Things are getting ever more weirder

[Athanasius]

It wasn't a rhetorical tool of TRAs, but is a misguided attempt by people with BIID to latch onto the 'trans' umbrella. 'Transabled' has nothing to do with transsexuality or gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria, of course, but apparently 'trans' is a magic word to gain acceptance and legitimacy and 'vulnerable member' status ('trans' being the only such group you can voluntarily join). It's then pushed by TRAs as just more human diversity.

I almost wish I owned a Pontiac Trans-Am. I'd be pretty popular.

or, I know you are making a joke, but I do think it would be interesting to discuss "trans" prefix, its popularity, history, use. I think it would be really interesting  to find out if people here think that "trans" is being attached to things in order to siphon some legitimacy / popularity / sympathy / momentum from the transgender community in order to proliferate other ideas like BIID. I mean there is probably some of that I'd bet. Personally I think that trans people and the concept of transgender are being used much more frequently as a wedge to open the LGBT debate back up again. I watched it become less and less effective for folks to cast gay people as boogey men, pardon, boogeypeople that wanted to do something gross and damaging to your children...Like could you imagine a fear mongering argument where a gay but cis 18 year old hs senior kid that showers with your tender impressionable 14 year old freshman kid gains the kind of traction that a trans person using the same restroom does today? Trans people can still get cast as sex monsters along with drag queens and pedophiles as all basically the same thing. The folks that want to can get the foot back in the door for moral panic about all sorts of sexual deviants that have carte blanche in our society that is well into the throes of moral decay.  So, idk if you think that other weirdos are glomming onto the trans community so they can poke out their eyes  or replace their legs with carbon fiber prosthetics because it's hip, cool and popular like a trans am used to be (more of a 280z man myself), but I think that there is at least some faction of the anti's that are in the business of magnifying the spotlight and attention on the trans community because it actually benefits their aims and goals of either using moral outrage and panic for general cynical power, or to win hearts and minds to the cause of sloppily squeezing the T's along with the LGB's back into the shadows.

There's "trans", the umbrella term. Then there is "trans" as in "transsexual", your classic GID diagnosed loves the binary can't stand Mulvaney individual. "Trans" the umbrella term is host to many, many parasites, abusers, predators, rapists, etc. It's such an umbrella term so as to be meaningless.

What'll be interesting is transsexuals vs the "trans" community.

[Athanasius]

Could you explain what it that makes BIID a mental illness and what makes GD not a mental illness? Anyway I hope I didn't yammer too much, this is a legit interesting topic for me so thanks for discussing it with me.

Someone with BIID wishes to self-harm, and let's say me with GD, does not. I'm probably splitting hairs concerning 'disorder' vs 'illness', so we could use 'mental illness' for both if you really wanted.

[Oscar_Kipling]

It wasn't a rhetorical tool of TRAs, but is a misguided attempt by people with BIID to latch onto the 'trans' umbrella. 'Transabled' has nothing to do with transsexuality or gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria, of course, but apparently 'trans' is a magic word to gain acceptance and legitimacy and 'vulnerable member' status ('trans' being the only such group you can voluntarily join). It's then pushed by TRAs as just more human diversity.

I almost wish I owned a Pontiac Trans-Am. I'd be pretty popular.

or, I know you are making a joke, but I do think it would be interesting to discuss "trans" prefix, its popularity, history, use. I think it would be really interesting  to find out if people here think that "trans" is being attached to things in order to siphon some legitimacy / popularity / sympathy / momentum from the transgender community in order to proliferate other ideas like BIID. I mean there is probably some of that I'd bet. Personally I think that trans people and the concept of transgender are being used much more frequently as a wedge to open the LGBT debate back up again. I watched it become less and less effective for folks to cast gay people as boogey men, pardon, boogeypeople that wanted to do something gross and damaging to your children...Like could you imagine a fear mongering argument where a gay but cis 18 year old hs senior kid that showers with your tender impressionable 14 year old freshman kid gains the kind of traction that a trans person using the same restroom does today? Trans people can still get cast as sex monsters along with drag queens and pedophiles as all basically the same thing. The folks that want to can get the foot back in the door for moral panic about all sorts of sexual deviants that have carte blanche in our society that is well into the throes of moral decay.  So, idk if you think that other weirdos are glomming onto the trans community so they can poke out their eyes  or replace their legs with carbon fiber prosthetics because it's hip, cool and popular like a trans am used to be (more of a 280z man myself), but I think that there is at least some faction of the anti's that are in the business of magnifying the spotlight and attention on the trans community because it actually benefits their aims and goals of either using moral outrage and panic for general cynical power, or to win hearts and minds to the cause of sloppily squeezing the T's along with the LGB's back into the shadows.

