Transgender Discussion Thread III: Vote in our poll!

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Crossdressing is condemned. Castration is mocked. Men are told to act like men and women like women.
What more exactly do you need to understand that what you're calling sex-change is considered sinful given that it isn't actually changing the sex of the person and thus doesn't make the three previously mentioned points mutt as the people who undergo this surgery will still be violating them all?

Entirely irrelevant. The point made was that SRS itself is sinful. I am asking how the hell it can be if there are no references to SRS in the Bible. Crossdressing, castrastion, and way of acting are distinct from SRS.

It is the intention of the text, not the letter of the text itself.

Even St. Paul made it clear that men behaving like men and women behaving like women was pleasing to God (even if you don't want to include the verse about homosexuality for whatever reason) so the intent is rather clear, anything that deviates from it is sinful according to Pauline doctrine.

Now, you can reject Paul's commentary, but if you are of the many people around the world who follow tradition and Paul's commentary as doctrine, then it is pretty hard to argue and belabor a point that he clearly makes when talking about gendered relations.

[The New California Republic]

So guesswork is the source, then. Gotcha. That tells me everything I need to know. Thanks guys!

More like an educated guess based on things that have already been condemned.

That could just as easily be wrong, and likely not worth its salt in terms of making any hardline decisions with, such as whether SRS is a sin or not.

Even St. Paul made it clear that men behaving like men and women behaving like women was pleasing to God (even if you don't want to include the verse about homosexuality for whatever reason) so the intent is rather clear, anything that deviates from it is sinful according to Pauline doctrine.

One they have had SRS, they will be a man behaving like a man, or a woman behaving like a woman...?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I have to ask for a quick synopsis of the cotton ceiling. If anyone here could be so kind.

[The New California Republic]

I have to ask for a quick synopsis of the cotton ceiling. If anyone here could be so kind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_ceiling

[Aellex]

So guesswork is the source, then. Gotcha. That tells me everything I need to know. Thanks guys!

"You see, cheating on someone online isn't explicitly condemned by the Bible so it's totally not sinful! I mean, yes, sure, the act of Adultery itself is condemned multiple times and Jesus says that he would rather pierce his own eye than look lustily with it at the wife of someone else with it but, you see, none of these references deal explicitly with the "online" bit because internet didn't exist at the time so, clearly, it must mean that it's absolutely ok!"

[Seangoli]

Who says that our interpretations are right, then?

Because the Bible says that people should act like the gender God gave them. That's how I know.

The bible says a lot of things about a lot of things that adherents to the faith choose to ignore, or loosely interpret for their own purpises. Proselytizing on the street corner and public displays of faith are expressly stated as being not only frowned upon, but possibly sinful in their own right, yet you would find very few Christians who object to it. Matthew 6:1-34 rather explicitely states that calling attention to your faith and acts as a Christian will effectively damn you, yet there is no end to that behavior from Christians, and it is rather conveniently ignored.


Ultimately, the passages you decide to ignore or follow is your choice, but claiming strict adherence is near impossible. I find choosing a looser interpretation of Leviticus or the like no worse than the rather loose adherence to Matthew, Luke, etc. that most Christians follow.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

That could just as easily be wrong, and likely not worth its salt in terms of making any hardline decisions with, such as whether SRS is a sin or not.

How could it easily be wrong?

[The New California Republic]

So guesswork is the source, then. Gotcha. That tells me everything I need to know. Thanks guys!

"You see, cheating on someone online isn't explicitly condemned by the Bible so it's totally not sinful! I mean, yes, sure, the act of Adultery itself is condemned multiple times and Jesus says that he would rather pierce his own eye than look lustily with it at the wife of someone else with it but, you see, none of these references deal explicitly with the "online" bit because internet didn't exist at the time so, clearly, it must mean that it's absolutely ok!"

Linking adultery to cheating is a bit different from linking castration and crossdressing to SRS.

That could just as easily be wrong, and likely not worth its salt in terms of making any hardline decisions with, such as whether SRS is a sin or not.

How could it easily be wrong?

Because when something is based on assumption there is a good chance that it could easily be wrong.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

More like an educated guess based on things that have already been condemned.

That could just as easily be wrong, and likely not worth its salt in terms of making any hardline decisions with, such as whether SRS is a sin or not.

Even St. Paul made it clear that men behaving like men and women behaving like women was pleasing to God (even if you don't want to include the verse about homosexuality for whatever reason) so the intent is rather clear, anything that deviates from it is sinful according to Pauline doctrine.

One they have had SRS, they will be a man behaving like a man, or a woman behaving like a woman...?

According to Pauline doctrine it'd be a man behaving like a woman, because you are seeking to behave like one and have the body of one.

Now, that doesn't mean you have to accept Pauline doctrine, I'm just saying that since most Christians accept it, it is rather hard to convince a conservative Christian who accepts Paul's premises that something that is clearly a sin is not a sin. Because Paul was very clear on this issue.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Because when something is based on assumption there is a good chance that it could easily be wrong.

The subject doesn’t exactly leave much fucking wriggle room, the margin for error is pretty fucking small in this case.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

It’s too fucking late for this shit, I’m going to bed, I’ll see if I bother replying to anything tomorrow.

