I think that perhaps you've been Christianing wrong this whole time.

[Oscar_Kipling]

So, there is an argument that I have been running across when discussing Lgbt, Trans issues or police violence against black people, et cetera... IOW issues that some folks in the conservative Christians community might describe as "woke". Often folks will point out to me how these issues only affect a tiny fraction of the population, therefore the degree of attention given to these issues or populations is wildly disproportionate. Of course they aren't wrong in that the amount of folks directly affected is small relative to the US population and even smaller relative to the world population, but I wonder is this desire to minimize these issues or as some might put it, bring their public profile more in line with the size of the affected populations (which is to say picayune little things) a Christian thing to do?

Now of course there are practical rationales for not putting a disproportionate amount of effort and attention into an issue that can be efficiently solved with fewer resources, especially if it is a detriment to other more wide ranging issues. To my eye it is very impractical for the sin of making eyes at your neighbor's wife to be equal to murdering your neighbor in order to force his wife back into the dating market, but Jesus says they all pay out the same. It doesn't seem to me that the moral rules of the Christian universe prioritize practicality. I wouldn't want to give the impression that I'm a man that simply ignores practicalities, but my point isn't really about practicality, I just bring it up in the hopes of avoiding getting the conversation bogged down here so that we can talk about what it is a Christian is obligated or compelled to do, practicalities be damned.

It is well known that I do not know Jesus, I do not have highly tuned spiritual discernment at my disposal, and I don't have a single idea rattling around in my head that was revealed by the holy spirit, but I insist that a plain clear eyed reading of the new testament would reasonably leave a person with the impression that Jesus was conspicuously preoccupied with the weak, the least, the marginal and the meek without any consideration given to how many of them there were with respect to the rest of the population. In my purely material appraisal I suggest that being like Christ would imply that those considered peripheral by something so tellurian as a headcount would be of central importance to the Christ-like. 

Now, none of this is to say that Christians should necessarily agree that trans folks should have a float in a pride parade down main street, but that their plight is of paramount importance in spite of, and maybe even because of their miniscule population. So the question is, does it make any biblical, spiritual or Christian sense that Christians would be arguing that a minor populace or an issue of narrow but existential consequence to a few should take up much less space in our hearts, minds, exertions and discourse?

Personally I think that any Christian who has found themselves making such an objectively Anti-Christian argument should tearfully self flagellate through the town square as they drag a giant boulder tethered to their ears while wailing to the skies for forgiveness because they have failed to be like Christ in such an obvious and fundamental way...but before I start shopping for cats-O-nine-tails to pass out to Christians that I've disagreed with on the internet, I figured I'd ask some Christians here in the unlikely event that I've misinterpreted Jesus' deal somehow.

[watchinginawe]

So, there is an argument that I have been running across when discussing Lgbt, Trans issues or police violence against black people, et cetera... IOW issues that some folks in the conservative Christians community might describe as "woke". Often folks will point out to me how these issues only affect a tiny fraction of the population, therefore the degree of attention given to these issues or populations is wildly disproportionate.
...
I wonder is this desire to minimize these issues or as some might put it, bring their public profile more in line with the size of the affected populations (which is to say picayune little things) a Christian thing to do?
...
Now, none of this is to say that Christians should necessarily agree that trans folks should have a float in a pride parade down main street, but that their plight is of paramount importance in spite of, and maybe even because of their miniscule population. So the question is, does it make any biblical, spiritual or Christian sense that Christians would be arguing that a minor populace or an issue of narrow but existential consequence to a few should take up much less space in our hearts, minds, exertions and discourse?

Greeting O_K. Hope things are well.

I attempted to digest your complaint. If I understand correctly, based on your reading of the New Testament and the recorded actions of Jesus' ministry having so often been in defense of or on behalf of minimized individuals or groups, that you do not believe it would be a very Christian thing for contemporary Christians to "look the other way" so to speak on grievances that some individuals or small minorities might voice because of greater and larger issues to apply oneself to.

I think I agree with your assessment, but I don't see how that is a kind of "silver bullet" argument against Christians. At the top of my thoughts is this. O_K, I serve Jesus, I know Jesus, and Jesus is my friend. But O_K, I'm no Jesus. The essence of that is what Christianity is about. We come up short every time.

