Occaisionally I think, "I wonder if Dan ever answered my question(s) about X, Y, or Z?". Then I go back and look to see if he did. Fortunately, that is not particularly difficult. What I found is the list below. It's not exhaustive, it's not particularly recent, and it's not unrepresentative. These are all specific questions, which haven't been answered. In the past, I've done multiple posts where I'll go question by question and provide answers to questions I've been asked. I'm not going to make predictions about this list, because I don't want to affect the choice Dan makes. For now, I'll just leave this.
If your "orientation" was "God given", then wouldn't it logically follow that it is an orientation that is "given" for life?
If so, then wouldn't it logically follow that ones "God given" "sexual orientation" would involve actual sex at some point?
Therefore wouldn't it follow that if a 4 year old was "RECOGNIZING" their "God given, natural, orientation", that they are "RECOGNIZING" that that "God given, natural, orientation" (if it's same sex) will lead to a lifetime of having sex with people of the same sex?
Or a lifetime of celibacy.?
The question then becomes, if a 4 year old who announces that he "likes" (whatever that means to a 4 year old) Billy, is told the he's just "RECOGNIZED" his "God given, natural, orientation" by every adult he knows wouldn't he be influenced by what he was told?
What if "liked" just meant that Billy had cool toys, or good snacks, not that Billy was the object of sexual desires?
Good lord, the "penis" obsession continues. Where have I ever argued that a "penis" gives a man an advantage?"
When I said "musculus-skeletal and cardiovascular systems" did you really think I meant "penis"?
Speaking of "penis" I guess the girls who aren't comfortable in a locker room with penis wielding "trans" people, should just shut up and deal with their discomfort, right?
Why would anyone undergo this sort of thing without understanding the risk/reward calculus of their choice?
What sort of adult would encourage a child to make this sort of decision without knowing the risks?
If the possibility of physical differences in musculoskeletal and cardiovascular systems are excluded from comparison (as would be the case if men and women were identical), what could possibly explain these differences?
How is it that literally the fastest women swimmers in
the country can't swim as fast as the men?
What's more, t least
19 Men swam faster than the fastest women. What could possibly
explain this phenomenon?
When measuring apples/apples (except for
gender) men consistently outperform women at the highest levels. What
could be causing this? sexism? Misogyny? Slavery? Oppression?
Does
anyone really think that if you took the fastest girl swimmer in the US
at age 10, and transitioned her into a boy and gave her the very best
available training until peak performance was reached, that her times
would be on par with the men st the same level?
Really, you think that a 4 (or 8) year old is really capable of making a decision to be sexually attracted to boys, that will remain constant throughout life?
Are you suggesting that this just passed bill is directly related to this case? If so, provide proof?
Does this bill also legalize robbing the dead, and not calling 911 to report a murder?
88 comments:
Of course, the reality is that I have answered most if not all of these questions. That you did not understand the answers is not a sign that I did not answer them. But I'll be generous. In spite of your constant refusal to directly answer questions, here are more answers to questions that have been answered.
"If your "orientation" was "God given", then wouldn't it logically follow that it is an orientation that is "given" for life?"
With the acknowledgment that an orientation can be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or other... . Orientations do not tend to change based on all the known evidence.
For instance, you and I are both heterosexuals and nothing can change that.
Now, your turn. Do you understand that reality? Do you acknowledge that nothing can force you to become homosexual?
More later.
Craig...
"If so, then wouldn't it logically follow that ones "God given" "sexual orientation" would involve actual sex at some point? "
Except for in the cases of asexual folks, it is a strong likelihood. Why?
Are you one who thinks that homosexual folks should never get to enjoy their innate, God-given sexuality and orientation? If so, do you see how cruel that is?
Craig..
"Therefore wouldn't it follow that if a 4 year old was "RECOGNIZING" their "God given, natural, orientation", that they are "RECOGNIZING" that that "God given, natural, orientation" (if it's same sex) will lead to a lifetime of having sex with people of the same sex?"
No. Just no.
Most 4 year olds have no idea what sex is about and so, no, they're not thinking about a lifetime of sex at four.
Why do you ask?
Craig...
"The question then becomes, if a 4 year old who announces that he "likes" (whatever that means to a 4 year old) Billy, is told the he's just "RECOGNIZED" his "God given, natural, orientation" by every adult he knows wouldn't he be influenced by what he was told?"
No. Just no. That's not how sexuality and orientation work. You know this, right ?
That is, if at four, you were told repeatedly that you like boys... would that have made you gay??
Of course not.
Now, one caveat: IF you lived in a society where sexuality and orientation were always just assumed to be ONE WAY and one way only... and anyone who deviated from that was evil, repugnant, sick and hell-bound... THAT sort of social pressure CAN have a societal effect. That is, a gay person wouldn't cease to have that orientation, but they may feel compelled to suppress that "evil" option.
But that sick, oppressive approach is not what progressives are advocating. We saw how harmful it has been when churches and society used that approach and want nothing to do with that approach.
Do you disagree?
See how easy it is to directly answer questions in a clear and rational manner?
Give it a try.
"Speaking of "penis" I guess the girls who aren't comfortable in a locker room with penis wielding "trans" people, should just shut up and deal with their discomfort, right? "
Yes. Just like people who are uncomfortable with black people being in the locker room need to get over it.
You know that transgender girls or transgender boys are not doing anything weird in bathrooms. .. What do you think they're doing?
If someone has a problem with people of another race or transgender girls being in a locker room, they are the ones with the hang up. Are you suggesting we should penalize the black person or the transgender girl for someone else's discomfort?
Really?
What locker room SHOULD a transgender girl use?
"Of course, the reality is that I have answered most if not all of these questions. That you did not understand the answers is not a sign that I did not answer them."
leading off with one unproven claim, and coming in strong with a second. Impressive.
"With the acknowledgment that an orientation can be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or other... . Orientations do not tend to change based on all the known evidence."
That was so convoluted that I'm not sure, but I think you meant yes. Why couldn't you just have said yes?
"Do you understand that reality? Do you acknowledge that nothing can force you to become homosexual?"
What reality? You still haven't proven the underlying premise. Does that mean that you couldn't choose to be homosexual? Which doesn't mean that one is forced to act on one's "orientation" regardless of said "orientation".
Do you understand that any question that begins with "If", is indicating that the underlying premise hasn't actually been proven, and that the questioner is putting aside (for the moment) the unproven premise?
"No. Just no. Most 4 year olds have no idea what sex is about and so, no, they're not thinking about a lifetime of sex at four."
Interesting. How then does a 4 year old "recognize" a lifetime sexual orientation without possessing a reasonable amount of knowledge about what they've committed to?
"Why do you ask?"
Because a "sexual orientation" presumes a sexual relationship at some point, and most humans aren't sexually mature until after puberty. Seems strange to expect a sexually immature 4 year old to be able to "recognize" a lifetime "orientation" and what that might entail at 4. It also seems like if a 4 year old is encouraged, reinforced, pressured, celebrated, etc for "recognizing" something that makes an authority figure happy that they might be influenced in their subsequent choices.
"Except for in the cases of asexual folks, it is a strong likelihood. Why?"
Again, I assume you mean yes, but just can't say so directly. Wouldn't being "asexual" indicate the lack of a "sexual orientation"? How is it that "sexual orientation" is fixed and immutable before sexual maturity, but "gender" is fluid throughout ones life?
"Are you one who thinks that homosexual folks should never get to enjoy their innate, God-given sexuality and orientation? If so, do you see how cruel that is?"
Interesting. Are you suggesting that sexual activity is intrinsic to "sexual orientation"? That the only possible way to live a fulfilled life is to have sex? Are you suggesting that people (like Paul) who choose celibacy are being treated "cruelly"?
Since you haven't proven the "innate, God-given" aspect of homosexuality yet, I'm not sure I can answer a question based on an unproven premise. Maybe if you'd prove your premise, I'd be better able to answer.
"No. Just no. That's not how sexuality and orientation work. You know this, right ?"
Then please, by all means, enlighten me. What exactly happens with a 4 year old that would cause any adult to conclude that this 4 year old was "recognizing" their lifelong, innate, "sexual orientation" or "gender"? What specifically does a 4 year old say and do that means that they are "trans" without question?
"That is, if at four, you were told repeatedly that you like boys... would that have made you gay??"
I don't know, are you suggesting that children are immune to suggestion from people in authority?
Are you suggesting that 4 year old should not be told that they are "trans"? That they shouldn't encouraged to pretend as if they are the opposite gender? That parents shouldn't automatically affirm everything their 4 year old does in relationship to "gender"? Or that for a parent to lovingly, gently, and patiently encourage their 4 year old to wait until they are older before choosing how to express their "gender" is "transphobic"?
It's interesting that you somehow think that a child being conditioned, or pressured, or pushed, by authority figures can only happen in one specific set of circumstances. Are you literally denting that conditioning by authority figures doesn't happen except for your one hypothetical circumstance?
"Do you disagree?"
Do I disagree with what? Yes, I disagree with your unproven hunch that conditioning only happens in one, specific, set of circumstances. It's absurd on it's face.
"See how easy it is to directly answer questions in a clear and rational manner?"
I do it all the time. Unfortunately, you have to have your specific failures pointed out publicly before you'll "answer" a token number of questions and act as if you've answered all of the unanswered questions.
The difference is that you don't actually point out specific unanswered questions, you just assume and act as if your unproven assumption must be "reality".
"Really, you think that a 4 (or 8) year old is really capable of making a decision to be sexually attracted to boys, that will remain constant throughout life? "
Again: REALLY. It's not a choice .
That IS a direct and clear answer to your question.
The real question is: Do you understand this?
" Why would anyone undergo this sort of thing without understanding the risk/reward calculus of their choice?"
WHO in the world in all of history and location is suggesting this? No one. Good God, TELL me you understand this.
"Yes. Just like people who are uncomfortable with black people being in the locker room need to get over it."
Got it. You clearly don't give a shit about the rights of women/girls to have private spaces. Just as clearly you see perfectly willing to impose your views on girls/women who don't agree with you. What a healthy, loving, way to get your way. "Hey girls, sorry of you're uncomfortable with penises in the girl's/women's locker rooms, but you'll just have to suck it up for your own good."
"You know that transgender girls or transgender boys are not doing anything weird in bathrooms. .. What do you think they're doing?"
Well, according to girls/women (who should all be believed) they're making the girls/women uncomfortable. Or do you not believe these girls/women?
"If someone has a problem with people of another race or transgender girls being in a locker room, they are the ones with the hang up. Are you suggesting we should penalize the black person or the transgender girl for someone else's discomfort?"
Are you really claiming that "race" and "gender" are 100% analogous? I'm sure you have ironclad scientific proof for this.
It does raise an interesting question though. Women, and Blacks (for example) are both protected classes under federal law. You seem to be saying that it's wrong to discriminate against Blacks in locker rooms, but it's perfectly fine to discriminate against women. Interesting.
"Really?"
When you just type a word, with a ? behind it, there's no indication what in the hell you're "asking about". When your "question" is this vague and pointless, I can't really answer it.
"What locker room SHOULD a transgender girl use?"
Well, I can think of several options.
1. Have an open locker room, where anyone of any "gender" can choose to mingle together however they choose.
2. Have single stall "locker rooms" which are omni gender. (Much like the reasonable solution to bathrooms).
3. Have a different locker room for every gender.
But whatever you do, don't do anything to accommodate the girls/women that are made uncomfortable by people who (when unclothed) are indistinguishable from a dude.
"Again: REALLY. It's not a choice ."
!. We keep coming back to your unproven premise.
2. Are you really suggesting that one's "orientation" renders them incapable of making any subsequent choices about how they will live? That's one's drives will control everything they do? What biological or genetic component of the human body controls this?
"That IS a direct and clear answer to your question."
It's one "direct and clear" answer to one question. Maybe you should try for consistency, and answering all the questions, not just answering one multiple times, while basing your "answer" on an unproven, assumed, premise.
"The real question is: Do you understand this?"
That's not "the real question", it's more of a way to deflect attention from your unproven premise and the fact that you sort of answered a few of many questions.
""Why would anyone undergo this sort of thing without understanding the risk/reward calculus of their choice?"
Well, maybe you missed the link from a "trans" and "trans affirming" surgeon who stated unambiguously that ""every single child who was, or adolescent, who was truly blocked at Tanner stage 2," which is the beginning of physical development, when hormones begin their work of advancing a child to adulthood, "has never experienced orgasm. I mean, it's really about zero.". Wouldn't that be something to consider before having irreversible surgery?
What about the findings of the Swede's? Wouldn't you think that a child should be told the pro's and con's of an irreversible "transition"?
