in the future i imagine this scenario.
one guy is on a balcony and has a soda in his hand and another guy comes up to him and asks "what does it mean to be a good person if all your mistakes are corrected automatically?" and the guy with the soda throws the soda off the balcony and a little drone detects it and whisks it away to the thrash bin. as that happens the guy that threw it says " i don't know. your intentions don't matter anymore. only convenience does".
this links to the transgender issue. what if they find a way to really turn people into the opposite sex. chromosomes and all.(even if they did i would still consider it devil worship).
i think technology will set a dangerous precedent as to what is and isn't acceptable as a society. how much convenience is to much and if technology did reach those heights would they be morally just?
The current use of transgenderism is to create cognitive dissonance on a massive scale. I don't know if anyone would ever want to be of a gender other than the one they were born with if there wasn't this use of the idea implanted in our brains for nefarious purposes.
If there were however, someone who desired that, without an external implantation (brainwashing) then who are you or I to say such a desire is "bad". Their choice of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is their own.
It is the using of ideas and tools for evil purposes that makes a thing evil. In this case, I believe the mixing of sexes has been for a very evil purpose, but biologically speaking there are many animals that can swap genders naturally as the social or environmental need arises. There is nothing unnatural or evil about the idea. The evil exists in the way the idea has been used to manipulate society (create cognitive dissonance).
If there is ever a tool (technology) that allows for those who might, without brainwashing, want to swap genders, who is to say that is evil? Are they harming anyone else in any direct fashion, limiting the pursuit of life, liberty or happiness of someone else, or is it a sense of "offended" that drives a desire to stop them?
The Declaration of Independence's (DoI) statement of protection of inalienable rights doesn't care about your sensibilities, or what you may take offense at. It protects all choices that do not infringe upon another's such rights. Trying to stop such choices is exactly what the DoI intends to protect against. It teaches us that our "sensibilities" must be internalized when they attempt to do so.
I reiterate, using the tool (idea in this case) of gender fluidity to create cognitive dissonance is evil. That is the ACT, not the idea. The idea exists all over in the natural world. And who are you (not you specifically, but the general "you") to tell someone they aren't allowed to have an idea, or pursue it if it does not infringe on another's rights?
The difference betweeen those animals and humans is that those animals accept what they are doing by instinct where as the human does so for no logical explanation.
That is a whole lot of assumptions in one sentence.
I suggest we should not presume to know the mind or heart of another. Rather, we should attempt to know our own hearts (a difficult enough task), and respect others attempts at the same.