USMC_Ministries A=A.
@Adam Johns God IS Logic. John 1:1
@@USMC_Ministries Contradiction
Man, conservatives already only have the two jokes and now you've deconstructed half of their material. The Bee is coming for you soon.
Carl Trueman pastured in Pa and taught at Westminster. Thus expression is unfortunately said. .. by those who believe in deconstruction, freudianism and gender fluidity. He is rebuking that. And so are you. You amd Dr.T are on the same conservative team. Unify what Christ has unified. Your both orthodox in your belief in what tge Bibe teaches about gender.
It's not a matter of what team Trueman is playing for. It's a matter of if his work is useful in addressing the times we are in. Trueman got a lot right. But when it came to the major analysis in his book, he showed a misreading of the times we are in.
Trueman got everything right
@@phannybrce Nailed it. Jon is diagnosing the most viral cause of the social contagion we currently find around us.
But the root of that experience is filtered through narcissism. So Trueman actually puts a Biblical category in it. Narcissism is a Biblical category called Pride. So Trueman is arguing from a Biblical diagnosis.
Again. Whatever. Meh.