You would probably be more effective citing Jesus' contempt of hypocrites. The Christian is almost always immediately put on the defensive with some form of this topic and probably for good reason. But ultimately, the confident Christian already knows they come up short but are still able somehow to find assurance in their security. I think that is Christianing the right way in this life while not finding oneself deaf to becoming a better servant of Jesus.

[Oscar_Kipling]

So, there is an argument that I have been running across when discussing Lgbt, Trans issues or police violence against black people, et cetera... IOW issues that some folks in the conservative Christians community might describe as "woke". Often folks will point out to me how these issues only affect a tiny fraction of the population, therefore the degree of attention given to these issues or populations is wildly disproportionate.
...
I wonder is this desire to minimize these issues or as some might put it, bring their public profile more in line with the size of the affected populations (which is to say picayune little things) a Christian thing to do?
...
Now, none of this is to say that Christians should necessarily agree that trans folks should have a float in a pride parade down main street, but that their plight is of paramount importance in spite of, and maybe even because of their miniscule population. So the question is, does it make any biblical, spiritual or Christian sense that Christians would be arguing that a minor populace or an issue of narrow but existential consequence to a few should take up much less space in our hearts, minds, exertions and discourse?

Greeting O_K. Hope things are well.

I attempted to digest your complaint. If I understand correctly, based on your reading of the New Testament and the recorded actions of Jesus' ministry having so often been in defense of or on behalf of minimized individuals or groups, that you do not believe it would be a very Christian thing for contemporary Christians to "look the other way" so to speak on grievances that some individuals or small minorities might voice because of greater and larger issues to apply oneself to.

I think I agree with your assessment, but I don't see how that is a kind of "silver bullet" argument against Christians. At the top of my thoughts is this. O_K, I serve Jesus, I know Jesus, and Jesus is my friend. But O_K, I'm no Jesus. The essence of that is what Christianity is about. We come up short every time.

You would probably be more effective citing Jesus' contempt of hypocrites. The Christian is almost always immediately put on the defensive with some form of this topic and probably for good reason. But ultimately, the confident Christian already knows they come up short but are still able somehow to find assurance in their security. I think that is Christianing the right way in this life while not finding oneself deaf to becoming a better servant of Jesus.

Hello Watching, I'm well and I hope you are well as well.

Well, First I would like to thank you for taking the time out to respond to my post, I genuinely appreciate it. Secondly, the title and the self flagellation part was facetious, I was just having a bit of fun with escalating imagery. This was not meant to be an argument against the validity of Christianity or a wholesale rebuke of Christians in general, just a rebuke of a particular argument that crops up from time to time. Or more specifically I wanted to test the soundness of the idea. I expect that I'll likely use some form of it in response to specific people using the tiny population argument.

I think you more or less understood what I was trying to say, though I think that in addition to wanting to turn away themselves, they think that most other folks should turn away too, because the issues are in some sense trivial due to small affected populations. Anyway While I have you here there is another component to the tiny population argument that I didn't get into because my post was already getting long, but I'd like your thoughts on it if you wouldn't mind.

I would describe many of the issues in the constellation of "wokeness" as actually requiring a high and broad profile to effectively address even though the injured party as it were may be relatively small. For example the Jewish world population is tiny even compared to other small minorities like LGBTs, but to combat anti-Semitism you need to have broad acknowledgement and support far out of proportion to the size of the actual Jewish community. Basically any issues that involve long histories of discrimination, hate/apathy and oppression are like that. I think Jesus or the people that made Jesus up understood that often the only way to affect meaningful sustainable change for the least of us is to continuously prioritize and promote these minority and marginal issues, because they are among the easiest to ignore or forget. I think that campaigning against the spotlighting of the edge cases is to completely miss the depth of wisdom in Jesus' preoccupation with the least of us. Again, I do not know Jesus, I don't even think he's real, but this seems like part of the idea that the bible was trying to get across, am I wrong?

I don't disagree that pointing out Jesus' contempt of hypocrisy would probably be super effective in some ways, but I don't think that it would really connect anyone with the concept above, like I don't think it really touches on why as a Christian is it weird that you would see a numerically insignificant group calling out for and receiving attention and think "actually they are tiny and their pain only really affects them, so we really shouldn't endorse how far above the background noise their voices have risen ".....and all of this is before I even get started on how pain and suffering is never constrained to a particular injured group no mater how small it is. alright, I'm sleepy, good night

[ProDeo]

I would describe many of the issues in the constellation of "wokeness" as actually requiring a high and broad profile to effectively address even though the injured party as it were may be relatively small.