What about the problems with pelvic floor atrophy? Shouldn't those risks be explained?
What about the link I provided that quotes "experts" who say that there's really very little definite research to support early medical intervention as the best option?
Finally, wouldn't you want your pre pubescent child to know that there are an increasing number of therapists who are "afraid" to advise their patients to do anything but move ahead with "transitioning" because they're likely be be called "trans phobic" and "cancelled"?
These all seem like things that might reasonably be considered before a pre pubescent child undergoes irreversible surgery. At least the do do me, maybe you don't want people to have more information rather than less.
More answers to your questions while mine remain largely unanswered...
"Are you suggesting that this just passed bill is directly related to this case? If so, provide proof?"
YOU vaguely referenced the case of Anthony Frazier.
I referred to the story in question...
Here's what his family is saying in news reports.
"Meanwhile, Frazier’s family is urging something to be done about gun violence.
“We want all of the community activists, NPU leaders, pastors, community activists, if they could raise awareness about gun violence. This senseless bill that was just passed, horrendous,” Robinson said."
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/kemp-constitutional-carry-bill-allowing-handguns-without-license-georgia
I noted/raised the contextual question:
"What bill just passed in Georgia? The one "allowing Georgia residents to carry handguns in public without a license or background check"
In other words, the family of the man in the case that YOU cited made a connection between looser gun regulations and they were asking people to oppose such "senseless, horrendous" bills. THE FAMILY made the connection. I was just citing what the family was literally saying and asking people to listen to/work on.
I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of what's happening in their case. I am merely noting what the family in the case of the story you cited are saying.
And I don't think they are saying it was "directly related" to the case of their loved one being killed. Rather, I suspect they are noting that looser gun laws, in general, are problematic in contributing to more harm rather than less.
I then asked you if you agreed with those black voices or are you only wanting us to listen to the small number of black voices who agree with your opinions, as opposed to the majority - sometimes vast majority - of black voices?
And I add to that unanswered question: Do you see how many black people might see such cherry-picking of "black voices" that only agree with conservative white opinion as an instance of whites still using black people for their advantage, not because they want to listen to black voices in general?
Craig...
"2. Are you really suggesting that one's "orientation" renders them incapable of making any subsequent choices about how they will live?"
Nope. Look at my words. Not what I said. Indeed, I've been quite clear that when Paul speaks of people in Romans "abandoning natural desires for unnatural ones," that seems to be exactly a case of people choosing gay behavior IN SPITE of their orientation. Regardless, of course, people can CHOOSE to engage in sexual activity in spite of their orientation. BUT, that doesn't mean the orientation doesn't exist.
DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE the reality that YOU have a straight orientation?
That you can't change your orientation (ie, NOT deciding to have gay sex, but decide that you're sexually attracted to men)?
That gay people have a gay orientation?
Craig...
"That's one's drives will control everything they do?"
Nope. Never said that.
"What biological or genetic component of the human body controls this?"
As far as I know, we don't know authoritatively. But you can't deny your heterosexual orientation. I can't deny my heterosexual orientation. My gay and lesbian friends (and strangers) can't deny their homosexual orientation.
YOUR OWN TESTIMONY is evidence that orientation exists, even if you can't explain it biologically or genetically.
Does your inability to find a biological or genetic cause for your heterosexual orientation mean it doesn't exist and you aren't really straight?
More questions for you to mostly ignore even while I clearly and intelligently answer your questions, one after the other.
Still answering pointless questions...
"Are you really claiming that "race" and "gender" are 100% analogous? I'm sure you have ironclad scientific proof for this."
They are precisely analogous insofar as they are innate and not a choice. Now, if you want to make some kind of claim that race or orientation are not innate feel free to prove it. But since you almost certainly will agree that it is innate for you and the testimony of most of the world would say the same, the burden is on you to prove it if you think you can. Do you understand that? Do you understand why you're making the outlier and unusual and hard to believe claim that is unsupported? (IF you want to claim that orientation is not innate.)
Craig seems to have trouble understanding the context of REALLY? when it follows a preceding question so to help, here is that REALLY? question in context...
If someone has a problem with people of another race or transgender girls being in a locker room, they are the ones with the hang up. Are you suggesting we should penalize the black person or the transgender girl for someone else's discomfort?
Really?
That is...
Are you REALLY suggesting we should penalize the black person or the transgender girl for someone else's discomfort?
You almost certainly don't think this when it comes to race. (Let's hope.) The question is, why would you be OK with opressing little transgender girls or women in that way?
Craig...
"Well, according to girls/women (who should all be believed) they're making the girls/women uncomfortable. Or do you not believe these girls/women?"
Well, personally, I've always found the public showering awkward and my preference is not to use them. Men's showers at high school or the Y... I don't care for them. But does that mean that others should be forced to bow to MY own discomfort? Should I demand all the men leave before I shower?
OR is MY personal discomfort not THEIR problem?
And here's the thing: If we're talking about race and someone not feeling comfortable having people of a different race in the locker room with them, probably you and I can agree that we don't have to give one single DAMN about their discomfort. That is the problem/hang up of the one who is feeling discomfort.
DO YOU AGREE?
Then likewise - No, we don't have to accommodate the women who feel discomfort around transgender women in the shower. It's THEIR hang-up/discomfort, NOT the problem of the transgender woman.
How is that rationally mistaken?
Again with my own example of preferring not to shower around other men. WHY should we penalize others for MY discomfort?
Give a reason-based, supported reason if you want to penalize others. Give rational support why you'd oppose penalizing black people for white people's discomfort but not the same when we're talking about transgender.
Also, what about lesbians/gay folks in locker rooms... are you advocating penalizing them, too?
And just in case my general but clear answers to these types of questions don't satisfy you...
"Wouldn't that be something to consider before having irreversible surgery?"
YES.
"What about the findings of the Swede's? Wouldn't you think that a child should be told the pro's and con's of an irreversible "transition"?"
YES.
"What about the problems with pelvic floor atrophy? Shouldn't those risks be explained?"
YES.
Now, can YOU show where ANYONE is suggesting that these decisions should be made WITHOUT giving all the information to the one considering such procedures/medications?
ANYONE?
Do you have NO evidence of ANY ONE advocating KEEPING information from those considering transitioning?
ANSWER, weasel.
You see, the reason WHY this is important that you admit that NO ONE is advocating what you're asking about is that historically, bigots like you have played the fear and demonization card to try to ostracize and oppress LGBTQ people. You ask questions like this and it suggests (whether it's your intent or not) that some monsters are out there trying to force changes on people who don't want them and without giving them all the information.
But that's just another diabolical lie from the pits of hell. Such demonizations and lies are the tools of the oppressor and have been for all of time.
Admit it. It's not happening. Then apologizing for giving that impression.
Show you have some moral decency and reason about you, still.
"remain largely unanswered..."
You misspelled answered.
"Are you suggesting that this just passed bill is directly related to this case?"
An entire comment full of bullshit when all you needed to say was "no". You're right that you brought up the families comment, even though it had noting to do with the law mentioned, and it was simply a way to distract from what happened to Frazier.
"DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE the reality that YOU have a straight orientation?"
If be "straight orientation" you mean that I'm like 97% of the rest of the people on the planet, and can further the evolution of the human species, then sure.
"That you can't change your orientation (ie, NOT deciding to have gay sex, but decide that you're sexually attracted to men)?"
Really, that's quite a claim masquerading as a question. Yet strangely, we hear about people who do "change their orientation". Of course, you asserting something in the absence of proof means nothing.
"That gay people have a gay orientation?"
Are you asking me (redundantly) IF "gay people" have a "gay orientation"? Or are you trying to pass of a statement as a question that doesn't make sense?
While all of these assertions are fine (if unproven), they don;t explain why "sexual orientation" is fixed, innate, unchangeable, and permanent, while "gender" is fluid and changeable. Since neither is rooted in biology, then both are entirely non physical. What other non physical traits can never be changed?
""What biological or genetic component of the human body controls this?""
I struggle to understand why you couldn't just provide a simple direct answer. What you seem to be saying is that no one really knows why this innate, fixed, and unchangeable "sexual orientation" exists. No one knows or can explain why it exists. No one can find a biological explanation for this. But we know with absolute certainty (even though we know nothing else) that this "sexual orientation" is fixed, innate, and unchangeable. It seems like you're basing this assertion on some anecdotal evidence, as opposed to actual scientific data.
"YOUR OWN TESTIMONY is evidence that orientation exists, even if you can't explain it biologically or genetically."
Really, how is my anecdotal story "evidence" of anything for everyone else? FYI, I can provide you with a scientific, biological, genetic explanation for "my orientation". It's called evolution.
"Does your inability to find a biological or genetic cause for your heterosexual orientation mean it doesn't exist and you aren't really straight?"
Where did I say that I was unable to find a scientific, biological, or genetic explanation for "my orientation"? My "inability" to explain something doesn't mean that your hunch is automatically verified. Your inability to answer the question, except by asking this "question", doesn't explain you lack of proof for your claims. FYI, I just gave you the answer.
"More questions for you to mostly ignore even while I clearly and intelligently answer your questions, one after the other."
Answering the same questions over and over again isn't really that and you know it. You keep saying this, without aver actually proving your claims to be True. But the fact that you've finally answered some of the questions you've ignored, isn't really he win you seem to think it is.
"They are precisely analogous insofar as they are innate and not a choice."
Well, as soon as you prove that "orientation" is "innate and not a choice" then we might be able to have a discussion. Until then, you'll just repeat your assertions and I'll point out your lack of proof.
Are all "sexual orientations" "innate and not a choice"?
"Are you REALLY suggesting we should penalize the black person or the transgender girl for someone else's discomfort?"
1. No one should be "penalized" for someone else's discomfort.
2. Which is a strange way of telling girls/women that you don't give a shit about their feelings on this subject.
3. Mansplain much?
"OR is MY personal discomfort not THEIR problem?"
1. Your anecdotal stories seem pointless.
2. The difference is that you are trying to spare yourself discomfort, rather than inflicting discomfort on others.
3. In your case, YOUR discomfort is YOUR problem, and YOU have come up with a solution for YOUR problem that doesn't involve inflicting your preferences on anyone else.
4. I know that common courtesy isn't common any more, especially when liberals are asserting their rights, but is intentionally inflicting discomfort on others a reasonable way to go through life?
5. Hypothetically, let's say that the shower in question was inside of a shelter for women who've been victimized by sexual abuse. Are you suggesting that women who may have suffered trauma should simply shut up and follow your imperative?
6. Can you say with certainty that no one in any locker room might not have suffered sexual assault and actually be harmed by a male in their locker room?
"DO YOU AGREE?"
Since you can't demonstrate how these two are 100% analogous, I can't necessarily agree with your opinion. I will say that I believe it to be apples/oranges and that my preference is NOT to intentionally offend or cause others discomfort. But that's just me.
"How is that rationally mistaken?"
In your mind, by your subjective reasoning it's not. If sensitivity toward others isn't important to you then nothing short of imposing one individual's "rights" on everyone else is rational.
"Again with my own example of preferring not to shower around other men. WHY should we penalize others for MY discomfort?"
Because in your anecdote, you aren't inflicting discomfort on others. Do you not understand the difference between your own personal discomfort, and inflicting discomfort of others? It sort of like the difference between being selfish (making others endure discomfort for your benefit) and selfless (placing others before yourself).
"Give a reason-based, supported reason if you want to penalize others. Give rational support why you'd oppose penalizing black people for white people's discomfort but not the same when we're talking about transgender."
I've never said that I want to "penalize" anyone. Why would I defend a position I haven't taken? Why would you expect that you could put a word "penalize" in my mouth and that I would defend it? I'm sure you'll use this as a "question" I "didn't answer", yet I maintain that any question based on such a false premise isn't really a question and that answering it validates the false premise.
"Also, what about lesbians/gay folks in locker rooms... are you advocating penalizing them, too?"
I've never advocated penalizing anyone.
Craig...
"Your inability to answer the question, except by asking this "question", doesn't explain you lack of proof for your claims."
Craig...
"Really, how is my anecdotal story "evidence" of anything for everyone else?"
Reality:
"Researchers still don’t understand why around 10 per cent of the population turn out to be left-handed."
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/left-handedness
We can't explain the reality of handedness. We can't find the biological or genetic explanation of why some people are left handed and others are right handed. Nonetheless, there IS data that handiness is reality. Nearly everyone can attest to the reality that they are innately left or right handed.
The testimony of billions of people IS evidence. Do you understand that? Those testimonies ARE data. Same for orientation.
Craig...
