tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674189885370836681.post2556378916642664400..comments2023-08-20T11:02:26.519-04:00Comments on John Rankin Blog: Transgender Pain for Mother and SonJohn Rankinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10711449559364529426noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674189885370836681.post-87706027027133162012017-04-08T12:31:18.128-04:002017-04-08T12:31:18.128-04:00Christianpurpose blog says, "Opinions founded...Christianpurpose blog says, "Opinions founded on anecdotal evidence tend to confirmation bias." "... '[S]cientific' research suffers its own forms of confirmation bias." <br /><br />I am not sure what "confirmation bias" is, but I guess that "bias" is undesirable as an impediment to knowing truth and that "confirmation bias" is a particular form of bias that tends to reinforce / confirm itself by viewing experiences in a way that suppresses truth in order to fit facts and experiences into the mold of the bias.<br /><br />Ironically, after disputing Rev. Rankin's "fundamental understanding," the next assertions are gleaned from anecdotal evidence: "The M-to-F transgender person I KNOW BEST....." What makes conclusions / opinions / biases drawn from this anecdote valid? And in what does this greater validity lie if not personal experience / anecdote?<br /><br />Is it possible to fail to form opinions based upon experience? When we do form opinions, are we always "biased"? If we form opinions at all, how are we to determine whether these are biased or not?<br /><br />Christianpurpose blog then says, "The Deceiver doesn't need to follow any rules in confusing people..." I cannot read that statement without a nagging question rising up in my very confused heart: Is it possible to be deceived if there are no rules?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674189885370836681.post-67525090669978480082017-03-22T14:39:37.424-04:002017-03-22T14:39:37.424-04:00Thank you.
I said "overwhelmingly," and...Thank you.<br /><br />I said "overwhelmingly," and I know there are real and/or outward exceptions. And there are violations from outside the immediate family (this I have seen) that can cause confusion, where the "safety" of a "female" identity can be sought by a man. In terms of anecdotal reality, this is my starting point. I will tell you that in the thousands of homosexuals I have addressed in person, or spoken with in person including in-depth, the reality of the pain and confusion that flows from the chosen absence of the biological father is overwhelming. This testimony from Harvard, which I gave before the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature n 2002 -- before 600 people in three hearing rooms, a gaggle of media, and at least 120 pro-homosexual activists -- brought not one challenge to what I said.<br /><br />John Rankinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10711449559364529426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674189885370836681.post-89792012276413434082017-03-17T14:22:11.491-04:002017-03-17T14:22:11.491-04:00John, opinions founded on anecdotal evidence tend ...John, opinions founded on anecdotal evidence tend to confirmation bias -- as you know. We also both know that 21st century "scientific" research suffers its own forms of confirmation bias. Still, I need to dispute your fundamental understanding of the source of transgenderism being an absent male parent. The M-to-F transgender person I know best came from an extremely strong intact family. After his mother's death (when he was maybe 22), his father asked the 3 sons a couple years later for permission to marry a Christian woman whose (clergy) husband had abandoned her with 2 kids. When his father died, many years later, the stepson's Facebook memorial page was called, "I love you, you are wonderful" -- the only sentences the father had to express his love and God's love to everyone around him during the last few years of his Alzheimer's. So this is an M-to-F from a family with a strong and present father, profoundly rooted in Christian faith, who never ceased to be a provider and protector. <br /><br />All of that just to say: The Deceiver doesn't need to follow any rules in confusing people about who we are. Sometimes I think our desire to identify a rule or a pattern is one of his most powerful tools to distract and divide. For what it's worth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com