There's "trans", the umbrella term. Then there is "trans" as in "transsexual", your classic GID diagnosed loves the binary can't stand Mulvaney individual. "Trans" the umbrella term is host to many, many parasites, abusers, predators, rapists, etc. It's such an umbrella term so as to be meaningless.

What'll be interesting is transsexuals vs the "trans" community.

I think we are much further into the weeds with "trans" as a catch all prefix that evokes the idea of a scary weirdo that wants to corrupt your children because as children they themselves were basically twisted and corrupted into science experiments created by Dr. Moreau-esque hedo-marxist parents through secular abuse, arbitrary hormone injections and prepubescent mastectomies. I think that if the transable label is seeing any real resurgence it is because there are parties interested in playing on people like OP's feeling that all this "trans" stuff is spinning way out of control more than any actual people that identify as any sort of trans(insert-whatever) actually building ideological momentum. I think "trans" is actually a super useful prefix, and its current apparent threadbareness is due mostly to people trying to wring every ounce of fear and shock value out of it to keep folks up in arms about how big of a deal it is to them personally that a tiny fraction of the population was saddled with a very tricky set of circumstances. I don't think i'm disagreeing with you as it were so much as asserting that there is a significant amount of air being put in this balloon by folks who want a big scary balloon to point at.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Could you explain what it that makes BIID a mental illness and what makes GD not a mental illness? Anyway I hope I didn't yammer too much, this is a legit interesting topic for me so thanks for discussing it with me.

Someone with BIID wishes to self-harm, and let's say me with GD, does not. I'm probably splitting hairs concerning 'disorder' vs 'illness', so we could use 'mental illness' for both if you really wanted.

Yeah, I see where you are coming from. I tend to find myself doing something similar when thinking about how an audience might empathize in one case and disparage in the other, when in my mind it fundamentally doesn't change the underlying reasoning for me...or more usually how I think we should behave in reaction to the reality of people being who and how they are. Anyway It's not so much that I just want to use this or that term, It's more that for me it's a distinction without a difference, or that it is not truly what distinguishes the two and I was curious about how it might be a meaningful distinction for you. As I said I think that the functionality argument is meaningful and reasonably defensible. Additionally I think gender and ability are 2 different classes of things...just harder for me to articulate much less defend that.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Is this really a topic that none of you other folks have thoughts on? or is it that you'd rather not discuss this with me because of my temperament?

[RabbiKnife]

Except for my discussions with one friend on this issue, it really is of no concern to me at all except for the way it is being used by the left to vilify Christians who oppose its normalization and indoctrination in the public schools.

For pity sake, it's .003% or less of the US population.

There are more left handed red headed chiropractors than that.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Except for my discussions with one friend on this issue, it really is of no concern to me at all except for the way it is being used by the left to vilify Christians who oppose its normalization and indoctrination in the public schools.

For pity sake, it's .003% or less of the US population.

There are more left handed red headed chiropractors than that.

Well, yep I agree they are a minority in the truest sense of the word. Can you tell me more about the way it is being used by the left to vilify Christians who oppose its normalization and indoctrination in the public schools. I'm not trying to pretend that i'm not aware of christians (and those that don't identify themselves as christians) being vilified for opposing this or the other thing course, I'd just like to get a better sense of how you are seeing this situation. obviously I find it difficult to view the opposition as limited, proportionate and well, anything less than a campaign to keep an admittedly miniscule group powerless, silent and invisible. I not asking you to convince me or defend your feelings; I see these people in opposition and reason that if they are able to impose or maintain the social/cultural/legal limits that they desire then the outcomes will be inequitable and or oppressive for this population, making these people effectively villainous..I surmise that you feel this reasoning is faulty in some way, but I do not know where.