"Really, how is my anecdotal story "evidence" of anything for everyone else? FYI, I can provide you with a scientific, biological, genetic explanation for "my orientation". It's called evolution."
You don't understand science any better than you do my words. A preponderance of heterosexuality in a population can be explained because it helps the species survive. It does not suggest that that evolution demands everyone to have the same orientation.
Craig...
"Because in your anecdote, you aren't inflicting discomfort on others. Do you not understand the difference between your own personal discomfort, and inflicting discomfort of others?"
In my analogy, those men showering in the public shower are inflicting discomfort on me by publicly showering. Transgender women showering in a locker room are, you say, inflicting some discomfort on some women, you say. What's the difference?
Are you suggesting that the men should get out so I can probably shower without eliminating the discomfort of their presence?
No. You're not. Because I am the one with the hang up. It's MY problem. Not theirs.
CISgendered women who feel uncomfortable are the ones with the hang up, not the transgender woman merely seeking a shower.
What's the difference?
"Now, can YOU show where ANYONE is suggesting that these decisions should be made WITHOUT giving all the information to the one considering such procedures/medications?"
Interesting tactic, I asked about you and what you think, and your response is to ask a hypothetical question about others. Based on the anecdotal evidence I've seen, I'm confident in saying the following. 1. A pre pubescent minor child is legally and cognitively able to understand that ramifications of these issues and is likely unable to truly give informed consent. 2. If therapists are living in fear of being labeled "transphobic" for suggesting that pre pubescent children wait, what is the likelihood that these issues are fully and truthfully discussed? 3. As I've seen plenty of anecdotal examples of people not being told these things, and as I am not privy to every conversation that takes place, I am unwilling to make the sorts of blanket statements you treat as "reality". I will suggest that it's likely that these "side effects" are not being given the play they probably should. 4. I never made any claims about how often this happens, but if it even happens once isn't that too many? 5. Were you aware of all of these "side effects" and had you taken them into account when you support pre pubescent children "transitioning"?
"Do you have NO evidence of ANY ONE advocating KEEPING information from those considering transitioning? ANSWER, weasel."
Interesting tactic. Asking the same question (as a double negative, sort of) immediately after asking it the first time, as if I'd had the time or ability to answer before you asked again. Then to resort to ad hom, personal attacks without having given me the opportunity to answer. Since I answered the first time, I'll refer you to that.
"You see, the reason WHY this is important that you admit that NO ONE is advocating what you're asking about is"
1. In the absence of anything specific, it's hard to know what you're referring to.
2. "NO ONE is advocating what you're asking about" is an unproven, unsupported, claim of fact. I see no reason to blindly accept your assertion without evidence.
3. Your willingness to make assumptions about my motives, based simply on questions I've asked is disturbing. The fact that you are comfortable imputing motives to me under false pretenses raises concerns about your grasp of reality.
4. Were you specifically aware of any of these negative risks of "transitioning" before I pointed them out?
5. Wouldn't failing to tell pre pubescent children about these risks be a form of "advocacy"?
6. Don't (especially) pre pubescent children deserve all of the information available whether positive or negative before making an irreversible decision with lifelong negative consequences?
7. If "transitioning" carryies with it a significant risk of pelvic floor atrophy, and if that is likely to result in incontinence, then that seems like a high price to pay. It seems like being a 30 year old "trans" who shits themselves might carry with is a degree of mental health harm.
I'm not going to dignify your bullshit about lies and the like with a response, as it's based on your unproven hunches.
"I've never advocated penalizing anyone."
You want to banish transgender women from the women's locker room even though they are women. That's a penalty. You are literally penalizing losing those women. Or trying to, to satisfy your bigotry and your personal discomfort and others with the same bigotry.
Lie.
"NO ONE is advocating what you're asking about" is an unproven, unsupported, claim of fact. I see no reason to blindly accept your assertion without evidence."
You keep making irrational claims like this that are solidly logical fallacies. If a person says "I know that moon dinosaurs exist and are living on the dark side of the moon!" and someone says in response, "there is no evidence for that," it is the crazy guy making the outlier nutty claim that has to prove his claim, not the one saying, correctly, there is no data to support that.
You're engaging in logical failures and you're smart enough to know that.
"You want to banish transgender women from the women's locker room even though they are women."
Where have I said that I want "to banish" biological males from women's locker rooms?
"You're engaging in logical failures and you're smart enough to know that."
No, I'm simply assuming that you can provide evidence to support the claims you make or the premises that underlay your questions. You making comparing your claims and premises to absurd hypotheticals doesn't really help you at all.
Stop simply asserting, start providing objective evidence. It shouldn't be that hard.
One of your problems is that you keep making statements like "No one ever does X,Y or Z." or "That never happens.". Unfortunately, once I provide one example, your claim goes up in smoke. In your hubris, you make fantastical, ridiculous, claims then get defensive when asked to prove them. Perhaps if you made reasonable, provable claims things would work better. Or maybe you'd realize that what you perceive as "reality" isn't quite as cut and dried as you think it is. I think that when you start to ignore, and dismiss those who disagree with you, you forget that you might be missing out on some things that really are reality, but don't pierce your echo chamber.
"In my analogy, those men showering in the public shower are inflicting discomfort on me by publicly showering. Transgender women showering in a locker room are, you say, inflicting some discomfort on some women, you say. What's the difference?"
Because shower/locker rooms are intended for people of the same gender. The other men belong in the men's shower room. They are exactly where they should be. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. Their behavior is normal in the context. Your irrational fears, discomfort (or whatever) are 100% under your control. You choose to control that discomfort by leaving. They don't know you are uncomfortable, they're doing the right thing in the right place. The difference is when the women in question (NCAA athletes) publicly make their discomfort know and penis dude/chick continues to engage in the behavior that is causing discomfort. Because when a woman (who must always be believed) says that they don't want to see your penis, that no really means yes. I've got it now.
"Are you suggesting that the men should get out so I can probably shower without eliminating the discomfort of their presence?"
I'm suggesting that they are engaging in appropriate behavior for the setting. However, if you told them of their discomfort, then they could choose (if they were reasonable, and concerned about others) to accommodate your discomfort in ways that would make everyone's situation better.
Hypothetically, let's say that these guys knew that you were uncomfortable, then went out of the way to make you more uncomfortable? Would that be a good solution?
The problem is that your situations aren't analogous because in your situation these guys in the shower aren't aware of your discomfort, in the situation my question is based on the person causing the discomfort knows that they are causing discomfort and is choosing to increase the discomfort, rather than decrease the discomfort.
"No. You're not. Because I am the one with the hang up. It's MY problem. Not theirs."
Why ask a question, if you're going to emphatically answer it for me? Arrogant much?
"CISgendered women who feel uncomfortable are the ones with the hang up, not the transgender woman merely seeking a shower."
OK, well Dan has spoken and all women must listen to his mansplaining and obey. Who the hell cares if girls/women want to preserve the spaces that have traditionally been reserved for them. Hell, just make it one big locker room with all 63 genders walking around waving their junk proudly for all to see. Hell, let's ban towels so everybody has to display everything they've got.
"What's the difference?"
You asking the same question multiple times in the same comment is just stupid. I was going to say childish, but children aren't that stupid.
"The testimony of billions of people IS evidence."
The world population is just under 8 billion total. Even if we're generous is saying 10% of all people comprise the total LGBT population, we still haven't reached 1 billion.
"Those testimonies ARE data."
Even in the realm of left/right handedness, testimony is not data. I'm absolutely not ambidextrous and not left-handed (though my hook shot is pretty solid with my left hand as is my hook punch). Yet, I can testify that I'm left-handed. I'd be lying...I'd be wrong...but I can testify.
It gets worse for something like any letter of the LGBT community. Their testimonies are already suspect since they have only their urges and compulsions, however they came to be, as "evidence" of their "orientation". But it's not "orientation". It dysfunction and disorder. While it's one thing to accommodate dysfunction and disorder...particularly in terms of overcoming or learning to cope with them...it's a far different animal when it comes to forcing the world to pretend the delusions arising from those dysfunctions/disorders are realities. They are not. "Trans women" are not women. They are men regardless of the extent and effort put in to appear to be women. They do not belong in facilities or organizations set aside for women any more than normal men.
"Because shower/locker rooms are intended for people of the same gender. "
And no matter how many times you stomp your little feet and say you know better, transgender women ARE women. Do you have any data to support otherwise? Any experts who side with your bigotry??
Are you in a better place than the person themselves to know what their gender is?
The arrogance of modern conservatism is a great sucking wound in the psyche of humanity.
So, recognizing that transgender women are women, why are you seeking to penalize them by taking them out of the women's restroom?
Transgender women are a reality and will be where they belong. And bigots like you will be flushed down the toilet like so much useless shit.
You want to banish transgender women from the women's locker room even though they are women. That's a penalty. You are literally penalizing losing those women. Or trying to, to satisfy your bigotry and your personal discomfort and others with the same bigotry.
"Transgender women" are biological men pretending to be women. But the emperor is really naked. These are men who have no business being in women's locker rooms or restrooms. These men are perverts who are just getting legal voyeurism. There are also too many cases where they take advantage of women in restrooms, and even have sex with real women in women's prisons.
Only a fool and complete moron would actually believe that "transgender women" are really women.
Marshal...
"The world population is just under 8 billion total. Even if we're generous is saying 10% of all people comprise the total LGBT population, we still haven't reached 1 billion. "
Good Lord. There are BILLIONS of people on the earth and most of them (gay, straight and otherwise) will gladly testify that they DO have an innate orientation. YOU almost certainly will attest that you never "chose" to be straight, you just are straight. Am I mistaken?
YOU almost certainly will testify that even if someone ENCOURAGED you to try liking guys sexually, you couldn't do it. Why? Because you probably have a heterosexual orientation. Just like you're either left or right handed. It's innate and your own testimony, and mine and Craig's and Glenn's and the dozens (hundreds) of gay and lesbian folk I know... ALL can testify to their innate orientation. Now, of course, there are a few outliers who are bisexual and THEY can attest to the reality of their orientation.
So, if several billion people testifying about their orientation one way or another - as well as their handedness - how is that NOT hard, observable data?
Marshal...
" Their testimonies are already suspect since they have only their urges and compulsions"
You're a sick fuck whose testimony is full of bigotry and evil oppression so your testimony is meaningless.
How about that for a declaration of fact?
Repent, you anti-human rights pervert.
Speaking of sick-minded evil perverted fuckwads... Glenn...
" These men are perverts who are just getting legal voyeurism. "
That Glenn is entirely ignorant of transgenderism and probably doesn't have a single friend or person he knows who is transgender (because the oppressed never want to be around or friends with the perverted oppressors of human rights) is what he is testifying to with this sick-minded perversion.
Shame on your sad, pathetic, bigoted soul.
Repent.
Somewhere I might have deleted a comment of Dan's where he compared being "trans", to being left handed.
I didn't take much research to find that being left handed is related to a number of factors, it's not simply something that exists in the non physical world.
"Like most aspects of human behavior, handedness is a complex trait that appears to be influenced by multiple factors, including genetics, environment, and chance."
Having said that, left handedness is something that occurs naturally in a reasonably large segment of the population (10-15%), and that doesn't need extensive, irreversible, surgical intervention for one to live a normal life. Further, it is possible to "overcome" left handedness and do things with one's right hand if one desires. I actually found that even though I am naturally right handed, I bat and shoot slightly better left handed than right. It took a little practice and effort, but I was a decent switch hitter during my ball playing years.
I'll admit that Dan managed to dig out the one possible, close analog to the claims abut "trans", but him finding a marginal second example doesn't answer the question that was asked.
I can't help but note the loving, gentle, Christ like tone employed by Dan in his multiple ad hom attacks on others. If I treated Dan like he treats others, and like he wants me to treat others, his comments would be deleted. I choose a different path and allow Dan's vitriol to shine through in all it's glory.
"And no matter how many times you stomp your little feet and say you know better, transgender women ARE women. Do you have any data to support otherwise? Any experts who side with your bigotry??"
Oh, well done. Where in this thread have I said that "transgender women are" not "women"? Does making up bullshit and trying to pretend that I said it somehow help you? I specifically said that the "women/girls" were made uncomfortable by being exposed to penises in the cirl's/women's locker room.
Please define woman/female in a way that doesn't use the term "woman/female" in the definition.
"Are you in a better place than the person themselves to know what their gender is?"
Well, I can look at the self evident evidence of biology, physiology, genetics, and evolution, and make a reasonably educated guess? The problem is that you can't authoritatively tell us what anyone's "gender" is, because there's noting besides the claims of each individual that there "gender" is at odds with their biology. In what endeavors do we uncritically accept the testimony of someone who has a vested interest in a particular outcome at face value with absolutely zero corroborating evidence?
