Fair enough. In the synoptics I can more easily understand Jesus as a law-abiding Jew, but by the time we get to gJohn I have difficult time maintaining that conception. The prohibition against drinking blood is a big one for me.

Yet the Prophets are full of distinctions such as "the circumcision of the heart," as opposed to mere fleshly circumcision and the elevation of justice over ritual. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Circumcision is part of fulfilling the covenant and I don't recall the prophets ever disparaging it. What they do disparage is the idea that Israel can sin egregiously and then offer some atonement sacrifices to placate God. So the message of the prophets is largely the importance of good deeds (i.e. covenental faithfulness) over sacrifice.

In Hosea 6:6 many Christian translations translate "chesed" as "mercy" and mercy can work, but the word is more strongly tied to covenantal faithfulness/acts of loving-kindness within the covenant.

So really the quote is more along the lines of "I desire [covenantal] faithfulness, not sacrifice" or "I desire acts of loving-kindness, not sacrifice." And you will see this in translations that are more familiar with the Hebrew.

The Origen story is probably a smear by opponents. In his commentary on Matthew he considers an extremely literal interpretation of this advice to be idiotic. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I get that Jesus is often not to be taken extremely literally. Yet one can be a "eunuch for the kingdom of heaven." Paul possibly considers himself as something along those lines. If one's urges are driving one to destruction, perhaps sterilizing oneself can be justified according to the gospels.

For us WW2 never been about "the good guys" or the "bad guys", it has always been simply of survival as a country, as a people. — ssu

I guess had the Germans won you'd have been absorbed into the Third Reich. So maybe a few of your neighbors go bye-bye and you need to learn German, but life goes on. If I were a typical Finn I'd probably have more Nazi sympathies or at least prefer them over the Soviets. I would have feared the Soviets more.

I understand the moral greyness and having to leverage two superpowers against each other. There are some conflicts where things are black and white though.

In a similar way this response happened already with 9/11 in the US and the global war on terror. Somehow the laws that have governed covert actions and things like the attitude towards torture changed. It was like Hollywood had taken over: the hero had to be the cutting "the red tape" of legal norms and just beating the shit out of the bad guy, because somehow that made him tell where next attack was to happen. In real life it doesn't go that way, but who cares, when people want revenge. In the end you had Intelligence Services like the CIA, which were fully aware of their legal framework, then asking from the politicians "jail free cards", that the politicians would take the blame. — ssu

I remember 9/11 and very few Americans objected to striking Afghanistan. We were always going to strike them; it was just a matter of how much and through what means. With Israel, there's also the addition factor of the hostages. Had Americans been subject to such an ordeal, I suspect the response would have been even more outrage. The election of Trump shows that the pendulum has swung back in the opposite direction. I think the US is tired of handling criminals and terrorists and kiddy gloves and Trump has promised hell for Gaza if the hostages are not released.

You northerners are slow to anger and tend not to be targeted too much. If you've ever been to the Middle East you immediately that it's different. Greater machismo. Quicker tempers. We can all judge; even to me Israelis (and Middle Easterners generally) come across as rude and quick-tempered. Then I remember that I'm far from the conflict and have the luxury of safety.

What is happening in Israel is alarming, because Israel has been a Western country with Western values. — ssu

Historically, the Jews are just another Middle Eastern people whose existence has been secured through resiliency and violent struggle in an extremely hostile world.

I do also understand that someone like BitconnectCarlos, being Jewish himself, wants to defend Israel. In this world it seems that we cannot be both critical and supportive at the same time. However if a democracy ought to work, that should be how ought to be. — ssu

We can criticize all we want. Criticism comes in different shades. But Israel must succeed. I don't know whether there's ever been a foreign power that tried to wipe out your people, but perhaps if there was we'd see a little more eye to eye. But yes, criticism is part of one's patriotic duty. In war time, the drive to victory can overshadow other concerns.