[Aellex]

Linking adultery to cheating is a bit different from linking castration and crossdressing to SRS.

How so, tho? It's essentially what you're doing. You're removing your genitals and then acting out the part of the other sex you'd rather be.

[The New California Republic]

Because when something is based on assumption there is a good chance that it could easily be wrong.

The subject doesn’t exactly leave much fucking wriggle room, the margin for error is pretty fucking small in this case.

I beg to differ. There is a world of difference between condemning the acts of castration and crossdressing referred to in the Bible, and condemning a complex surgical intervention to completely change one's gender. I'd say there was a whole lot of "fucking" wiggle room there...

Linking adultery to cheating is a bit different from linking castration and crossdressing to SRS.

How so, tho? It's essentially what you're doing. You're removing your genitals and then acting out the part of the other sex you'd rather be.

Not really. Castration and crossdressing are entirely different to SRS. As I said before, SRS is a complex surgical intervention to change one's gender. Castration is testicle removal to create a eunuch to stop sexual desire, and crossdressing isn't surgery. It is a pretty big fucking leap to go from condemning castration and crossdressing with Bible passages to condemning SRS with nothing but guesswork and assumption.

According to Pauline doctrine it'd be a man behaving like a woman, because you are seeking to behave like one and have the body of one.

And that is the crux of the argument, and why we likely will never agree on this one.

[Aellex]

One they have had SRS, they will be a man behaving like a man, or a woman behaving like a woman...?

No they won't...?

[The New California Republic]

One they have had SRS, they will be a man behaving like a man, or a woman behaving like a woman...?

No they won't...?

Oh, right, you are someone that thinks that a man after SRS is still a man, and a woman after SRS is still a woman. OK. Sure.

[Vassenor]

No they won't...?

Oh, right, you are someone that thinks that a man after SRS is still a man, and a woman after SRS is still a woman. OK. Sure.

Biological essentialism makes my head spin just because of the sheer degree of mental gymnastics needed to make it work.

[Bienenhalde]

Galatians has Paul mocking castration, cross-dressing is forbidden expressively both morally and judicially in the bit of my original quote you cut and the Bible repeatedly condemn "men acting like women and women acting like men".

[citation needed]

[Vassenor]

Logically, isn't dressing as the gender you identify as not actually crossdressing though?

[The New California Republic]

Logically, isn't dressing as the gender you identify as not actually crossdressing though?

Exactly. But I'm sure that wouldn't matter one bit if the Bible is being used to judge that.

[Aellex]

Not really. Castration and crossdressing are entirely different to SRS. As I said before, SRS is a complex surgical intervention to change one's gender. Castration is testicle removal to create a eunuch to stop sexual desire, and crossdressing isn't surgery. It is a pretty big fucking leap to go from condemning castration and crossdressing with Bible passages to condemning SRS with nothing but guesswork and assumption.

SRS is a complex surgical intervention that consist in removing one's genital and then twisting the flesh to look cosmetically to some extent like the opposite sex's one.
It is an elaborate form of castration but castration nonetheless. And given one can't actually change their sex, the person who proceeded with this surgery will then go on and cross dress when wearing attire from the sex he had a surgery to look more like.

So, no; it's actually taking no leap at all; just looking honestly at what you're talking about rather than being mindlessly literal and restrictive just because you don't like the answer you're getting.

[Aellex]

Oh, right, you are someone that thinks that a man after SRS is still a man, and a woman after SRS is still a woman. OK. Sure.

Well yeah. I'm someone who doesn't believe that losing one's genital change your sex. It's quite the barbarous and retrograde view to hold, tbh.

[The New California Republic]

SRS is a complex surgical intervention that consist in removing one's genital and then twisting the flesh to look cosmetically to some extent like the opposite sex's one.
It is an elaborate form of castration but castration nonetheless. And given one can't actually change their sex, the person who proceeded with this surgery will then go on and cross dress when wearing attire from the sex he had a surgery to look more like.

Conflating castration to create a eunuch (which the Bible was describing) with modern SRS. Seriously? Seriously? You seriously believe Paul's off-the-cuff remark in Galatians 5:12 about castration related to eunuchs can lead us to condemning SRS as a sin? Or using potential later crossdressing to condemn SRS itself? Nonsense. Nonsense.

So, no; it's actually taking no leap at all; just looking honestly at what you're talking about rather than being mindlessly literal and restrictive just because you don't like the answer you're getting.

Don't accuse me of being disingenuous please. Just don't. But the point is moot anyway, as we fundamentally disagree on one thing:

one can't actually change their sex

Since we disagree on this one point, we can never agree.

[Vassenor]

Welp, I guess anyone who's had medical intervention for testicular cancer is going to hell then.

[The New California Republic]

Oh, right, you are someone that thinks that a man after SRS is still a man, and a woman after SRS is still a woman. OK. Sure.

Well yeah. I'm someone who doesn't believe that losing one's genital change your sex. It's quite the barbarous and retrograde view to hold, tbh.

It doesn't. Not alone. One's sense of self in regard to sexual identity is important.

[The New California Republic]

Welp, I guess anyone who's had medical intervention for testicular cancer is going to hell then.