"So, recognizing that transgender women are women, why are you seeking to penalize them by taking them out of the women's restroom?"
Again, until you can prove that "trans" women and biological women are 100% identical, you haven't proven the premise that underlies your assumption.
"Transgender women are a reality and will be where they belong. And bigots like you will be flushed down the toilet like so much useless shit."
I guess if you've got no way to prove your claims or assumptions, then you are left with ad hom attacks and spewing vitriol, like a small child throwing a tantrum.
I'll just point out what's happened in this thread. Dan has answered or responded directly to some of the questions in this thread (representing more in other threads that remain ignored). He's even answered some questions simply and directly, for which he should be commended. However, what might have escaped notice is that he's stopped answering any additional questions, and has chosen to get bogged down in arguments about the questions he's already answered. He's also not done a good job of answering the questions that were prompted by his answers and responses. Finally, he's decided that spewing expletive filled vitriol and ad hom attacks is the best, most loving, most Christlike, and most mature way to respond.
I guess we'll see how this goes from here, and whether or not he'll be motivated to answer the ones I didn't point out in this thread.
" can't help but note the loving, gentle, Christ like tone employed by Dan in his multiple ad hom attacks on others."
I can't help but note how you try to emasculate Jesus as a Do nothing Oppression-friendly little godling, Impotent and unable to oppose oppression. of course, the reality is that Jesus was quite harsh with his pharisees, those who would oppress the poor and marginalized.
There is no room for giving leeway to the oppressors. They need to be called on the carpet. Bigotry and oppression are not part of the realm of God, Defender of the oppressed.
"And no matter how many times you stomp your little feet and say you know better, transgender women ARE women. Do you have any data to support otherwise? Any experts who side with your bigotry??"
It's you who is doing the stomping of little feet. "Transgender women" are men, or they'd simply be called women. But they can't simply be called women, because they are biologically men. How they view themselves is mental disorder. There are certainly scientific explanations for it, but those explanations simply describe why the person is disordered, not that their self-perceptions are at all accurate. All data I've thus far provided in the various threads on this subject come from experts who do not jerk around with data to support any preconceived notion, like all those you've provided. So, I've definitely provided expert testimony on the same "evidence" you and your LGBT enabling "experts" present as proof that LGBT people...particularly "trans" people...are not disordered. Unfortunately, as has been shown, it proves exactly that.
"You're a sick f**k whose testimony is full of bigotry and evil oppression so your testimony is meaningless.
How about that for a declaration of fact?"
It's what I've come to expect "embracing grace" means when you use the expression. My testimony is full of scientific fact and righteous regard for those who are disordered and thus is incredibly meaningful. So you can stop with speaking of how the LGBT people speak of themselves. All sinners rationalize their behaviors and urges, just as you rationalize your use of foul language you would not leave standing at your own blog of lies.
That the "transgendered" are a "reality" is not in question among those of us on the righteous side of the issue. They most certainly are. What should be done about it is the question...how we should respond to their insistence about themselves is another. The wrong response is to enable the delusion that the body is wrong and not the mind. That's what honest people call "lying" and lying is like Dan's superpower. He makes Donald Trump look like freaking George Washington!
That Glenn is entirely ignorant of transgenderism and probably doesn't have a single friend or person he knows who is transgender (because the oppressed never want to be around or friends with the perverted oppressors of human rights) is what he is testifying to with this sick-minded perversion.
No, I don't befriend people who are demented in their worldview, and people who claim to be members of the opposite sex are not oppressed at all. Telling the truth is not oppression or bigotry.
Trabue know that "transgenders" are NOT what they claimn to be but he wants to say the emperor has new clothes so he can be "woke." He'd rather be woke and rebel against the God he pretends to know than to use the intelligence God gave him (what little he demonstrates having).
Dan rails at people who tell the truth, rails at people who say the emperor is naked because he sides with satan promoting a modern Sodom and Gomorrah with sexual anarchy. He demonstrates his hate towards the true God and Christ of the Bible and all real Christians everywhere because we expose his deviant and perverted mind.
"I can't help but note how you try to emasculate Jesus as a Do nothing Oppression-friendly little godling, Impotent and unable to oppose oppression. of course, the reality is that Jesus was quite harsh with his pharisees, those who would oppress the poor and marginalized."
This is quite the claim. I'm surprised that you haven't bothered to offer any proof of this astounding claim. I guess poinnting out your lack of Christlikeness hit a little too close to home.
"There is no room for giving leeway to the oppressors. They need to be called on the carpet. Bigotry and oppression are not part of the realm of God, Defender of the oppressed."
The catch all "bigotry and oppression" canard. It's vague and non specific enough to mean anything and nothing simultaneously, and it's never pointed at "bigots and oppressors" that aren't "white" and "conservative" because any other bigotry and oppression is ignored. But the hubris is a nice touch.
"The catch all "bigotry and oppression" canard. "
Do you deny that if you were to sit down and speak with most LGBTQ people that they will tell you to your face that they've been oppressed and marginalized, mocked and bullied a large part of their lives?
Do you deny that a lot of that oppression is coming from people who self identify as GOP conservatives and religious conservatives?
Are you suggesting that it doesn't happen that churches don't kick out gay folks and families don't reject their own children fairly regularly, especially in years past, if they came out as LGBTQ?
I can't imagine that you are fully ignorant of this reality. If so, what is your answer to all these LGBTQ folks? Looks? That in your enlightened opinion, they are mistaken and they weren't actually being oppressed? That it was just good natured kidding?
If they were kicked out of their homes and churches, it was because they deserved it? How do you address all the claims of oppression?
As to the bigotry, it is literally bigotry if your religion says that LGBTQ people don't belong that they need to change. If a person is abused, bullied, maligned, kicked out of their families and churches where their type can't be tolerated.
When someone tells you her name is Sally and she prefers she and her and you refuse to to correctly honor her name and pronouns, that is abusive. It is bigotry. Why would anyone not simply say she if they want to be called she? What's the harm in that? But it happens all the time.
When science and experts and the people themselves tell you she is a she and you refuse to believe it, you are showing an intolerant devotion to your opinions and interditions.
See the definition.
Bigot (MW) a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Craig...
"The catch all "bigotry and oppression" canard. It's vague and non specific enough to mean anything and nothing simultaneously..."
The irony of you specifically calling anyone else vague and non specific is overwhelming. You are the king of vague sort of accusations.
For my part, I have been fairly clear and pointed. For instance, I pointed to Glenn's stupidly false and bigoted claim...
" These men are perverts who are just getting legal voyeurism. "
You may or may not be ignorant of this, but accusations against LGBTQ folks painting them as being perverts and dangerous predators is part of the demonization and oppression of LGBTQ people throughout history. Conservative oppressors like Glenn and you all have regularly warned people, and trying to stir up fear of gay people and transgender people as dangerous predators. That is specifically literally part of the real world history of the oppression of gay people. And it comes not from any reality this is happening in the real world but from Glenn's bigotry against LGBTQ people.
Craig...
"and it's never pointed at "bigots and oppressors" that aren't "white" and "conservative" because any other bigotry and oppression is ignored."
?
We may point out the threat of old white conservative and religious men oppressing gay people but that's only because old white men have led the charge against LGBTQ people. It doesn't mean we don't also condemn it if it's a black man or a woman doing the oppressing. But that's just a reflection of the real world history of oppression, at least in our nation.
But certainly, I have known mothers and and people of color who've also been bigoted against LGBTQ people and contributed to their oppression by passing on dangerous false claims like Glenn just made. Again, where's the condemnation for Glenn for making this stupidly false and unsupported claim?
"I'm surprised that you haven't bothered to offer any proof of this astounding claim. I guess poinnting out your lack of Christlikeness hit a little too close to home."
It is a fact that Jesus literally rebuked harshly the pharisees of his day. Those who were pressing the poor and marginalized. Do you deny that reality?
If you can accept that reality, then you can accept that sometimes followers of Jesus may well need to imitate him and strongly rebuke others, at least those who are causing harm by oppression. Do you disagree with that?
Lord have mercy, ya'll need to go back to Sunday school if you can't agree with those basic realities.
"Do you deny that if you were to sit down and speak with most LGBTQ people that they will tell you to your face that they've been oppressed and marginalized, mocked and bullied a large part of their lives?"
I have absolutely zero way to determine what "most" "LGBTQ" people would tell me. I've never had any of the LGBTQ people I've been friends with tell me about any "oppression" and the like. But I wouldn't begin to claim that my experience is representative. Bottom line, I have no way to know.
"Do you deny that a lot of that oppression is coming from people who self identify as GOP conservatives and religious conservatives?"
Again, I have no way to know if the above is True or not. Further, I have no way to know if people who "identify" as "GOP conservatives and religious conservatives?", actually are those things.
"Are you suggesting that it doesn't happen that churches don't kick out gay folks and families don't reject their own children fairly regularly, especially in years past, if they came out as LGBTQ?"
No.
"I can't imagine that you are fully ignorant of this reality. If so, what is your answer to all these LGBTQ folks? Looks? That in your enlightened opinion, they are mistaken and they weren't actually being oppressed? That it was just good natured kidding?"
If I recall, you accused me of engaging in or supporting these "activities". Yet, you've not offered any evidence that I have done so. I do realize that people or all stripes bully other people for all sorts of reasons, and I find bullying repugnant. My answer to them (as if I needed to answer to them) is that while I personally haven't engaged in any of those things, I empathize with those who have. Unfortunately I don't speak for anyone besides myself, and I see no reason why I would assume responsibility for the actions of others. I would advise them to stay as far away as possible from the many (Muslim mostly) countries where they run a high risk of bad things happening.
"If they were kicked out of their homes and churches, it was because they deserved it? How do you address all the claims of oppression?"
1. I can't speak rationally to such vague and broad claims.
2. It's not my role to address these alleged "claims of oppression".
So far none of this diversionary bullshit has anything to do with your accusations aimed specifically at me. If your ploy is to attach blame to me for the actions of others, that's bullshit.
"The irony of you specifically calling anyone else vague and non specific is overwhelming. You are the king of vague sort of accusations."
The irony is that you demand specific, detailed, claims from everyone else, but fail to live up to the standard you demand of others. It's just the same old double standard. I'd think that you'd want to set an example of how the things you bitch about should be handled, instead you just double down on your double standard.
"Again, where's the condemnation for Glenn for making this stupidly false and unsupported claim?"
1. If you are going to bitch about others making "unsupported" claims, then you need to go back and support all of yours, and continue to do so from here on out.
2. I don't condemn you for opinions I may not agree with, why would I hold others to a different standard?
3. Unfortunately, you seem confused by the concept of "My blog, my rules". You aren't in control here and your attempts to shame or bully me to play by your rules are counterproductive.
"It is a fact that Jesus literally rebuked harshly the pharisees of his day. Those who were pressing the poor and marginalized. Do you deny that reality?"
I do realize that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees. Unfortunately you aren't Jesus (nor do you have His authority), and we're not Pharisees.
"If you can accept that reality, then you can accept that sometimes followers of Jesus may well need to imitate him and strongly rebuke others, at least those who are causing harm by oppression. Do you disagree with that?"
I can accept that Matthew 18 gives NT believers/Christ Followers a template to deal with these sorts of things. I'm not sure that expletive laden, ad hom attacks, without actually proving the Truth of the accusations is what Jesus had in mind. I know you revel in this faux "righteous anger" and the ability to spew expletives at others, but until this vitriol is distributed in a less partisan fashion, it's incredibly unconvincing.
FYI Christ rarely "strongly rebuked" random fellow believers, yet it's your stock in trade.
Trabue,
I made no "stupidly false and unsupported claim." Science, biology are the evidence that a man is a man and a woman is a woman and they cannot change to the opposite sex. IT is neither bigotry nor oppression to state that fact.
Oh, and I've worked with many self-proclaimed "gays" over the decades and not a one of them claimed they were being oppressed.
Craig...
"FYI Christ rarely "strongly rebuked" random fellow believers, yet it's your stock in trade."
Are you kidding? Jesus rebuked the pharisees all the time, they were fellow Jewish believers. You know that, right? So I'm not sure what your point is. That he rarely rebuked fellow believers who weren't oppressing others..? Well, of course not. They're not oppressing others.
Craig...
"I do realize that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees. Unfortunately you aren't Jesus (nor do you have His authority), and we're not Pharisees."
I am/we are followers of Christ. He modeled behavior for us to emulate. That I have to point this out is just strange. Of course we're gonna act like Jesus if we are his followers.
Do you disagree? Do you think Jesus gave us examples but didn't want us to follow in his steps?