I hope the operation goes as humanely as possible. Nor am I under any delusions when it comes to what Israel/Jews are capable of. The Irgun were terrifying. Jews are just as capable of terror as anyone else.

Here's the thing though- Just as the Russians could kill and rape their way to Berlin and remain the "good guys", so the IDF can engage in questionable practices (clearly far more civil than the Russians) and still remain the "good guys." It's one of those funny things about war. We could imagine e.g. a Red Army battalion where every one of its soldiers had engaged in war crimes and deserves a hanging at Nuremberg, yet as long as they are pushing towards Berlin and wearing that uniform they are "good."

Back to the N Gaza operation; obviously those who stay in Gaza should be handled carefully. Fighting-age males are especially suspect. We'll see how it goes. I have no problem putting IDF soldiers on trial in Israel if necessary.

BTW I'm sure you've come across this study which found that the Gaza death count has been exaggerated to vilify Israel.

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Yes, forcible transfers are a crime. Yet if a place is about to be bombed people will typically leave. Israel will typically inform the population. Population transfer occurs naturally in wartime as people flee to safety. If Israel were to e.g. forcibly load them onto trucks or trains and send them somewhere that would be a war crime. But yes, Israel will assist in evacuation efforts if an area is about to be subject to bombardment -- that's humanitarian. That would be making an effort to protect civilian lives.

Like it's simply human to set out to destroy the perpetrator isn't actually what we call humane, but an emotional response. Yet the real question here is just what you after you have destroyed Hamas, the famous "Then what" question. Just to repeat the same line isn't an answer, it's simply a denial to answer the question. — ssu

Then call it justice. If an armed band of foreigner insurgents breach your border and murder even a handful, is a military response an emotional reaction? I wouldn't say so. It's expected unless the victim is committed to pacifism. And then there are the people who were stolen.

Regarding afterwards: We don't not go to war because of post-war uncertainty. Defeat Hamas and go from there.

But you can continue just to repeat the line of the horrible attack October 7th 2023 and say that Hamas has to be destroyed and disregard criticism just like Yaalon gave here (as if he would be opposing the action against Hamas).

That is simply blind support of every move that the current administration makes.

I don't disregard it. We should absolutely protect IDF soldiers. If there are war crimes being committed those responsible ought to be brought to justice. Israel still must win. If there are war crimes trials then do them after the war is won. Israel will likely have a presence in Gaza after the war, but that is not unprecedented nor is it a war crime. Neither is population displacement a war crime but is rather a natural result of warfare itself.

(And btw BitconnectCarlos, this ought to be in the Israel thread, not the Ukraine thread) — ssu

Someone can move it.

So you consider the Gaza war to be more an ideological and moral fight than a practical undertaking, like taking out a threat. :chin:

Well, many of those that criticize Israel agree with you as they see ultra-nationalism and religious extremism behind the objectives of the war, which the Hamas terrorist attack has given an opportunity to carry out. — ssu

It's not ultra-nationalism. It's not religious extremism. When ~6000 armed monsters breach your border and murder, rape, and torture your civilians (including children) it's simply human to set out to destroy the perpetrator. Israel's hand is forced in this.

There's certainly religious and ideological forces at work in the making of the conflict, but the fact that Israel must respond and destroy the perpetrator -- that's just human. I suspect if Russia were the victim the response would be much harsher.

Perhaps e.g. the Jains wouldn't respond violently given their religion, but I don't think such a philosophy would survive in the near east.

Why oppose having morality in international relations? Aren't there morals that we all should adhere to? Or is everything just realpolitik, shit just happens? Well, what Israel is doing in Gaza is realpolitik too, so why do you anything to complain about that? Or is it that we pick what is realpolitik and what is morally wrong just because of our own likings? I think that's close to the argument that BitconnectCarlos hurls at others on a constant basis. — ssu

I don't consider the Gaza war to be Israel engaging in realpolitik. Any other country would respond similarly. It is deeply personal to many Israelis and likely even for Netanyahu given his vivid language unless you think that's entirely performative.