I think most the woke-movement have good intentions, however the fanatics among them are going much too far and given the chance will create a disturbed generation of children.

I don't know the situation in your country but here the fanatics are going strong and things are already changing. Young kids are told they are not a boy or girl because they decide that themselves. Monday girl, Tuesday boy, Wednesday no gender at all. It's all okay. How confusing for those poor kids, 8-9 year old and already in an identity crisis.

Then when your criticize the fanatics, you will be called a racist for not agreeing with them.

A recent example, a professor specialized in child neurology (if I remember well) was fired because he said - children with X chromosome are girls, children with Y chromosome are boys. The long arm of woke.

Something funny to conclude, a couple of days ago I was walking with the dog. While passing the school children were playing outside. And some of them (8-9 year old boys and girls) were playing some form of playing tag, I didn't fully understand the rules. But at some point a 8-9 year old girl yelled at a 8-9 old boy - Don't touch my tit!

Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.........................

[RabbiKnife]

I would submit to you, Oscar, that much of what is called "Christian" in today's world, especially in the realm of North American mainline churches or evangelical churches, is all about culture and nothing about faith.  So when someone claims to be Christian, I tend to take it with a grain of salt, and any combination of "Christian" and "patriotic" or "government" demonstrates to me that the person espousing such, perhaps with the purest of intentions, knows little about the faith revealed in Scripture.

That being said, Christianity as a religious practice is as vacuous today as it was under Constantine.  Faith in Jesus is personal, and is expressed in personal interaction with other fallen humans.  It cannot be institutionalized or politicized, and as soon as it is, then is ceases to be faith.

Jesus didn't give a jack squat about movements, or large scale policies.  He was concerned only with what the person standing in front of Him would do in reaction to faith and how they walked that out day by day.

No individual is responsible for a broad swath of humanity, or of a particular "oppressed" group.  Each believer in Jesus is responsible only for loving service to their "oikos" -- their household, their expanded sphere of personal influence and interaction.

Jesus isn't concerned with me being a warrior against anti-Semitism, but He is most earnestly concerned about how I treat those of Jewish heritage.

Jesus isn't concerned with me being a warrior against racism, but He is most earnestly concerned about how I treat those of races differing from mine.

Jesus isn't concerned about me being a warrior for every minority thought or lifestyle minority population, but He is most earnestly concerned about how I treat each individual, regardless of their lifestyle or status or power.

"Christianing wrong?"

Absolutley.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I would describe many of the issues in the constellation of "wokeness" as actually requiring a high and broad profile to effectively address even though the injured party as it were may be relatively small.

I think most the woke-movement have good intentions, however the fanatics among them are going much too far and given the chance will create a disturbed generation of children.

I don't know the situation in your country but here the fanatics are going strong and things are already changing. Young kids are told they are not a boy or girl because they decide that themselves. Monday girl, Tuesday boy, Wednesday no gender at all. It's all okay. How confusing for those poor kids, 8-9 year old and already in an identity crisis.

Then when your criticize the fanatics, you will be called a racist for not agreeing with them.

A recent example, a professor specialized in child neurology (if I remember well) was fired because he said - children with X chromosome are girls, children with Y chromosome are boys. The long arm of woke.

Something funny to conclude, a couple of days ago I was walking with the dog. While passing the school children were playing outside. And some of them (8-9 year old boys and girls) were playing some form of playing tag, I didn't fully understand the rules. But at some point a 8-9 year old girl yelled at a 8-9 old boy - Don't touch my tit!

Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.........................

Greetings Prodeo, thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.