As to whether or not you all are pharisees, the pharisees were legalists who piled rules upon the backs of others in a graceless manner. Glenn and Marshal regularly make rules up that they want others to follow. Glenn doesn't want people to be transgender or homosexual because he doesn't think it's right, but Jesus hasn't told us that. Thats Glenn's rule, not one from Jesus. They're piling rules up gracelessly and ruthlessly and rudely condemning people who don't follow their rules. That is a way of oppression.
For your part, you are not rebuking them for their oppression. You are being ally to the oppressors and not to LGBTQ folks. Do you see how LGBTQ folks would see that?
I tried posting something like this earlier, but I think it got deleted. No need to publish it twice if the earlier version went through:
Craig... "FYI Christ rarely "strongly rebuked" random fellow believers, yet it's your stock in trade."
? Jesus was a Jewish believer. The Pharisees were Jewish believers. They WERE fellow believers in that sense. And Jesus strongly almost exclusively rebuked fellow believers such as the Pharisees.
But no, he didn't rebuke "Random" believers. He rebuked those who were engaged in deadly and oppressive legalism whose bad news anti-gospel (follow these rules or you are an evil person) caused harm and oppression of the very poor and marginalized that Jesus said he'd come to preach ACTUAL good news to.
In short, Jesus rebuked oppressive religious folk. I'm rebuking oppressive religious folk (not Random believers, just the oppressive ones).
Where am I mistaken?
Craig...
"I can accept that Matthew 18 gives NT believers/Christ Followers a template to deal with these sorts of things. I'm not sure that expletive laden, ad hom attacks, without actually proving the Truth of the accusations is what Jesus had in mind."
Matt 18 gives ONE way of dealing with fellow believers. But in the sermon on the plain and the sheep and goat parables and other places, Jesus gives OTHER templates to follow.
Why would you cherry pick out ONE instance/template and ignore the others?
I view all of Jesus' teaching and model to be worthy of imitation by his followers, not just bits and pieces. Do you disagree?
Craig...
"I do realize that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees. Unfortunately you aren't Jesus (nor do you have His authority), and we're not Pharisees."
Not literally. But for many people, myself included, today's conservative Christians have a lot in common with the Pharisees. There's the legalism problem... while you all will say a lot about saved by grace and that you're opposed to legalism, there's an awful lot of, "Well, unless you abandon your homosexuality and your transgender nature, you can't be saved" and "Well, unless you accept something pretty close to the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement, you can't be saved..." and "Well, unless you recognize homosexuality as a grievous sin, then you're probably not saved..." and "unless you acknowledge the Bible as the inerrant word of God and Sola Scriptura, you're probably not saved..." and I can go on and on with all these human traditions that are literally not biblical - rules that you all have inherited by tradition and elevated to God's Word which can not be disagreed with... that IS a legalism problem.
Can you see how that might be the case?
Do you believe that "unrepentant homosexuals" (ie, gay folks who don't agree that they NEED to repent for merely being homosexual and loving someone of the same gender) can be saved?
Do you believe that you must affirm sola scriptura and inerrancy to be saved?
Do you believe that those who celebrate our LGBTQ family can be saved?
...for example?
And if you DO allow that we could be grievously mistaken (in your opinion) about all those matters, but STILL squeak through to salvation by God's grace, do you recognize that there are the Marshals and Glenns and Stans and Neils of the world you don't have that much grace towards us awful sinners? Hell, many of you all don't even believe us when we tell you that we honestly believe all these things! You think we're lying about honestly thinking that transgender women ARE women.
For instance, in just this post, Glenn said...
"Trabue know that "transgenders" are NOT what they claimn to be but he wants to say the emperor has new clothes so he can be "woke." He'd rather be woke and rebel against the God he pretends to know than to use the intelligence God gave him (what little he demonstrates having)."
Do you SEE the legalism and judgmentalism and lack of grace to not even believe it when I tell him this is what I actually believe?
Do you see how deadly oppressive that legalism is when he says something like that to a woman that Glenn (and all of you all) will insist is a man? A perverted man whose going to hell for his demonic perversions?
Are you not able to understand how living with that kind of harsh judgmentalism/phariseeism/legalism is oppressive to our beloved LGBTQ family?
"Are you kidding?"
Nope. Jesus rarely rebuked random fellow believers.
"Jesus rebuked the pharisees all the time, they were fellow Jewish believers."
Yet they weren't random, they were specific. And He didn't rebuke all of the Pharisees as there were Pharisees who followed His as well as Pharisees who were neutral towards Him. But nice try.
"You know that, right? So I'm not sure what your point is. That he rarely rebuked fellow believers who weren't oppressing others..? Well, of course not. They're not oppressing others."
I know that you probably believe your own bullshit. Of course my point is that you aren't Jesus, no one commenting on this blog is a Pharisee (or a religious leader of any kind), and Jesus didn't engage in expletive filled, vitriolic, ad hom attacks on fellow believers.
"Do you disagree? Do you think Jesus gave us examples but didn't want us to follow in his steps?"
I guess when you stop selectively choosing which of Jesus examples you decide to "follow", I'll take you seriously. The problem is engaging in expletive filled, vitriol laden, as hom attacks on fellow believers on a blog isn't exactly something Jesus did. But hey, when you sell all you have and give to the poor, and heal a few people, I'll stop laughing at your lame attempt to justify your un Christlike behavior.
Glenn... "Oh, and I've worked with many self-proclaimed "gays" over the decades and not a one of them claimed they were being oppressed."
Craig... " have absolutely zero way to determine what "most" "LGBTQ" people would tell me. I've never had any of the LGBTQ people I've been friends with tell me about any "oppression" and the like."
You know what? Many enslaved individuals did not tell the white oppressors to their faces that they were oppressed. You know why? Because that would make things worse for them.
My gay friends (including people I didn't know were gay) NEVER told me about the oppression they lived under while I was a straight guy. Most people just won't pass on that kind of information to the oppressors. It hasn't ended well for them when they do that.
But ask them. Just ask them:
Did you ever feel oppressed or picked on by conservatives and Christians?
How many of your LGBTQ friends have been ostracized or kicked out by their families?
Of course, I don't have any hard numbers, but in my friend group of LGBTQ folks, that number has to be something like at least 50% and more likely 75%. Now sometimes, it was just the father who kicked them out, but their mother still loved them. Or vice versa. Or both parents put up with it, but they had to keep it a secret from grandma and the church.
It's extremely common. And not a secret. BUT, it's not the kind of thing they tend to talk about to people hostile towards LGBTQ issues.
Here. I feel like I've shared this before, but in case you missed it...
"50% of all teens get a negative reaction from their parents when they come out to them
1 in 4 teens are forced to leave their homes after coming out to their parents
68% of teens have experienced family rejection after coming out to their family"
https://lesley.edu/article/the-cost-of-coming-out-lgbt-youth-homelessness
Craig... "Yet they weren't random, they were specific. And He didn't rebuke all of the Pharisees as there were Pharisees who followed His as well as Pharisees who were neutral towards Him. But nice try. "
No. You're making my point. I did NOT condemn all conservatives as being oppressive towards gay people. I specifically pointed to the words of you fellas (or the lack of words in standing against the oppressors.) I AM being specific.
You recognize that, right?
And at the same time, I recognize that it is a very common problem in conservative Christian circles. And at the same time, Jesus often complains about the "scribes and Phariees" generally, because this legalism was a problem for many of them. So, Jesus didn't rebuke ALL the pharisees, but he regularly condemned them en masse.
You know this is correct, right?
Craig...
"Jesus didn't engage in expletive filled, vitriolic, ad hom attacks on fellow believers."
He engaged in harsh, strong, offensive (to the Pharisees) language in attacking their oppression.
BLIND GUIDES. WHITE WASHED TOMBS. WOE TO YOU! (which some translators/paraphrasers have said is roughly equivalent to "it will be hell for you!" or "To hell with you!")
And I have not engaged in an ad hom attacks. It's based on your collective harmful or dishonest or slanderous words and actions, not against you all.
"But no, he didn't rebuke "Random" believers. He rebuked those who were engaged in deadly and oppressive legalism whose bad news anti-gospel (follow these rules or you are an evil person) caused harm and oppression of the very poor and marginalized that Jesus said he'd come to preach ACTUAL good news to."
Interesting that you're equating some random guys on a blog who have absolutely zero ability to "oppress" anyone, with the leaders of the Jewish religion who had significant actual power. NO wonder you're confused about the authority you wield so callously. Please be specific about who in this blog has been involved is "deadly and oppressive legalism"? You do realize that Jesus Himself engaged in "legalism". He affirmed the law, and actually called for a HIGHER standard of holiness than merely following the law.
"Where am I mistaken?"
In more areas that I care to point out. But specifically in confusing some guys commenting on a blog (literally quoting the exact words of scripture) with people who have the power to "oppress" anyone.
"Matt 18 gives ONE way of dealing with fellow believers. But in the sermon on the plain and the sheep and goat parables and other places, Jesus gives OTHER templates to follow."
1. The sheep/goat parable is a PARABLE it's not a specific guideline for believers to deal with each other.
2. The sheep/goats parable is a parable about Jesus and the final judgement.
3. You don't have the authority, the knowledge, the wisdom, or the position, to engage in any sort of judgement on anyone. Let alone the ability to send people into any eternal destiny.
4. The sheep/goat parable doesn't involve expletive filled, vitriol laden, ad hom attacks on fellow believers.
5. Why would you choose to ignore the Matt 18 template (which is civil, respectful, measured, firm, and controlled) in favor of expletive laden, vitriol laced, ad hom attacks?
"Why would you cherry pick out ONE instance/template and ignore the others?"
Because "the others" aren't templates for dealing with sin between Christians. Of course why wouldn't one choose the one that's the most controlled, civil, respectful, and measured?
I view all of Jesus' teaching and model to be worthy of imitation by his followers, not just bits and pieces. Do you disagree?"
Really? Have you sold all your belongings and given the proceeds to the poor? Have you obeyed all of Jesus' commandments?
I suspect that it's more about you getting some sense of power by engaging in expletive laden, vitriol laced, Ad Hom attacks against those you claim to share faith in Christ with. It looks more like a way to try to bully and control those you disagree with.
Nothing in your actions points to Christ or the grace you claim to love.
It's pretty hilarious when you get so impatient because your comments don't show up as quickly as you think they should.
"You know what? Many enslaved individuals did not tell the white oppressors to their faces that they were oppressed. You know why? Because that would make things worse for them."
You know what, unless you can demonstrate that my LGBT friends were among these folks, then you're just throwing out some bullshit stories and trying to act as if they apply.
"My gay friends (including people I didn't know were gay) NEVER told me about the oppression they lived under while I was a straight guy. Most people just won't pass on that kind of information to the oppressors. It hasn't ended well for them when they do that."
So your anecdotes about your alleged friends are supposed to automatically apply to everyone else in the world. What a moron.
"Did you ever feel oppressed or picked on by conservatives and Christians?
How many of your LGBTQ friends have been ostracized or kicked out by their families?"
Are you insane? Do you not understand that I'm not responsible for someone else's actions? Why would I even begin to accept responsibility for the actions of others? I don't control what others do, and I have no idea why people do things. But please keep bullying others to try to make them do what you want.
"Of course, I don't have any hard numbers,"
If you don't have hard data (which you demand from others), then I could care less what crap you try to spew.
"It's extremely common. And not a secret. BUT, it's not the kind of thing they tend to talk about to people hostile towards LGBTQ issues."
So, when have I engaged in this behavior? Your problem is that you confuse disagreement with hostility, and issues with actual human beings. I have friendship with actual, individual, people. Because of those relationships, I can disagree with them on issues. Maybe you should try that some time.
"50% of all teens get a negative reaction from their parents when they come out to them
1 in 4 teens are forced to leave their homes after coming out to their parents
68% of teens have experienced family rejection after coming out to their family"
https://lesley.edu/article/the-cost-of-coming-out-lgbt-youth-homelessness
Since none of those situations are situations in which I've been involved, I fail to see how I bear responsibility for the actions of others. Do you not understand the concept of not being responsible for the actions of others?
Craig...
"Interesting that you're equating some random guys on a blog who have absolutely zero ability to "oppress" anyone, with the leaders of the Jewish religion who had significant actual power. "
You're still not getting it.
In the US, the Christian church (especially in the last two centuries) was THE moral authority. It was the accumulated actions and hateful words of each of those millions of Christians - including mine, once upon a time - that led to the oppression of gay folks. YOU DO HAVE POWER TO OPPRESS, you three fellas have that power and you're using it.