Anyway, it's fine to condemn countries for their foreign policy. But when someone describes the deliberate murder of that country's civilians as "resistance" and makes absurd demands of a country (like ceding a huge chunk of its territory to an enemy) I see the accuser as a nasty sort of bigot making outlandish demands.

It could be that, but there are alternative interpretations, namely the avoidance of being fussy when receiving hospitality, and ignoring the additional food laws imposed by the "traditions of the elders." — Leontiskos

I don't buy this. If I tell you "Leo, go out into the world, preach the gospel, and eat what your guests serve you" it's only a matter of time before your guests serve you e.g. pork or shellfish or any number of other foods prohibited by the Torah. It's not about extra ancestral traditions. It's just the text.

Indeed. But for you 41 000 - 45 000 killed is a reason that it's not a genocide? Yes, it indeed isn't 100 000 or 400 000. Or at similar level that Bashar al-Assad's tyrannical regime killed. — ssu

If I were to learn ~40k civilians were murdered I would be horrified. If I were to learn that ~40k Hamas fighters and administrative staff were killed I would cheer.

It's sus to just give blanket figures like that. It would be like saying ~20k Germans were slaughtered by the allies in Jan 1945 when in fact it was German soldiers in the battle of the bulge. Yet we can abuse language all we want. We could say 20k Germans slaughtered if we wanted our speech to be provocative and incendiary. Soldiers without uniforms are still soldiers.

We could probably even argue today that what happened to Germany after WWII was "genocide" but it doesn't change the fundamental fact that they needed to be defeated and their government dissolved.

Oh that would be the evidence? Again, look up the definition. The public speeches after the attack give ample evidence of this, which btw have already been discussed in this thread. — ssu

I recall similar statements from Bush after 9/11 re: an "evil" enemy that must be destroyed. As well as after Pearl Harbor. We can call evil evil without it being genocidal. It's just truth sometimes. The Empire of Japan was evil. Al-Qaeda is evil. Hamas is evil.

is Jesus thought to have performed the requisite ritual cleansing after raising the girl from the dead? — Leontiskos

We'll never know but even if he didn't then he didn't transgress morally.

For myself, I wouldn't want to place such a substantive conclusion on such small shoulders. I would want more evidence. — Leontiskos

If J told his followers to go out among the gentiles/the nations and eat what they serve you then I cannot view that as anything other than permission to break Torah law regarding diet.

If he told his disciples to go out among the Jews and preach then I suppose we could give him the benefit of the doubt given that Jews largely kept kosher.

But as @Count Timothy von Icarus notes by gJohn we have J instructing his followers to dine on his blood and flesh -- clearly prohibited by the Torah.

7,4 million killed Americans wouldn't be a genocide, — ssu

But wait. The population of India and China is ~4x as much as the US, so suddenly 40k Gazans dead (a good chunk of who are Hamas) becomes 30 million Indians dead :gasp:

Can we just keep the number at 40k? And not try to scale everything?

Yet unlike Bibi's administration, they publicly denied of any such intent. — ssu

Did Bibi specifically state he wished to destroy all Palestinians? I know of no such genocidal intent.

because ethnic cleansing (without killing) is still considered a genocidal act. — ssu

Israel ethnically cleansed Gaza in 2005 of all Israeli presence. Was Israel there guilty of genocide against Jews? The territory of Alsace-Lorraine changed hands multiple times in the 20th century with population shifts (including forced exiles) entailing genocide against Germans and French. If population displacement is genocide then all war is genocide.

Also, let's not get into all the war crimes Bush committed shall we? — Benkei

The US also committed them in WWII, especially in the Pacific theater where US troops rarely took prisoners as the Japanese had a nasty habit of blowing themselves up upon being taken prisoner.

But of course instead of making difficult decisions in the field regarding how to treat such an issue, one could always just surrender to the enemy. Then one would be innocent and blameless. Or abide by the rules even when it significantly impairs one's chances for victory.

