Which is better, to be honest or mute? To be asleep or alive?

I know folks mean well and try to be provocative while preparing lessons, but this isn’t a terribly edifying conversation to have.

As for the second part…would you rather your children be “happy” or “good,” again it’s a false dichotomy. Just look at discipline. That is always a temporary sacrifice of some form of happiness (or perhaps just gratification) to serve some larger, better, more perfect goal. It’s only in moments that a choice is forced; over a larger stretch of time (eternity, say), there’s simply no friction.

“Man is that he might have joy”

is exactly the same as saying:

“Man is that he might have sorrow”

Among adults who transition between genders there is a common pattern of a deep awareness of their gender issues at a very young age, combined with a huge amount of effort to bury how they felt and “fit in” to the expected gender role.

Some cope with this duality better than others, and may get by for a very long time before the internal pressures force them to confront their gender issues. When that crisis point is reached, the gender issues must be addressed – whether that means the individual will transition or not is another story, but the issues must be dealt with openly and honestly. (You can run, but not hide, from yourself).

What I am driving at here is that suppression as a management strategy simply does not work for those who are transsexual (and for whom it is not a childhood phase). Many transsexuals try it – often to ridiculous extremes – and ultimately it fails them.

Where childhood diagnosis are concerned, there are some worrisome statistics out there. Namely that large numbers of those diagnosed with GID in childhood do not need to make a gender transition. (However the majority of those end up homosexual) However, if the therapists involved are using the WPATH Standards of Care as a guide, no surgical or chemical intervention would take place until the onset of puberty at the earliest. So for the most part you are seeing in the media portrayals of what would be called ‘social transition’ – the child is being socialized in the opposite gender, and some thorny decisions will have to be made later. (The long term outcomes for childhood transitions remains to be seen, as this is a relatively new phenomenon)

Having lived the suppression experience myself, I fear that the second family in your example is setting themselves (and their child in particular) up for a very difficult, heart-wrenching experience.

To be clear, from within, GID is NOT about “gender confusion” – trust me nothing in life is clearer or more persistent. The person with this condition understands ALL TOO WELL what their status is – the confusion (such as it is) arises in those around the individual.

and

“Happiness” naturally flows from such goodness

Susan M is right, pleasure is over rated. Lottery winners show a net of one year, start to finish, of improved happiness.

Furthermore, being good or happy are such subjective terms. Being good/moral/ethical varies from culture to culture as does the idea of happiness/fulfillment/joy. In fact, it could be further shrunk to an individual level. Some find fulfillment in misery and self-flagellation, while others find it in serving their fellow human being.

But if I had to choose, I find Imperfection’s, Nick’s, and DavidH’s happiness argument a bit more compelling, just from personal experience. Having worked with kids for a decade, I’ve seen that the “happy” kids are often cooperative, compassionate, and friendly. The kids who come from homes where strict standards of “goodness” are often a bit more downtrodden, introverted, and reluctant. Then there is the other 80% who fall somewhere in between and the another 18% who are exceptions.

There is a distinction between “doing good things” and “being good” – a very important distinction that often gets overlooked or assumed in this type of discussion.

I do not see what the point of existence is if we are to be miserable, even if that existence meets some definition of “good.” I try to keep the commandments because when I do, I usually feel happier and more fulfilled than when I do not.

Hands down, I would rather my children by happy and joyful than just “good”.

In any event, if being “good” does not usually make us more happy and joyful, than I think we may have misperceived what “good” is.

I think that is what earth life is about, learning from our own experiences what is “good” (and evil), and our own feelings are a large part of that measure. That is how addicts eventually recover, usually after first hitting bottom, and by recognizing that addictions provide only a temporary, counterfeit experience of “pleasure,” “rush”, “ecstasy”, or relief from pain, but invariably result in feelings of self-loathing and despair. The addictions cannot be good, the recovering addict concludes, because they result in despair, not happiness or joy.

I understand, and often agree, the point of many religionists that temporary pleasures can defeat our happiness. On the other hand, I think it’s quite unfortunate that so many faiths encourage misery during mortality, on the basis that it will be “worth it” in some future state of being. I refuse to believe that any benevolent deity would desire such a thing for humanity.

This view is certainly understandable in an authoritarian society where leaders are much more interested in controlling behaviors. Happiness also gets equated with pleasure which is equated with sin. A happy person must not be giving their all to the controlling authority.

I believe humans naturally want to do good. When they are happy (basic needs met) they are more able to do ‘good’.

I believe if someone is “good,” i.e., kind and loving, then that person will be happy, simply because it is a natural, eternal law. Love and kindness begets happiness, both for the giver and the receiver.

I want my children to be happy and good, and I think it’s a false dichotomy that the speaker presented. If your child is “good” by being loving and kind to everyone around him or her, how can he or she possibly not be happy?

Since both are wtihout any equivocation desireable, I guess my answer is good.

~

“Good” should be defined as being authentic, being in harmony with one’s true self/being and God/Universe, while maintaining balance/harmony with other souls in one’s greater community/society. Objectives of goodness are universal, including love, charity, hope, faith, repentance, forgiveness, frienship, etc.

“Happiness” naturaly flows from such goodness. I do not think they are mutually exclusive, but always go hand in hand.

This is beautiful. I would have been squirming in my seat as well.

“Behold, this is joy which none receiveth save it be the truly penitent and humble seeker of happiness”

I have used this as my mantra… to be a truly penitent and humble seeker of happiness. While I am still far from my goal, I take from this that it is OK to be a seeker of true happiness. This happiness is derived from an outward rather than in inward focus.

On the other hand, being ‘good’ seems to connote to me that I am striving to meet the definition of ‘good’ prescrived by my circumstances and, therefore, carries more of an inward focus.

In that context, I would first focus on the inner vessel (becoming good) but then focus on those around me (becoming happy).

When we are able to lose ourselves in the service of others, we are able to become truly full of joy.

BTW, can someone release a comment of mine on the bloated Gay Marriage thread that appears to have been hung up in moderation.