I think that humanity has been pumping out disturbed children for quite a few generations already, but I do take your meaning. There are some real extremophiles out there thriving in an environment beliefs and positions that would instantly kill a regular joe like you or I. I must admit however that I'm skeptical of the claims you've made in your post. In my country, and by my country I'm including the 'merican internet, we are constantly bombarded with breathless reporting on all manner of stuff that is extremely upsetting and extremely dubious. I'm far to old to put myself in the mindset of an eight year old that has just been informed that gender is a spectrum, but honestly depending on the kid I could see it being super confusing, or immediately accepted as fact or not really processed or understood and just sort of glossed over because look at that weird but or really any number of things. Children are among the most ignorant, ill informed and gullible people I've ever met, so a lot of mundane facts about the world can confuse them and I don't know that gender being a spectrum is necessarily any more world view shattering than learning that Santa isn't real or that you were born by your mom squeezing your entire body out of a rather strange looking hole between her legs. Being a child in some ways is a series of astonishing revelations & paradigm shifts, but they often just knock back a few juice boxes and take it in stride. Don't get me wrong , surely there are things that you can tell children, and ways that you can tell children things that can cause damage that they may never truly repair. Damaging children should be avoided, creating an environment where they feel free to question their gender identity and gender in general could conceivably be employed in a damaging way. They could be damaged by the dissonance between the messaging that they receive at home, what they learn at school, and what they are exposed to by the culture. We should be careful. It's also potentially dangerous to create an environment where questioning their gender identity and gender in general is unequivocally verboten. Imagine how having internal feelings and questions about your gender in an environment where that is an abomination might put a child into crisis. I imagine that somewhere between the landmines are places where a child feels it okay to question their identity, to acknowledge that they feel like one, or the other, or neither, or not really give it much though at all, and everything in between. So perhaps school children in your neck of the woods are being told that they are not boys or girls which is an absurd blanket statement (or at least a dangerously careless way to convey the idea of the gender spectrum) because surely some if not most of them are one or the other. If that is the case then I think they should instead be made to feel comfortable to contemplate their identity or not as they see fit because it is okay to wonder about yourself and there are a lot of ways that people can be and that is fine. Geeze that was my response to like 2 sentences, I am the worst , sorry.

Anyway, sometimes criticism of the fanatics is misidentified as bigotry. Sometimes the critics misidentify normies as fanatics. Sometimes the critics are being bigoted or expressing bigoted ideas and opinions. sometimes the fanatics are being bigoted or expressing bigoted ideas and opinions...and so on and so forth. Lets try an exercise, could you provide some sources for your statement about children being told that they are not girls or boys, and the child neurology professor firing story? I'm betting that there is more interesting business to discuss about both of these stories. I promise that I will not call you a racist if we disagree.

I went to elementary school with a girl named Kiah who by the 4th grade had full adult torso accessories. Now I'm sure there is some inflation of the facts due to fuzzy childhood mamories, but I distinctly remember my mom and aunts talking about how it was probably due to the hormones that they pump into the cows getting into the chocolate milk they served at school lunch. I briefly considered calling up my mom to ask, but there is no way I'm having that conversation with my mom so you'll just have to take my word for it lol.

[watchinginawe]

...
I would describe many of the issues in the constellation of "wokeness" as actually requiring a high and broad profile to effectively address even though the injured party as it were may be relatively small. For example the Jewish world population is tiny even compared to other small minorities like LGBTs, but to combat anti-Semitism you need to have broad acknowledgement and support far out of proportion to the size of the actual Jewish community. Basically any issues that involve long histories of discrimination, hate/apathy and oppression are like that. I think Jesus or the people that made Jesus up understood that often the only way to affect meaningful sustainable change for the least of us is to continuously prioritize and promote these minority and marginal issues, because they are among the easiest to ignore or forget. I think that campaigning against the spotlighting of the edge cases is to completely miss the depth of wisdom in Jesus' preoccupation with the least of us. Again, I do not know Jesus, I don't even think he's real, but this seems like part of the idea that the bible was trying to get across, am I wrong?

I don't want to say your wrong per se, but I don't think that was Jesus' motive or goal at all. Jesus was more about giving the least of us eternal HOPE, and not some place at the table in society. You have to remember that Jesus teaches us that there is judgment coming that will take care of injustices IN THIS LIFE, but that through faith in Him we may be adopted into the Family of God and attain eternal life.

Let's look at a passage from Jesus' sermon on the mount commonly referred to as "The Beattudes" and see if we can discern that or not.

Gospel of Matthew 8:1-12

And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.


In just reading what Jesus is recorded as saying straight through, do you get the sense that he is going to equal out the scales just after speaking? Or is the blessing more the hope of His promise?

Additionally, I don't think we see Jesus encouraging a sense of societal activism needed either. It just isn't there. Anyone in any group can be one of the people Jesus says is blessed. So it isn't "blessed are the Samaritans, because they are hated in this life by the Jews" kind of stuff. If you are a Samaritan, perhaps you are meek, or poor, or merciful, etc.