The free world was secured through brutality, don't ever forget it. Then again perhaps you'd be happier with a German-speaking Europe (that does mean no Israel). And how dare Israel seize land that rightfully belongs to the caliphate.

Denial works. Yet the Israeli line has been totally different from this. Hardly anytime has somebody be ever so clear with their intent. Talking of evil cities and how every resident in Gaza is culpable because they years ago voted for Hamas is a way to keep that rage up. — ssu

The US spoke in similar terms about enemies in Vietnam and Japan. Yet neither were genocides. The population of Gaza has risen by ~2% since last year never has there been a genocide where the victim population actually rose. The idea is preposterous. And of course Israel could wipe them out immediately if they really wanted as Israel has heavy weaponry. The facts simply don't bare it out the charge of genocide.

After 9/11 Bush said he'd make no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them. Sounds like a justification for genocide, no? :chin:

In the aftermath of a brutal tragedy what kind of rhetoric are we expecting??

The hostages, just as killing of civilian families, is evident, as I referred to Al Aqsa Flood having been a military-terrorist operation. The killing of as many people and the capture of hostages was obviously the objective of the operation. Just as is the destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure the objective of the Russian forces. It was an intended warcrime. — ssu

I agree. My point is that the hostages are part of the justification of Israeli military response in Gaza making it about more than just "revenge" for 10/7. Hostage recovery is a goal. BTW the Gaza population has increased by ~2% since 10/7 last year.

The ICC has asked to do this, but Syria is not a party to the Rome Statute, — ssu

Good to know. There should still be some other body that could do it.

You haven't once mentioned the hostages. It's like they're invisible to you.

It's also, in a way, been overshadowed by events in Syria. But when it's Arabs killing Arabs there will never be any mass protests or ICC arrest warrants.

Yet now the idea of going against "the Deep State" is simply absurd. Yet this is the line that Trump goes on again and again: that the real enemy is inside the US, not China and, heaven forbid, not Russia. It is absurd and illogical as Trump is the head of the executive branch. — ssu

Biden is currently the head of the executive branch but here in the US we know he's not running the show. Who is? Beats me. But certainly not Biden who has spent much of his time on vacation and barely seems coherent at times. What I can tell you is that intelligence agencies have access to massive amounts of data and that men are not angels. I'm convinced that one of the forces behind Trump's victory is that so many Americans just weren't sure whose been running the government for the past few years.

The good thing to do is not necessarily what we want to do. Morality often entails putting our own needs aside for the sake of the group.

In any case, to the OP, this was the OP @Hyper I remember as an undergrad this question of moral motivation was so big that it just permanently turned me off to secular ethics as studying them for years. Yes, we might make the determination that X action is moral, but we also have other types of reasons for behavior outside of that. I couldn't even pin down what the "moral" motivation must be overriding.

I was still hoping that Israel would fight like the Americans did against Al Qaeda and Isis in Iraq. Destroy the terrorists, yet try to help the civilians. — ssu

There are many more Hamas in Gaza than ISIS in Iraq. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't even seem like the US needs to be in Iraq. It just seems as if they've gone ISIS hunting overseas in a completely optional engagement. There are no hostages to rescue. There are no missiles being launched in the US. The US chose this fight and they could leave it. Israel does not have such a luxury.

If this confrontation were on the US border with rockets being launched into the US & there were hostages to rescue the situation would be completely different.

Generally, I've found that secular moral systems will permit it (are there exceptions to this?), religious ones will not. If we wish to avoid the issue of producing unfit offspring, we could always just make the hypothetical about gay incest. In any case, we still allow people with inheritable conditions to reproduce even if it gives their offspring a higher chance of getting the condition. Or the brother-sister pair could just wear condoms.