[Sojourner]

obviously I find it difficult to view the opposition as limited, proportionate and well, anything less than a campaign to keep an admittedly miniscule group powerless, silent and invisible. I see these people in opposition and reason that if they are able to impose or maintain the social/cultural/legal limits that they desire then the outcomes will be inequitable and or oppressive for this population, making these people effectively villainous..I surmise that you feel this reasoning is faulty in some way, but I do not know where.

People can "identify" as they choose, with biology a moot point. There are now laws that permit transgenders to use the rest room of their choice, biology a moot point. A vast number of institutions, agencies and media outlets are in lock step in using and promoting gender-neutral pronouns, biology and rules of grammar both a moot point. Most also now have an office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, gunning for transphobes who dare express the wrong opinion.

A man identifying as a woman can marry a woman identifying as a man, and vice versa. Biological males are now competing in women's sports and beauty contests, and winning prestigious women's awards. The military now welcomes transgenderism within its ranks. Public libraries are lining up for the opportunity to allow drag queen story hour for children, and public school systems are encouraging kids to explore transgenderism both through curriculum and books that border on the pornographic.

I know that many traditionalists like myself hold a dim view of transgender ideology--in the sanctity of conscience and personal perspective, thank you. In that sense, I am in fact in opposition. But in your view, are transgenders being oppressed? Aside from nominal opposition to biological males unfairly competing against females in sports, what limitations are being imposed on them? In what ways do you see them in danger of being kept "powerless, silent, and invisible?" Seems to me the current impetus of the trans agenda makes it a ubiquitous juggernaut.

[Oscar_Kipling]

People can "identify" as they choose, with biology a moot point. There are now laws that permit transgenders to use the rest room of their choice, biology a moot point. A vast number of institutions, agencies and media outlets are in lock step in using and promoting gender-neutral pronouns, biology and rules of grammar both a moot point. Most also now have an office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, gunning for transphobes who dare express the wrong opinion.

A man identifying as a woman can marry a woman identifying as a man, and vice versa. Biological males are now competing in women's sports and beauty contests, and winning prestigious women's awards. The military now welcomes transgenderism within its ranks. Public libraries are lining up for the opportunity to allow drag queen story hour for children, and public school systems are encouraging kids to explore transgenderism both through curriculum and books that border on the pornographic.

I'm taking for granted that these are examples of things that christians oppose and you believe they are unfairly vilified for. if this is somehow inaccurate feel free to correct me. If the Christians that oppose these things could modify or eliminate them do you believe that they would, and if so in what ways? Could you provide an example of one or more opinion(s) that an EDI might punish a person for that you believe should be comfortably in the range of "ideas people should be able to express in a workplace environment without repercussions". Do you believe that drag queens and trans women are basically interchangeable?

Not for nothing I'd also like to address a few things that I think are either inaccurate or could be inaccurate depending on how you meant  them. For instance that people can "identify" as they wish, in the sense that anyone can self identify as anything and no one can really stop them, well, yes and that was always true. If you meant it in the sense that you can have any documents and identification changed based on how you feel inside I would say that this is not true, legally. Additionally it is true that there are some states and municipalities with laws that allow and protect people's choice to use the restroom/similar facilities of the gender that they identify as, but there are also states and municipalities that have laws that ban, criminalize or limit this. Additionally it seems that many if not most places have not laws that address it at all, so idk if that just means Air Bud rules or not.  I also do not think it is a nitpick to challenge or at least seek clarification on the idea that most institutions, agencies and media outlets have EDI's, but that could depend on how broadly you define agencies and institutions. I get the impression that you just want to impress upon me that you feel that the general momentum is in the direction of growing EDI , yes? Anyway, because I initiated hoping to explore the idea that those in opposition in many cases are working to modify or eliminate the sorts of things you listed, I think that it is important to note that there is legislation at some step of the process in many places that is directed at modifying, limiting  or eliminating most if not all of those things. 