The reward is not necessarily in this life. The part that IS in this life is investment in the promise, thus possessing the promise of blessedness (this is possession by faith) and this then uplifts the individual regardless of circumstance.

What do you think Jesus was meaning in these verses?

[Oscar_Kipling]

...
I would describe many of the issues in the constellation of "wokeness" as actually requiring a high and broad profile to effectively address even though the injured party as it were may be relatively small. For example the Jewish world population is tiny even compared to other small minorities like LGBTs, but to combat anti-Semitism you need to have broad acknowledgement and support far out of proportion to the size of the actual Jewish community. Basically any issues that involve long histories of discrimination, hate/apathy and oppression are like that. I think Jesus or the people that made Jesus up understood that often the only way to affect meaningful sustainable change for the least of us is to continuously prioritize and promote these minority and marginal issues, because they are among the easiest to ignore or forget. I think that campaigning against the spotlighting of the edge cases is to completely miss the depth of wisdom in Jesus' preoccupation with the least of us. Again, I do not know Jesus, I don't even think he's real, but this seems like part of the idea that the bible was trying to get across, am I wrong?

I don't want to say your wrong per se, but I don't think that was Jesus' motive or goal at all. Jesus was more about giving the least of us eternal HOPE, and not some place at the table in society. You have to remember that Jesus teaches us that there is judgment coming that will take care of injustices IN THIS LIFE, but that through faith in Him we may be adopted into the Family of God and attain eternal life.

Let's look at a passage from Jesus' sermon on the mount commonly referred to as "The Beattudes" and see if we can discern that or not.

Gospel of Matthew 8:1-12

And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.


In just reading what Jesus is recorded as saying straight through, do you get the sense that he is going to equal out the scales just after speaking? Or is the blessing more the hope of His promise?

Additionally, I don't think we see Jesus encouraging a sense of societal activism needed either. It just isn't there. Anyone in any group can be one of the people Jesus says is blessed. So it isn't "blessed are the Samaritans, because they are hated in this life by the Jews" kind of stuff. If you are a Samaritan, perhaps you are meek, or poor, or merciful, etc.

The reward is not necessarily in this life. The part that IS in this life is investment in the promise, thus possessing the promise of blessedness (this is possession by faith) and this then uplifts the individual regardless of circumstance.

What do you think Jesus was meaning in these verses?

Of course you are right, moreso than anything else Jesus was preoccupied with the life after life. You've correctly pointed out that Jesus definitely didn't say that he was going to lift a single finger to improve the lives of any of those poor, shy or sad people in this excerpt from the beatitudes. Nowhere in this excerpt does Jesus even imply that he or any of his followers should be socially active in any way or help anyone in any way or to do anything at all. Honestly this excerpt doesn't seem to be about what Jesus thinks people should do at all. It doesn't seem like the point of this excerpt is that the reader/listener walk away from it knowing how Jesus wants you to treat the the poor or the meek or the mourning. If this is all Jesus ever said or did on the matter I guess it would make some sense to conclude that Jesus didn't have an opinion on how we should behave in life because that would all be handled in post. I think I'd find the bible bits that are about how Jesus actually interacted with people to be more relevant to how Jesus thinks Christians should interact with people. Did Jesus ever meet any people and do anything or did he just talk about how dope the kingdom of heaven was gonna be? Did Jesus ever say anything that was prescriptive of behavior toward other people? On a related note, Does Jesus seem to go out of his way to mention poor sad folks and if so why?

Anyway, I want to reiterate that my criticism isn't that the Christians that aren't Christing correctly are doing it wrong because they aren't making moves out in these streets (I have my problems with an aloof inertness too, but that isn't what I'm on about here)...no, I believe that the argument that because a population is small and/or marginal that it shouldn't be treated with such importance or attention is unChristian. To be clear I'm not getting the impression that these folks are arguing that all human affairs in this life should be treated as unimportant because the kingdom of heaven is at hand; they seem to be saying that these particular issues are overblown because the groups are so small, not that all human concerns are overblown.

[Fenris]

I believe that the argument that because a population is small and/or marginal that it shouldn't be treated with such importance or attention is unChristian.

I'm not Christian so what I say on the topic can safely be ignored. But I don't think the issue is that "the trans population is small" and therefore ignored. Its more along the lines of it being a very contentious and complex issue and it isn't clear (to anybody, really) what the right solution is.