I don't see how a family hewing to "Christianity as principles for success in modern life," wouldn't want to have Saint Francis committed to a psychiatric institution, or how Saint Augustine giving up his promising career and dispensing with all his family's wealth wouldn't be seen as "taking things a bit too far." The definition of human flourishing that makes Boethius or St. Maximus torture/mutilation and death (or most of the Apostles') "worthwhile" and even "choiceworthy" needs to be dramatically different. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Now that's what I'm talking about. Or how Origen supposedly castrated himself to become a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven. "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away" but God forbid someone make good on that teaching. I agree though, if one is using Christianity primarily as an instrument to gain material success they're missing the point (to be fair I didn't really get this sense from Peterson).

I wasn't raised Christian, but I did get the sense from reading the gospels that the true Christian should be willing to give his life at the drop of a dime if need be. He may not have very long to live, but while he does live he will burn bright. It's a different way of living.

It isn’t crazy, but it isn’t unreasonable to believe (and with good reason) that ancient writers embellished history to make a point or a point of view starker, etc., in their stories. — schopenhauer1

Yes ancient writers embellish but that shouldn't lead us to conclude that everything is lies and exaggeration. I'm more sure about some things and less sure about others and I'd say it's plausible that martyrdom occured in this era, do you disagree? I'm not saying it necessarily went exactly as described like someone was writing as the event was transpiring but when I consider the facts it would seem to make martyrdom plausible.

His argument is more about their limited reach and impact on the general Judean population until the Hasmonean/Maccabean dynasty expanded their influence. — schopenhauer1

Adler is credible. :up:

This group, during the Babylonian Exile, compiled and redacted various writings to fit their view of idealized history. It's like watching Fox News and saying, THIS is the only objective news. Clearly, they have a spin! — schopenhauer1

The Deuteronomist is certainly a very significant part of the Bible, but at the end of the day we all choose our "spins" in life. We all have our own outlook and I maintain that some are better than others and the Bible does a better job at "spin" (nestling in its own unique worldview/s) better than any other book that I have come across.

Sure, but it's not beyond his control here, is it? And the implication of the text is that no ritual impurity has affected Jesus. — Leontiskos

Alright I will do you one better. According to both Torah law and rabbinic law, a seminal emission places one in a state of ritual impurity. Yet Jewish men are required to procreate. Thus, one can knowingly and voluntarily enter into a state of impurity yet it be a good, obligatory act.

(Note too that the Pharisees recognize that what is at stake is the "tradition of the elders." Jesus' response begins by distinguishing the commandment of God from the tradition of the elders.) — Leontiskos

Then we're in agreement here. :up:

So this is at best a preliminary set-up for a change to kosher, not a direct attack on kosher. It is explicitly about tradition and handwashing. — Leontiskos

The same idea does appear elsewhere. Most notably in Thomas:

"When you go into any land and walk about in the districts, if they receive you, eat what
they will set before you, and heal the sick among them. For what goes into your mouth
will not defile you, but that which issues from your mouth - it is that which will defile
you." (Thomas 14)

We can say that Thomas is non-canonical, ok, but there's also Luke 10.

"When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is offered to you."

Presumably this is ok because foreign food will not defile. So maybe we say this idea was retrojected back to Jesus or we bite the bullet and say that Jesus breaks from the Torah here.

First off, historians don't take everything in religious texts at face value — schopenhauer1

If we acknowledge that Antiochus IV engaged in a repressive Hellenization program and that the Jews violently resisted it is it crazy to think that there were martyrs? Or did it only start in Roman times? Do you believe there were martyrs then or is that also not historical?

Secondly, not eating pork and following (or even knowing about!) every tittle of the Torah that we know of today, isn't the same thing. — schopenhauer1

My concern is more whether they kept the basic elements. Whatever exact form it took, I do believe Jews were willing to die to preserve their ancestral customs at this point in the mid 2nd century BC.

was probably not the full and complete Pentateuch as we know it — schopenhauer1

I'd figure by this point the Torah was quite stabilized. It had already been translated into Greek a century earlier.