 

I know that many traditionalists like myself hold a dim view of transgender ideology--in the sanctity of conscience and personal perspective, thank you. In that sense, I am in fact in opposition. But in your view, are transgenders being oppressed? Aside from nominal opposition to biological males unfairly competing against females in sports, what limitations are being imposed on them? In what ways do you see them in danger of being kept "powerless, silent, and invisible?" Seems to me the current impetus of the trans agenda makes it a ubiquitous juggernaut.

In my view many trans people still face discrimination, marginalization, disrespect, violence and so on. Again though, to my purpose, I wanted to gain a better understanding of why it is somehow unsound or unfair to consider it villainous of those in opposition to work to set things back to some previous status quo. In other words the level of oppression being currently faced by trans people is irrelevant to the reaction and characterization of those that oppose and seek to roll back the current status quo.

What I get from your post is a real sense that you feel like you (and many other traditionalists) are on the losing side of this battle and you cannot quite see why the winning side would be so intent on kicking a downed man into the road to be trampled by gorillas. If so, and your entire position is that you don't think it would be fair of the left to vilify traditionalists who only want to shake their fist and be kind curmudgeonly about these kids with their pronouns, then yeah I think there is definitely room to modulate down from villainy quite a bit. However I do not get the sense that the opposition is just suing for peace with the hope of getting more favorable surrender conditions. Is it inaccurate to say that the opposition is actually doing more than just working to preserve their personal perspective on these things, do they not seek to have an effect in the world outside of holding opinions?

[Sojourner]

People can "identify" as they choose, with biology a moot point. There are now laws that permit transgenders to use the rest room of their choice, biology a moot point. A vast number of institutions, agencies and media outlets are in lock step in using and promoting gender-neutral pronouns, biology and rules of grammar both a moot point. Most also now have an office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, gunning for transphobes who dare express the wrong opinion.

A man identifying as a woman can marry a woman identifying as a man, and vice versa. Biological males are now competing in women's sports and beauty contests, and winning prestigious women's awards. The military now welcomes transgenderism within its ranks. Public libraries are lining up for the opportunity to allow drag queen story hour for children, and public school systems are encouraging kids to explore transgenderism both through curriculum and books that border on the pornographic.

I'm taking for granted that these are examples of things that christians oppose and you believe they are unfairly vilified for. if this is somehow inaccurate feel free to correct me. If the Christians that oppose these things could modify or eliminate them do you believe that they would, and if so in what ways? Could you provide an example of one or more opinion(s) that an EDI might punish a person for that you believe should be comfortably in the range of "ideas people should be able to express in a workplace environment without repercussions". Do you believe that drag queens and trans women are basically interchangeable?

Not for nothing I'd also like to address a few things that I think are either inaccurate or could be inaccurate depending on how you meant  them. For instance that people can "identify" as they wish, in the sense that anyone can self identify as anything and no one can really stop them, well, yes and that was always true. If you meant it in the sense that you can have any documents and identification changed based on how you feel inside I would say that this is not true, legally. Additionally it is true that there are some states and municipalities with laws that allow and protect people's choice to use the restroom/similar facilities of the gender that they identify as, but there are also states and municipalities that have laws that ban, criminalize or limit this. Additionally it seems that many if not most places have not laws that address it at all, so idk if that just means Air Bud rules or not.  I also do not think it is a nitpick to challenge or at least seek clarification on the idea that most institutions, agencies and media outlets have EDI's, but that could depend on how broadly you define agencies and institutions. I get the impression that you just want to impress upon me that you feel that the general momentum is in the direction of growing EDI , yes? Anyway, because I initiated hoping to explore the idea that those in opposition in many cases are working to modify or eliminate the sorts of things you listed, I think that it is important to note that there is legislation at some step of the process in many places that is directed at modifying, limiting  or eliminating most if not all of those things. 


 

I know that many traditionalists like myself hold a dim view of transgender ideology--in the sanctity of conscience and personal perspective, thank you. In that sense, I am in fact in opposition. But in your view, are transgenders being oppressed? Aside from nominal opposition to biological males unfairly competing against females in sports, what limitations are being imposed on them? In what ways do you see them in danger of being kept "powerless, silent, and invisible?" Seems to me the current impetus of the trans agenda makes it a ubiquitous juggernaut.