Each time some Glenn says "They're just perverts trying to get their thrills in women's locker rooms," the demonization of millions of people is added to other such demonizations.
Each time you deny someone's gender by referring to them as "biological males" instead of women, you ADD to the oppression.
Each time some Marshal calls LGBTQ folks, as a group, perverts, you add to the oppression.
Fortunately, you all are losing ground and the power of the Church, Universal to cause harm is waning SOMEWHAT because there are more and more progressive-minded people speaking up for the oppressed and against the oppressors. But don't you dare deny the power that the church has used to oppress and slander and demonize and cause harm.
People have died because of that oppression.
Open your eyes.
Craig... "Are you insane? Do you not understand that I'm not responsible for someone else's actions?"
That's exactly what many Germans in Nazi Germany said when they were called out for not speaking out against that oppression. And I'm not calling you a Nazi.
I'm saying that when we're talking about oppression, those who remain silent lend aid to the oppressors. You recognize that truth, don't you?
Craig... " Do you not understand the concept of not being responsible for the actions of others?"
I'm not my brother's keeper didn't work so well for Cain, either.
Each of us has a moral obligation to speak up for the oppressed. That is even moreso true when we're a part of the party/group/system that has been part of that oppression.
I have to imagine that you and I can agree with this notion, right?
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Agree or disagree?
Craig...
"Your problem is that you confuse disagreement with hostility, and issues with actual human beings."
Your problem is that, as a privileged member of a large majority group which has enjoyed historical control and power for hundreds of years, you don't understand what it's like to be part of an oppressed minority. You have the privilege of saying, "Well, I simply disagree with Ralph that he should be called She and Alice..." You think it's just a simple polite disagreement and can think that because you have not been part of this oppressed group.
It's not a polite disagreement. It's a fight for survival. Read the words of LGBTQ people.
http://religiousinstitute.org/resources/stories-lgbtq-discrimination/
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/widespread-discrimination-continues-shape-lgbt-peoples-lives-subtle-significant-ways/
https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/10/07/every-day-i-live-fear/violence-and-discrimination-against-lgbt-people-el-salvador
https://www.dosomething.org/us/articles/prom-discrimination-stories
and finally, this...
"The results of the analysis, the largest-known literature review on the topic, indicates that 286 out of 300 studies, or 95%, found a link between anti-LGBT discrimination and LGBT health harms.
“The research we reviewed makes it crystal clear that discrimination has far-ranging effects on LGBT health,” said Nathaniel Frank, director of the What We Know Project, an online research portal that aggregates existing peer-reviewed LGBT research. “And those consequences are compounded for especially vulnerable populations such as people of color, youth and adolescents, and transgender Americans.”
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2019/12/discrimination-impacts-health-lgbt-people-analysis-finds
"Not literally. But for many people, myself included, today's conservative Christians have a lot in common with the Pharisees."
Just because you choose to project your prejudices and preconceptions on others doesn't mean a thing. Whet you "feel" (despite your attempt to speak for others), or what your prejudices tell you isn't real. It's your made up, prejudice driven, excuse to justify you engaging in vile behavior. I see no reason to justify your prejudice driven fantasy world any further.
The notion that you feel like you can project your feelings about others onto me, is pathetic.
"Can you see how that might be the case?"
Yes, I can see how your projections of your prejudices onto me could lead you to overreact and to treat me as a manifestation of your prejudices instead of an actual individual human being.
"Do you believe that "unrepentant homosexuals" (ie, gay folks who don't agree that they NEED to repent for merely being homosexual and loving someone of the same gender) can be saved?"
I believe that ALL repentant sinners can be saved. Of course, I don't see any indication in scripture that one's "orientation" is sinful.
"Do you believe that you must affirm sola scriptura and inerrancy to be saved?"
No.
"Do you believe that those who celebrate our LGBTQ family can be saved?"
I believe that salvation is available to anyone He chooses to extend it to.
"...for example?"
This fragment makes absolutely no sense.
"And if you DO allow that we could be grievously mistaken (in your opinion) about all those matters, but STILL squeak through to salvation by God's grace, do you recognize that there are the Marshals and Glenns and Stans and Neils of the world you don't have that much grace towards us awful sinners? Hell, many of you all don't even believe us when we tell you that we honestly believe all these things! You think we're lying about honestly thinking that transgender women ARE women."
I realize that only God's grace towards sinners matters. Your hunches about other people's grace mean nothing, especially as you show so little grace. Unlike you, I don't project my prejudices on others. What I do know is that if you stand a "transgender woman" next to a woman, that there will be numerous self-evident differences between the two. If one looks deeper (musculo-skeletal, genetic, cardio pulmonary) the differences become even more self evident. The very fact that you have to use a qualifying term before the word woman seems to undercut your position. But am I qualified to make judgements about your beliefs or state of mind.
"Trabue know that "transgenders" are NOT what they claimn to be but he wants to say the emperor has new clothes so he can be "woke." He'd rather be woke and rebel against the God he pretends to know than to use the intelligence God gave him (what little he demonstrates having)."
"Do you SEE the legalism and judgmentalism and lack of grace to not even believe it when I tell him this is what I actually believe?"
Perhaps his opinion about what you believe is wrong, but I don't see much difference between what you call Glenn's judgementalism and your judgementalism. You're the one accusing me of "oppressing" people and engaging in actions that were "deadly". Seems like I'm allowing both of you to be judgemental, and you to spew expletive filled, vitriol laced, ad hom attacks.
"Do you see how deadly oppressive that legalism is when he says something like that to a woman that Glenn (and all of you all) will insist is a man? A perverted man whose going to hell for his demonic perversions?"
Nope, I do not see how Glenn expressing his opinion on a blog that virtually nobody reads is "deadly". But hey feel free to sling judgmentalism as much as you want.
"Are you not able to understand how living with that kind of harsh judgmentalism/phariseeism/legalism is oppressive to our beloved LGBTQ family?"
Nope, I fail to see how one guy's opinion on a blog that hardly anyone reads is oppressing anyone. I further don't see any difference between your judementalism (hell you tried to twist the sheep/goats thing to justify you making judgements reserved for Christ) and what you accused Glenn of.
In either case, you just seem like you're addicted to expletive laced, vitriol laden, ad hom attacks, and want to justify your graceless and un Christlike actions.
Craig... "So your anecdotes about your alleged friends are supposed to automatically apply to everyone else in the world. What a moron. "
No, my real world stories are reflective of the data. ANYONE who is familiar and an ally of LGBTQ folk knows these stories. It's not a secret, it is a reality.
Are there SOME LGBTQ people somewhere who've never been harassed or harmed by LGBTQ oppression? I'm sure it's possible... but it's almost certainly a minority.
In progressive Louisville, one of my co-workers just reported being yelled at and called a F** just this week.
Again I would just ask you: Do you seriously doubt that oppression/bullying/demonization of LGBTQ people is not still a reality for most LGBTQ folk? Do you seriously doubt that it was exceedingly awful prior to the 1990s - our youth and young adulthood?
Do you doubt that it's happened in part (large part?) due to churches demonizing and ostracizing gay folk - again, especially prior to ~1990s?
Ask your gay friends, they'll tell you. Or ask Mike Pence.
"Vice President Mike Pence spoke at a church service Sunday in which religious leaders said, among other things, that homosexuality is caused by "the devil."
Bishop Jerry Wayne Taylor launched into a diatribe about the “demonic” nature of homosexuality.
“We have to encourage young men and women to get married,” Taylor said from the pulpit. “It’s a demonic spirit that causes a woman to want to lie with another woman. It’s a demonic spirit that causes a man to be attracted to another man.”
Pence’s office did not immediately respond to NBC News’ request for comment.
Later, Taylor called homosexuality “unnatural,” justifying his characterization by falsely claiming that same-sex attraction is unique to humans.
“You never see two male animals coming together,” he said. “We’ve got to expose what the devil is doing.”
From a sermon in 2020.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/pence-attends-homophobic-sermon-streamed-white-house-youtube-channel-n1119621
"No. You're making my point. I did NOT condemn all conservatives as being oppressive towards gay people. I specifically pointed to the words of you fellas (or the lack of words in standing against the oppressors.) I AM being specific."
"You recognize that, right?"
Nope, I recognize that you are trying to project your prejudices about some unknown, unidentified "conservative christians", onto me or others. Even your claim about not "standing against the oppressors", is simply you making some shit up and projecting it on me.
"And at the same time, I recognize that it is a very common problem in conservative Christian circles. And at the same time, Jesus often complains about the "scribes and Phariees" generally, because this legalism was a problem for many of them. So, Jesus didn't rebuke ALL the pharisees, but he regularly condemned them en masse.
""conservative Christian circles."
Oh look, barely a patragraph after you claimed that you weren't "condemning all conservatives", you do exactly what you claimed you weren't doing.
"You know this is correct, right?"
No, I understand that simply because you assert something that something doesn't become True.
"Jesus didn't engage in expletive filled, vitriolic, ad hom attacks on fellow believers."
"He engaged in harsh, strong, offensive (to the Pharisees) language in attacking their oppression."
So, you're not Him, and you choose expletive laden, vitriol laced, ad hom attacks, which He didn't.
"BLIND GUIDES. WHITE WASHED TOMBS. WOE TO YOU! (which some translators/paraphrasers have said is roughly equivalent to "it will be hell for you!" or "To hell with you!")"
So? Again, Jesus had the authority, knowledge, and is the person who will be the final judge of who goes to Heaven/Hell.
"And I have not engaged in an ad hom attacks. It's based on your collective harmful or dishonest or slanderous words and actions, not against you all."
Yes you have. You've attacked the character of people, not their arguments. Oh, you've literally accused us of being involved in actions that are "deadly". What specific action has any of us engaged in that has directly proven "deadly" to a specific person?
Craig...
"I believe that ALL repentant sinners can be saved. "
That's HALF an answer. But I asked about "unrepentant homosexuals." That is, a gay married couple (who engage in sex! Oh my!!) who believe in Jesus and name him as their savior, who love God and want Jesus to be the Lord of their lives AND YET, they disagree with conservatives that think that their marriage is wrong and that their love for one another (including the sex) is not "of God..."
Can such men be saved?
And let's just assume you're right and that God really doesn't like gay guys hooking up and getting married, but these guys don't agree with that and, as it turns out, they're mistaken. If they are unrepentant (because they were mistaken), are they saved?
How about the transgender person who is unrepentantly transgender (because they know God never condemns it in the bible - they're not biblically illiterate or dependent upon human traditions). If it turns out they were wrong, can they be saved?
Answer the actual questions please.
Craig... " You've attacked the character of people, not their arguments. Oh, you've literally accused us of being involved in actions that are "deadly". What specific action has any of us engaged in that has directly proven "deadly" to a specific person?"
Again, this is coming from a place of privilege. For oppressed people, it is the actions, words and attitudes of multitudes of oppressors that causes harm. Look at the data I've just included in one of my last comments.
Do you really think that one person has to commit an action/make a statement to a specific person for it to cause harm?
Where is your support for that?
When black people were afraid (rightfully) to go to Sundowner towns back in the day, it wasn't the action of any ONE bigot. It was the communal attitude that there were some places they didn't belong that terrorized.
You recognize this, yes?
Craig... "So, you're not Him, and you choose expletive laden, vitriol laced, ad hom attacks, which He didn't. "
Read more of the Bible and the words of Jesus. While white-washed tombs and snakes and woe (etc, etc, etc) may seem harmless to you, they were quite vulgar to many of the Jews at the time. These were all "unclean" places and things and for legalistic Pharisee sorts, being associated with the unclean was scandalous and vulgar.
It's important not to just read the text, but to understand the context.
https://youthministry.com/the-profane-jesus/
Craig...
"No, I understand that simply because you assert something that something doesn't become True."
Sorry, I had assumed you were not biblically illiterate. In the VERY passage I've already cited:
Jesus...
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness."
Now, WHICH specific Pharisee (and scribe) was Jesus referring to here? What? He was making a general swipe at ALL the scribes and Pharisees who were hypocrites and deadly legalists?
But Craig said Jesus always spoke to specific people... " they were specific." Craig said... Hm.
re: Rebukes not limited to Jesus...
Hell, Paul even publicly rebuked Peter when he dropped back into some Pharisaical, legalistic ways...
"They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along. [also be sure to note that thread in common with Jesus' good news... DT]
When Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"
~Gal 2
And again, Paul used rough language in rebuking other legalists - the circumsisors...
"Watch out for those dogs,
those evildoers,
those mutilators of the flesh.
For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh"
~Phil 3
Again, Dog is a vulgar accusation in Jesus time.
"Do you deny that a lot of that oppression is coming from people who self identify as GOP conservatives and religious conservatives?"