[Sojourner]

I believe that the argument that because a population is small and/or marginal that it shouldn't be treated with such importance or attention is unChristian.

I'm not Christian so what I say on the topic can safely be ignored. But I don't think the issue is that "the trans population is small" and therefore ignored. Its more along the lines of it being a very contentious and complex issue and it isn't clear (to anybody, really) what the right solution is.

There is no clear-cut solution. In the interim, however, trans activists and their supporters need to stop involving children in their agenda. They started out indoctrinating them in public schools and trying to normalize drag queens in public libraries. Now they're fighting for gender-affirming procedures for them. Kids are not equipped to make decisions about life-altering changes they may realize too late were ill-advised. It's bad enough that people are rebelling against God's natural order of things, but leave the kids alone. God's judgment upon this wayward world is impending.

[Athanasius]

I believe that the argument that because a population is small and/or marginal that it shouldn't be treated with such importance or attention is unChristian.

I'm not Christian so what I say on the topic can safely be ignored. But I don't think the issue is that "the trans population is small" and therefore ignored. Its more along the lines of it being a very contentious and complex issue and it isn't clear (to anybody, really) what the right solution is.

There is no clear-cut solution. In the interim, however, trans activists and their supporters need to stop involving children in their agenda. They started out indoctrinating them in public schools and trying to normalize drag queens in public libraries. Now they're fighting for gender-affirming procedures for them. Kids are not equipped to make decisions about life-altering changes they may realize too late were ill-advised. It's bad enough that people are rebelling against God's natural order of things, but leave the kids alone. God's judgment upon this wayward world is impending.

I would suggest the following:

- Leave kids alone
- Don't allow medical transition before X age and/or time in therapy
- Make therapy a requirement, again, of a "gender dysphoria" diagnosis
- Cut the cute language, like "top surgery", "bottom surgery", "gender-affirming"
- Gut the "trans umbrella"
- Recognise meaningful distinctions between TS, TV, CD, etc.
- Dissolve "non-binary" back into expression
- "Reclaim" a proper conception of identity
- Recognise the healthy ways in which people experience themselves (i.e. no one "feels like" a man or a woman)
- Re-ground "gender dysphoria" relative to sexed reality
- Dissolve "gender identity" back into self-understanding
- Stop talking about suicide, given it's a social contagion
- Stop talking about "trans" as if it's cool, or anything other than the horror experience it is

...and then, maybe that way, the ~0.05% of us who are lunatics can be left alone to go to the extremes that we do to have a quality of life, and everyone else can get the help that they need.

I didn't mention drag queens because drag queens aren't transsexual by definition.

[RabbiKnife]

Shaina Twain said famously, in her top hat and tails, "Man, I feel like a woman."

[Oscar_Kipling]

I believe that the argument that because a population is small and/or marginal that it shouldn't be treated with such importance or attention is unChristian.

I'm not Christian so what I say on the topic can safely be ignored. But I don't think the issue is that "the trans population is small" and therefore ignored. Its more along the lines of it being a very contentious and complex issue and it isn't clear (to anybody, really) what the right solution is.

Weird, I was specifically talking about Christians who have asserted to me that trans folks are a tiny fraction of the population therefore  its either not that important or it shouldn't be...so are you asserting that the people who say this actually meant to say that it's a contentious and complex issue therefore they don't know what to do about it? These folks are just really super bad at articulating their actual thoughts then?

Anyway of course it is a complicated set of issues that, and I think it is perfectly natural to find it confusing, discomforting or even threatening. I actually don't have any issue with people not knowing how to react of not having a solid answer on how or if they should react. I find that I tend to have issues with the folks/groups that act and believe that they absolutely know and have a rigid set of "solutions"

[Oscar_Kipling]

I believe that the argument that because a population is small and/or marginal that it shouldn't be treated with such importance or attention is unChristian.

I'm not Christian so what I say on the topic can safely be ignored. But I don't think the issue is that "the trans population is small" and therefore ignored. Its more along the lines of it being a very contentious and complex issue and it isn't clear (to anybody, really) what the right solution is.