Also, if I was to give some credence to the "conservative view", one can say that it wasn't that there was NO group that did not "know about" Torah, but that it was during the Maccabees that it became THE dominant form of Judaism (no longer Henotheistic like First Temple period, no longer heterodox, and with a formal written understanding of the ancestral "Law"). — schopenhauer1

Maybe. Most of the First Temple era kings and Israelites come out looking pretty bad except Josiah and Hezekiah. It's hard to get solid info about the life of the average Israelite from this era. But yes, Judaism as we know it really forms in the 2nd temple period.

The answer is simple. Paul on his own authority, and over the objections of Jesus' disciples declared it so. Paul gives an account of this. — Fooloso4

Do you consider Peter's revelation a lie/a Pauline invention then?

Hand-washing and kosher are two different things. — Leontiskos

Yes. But when Jesus says "it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person" he would seem to be saying that even if e.g. a Jew were to eat pig or shellfish he would not be defiled in clear contradiction to the Levitical laws. Then again maybe my analysis is superficial/I'm misinterpreting him.

EDIT: Apparently a Jew breaking dietary laws does not render him ritually impure, but it is breaking a law and leaves one spiritually defiled. It is different than physical ritual impurity.

The main issue for me is the food laws, not so much the hand washing. The Talmud does distinguish between Torah law and rabbinic law. Ritual handwashing is of the latter category.

Has he broken the Law? Sort of. — Leontiskos

Entering a state of ritual impurity is not the same thing as breaking the law. We will all be in states of ritual impurity at one point or another. Sometimes it's beyond our control/just nature taking its course.

That's not an accurate statement of the matter. It's extremely complex, because it's hard to say if even the Jewish beliefs of the Torah were completely "in force" until around the time of the Maccabees (160s BCE).. But AT LEAST since the Maccabees, the Torah was "in force" in Judea and presumably for Jews around the Mediterranean/Babylonia. — schopenhauer1

2 Maccabees recounts an old Jewish man choosing death rather than eating pork during the persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Hard to imagine he choose death over a tradition which had just now become "in force" in the 160s BC.

And then of course there was the martyrdom of the seven sons and Hannah.

If Jesus did keep kosher, then presumably statements like Matt.15:11 are early Christian beliefs retrojected back to Jesus. After all, why would Peter need his revelation in Acts where all foods are declared clean if Jesus had originally taught it? I initially took a more historical-critical approach to the gospels but apparently this approach has to an extent fallen out of favor in modern academic Christian scholarship.

I just sometimes wonder whether Christians envision a Jesus who e.g. kept kosher and wore tzitzit.

Do you understand Jesus as a law-abiding Jew or one who "updated" the law? Did Jesus follow the commandments or did he add/delete existing ones?

I consider the parable of the good Samaritan to hold particular significance. — Tom Storm

What do you like about that parable? Margaret Thatcher's comment on it sticks in my mind.

I could not believe that anyone who has read this book would be so foolish as to proclaim that the Bible in every literal word was the divinely inspired, inerrant word of God. Have these people simply not read the text? Are they hopelessly misinformed? Is there a different Bible? Are they blinded by a combination of ego needs and naïveté?

I don't know what it would mean for a word or a text to be divinely inspired. Can you show me the difference between divinely inspired and not divinely inspired words/text?

I initially picked up a Bible with very low expectations. At times it was certainly a brutal retelling of history and certain rules surely reflected earlier times, but I also found nuggets of wisdom in there that fundamentally changed my life outlook. I guess some could call that revealed wisdom or revealed truth.

It's a shame that atheists dismiss it like this because the book really does have some amazing and corroborated (by other ancient sources) ancient history in it. See Judges through Kings. If you only focus on the New Testament I get how you can leave with the "New York City and Spiderman" analogy. Although even the NT contains some valuable historical information, although of a much more condensed date range. The New Testament, IMHO, is a completely different animal than the Old.

Despite an "allegorical" reading you do acknowledge that the Bible describes real events. Surely you don't deny the babylonian exile? Or that Israel fought the Assyrians in the 8th century BC? So how far back before it becomes "allegory?"