Do you have any actual evidence how much comes from only political/religious conservatives? More importantly, I'm going to go out on a limb and agree it's likely most who oppose (not necessarily oppress, though) LGBT "folk" are political/religious conservatives because it's among such people that a reverence for and adherence to truth, science and reason resides.
"Are you suggesting that it doesn't happen that churches don't kick out gay folks and families don't reject their own children fairly regularly, especially in years past, if they came out as LGBTQ?"
Are you referring to LGBT people who struggle to overcome their immoral and disordered compulsions? I'd say none of them get kicked out of anywhere but the LGBT club. I'm still waiting for those who run this tripe to present the parent/church side of the stories. I'm wagering that only the reprobate, unrepentant LGBT folk were expelled, as is proper and Biblical.
"If they were kicked out of their homes and churches, it was because they deserved it?"
Yes.
"How do you address all the claims of oppression?"
By demanding evidence beyond their questionable testimony.
"You may or may not be ignorant of this, but accusations against LGBTQ folks painting them as being perverts and dangerous predators is part of the demonization and oppression of LGBTQ people throughout history."
It's more a question of whether or not these two charges are true.
1. Perverts. This is obviously true by definition. They pervert the nature and function of their biology, as well as the definitions of words in order to legitimize their disordered desires and practices.
2. Dangerous predators. Well, it's certainly true of many of them, often by their own admission. I would suspect an over-representation of predators among them. But it also depends upon how one defines the term. Dan is quick to accuse Trump in this way just based on unproven accusations of alleged victims and his own perverse need that Trump be one. On the meantime, I've at least twice posted a video listing around two dozen "trans" predators I fully doubt Dan bothered to watch.
But Dan constantly refers to "oppression" as if it's a legit and truthful charge in this day and age, but moreover to demonize all moral people who don't and won't buy into the lies of the agenda liars like Dan promotes. To whatever extent LGBTs have been oppressed is irrelevant and a diversion from the real issue regarding the validity of their claims about themselves and whether the normal segment of society, which is the vast majority, has any obligation to back their play. If their claims about themselves are untrue...and they clearly are....then it's clearly oppressive to force the rest of society to buy into the obvious lie. Bring a liar himself, Dan is fine with that.
Trabue,
If people are oppressed because they are practicing perverse, evil and anti-God behavior, then tough banana’s.
50% of all teens get a negative reaction from their parents when they come out to them
1 in 4 teens are forced to leave their homes after coming out to their parents
68% of teens have experienced family rejection after coming out to their family”
So, families are supposed to happy and praise their children for rebelling against God and engaging in an activity which is dangerously unhealthy as well as totally against the design of the human body? That’s “oppression”!?!? If more families reacted that way perhaps there’d be less perversion and these kids would turn back to God.
So now it is “legalism an judgmentalism and lack of grace” to tell people the truth about “transgenderism”?!?!? Yeah, that biology thing is totally mistaken in saying one sex cannot turn into to the other.
The fact that you foster, support and defend these lies and abominations before God proves that you are anti-God, anti-Christ and pro-sinful activities which lead people to hell. You are a wicked and evil human being and part of the culture destroying this country. AND this is a statement of fact and not an ad hominem attack.
"It is a fact that Jesus literally rebuked harshly the pharisees of his day. Those who were pressing the poor and marginalized. Do you deny that reality?"
He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Craig was referring to this little bit of grace-embracing:
"I can't help but note how you try to emasculate Jesus as a Do nothing Oppression-friendly little godling, Impotent and unable to oppose oppression."
And of course, there's no real evidence the Pharisees were accused by Christ of doing anything other than adding to God's law and treating the additions as God's Word, then not necessarily holding themselves to it. At the same time, not only did Jesus have a Pharisee or two among His followers, there were Pharisees who were part early Christendom along with the apostles. But being a fraud, you focus on some fantasy about the "poor and marginalized".
"If you can accept that reality, then you can accept that sometimes followers of Jesus may well need to imitate him and strongly rebuke others, at least those who are causing harm by oppression."
Ah...then I'm cool rebuking you in the harshest terms possible given your oppression of the unborn. There are none who are more deserving of scorn than those who pretend people aren't worthy of life on the falsest of pretenses as you do. In YOUR case, however, you rebuke those who follow Christ and preach His Word to the immoral.
"Do you deny that if you were to sit down and speak with most LGBTQ people that they will tell you to your face that they've been oppressed and marginalized, mocked and bullied a large part of their lives?"
Sinners will say all sorts of things to deflect from their sinfulness. I have more compassion for young Christians who suffer such things, as at least they're suffering for Christ and not their sexual self-gratification.
"Do you deny that a lot of that oppression is coming from people who self identify as GOP conservatives and religious conservatives?"
I would not be surprised that LGBT people get more push back from political and/or religious conservatives, since they're typically more concerned about morality than leftists and "progressives" who typically aren't concerned at all with morality. Worse is the fact that we never get to hear from those LGBT people accuse of doing the "oppressing", such as parents or church leaders. We only hear the whining.
"If so, what is your answer to all these LGBTQ folks?"
Mine would be "That's a sad story. Why should I believe you? When do I get to hear the other side of the story from those you accuse of treating you badly? In this country, the accused get to face their accuser and all others should not believe only one side of the story without hearing the other...unless you have actual proof." That's the right answer to those "folks".
"If they were kicked out of their homes and churches, it was because they deserved it?"
Probably.
"How do you address all the claims of oppression?"
As stated above, show me proof and let's hear from those you accuse.
"FYI Christ rarely "strongly rebuked" random fellow believers, yet it's your stock in trade."
But Dan constantly proves he's not really a believer, but only a fraud who exploits the name of Christ to market himself to the stupid.
"I am/we are followers of Christ. He modeled behavior for us to emulate. That I have to point this out is just strange. Of course we're gonna act like Jesus if we are his followers."
But you don't, Dan. You don't act like Him because you're not truly a follower of His. There's nothing you can identify in Scripture...anywhere...as support for things like abortion or the LGBT agenda. Yet you champion those "causes" constantly. He never enabled sexual immorality, so how can you say he modeled that behavior you perpetrate constantly? He never promoted any unjust taking of life, yet you support that always. You're no Christian.
"Glenn and Marshal regularly make rules up that they want others to follow."
Another intentional, straight up lie. If anyone is making up nonsense about Scripture, it's YOU, Dan. You lie about what Scripture says all the time. You play semantic games and pick and choose when to take verses literally, all in service to your agenda, never acting for the glory of God.
"For your part, you are not rebuking them for their oppression. You are being ally to the oppressors and not to LGBTQ folks. Do you see how LGBTQ folks would see that?"
For your part, you're an oppressor of the unborn. We don't do anything to oppress LGBTs except they don't like to hear the truth about their immorality and disorder. The truth is oppressive to the sinful who insists on their sin rather than truth. I'm not the least concerned if such people consider me oppressive. What's one more lie to them and you?
"Can such men be saved?"
What part of "all sinners" was confusing to you? Was not "all sinners" explicit enough? Do you expect me to name them?
All sinners who YHWH chooses to save, can be saved. I'm not God, I wouldn't dream of speaking for Him, given the limited information you've given me that's all I've got.
"And let's just assume you're right and that God really doesn't like gay guys hooking up and getting married, but these guys don't agree with that and, as it turns out, they're mistaken. If they are unrepentant (because they were mistaken), are they saved?"
Again, I don't speak for YHWH. I don't make those decisions, it's above my pay grade.
"How about the transgender person who is unrepentantly transgender (because they know God never condemns it in the bible - they're not biblically illiterate or dependent upon human traditions). If it turns out they were wrong, can they be saved?"
Again, all sinners can be saved, if they're called by YHWH. It's His decision, not mine.
"Do you really think that one person has to commit an action/make a statement to a specific person for it to cause harm?"
If you're going to specifically accuse one individual person of causing "deadly" "harm", then yes.
"Where is your support for that?"
The self-evident notion of individual responsibility. I'm not responsible for other's actions.
"When black people were afraid (rightfully) to go to Sundowner towns back in the day, it wasn't the action of any ONE bigot. It was the communal attitude that there were some places they didn't belong that terrorized. You recognize this, yes?"
It's possible that "one bigot" could have been responsible, I don't know. What I do know is that IF your hunch is correct, then (at most) those in that particular town might bear some responsibility.
Again, I fail to understand your obsession with tarring people for the actions of others? Did Christ talk harshly to the Pharisees and condemn them for things they didn't do?
"Now, WHICH specific Pharisee (and scribe) was Jesus referring to here? What? He was making a general swipe at ALL the scribes and Pharisees who were hypocrites and deadly legalists?"
Yet we know that some Pharisees did follow Jesus, are you really suggesting that Jesus was addressing those pharisees and condemning those who followed Him for the actions of others?
Of course, you're still not Jesus, still don't speak with His authority, and still cherry pick which examples of Jesus you follow.
Again, you're not Paul either. You don't speak with apostolic authority, and you cherry pick which of Paul's words you choose to find authoritative.
I'm not interested in your excuses and justifications for your expletive laden, vitriol laced, ad hom attacks. Although, it's interesting that you've moved to trying to justify your attacks rather than deny them, that's progress.
Let's note that Dan has now given up any pretense of actually answering the remaining questions in this post (let alone those in other posts), in favor of simply arguing about his justification to engage in vile behavior. I guess that his actions could lead to certain conclusions.
"You know what? Many enslaved individuals did not tell the white oppressors to their faces that they were oppressed. You know why? Because that would make things worse for them."
In typical LGBT fashion, Dan draws an apples/oranges comparison, and suggests what happened to black slaves is the same as what happens to LGBTs when expressing their allegations of abuse. If by "making it worse" what happens is the LGBT confides in another person opposed to their agenda, and thus loses the other person's friendship or confidence, that's the risk everyone takes when expressing to another one's immoral desires and behaviors. Boo-hoo.
"My gay friends (including people I didn't know were gay) NEVER told me about the oppression they lived under while I was a straight guy."
And now that you're a gay guy, they tell you all sorts of stuff?
"Most people just won't pass on that kind of information to the oppressors. It hasn't ended well for them when they do that."
What oppressors specifically are those to whom they choose to open up and why would they?
"But ask them. Just ask them:"
And how can we determine they're answering truthfully? Can you provide the means by which you guaranteed that in your situation?
"Did you ever feel oppressed or picked on by conservatives and Christians?"
This is a dishonest question, because it assumes the response by conservatives and Christians would be truthfully represented in the answer of the LGBT.
"How many of your LGBTQ friends have been ostracized or kicked out by their families?"
None I know of. One of the closest to me never was, and wasn't by me even though we discussed my reaction to his coming out. He was fully aware I opposed the entire thing, but also knew I wasn't about to disown him. Another in the family is also still invited to all events. (Her "wife" would be rejected by me on the basis of her personality). No one who is LGBT would ever fail to be aware of my opposition, and would likely reject and ostracize me before I would them. That's because it's OK to treat conservative Christians like shit. It's the fashion today and most LGBTs and their fake "Christian" enablers are all too happy to engage in such behavior.
"Of course, I don't have any hard numbers, but in my friend group of LGBTQ folks, that number has to be something like at least 50% and more likely 75%."
If they're in your friend group, they're probably liars like you.
"...but they had to keep it a secret from grandma and the church."
Most people aren't quick to publicize the dirty laundry of their immediate family, particularly their approval, tolerance and enabling of it.
"It's extremely common. And not a secret. BUT, it's not the kind of thing they tend to talk about to people hostile towards LGBTQ issues."
I'd wager the vast majority of people considered "hostile" by LGBTs are simply people unwilling to reject God to their satisfaction. These days, one is either friend or foe to the LGBTs and their fake "Christian" enablers, and there's no in between. No one not totally on board with the LGBT agenda is considered a friend, but only a foe.
"Here. I feel like I've shared this before, but in case you missed it...
"50% of all teens get a negative reaction from their parents when they come out to them"
Why wouldn't they if those parents have a proper understanding of morality? And I would wager most parents of LGBTs who express support for them anyway would much prefer those kids not be LGBT without regard for any of the many negatives the activists market to promote the cause. That is to say, no one wants their kids to be LGBT. Everyone wants their kids to be normal.
"1 in 4 teens are forced to leave their homes after coming out to their parents"
These are most likely those who refused to abide the moral preferences of the parents for living in their home. I would not kick out my kid over this if the kid agreed not to promote the disorder as normal and worthy of celebration in my home. This "rule" covers a host of behaviors a kid might find alluring.
"68% of teens have experienced family rejection after coming out to their family"
Not surprising. It reflects the true sentiment of most people with regard to LGBT issues.