There is no clear-cut solution. In the interim, however, trans activists and their supporters need to stop involving children in their agenda. They started out indoctrinating them in public schools and trying to normalize drag queens in public libraries. Now they're fighting for gender-affirming procedures for them. Kids are not equipped to make decisions about life-altering changes they may realize too late were ill-advised. It's bad enough that people are rebelling against God's natural order of things, but leave the kids alone. God's judgment upon this wayward world is impending.

I would suggest the following:

- Leave kids alone
- Don't allow medical transition before X age and/or time in therapy
- Make therapy a requirement, again, of a "gender dysphoria" diagnosis
- Cut the cute language, like "top surgery", "bottom surgery", "gender-affirming"
- Gut the "trans umbrella"
- Recognise meaningful distinctions between TS, TV, CD, etc.
- Dissolve "non-binary" back into expression
- "Reclaim" a proper conception of identity
- Recognise the healthy ways in which people experience themselves (i.e. no one "feels like" a man or a woman)
- Re-ground "gender dysphoria" relative to sexed reality
- Dissolve "gender identity" back into self-understanding
- Stop talking about suicide, given it's a social contagion
- Stop talking about "trans" as if it's cool, or anything other than the horror experience it is

...and then, maybe that way, the ~0.05% of us who are lunatics can be left alone to go to the extremes that we do to have a quality of life, and everyone else can get the help that they need.

I didn't mention drag queens because drag queens aren't transsexual by definition.

Seems like some pretty good stuff here, but as is my way, I wonder about some of your points.

Age and therapy requirements seem like reasonable enough margins , though the devil is in those details I imagine. Those points seem to be directed at minors, but you also say "leave kids alone", so what do you mean by that? Or I guess more specifically I wonder if you believe that there is any approach to the reality of trans and GD issues that is appropriate, healthy and helpful to children or do you mean that we should make every attempt to keep children ignorant of trans and GD issues until they are 18 years old...or you know, do you mean something else entirely.

What is the problem with cute language as you see it?

What falls under the trans umbrella that does not belong there in your opinion and why?

I'm not that plugged into the trans community, are they combining ts, tv & CD? and also in your view what is the difference between TV & CD?

What is a proper conception of identity and how does that differ from the improper one(s)?

I'm not super clear on what you mean by the healthy ways in which people experience themselves, I cannot tell if you are saying that it is healthy to disregard the idea that anyone feels like a man or woman or if that is an example of the problem as it were.

Again, is there no healthy useful way to talk about suicide, suicide prevention and intervention? Like I agree that people often have the tendency to toss out scary statistics in the hopes of motivating people, my favorite example is telling an auditorium full of black middle school boys that one of the boys next to them is statistically likely to be dead or in jail by their 18th birthday. I think crime/criminal activity has a socially contagious component as well, and I think that auditorium tactic is a bad tactic, but I also cannot agree that completely ignoring or never speaking of dangerous tendencies and distressing statistics within communities/cohorts is an effective way of handling or addressing these or any issues. I think it is a lot more useful to seek a deeper understanding of why these stats are as they are and attempt to address the behaviors and systems that promulgate these things..idk just what are you saying here?

I think most pride movements are flawed in that they are designed to combat negative societal views regarding this or that group, but they sort of end up crediting some congenital aspect of a person as a point of pride as opposed to engendering the slightly different but imo more healthy and reasonable self acceptance and self respect. They are close and there is so overlap, but being proud of being a particular race or whatever has always struck me as slightly off base. I'm more ambivalent on the coolness factor, I think that those prosthetic legs that they make for running/sprinting are definitely cool, I think that vitiligo looks cool especially when it results in say a patch of blonde hair in an otherwise brown haired person for instance. Surely both of these cool things come with some hardship to say the least, but must a person or a society reject the coolness of aspects of a condition in order to approach it with a healthy mindset? I think that perhaps it can become detrimental if it crosses over from appreciating this unique or unusual attribute into fetishising or idealizing it...but I do not think that is the same as coolness. Additionally while an accurate description of your expirience may very well be entirely horrific, but how certain are you that this is everyone's expirience or that it is the necessary trans GD expirience? Along those same lines, do you see any way that some of your suggestions might work to perpetuate some of the more horrific aspects of those with similar conditions? That's not a criticism, Its just that when i'm talking to you I sometimes wonder if you feel that some manner of torment is critical to a moral TG or GD life.