In my view many trans people still face discrimination, marginalization, disrespect, violence and so on. Again though, to my purpose, I wanted to gain a better understanding of why it is somehow unsound or unfair to consider it villainous of those in opposition to work to set things back to some previous status quo. In other words the level of oppression being currently faced by trans people is irrelevant to the reaction and characterization of those that oppose and seek to roll back the current status quo.

What I get from your post is a real sense that you feel like you (and many other traditionalists) are on the losing side of this battle and you cannot quite see why the winning side would be so intent on kicking a downed man into the road to be trampled by gorillas. If so, and your entire position is that you don't think it would be fair of the left to vilify traditionalists who only want to shake their fist and be kind curmudgeonly about these kids with their pronouns, then yeah I think there is definitely room to modulate down from villainy quite a bit. However I do not get the sense that the opposition is just suing for peace with the hope of getting more favorable surrender conditions. Is it inaccurate to say that the opposition is actually doing more than just working to preserve their personal perspective on these things, do they not seek to have an effect in the world outside of holding opinions?

Unless you're talking thought crimes, I don't see the harm in being opposed to what I believe defies logic and common sense. Nor do I see the abject oppression and persecution against trans people you do. As I said, people are free to identify as whatever they choose. In fact, it's those who openly oppose trans ideology that are under the gun. Ask J K Rowling or Richard Dawkins. Dawkins recently had his humanist of the year award revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science. The guy is an evolutionary biologist, for Pete's sake. But he was thrown under the bus for not dancing to the piper's tune.

I truly and honestly don't care what people do as long I'm not expected to be in the cheering section. I don't believe gender is "fluid" and don't feel I'm a villain for having an opinion that's politically incorrect. And no, I have no desire to roll things back to the way they used to be--even if that were possible. One day Jesus will return to sort things out and set things right. That's good enough for me.

As far as the subtle nuances between a drag queen and a trans woman, let's look at Dylan Mulvaney. He is a biological male, seems to have no intentions of undergoing sexual reassignment surgery, and simply chooses to wear makeup and dress like a female. I don't see a functional difference between that and a transvestite or a drag queen. The guy has a penis and testicles, but thinks folks should be arrested for "misgendering him?" Whatever.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Unless you're talking thought crimes, I don't see the harm in being opposed to what I believe defies logic and common sense. Nor do I see the abject oppression and persecution against trans people you do. As I said, people are free to identify as whatever they choose. In fact, it's those who openly oppose trans ideology that are under the gun. Ask J K Rowling or Richard Dawkins. Dawkins recently had his humanist of the year award revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science. The guy is an evolutionary biologist, for Pete's sake. But he was thrown under the bus for not dancing to the piper's tune.

well, as I said if the extent of your opposition is simply holding a personal opinion, then I agree that there is good reason attenuate the characterization proportionally. I wouldn't consider folks like you that just want personally disagree to be as detrimental as those that actually want to effect change, although I will maintain that if those opinions are expressed, that is to say they exit your mind in the form of words or actions then there is the potential that they can cause some harm. If you feel that my answer of "In my view many trans people still face discrimination, marginalization, disrespect, violence and so on" is equivalent to me asserting the abject oppression and persecution of trans people, then while I probably wouldn't characterize it that way I understand that you do. It does make me wonder how you have failed to chance across even a single reported instance of each of those items, but alright, you don't see any of that stuff happening to trans people.

I don't think that it is accurate to say that Dawkins had his humanist of the year award revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science. What he actually said was "In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.". I only bother to point this out because your depiction would suggest that a bonafide scientist stated a scientific opinion within his area of expertise and was excoriated for it by the AHA despite its scientific validity. Anyway there is no denying that publicly expressing views that are interpreted as phobic, bigoted, insensitive and so on can invite any number of consequences. Since you have contextualized your unfamiliarity with abject oppression and persecution of trans people with what I take to be a contrasting example of abject oppression and persecution of those in opposition, I think it would be fair to point out that people that freely choose to identify as whatever they choose or those that ally with or publicly support them are not always free from the kind of criticism and social consequences that Dawkins and Rowling have experienced. For example this whole Bud Light / Dylan Mulvaney brouhaha, To be fair I'm not aware of any awards that have been revoked from anyone who came out as trans or an ally, but I doubt award revocation is where you draw the line. All that to say that if your standard candle for oppression and persecution is the likes of what Dawkins and Rowling faced then I stand by the sentiment that many trans people still face oppression and persecution with even greater confidence.