"https://lesley.edu/article/the-cost-of-coming-out-lgbt-youth-homelessness"
This info comes from or through a known pro-LGBT organization founded by Cyndi Lauper, a known apologist for the cause. As such, it is immediately suspect as all pro-LGBT say nothing which isn't totally sympathetic to the LGBTs or intended to compel sympathy without regard for any of the negatives of the agenda and behaviors.
"I'm saying that when we're talking about oppression, those who remain silent lend aid to the oppressors."
We're not talking about oppression. You are. It's what you do when you can't come up with a rational, logical and truthful argument for defending the LGBT agenda.
"Each of us has a moral obligation to speak up for the oppressed. That is even moreso true when we're a part of the party/group/system that has been part of that oppression."
Unlike your party/group/system, we continue to support the enforcement of laws on the books which are more than satisfactory for protecting anyone from unjust harm. Beyond that, there is no "oppression" resulting from policies from the political right regarding the false LGBT agenda. Indeed, our policies not only protect the LGBTs from unjust harm, they protect honest people who revere traditional notions of virtue and character from the oppression of the LGBT activists. It's totally a win-win.
And by the way, your support for the agenda demonstrates "moral obligation" is not all that important to you, so you can stuff that crap.
"“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Agree or disagree?"
I certainly agree. It's why I continue to oppose the LGBT agenda. You prefer that evil triumphs.
"Your problem is that, as a privileged member of a large majority group which has enjoyed historical control and power for hundreds of years, you don't understand what it's like to be part of an oppressed minority."
Your problem is you think we have a problem understanding what true suffering is or looks like. I personally have not enjoyed "historical control and power", so you're full of crap. I don't need to be torn limb from limb and have my skull crushed to know you're oppressing the soon to be born segment of our population. No LGBT person has experienced that level of oppression, assuming they've experienced any at all.
"You have the privilege of saying, "Well, I simply disagree with Ralph that he should be called She and Alice..." You think it's just a simple polite disagreement and can think that because you have not been part of this oppressed group."
All honest Americans have the "privilege" of pointing out the obvious, which in your hypothetical is that Ralph is not a woman at all regardless of how he prefers to be regarded. It's not "just a simple polite disagreement". It's an obvious lie an unfortunate disordered man tells himself and expects honest people to play along. I can think that because it's the absolute truth of the matter.
"It's not a polite disagreement. It's a fight for survival. Read the words of LGBTQ people."
Listening to liars doesn't make their lies true. They can end this so-called "fight for survival" by rejecting their delusions in favor of reality, truth and responsible maturity.
""The results of the analysis, the largest-known literature review on the topic, indicates that 286 out of 300 studies, or 95%, found a link between anti-LGBT discrimination and LGBT health harms."
Yeah. Sure they did. I'm sure they have confirmed absolutely no health problems in any of the people studied prior to their alleged discrimination. I'm not going to waste my time with more lame "studies" which are nothing more than pro-LGBT nonsense...
"And if you DO allow that we could be grievously mistaken (in your opinion) about all those matters, but STILL squeak through to salvation by God's grace, do you recognize that there are the Marshals and Glenns and Stans and Neils of the world you don't have that much grace towards us awful sinners? Hell, many of you all don't even believe us when we tell you that we honestly believe all these things! You think we're lying about honestly thinking that transgender women ARE women."
You're in open rebellion. What makes you think you're still worthy of God's grace despite not rejecting your rebellion and repenting of it. You've never provided specific Scripture which allows you to continue pretending you "might be mistaken". You've never provided specific Scripture OR specific science which justifies your willful lying about this issue. And of course you're lying about believing "trans-women" are women. You've nothing to support the claim other than the words of the deluded and a handful of worthless studies which do not prove they aren't deluded people.
"Are you not able to understand how living with that kind of harsh judgmentalism/phariseeism/legalism is oppressive to our beloved LGBTQ family?"
It's no more "oppressive" than to tell your thieving son his chosen trade is sinful. It's no more judgemental to speak the truth about the sinfulness and/or disorder of a sin or disorder. It's not "legalism" to cite the laws...either of God OR man...which are being broken and ignored. These types of epithets are lies intended to compel a change of heart from truth and morality to lies, immorality and disorder as a "good". You're liar enough for all of us, Dan. We don't need to lie along with you.
"In progressive Louisville, one of my co-workers just reported being yelled at and called a F** just this week."
Was there a witness, or is this just another hate crime hoax which is far more common than chump "allies" are honest enough to consider? But aside from that, boo-freakin'-hoo. Some dude who proudly indulges his disordered urges was called "fag" by someone. A true ally of a "gay" guy would not be shy about explaining the likelihood of such things if the "gay" insists on indulging. Such an episode is not unique to the LGBTs. But only the LGBTs act as if they're freakin' martyrs or something. It's pathetic.
By the way, nothing you presented as having been said by Bishop Jerry Wayne Taylor is untrue. I would especially point out the truth animals aren't "attracted" to other animals sexually, but driven solely by instinct, which in the case of those apparent "same-sex" pairings are examples of dysfunction. Only humans are "attracted" in a manner which can result in choosing a partner for reasons beyond pure instinct. More importantly, humans have the ability to reason about what they're doing, and thus, some refuse to use reason but instead allow their urges to dictate their behaviors, as if they were no better than animals.
Another nonsensical angle Dan plays is the Pharisees/legalism angle. Nothing I've said about the clearly revealed word of God on the subject of homosexuality is akin to that sort of thing. Rather, it is more akin to Christ recalling what Scripture says and repeating it, since indeed, what Scripture says is crystal clear with regard to the behavior you defend. But in Dan's fevered imaginings, Christ was being legalistic anytime He told a sinner to go and sin no more. How dare He!!!
"That's HALF an answer. But I asked about "unrepentant homosexuals." That is, a gay married couple (who engage in sex! Oh my!!) who believe in Jesus and name him as their savior, who love God and want Jesus to be the Lord of their lives AND YET, they disagree with conservatives that think that their marriage is wrong and that their love for one another (including the sex) is not "of God...""
They're NOT "disagreeing with conservatives". They're disagreeing with God who called their behavior an abomination. Conservatives simply acknowledge the truth of God's Word. The people you defend as otherwise "good and devout Christians" are liars like you are...rejecting the clear teaching of Scripture and pretending there's some ambiguity which covers their indulgence in sinfulness. You're putting lipstick on a pig.
"And let's just assume you're right and that God really doesn't like gay guys hooking up and getting married, but these guys don't agree with that and, as it turns out, they're mistaken. If they are unrepentant (because they were mistaken), are they saved?"
On what basis can they possibly be mistaken, Dan? YOU'VE never brought any Scripture to bear which suggests any possibility of their choice NOT being totally and absolutely displeasing to God. You've clearly never heard of any from them, but you keep playing these childish "what if?" games as if it matters to the question of whether or not there's a legit basis for anyone who dares call himself "Christian" for enabling and defending this behavior. There's no confusing what you believe. But on what basis can you continue to pretend to believe it? None that you've ever presented, and none you ever can present since there is no such basis in Scripture and none in science, either.
"Do you really think that one person has to commit an action/make a statement to a specific person for it to cause harm?"
So, you're saying just standing there is causing somebody harm? No action, no speaking, but harm is still caused...how exactly?
"When black people were afraid (rightfully) to go to Sundowner towns back in the day, it wasn't the action of any ONE bigot."
Being black isn't a behavior. It isn't in any way dependent upon ANY behavior to be recognized as black. Being LGBT is not immutable and unchangeable. Stop pretending some parallel exists between blacks and LGBT. Blacks don't like it. They're greatly insulted by it. Don't you ever listen to black voices?
Dan's comments related to the Pharisees are, as I said, just distraction from the important stuff, such there being no Scriptural support for what he pretends to believe without any basis in fact. There's nothing Pharisaical about reiterating the clear teaching of Scripture, nothing legalistic. What's more, not all Pharisees were bad dudes:
https://churchhealthwiki.wordpress.com/2021/05/28/church-history-why-were-the-pharisees-the-bad-guys-in-the-new-testament/
Craig... "Yet we know that some Pharisees did follow Jesus, are you really suggesting that Jesus was addressing those pharisees and condemning those who followed Him for the actions of others?"
I'm stating that the text is quite clear: Jesus literally did make sweeping condemnations of the Pharisees and other religious hypocrites/oppressors. He just did. It's there and anyone can read it. THAT is an objective fact.
Do you disagree with that reality? If so, why?
Now, does that mean he was condemning ALL pharisees, including his followers? No. Just as with modern progressive Christians, we do NOT take offense when people make sweeping charges against "the church" or "religious people..." Why not? Because, 1. We know it's well-earned and 2. We agree, the church has largely failed in a great number of ways, including in the participation in the marginalization and oppression of LGBTQ folks. I suspect the Pharisees that we actually Jesus' followers were not snowflakes who would whine and deny the validity of the literal charges Jesus made.
Do you see how rational moral adults can be part of an oppressor group and own up to it, rather than taking offense?
Marshal...
" I would not kick out my kid over this if the kid agreed not to promote the disorder as normal and worthy of celebration in my home. "
Damn. What a pervert.
What's perverted about insisting one keeps one's perversion to one's self, especially when it concerns my household? I wouldn't kick out a daughter who had sex in my house with a boyfriend (though the boyfriend wasn't welcomed anywhere near me for almost a year---they're now married). Why would I allow a queer to act queer or promote queerness in my house? I know YOU'RE into that sort of thing, but I'm not. Sue me.
"Do you disagree with that reality? If so, why?"
Because the context is clear. Jesus had followers who were pharisees. Jesus engaged with the Pharisees in other ways that did not involve attacks. Jesus submitted to the authority of the Pharisees. It seems strange that Jesus would attack His own followers, those He spent time with, and those who's authority He acknowledged, in the broad undiscriminating way you claim. FYI, why would Jesus have chosen a Pharisee as His primary person to spread the gospel to the Gentiles?
"Do you see how rational moral adults can be part of an oppressor group and own up to it, rather than taking offense?"
No.
Do you see how blaming an individual person for the actions of others is unreasonable?
"Do you see how rational moral adults can be part of an oppressor group and own up to it, rather than taking offense?"
Rational, moral adults don't belong to an "oppressor" group because rational and moral adults...being rational...vet groups they intend to join or are aware of their short comings and leave. I can't think of any "oppressor" groups of which any rational moral people I know are members. For example, none of them support Planned Parenthood existing, or join up with NARAL Pro-Choice America...both of whom are among the worst oppressors known to mankind. But Dan's down with both of them and any others who support the murder of the unborn.
While "rational moral" adults can "belong" to or be associated with an "oppressor group", that doesn't necessarily mean that they are in full or even substantial agreement with every tenet of belief help by every member of said "group". Which would seem to suggest that if you perceive that someone is associated with a group you perceive to be an "oppressor group", you still have no cause to make assumptions about that individual's beliefs. Further, the notion of taking the most extreme belief of said "oppressor group" and assigning that belief to an individual associated with said "oppressor group" without any evidence seems to be most unreasonable. It also seems strange to allow someone outside the individual and the "oppressor group" to make the decisions about the individual's actual association with said "oppressor group".
In other words, it seems like the most reasonable, rational approach to not make assumptions of other individuals based one your perceptions of what groups they might be associated with. What seems more reasonable and rational is to look at what each individual actually says, and interact with them as an individual, not as a perceived "member" of a perceived group.
I do acknowledge that it is sometimes necessary to refer to people as a group, and to refer to positions or tenets that the majority hold. Where the line gets crossed, IMO, is when you simply presume that someone holds any given position of any given group and operate based on your assumptions, rather than on the facts of that individuals actual expressed positions.
For example, it's becoming obvious that various groups that make up the APL are slowly increasing their acceptance of MA being a normal sexual orientation. So, if I were to say, "The APL is increasing it's acceptance of MA as a normal sexual orientation.", that would be an accurate generalization. However, if I said, "Because Dan agrees with much of the agenda of the APL, therefore Dan supports acknowledging that MA is a normal sexual orientation, and should be treated exactly the same was as any other normal sexual orientation.", I would have overstepped the available evidence. So, it just seems like attributing "group" positions to an individual without explicit evidence of the individual's support of position X, is a particularly bad way of engaging on conversations.
I'm not perfect, but I try to use exact quotes when referring to someone's position, or to acknowledge that I am trying to get as close to a summary of what I believe someone's position to be as often as I can. When I overstep, and have it pointed out, I'll try to acknowledge my mistake, or provide the direct quotes to support my conclusion.
I'm wondering if my dignifying these attributions of group positions with responses is part of the problem.
Post a Comment