[Athanasius]

Age and therapy requirements seem like reasonable enough margins , though the devil is in those details I imagine. Those points seem to be directed at minors, but you also say "leave kids alone", so what do you mean by that? Or I guess more specifically I wonder if you believe that there is any approach to the reality of trans and GD issues that is appropriate, healthy and helpful to children or do you mean that we should make every attempt to keep children ignorant of trans and GD issues until they are 18 years old...or you know, do you mean something else entirely.

I mean that there's no such thing as "trans kids". There is no need to talk endlessly about the suicidality of "trans kids". There are certainly confused kids, and especially these days given the emphasis on gender, self-discovery, "you don't know unless you try", "some boys are, some girls are...", etc. At that stage in left, the best thing to do is either wait and see, or if a child is persistent enough, attend serious psychiatry/psychotherapy -- not the stuff of affirmation that goes on these days.

I'm not talking about keeping children ignorant or arbitrarily gatekeeping until age 18, or 25, or whenever. What I am saying is that if there is a "trans child", that child is ~5 out of every 1000. We absolutely do not have the numbers we see today, where the "trans umbrella" includes everyone and everything.

What is the problem with cute language as you see it?

It makes pretend that, say, a bilateral mastectomy is "top surgery". Cute language doesn't convey the seriousness of the surgery. "Bottom surgery" might involve things like phalloplasty, bilateral orchiectomy, penectomy, scrotectomy, etc.

What falls under the trans umbrella that does not belong there in your opinion and why?

"Trans" proper is predicated on a diagnosis of gender identity disorder, or "gender dysphoria". That, itself, must be evidenced by ongoing, long term, significant distress over one's sex. If it's not that, it doesn't belong.

I'm not that plugged into the trans community, are they combining ts, tv & CD? and also in your view what is the difference between TV & CD?

TV and CD are the same thing, and aren't TS, is what I'm getting at, and which is confused by the "community" for the same thing (just separated by degrees, or something).

What is a proper conception of identity and how does that differ from the improper one(s)?

It begins with the acknowledgement that identity isn't self-identified. Identity is a description. A tree is identified as a tree, and should it tell us it was a rock, we would have the point out the unfortunate facts of reality. Those same unfortunate facts of reality apply to humans, too. "How I feel inside" is one thing, "therefore that makes me how I feel" is quite another.

I'm not super clear on what you mean by the healthy ways in which people experience themselves, I cannot tell if you are saying that it is healthy to disregard the idea that anyone feels like a man or woman or if that is an example of the problem as it were.[/quote[

It's an example of the problem. People - mostly enbys - thinking that they don't feel like a man or a woman, therefore they're something else. There's a serious psychiatric difficulty that needs to be addressed, but non-binary is nonsense if the claim is ontic.

Like I agree that people often have the tendency to toss out scary statistics in the hopes of motivating people, my favorite example is telling an auditorium full of black middle school boys that one of the boys next to them is statistically likely to be dead or in jail by their 18th birthday. I think crime/criminal activity has a socially contagious component as well, and I think that auditorium tactic is a bad tactic, but I also cannot agree that completely ignoring or never speaking of dangerous tendencies and distressing statistics within communities/cohorts is an effective way of handling or addressing these or any issues. I think it is a lot more useful to seek a deeper understanding of why these stats are as they are and attempt to address the behaviors and systems that promulgate these things..idk just what are you saying here?

"Your daughter will kill herself unless you let her undergo top surgery and stop T."

The endless talk of suicidality, knowing that it can turn into a social contagion. There are healthy ways to talk about it, but putting it front and center as a catastrophising strategy is not that.

Additionally while an accurate description of your expirience may very well be entirely horrific, but how certain are you that this is everyone's expirience or that it is the necessary trans GD expirience?

Because that's the nature of "gender dysphoria". There's no pleasant experience of it, and anyone who claims otherwise immediately betrays a lack of experience. "Oh look, I hold beliefs about myself that aren't warranted, I can't trust myself, my sense of self is oncongruent, I'm experiencing intense ongoing distress -- teehee isn't it so fun!".

Along those same lines, do you see any way that some of your suggestions might work to perpetuate some of the more horrific aspects of those with similar conditions? That's not a criticism, Its just that when i'm talking to you I sometimes wonder if you feel that some manner of torment is critical to a moral TG or GD life.

It's fundamental to the experience. There's nothing fun about it, and may this horrible view be perpetuated if it stops young people - young girls especially - from "identifying" into it.