User talk:FuzzyCatPotato/The Biblical position on transgenderism

A few points:
1. It's transsexuality (trans+sexuality, not tran(ny)sexuality).
2. Your article assumes that trans women are effeminate men as opposed legitimate women who happen to have a body with certain traits typically associated with male bodies.
3. That the two people God initially created were of two particular sexes/genders doesn't inherently condemn people from the present day who don't identify with those sexes/genders.
141.134.75.236 02:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

1: Thanks.

2: First, I'm not supporting these views. These are views that I have seen on the internet. Second, the idea behind the Christian argument is that transsexuals seek to change their gender identity, which requires changing masculinity or femininity. (That a male transsexual woman is attempting to be "feminine" and a female transsexual man is attempting to be "masculine".) Regardless of its truth, it is an interpretation of the Bible.

3: First, again, I'm not supporting these views. These are views that I have seen on the internet. Second, the argument that Christians make has two parts: (P1) God's creation is good, (P2) that (presumeably only) non-transsexual males and females are part of God's creation, and therefore (C1) that only males and females are good. Apparently the generational distance from Adam and Eve is irrelevant, as it is in "original sin". Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 02:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

2: Except that transsexuals/transgender people aren't trying to change their identity, they try to change the stuff that clashes with their identity. Sometimes they decide to undergo certain body modifications and while some may argue that that'd be wrong because "the body is sacred" or somesuch, that still wouldn't mean they can't present and express themselves as the gender they identify as. People aren't born with clothes on, after all. One might invoke the Bible's condemnation of transvestism here, but again, if people are accepted as legitimate members of the gender they identify as regardless of the genitals they were born with, then the ban on transvestism would actually require them to wear the clothes that correspond to their gender. The central issue here is whether one considers people's sex or people's gender as most essential. Though for me the answer seems obvious; if we consider one's gender as 'the sex of the soul', then of course gender is more essential, isn't it?

3: Well if you exclude trans men and women from God's creation beforehand, then of course it follows that they're not a part of it. That's just begging the question. If the Bible doesn't even make it clear whether it's talking about gender or sex however, how can we even assume that the difference between trans women and cis women and between trans men and cis men is relevant to God? At most, you might see the "male and female" thing as condemning non-binary genders, though that still relies on the assumption that only things directly created by God and things sufficiently identical to God's creations are 'good', which seems kinda doubtful. 141.134.75.236 05:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorporated point 3. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 15:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

One more point (in reference to the intro): While the Bible clearly condemns sexual relations between men, it never explicitly condemns lesbian acts. Romans 1:26-27 is often quoted, however, it only describes women committing "unnatural relations". It then describes men abandoning natural relations with women and being inflamed with lust for one another. While this implies that the Bible considers homosexuality as the 'typical' unnatural relationship for men, it doesn't follow that this is necessarily also true for women. Also noteworthy is that these unnatural relations are a direct punishment from God. Here's the full story:

“”The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. Likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Interesting fact: Many American Christians worship God imagining him as a human (either an old bearded man in the sky or a glorified image of a white man that's supposedly Jesus, or both). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Changed intro. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 15:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Crossdressers

I disagree with your effeminate men interpretation of the Deuteronomy quote: Deuteronomy 22:5: "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

Surely this means that God hates cross-dressers of whatever sex? (Presumably he hates women in trousers too.)--Coffee (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 15:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

This has me wondering whether God is bigender/genderfluid and/or a hermaphrodite. Maybe God's a self-hating transgender or intersex person? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Nonono, god created *man* -- just Adam, who was so heterosexual that it hurt. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but that's assuming that the first part of Genesis and the second part belong together. Many translations use "mankind" or "humans" here instead of "man" (which can also have those meanings btw). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly, Elohim is plural, so maybe the implication is merely that the "Gods" in question included both male and female deities. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You're saying words that imply God wasn't a straight white Republican male. Heresy! FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As .236 pointed out, this passage is a remnant of the older, poly-/henotheist Judaism with the retcon/reinterpretation not being thorough enough to have removed the plural. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, per this quote from the Holy! Bible, representing God as a straight white Republican man is heresy! Really, that section of Romans is far more applicable to American fundies than to gay people. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)