I truly and honestly don't care what people do as long I'm not expected to be in the cheering section. I don't believe gender is "fluid" and don't feel I'm a villain for having an opinion that's politically incorrect. And no, I have no desire to roll things back to the way they used to be--even if that were possible. One day Jesus will return to sort things out and set things right. That's good enough for me.

Again I agree that simply holding your opinion and abstaining from cheering while having no desire to effect change is not what i'd class as villainous behavior. As I saw it, we started this discussion with your problem being that Christians are being vilified for opposing trans normalization and indoctrination in the public schools. While your implementation of opposition is imo relatively benign, I'm not certain that it's is your implementation that is fueling the vilinization, but instead it may be other Christians that take a less passive or inert approach to opposition. It sucks that you and other functionally inanimate Christians get lumped in with the Christians that are more vigorous or active in the world at all, but I can only offer the weak defense that we often expect a person's beliefs to influence their activity in the world. May I ask, If you were to express your opinion to others and they react by criticising and denouncing you opinion, would you consider that to also be vilification or persecution?

As far as the subtle nuances between a drag queen and a trans woman, let's look at Dylan Mulvaney. He is a biological male, seems to have no intentions of undergoing sexual reassignment surgery, and simply chooses to wear makeup and dress like a female. I don't see a functional difference between that and a transvestite or a drag queen. The guy has a penis and testicles, but thinks folks should be arrested for "misgendering him?" Whatever.

I'm going to have to take your word on basically all of this because I do not know anything about Dylan's genitals, position on SRS or desired consequences for misgendering. You seem to know some details about Dylan, you informed yourself there, but seem to lack any interest in informing yourself about the distinctions between transgender and transvestite. If I were to criticize you for this apparent interest in one type of minutiae and disinterest in the other, would you consider that to be unfair vilinization or persecution of some sort? 

alright to sum it all up for me, I think you've essentially said that all you want is to be free to hold opinions, but take any actions based upon them or even express them so far as I can tell. You also do not want to have to actively celebrate things that you don't want to. You believe that it would be unfair for you to be vilified for this. I have to ask,have you been vilified for holding unstated opinions? Have you been vilified for quietly abstaining from a celebration?

[RabbiKnife]

Why does only one side have to stay quiet to avoid vilification?

[Oscar_Kipling]

Why does only one side have to stay quiet to avoid vilification?

Edit: because I didn't pay attention to who I was speaking to and incorrectly attributed positions/statements .


well, fortunately or unfortunately that isn't true. If anyone of any side simply has an opinion, they are in no danger of anyone having any reaction to it unless they actually state it. this is true for everyone. If you say or do anything there is the chance that someone won't like it and let you know this and form an opinion of you, perhaps make a thread or a video about how you have all of these awful views.

[Sojourner]

I don't think that it is accurate to say that Dawkins had his humanist of the year award revoked because he had the audacity to say the ideology is not supported by science. What he actually said was "In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss."

Dawkins also said, “But when trans people insist that you say she is a woman, you redefine something. If you define a woman as a human with an XX karyotype, then she’s not a woman. If you define a woman as someone who identifies as a woman, feels they are a woman and has maybe had an operation, then by that definition she is a woman. From a scientific point of view, she’s not a woman. From a personal point of view, she is.”

So Dawkins' position is that if a biological male identifies as a woman he will extend the courtesy of calling him a "her," but from a purely scientific point of view, a trans woman cannot truly be defined as a woman. If you don't feel that equates to saying science doesn't support the ideology, why not? And if the AHA did not deem his position to be demeaning to the trans community, why in your opinion did it revoke Dawkins' award?

[RabbiKnife]

I tend to abhor labels applied to groups
And in reality, this entire subject bores me beyond words

I’ll speak the truth as I understand it to be revealed in scripture and if some one else is offended by that truth then they will just have to deal with it

I expect people that are not Christians to vilify and speak Evelius if Jesus and his followers, so not biggie