I guess? Christianity today is about belief in Jesus's rising. Even if it never happened, the Nicean Creed still exists and Christians (by definition) believe in it.

But there's tension with the idea that the Nicean creed defines Christianity because Jesus's earliest followers seemed more concerned with living a certain way and having a certain worldview than commitment to dogmas about supernatural events in the past. So today you get people who clearly don't seem to care about what Jesus had to say but will insist on the reality of his resurrection and this group is apparently more "Christian" than those who actually followed Jesus in his day when there was no resurrection to believe in but heard his teachings straight from his mouth.

but adults who want to transition need to go through years of investigation? — Christoffer

Now that is cruel. In the US you can get HRT after a 45 minute consultation (although it varies state by state). Making a suicidal population wait years to be "trans-vestigated" before given access to HRT is cruel.

Non-binary can rely on an underlying bias towards a certain sex, but it's not equally common they do transitions. The foundation for transitioning is still based on the same experience of either alignment or not. — Christoffer

Ok but non-binary people do transition and they have just the same right to as transwomen or transmen. They just want to feel more in accordance with their non-binary gender identity and I don't see the problem with that.

And virtually all of us have male characteristics and female characteristics.

Most children have some confusion about their gender, it's part of growing up. — Christoffer

Now that is surprising to me if true. I wonder whether this is true across time. I don't recall this being much of a thing decades ago. We've always had feminine boys and masculine girls.

Investigation is about trying to differentiate if this is such common confusion or being a more fundamental case of transgenderism. I'm not sure what makes you think children are put into transitioning just haphazardly. — Christoffer

You ever consider maybe there's no clear cut line between the two? I've seen experiments where children take a sleeve of oreos over $10,000. I simply don't trust their judgment especially when it comes to very major life issues like going through puberty and maintaining their fertility. A child simply can't look decades down the line like an adult can. A child can see the here and the now. They can regurgitate ideas that have been taught to them and appeal to them. They cannot understand themselves because the brain doesn't stop developing until the mid 20s and they are not fully formed.

EDIT: It is different if we are talking about a child of 16 or 17 rather than 6 or 7.

The investigation is primarily for children, not adults. — Christoffer

Yet there is still a screening for adults who seek to transition.

Non-binary has to do with gender identity, not biological sex. — Christoffer

Yes, and gender identity is the subject here not biological sex. We're moving past transsexualism (now often considered an outdated term) into transgenderism. Or are we going to insist that those seeking to transition possess the correct biological markers before allowing them access to HRT?

Conclusion on that is that parents and doctors aren't just letting kids do anything without proper investigation. — Christoffer

Proper investigation into what? That they're "really" transgender? That they were "really" born in the wrong body? The medical community creates the criteria. The question is really just whether they get their HRT. The surgeries come later.

Being trans places one on the margins even if everyone is nice to you and you suffer no employment hurdles. Trans folk will watch their cis peers get married and have children while they have sterilized themselves and likely engage in some form of polyamory given monogamy doesn't really make sense. And then there's the issue of what happens when the beauty fades.

I still support an adult's right to choose and acknowledge that this actually could be the best path for some people. But I would not promote it. It is wrong to tell a child that they are the sole determiners of their identity.

But the core problem that people, for some reason, never understands about gender science and philosophy, is that there's a difference between medical sex and gender. — Christoffer

Exactly. Transsexualism use to claim a medical basis, but the new wave of trans advocacy seems to be pushing to eliminate that, and I can't say that I blame them. Why should an adult even need to go through a medical screening (to determine whether s/he is "really" trans) to be prescribed HRT when gender is a social phenomenon?

Especially with the idea of "non-binary" today -- are we going to now claim a scientific/medical basis for that? What biological markers would determine that? Absurdity. Let adults live their own lives, but it is criminal in my opinion to permit children to sterilize themselves (and set them on a life path of marginalization) when any decent society acknowledges the need to place rules on children and make decisions for them.

A child can still take steps to transition without HRT and surgeries.