NationStates

Without getting into LGB issues, the transgender issue presents a dilemma for Christianity, namely, that there is little to no debate on the issue historically, it simply wasn't an issue that was discussed in the historical literature, or, if it was, it wasn't discussed enough to leave significant record. While there is a good historical argument to be made that homosexuality was against traditional Christian doctrine, it is very difficult to make that argument with transsexuality. Because of this, in my opinion, traditional Christianity has to formulate a response, and the question that this raises is "Is the current default stance (that it's a sin) consistent with Christian teachings?" I call this the default stance because most Christian groups haven't discussed the issue and just issue the default statements that it's wrong because it seems to be the conservative thing to do, or because of its links to the LGB movement overall, which is seen as sinful. However, for many groups, my own Eastern Orthodox Church included, these statements are not binding as they are not dogmatic statements made via council.

Because there is so little material in terms of little commandments on the issue, in my opinion, it is necessary for a Christian to look at how the issue relates to the "Two Great Commandments", which Christ said were to "Love God" and "Love thy neighbor as yourself." Because there are no little commandments, we don't know if it is unloving towards God to allow people to transition, so I will focus on the second. As many are probably aware, suicide rates among trans youth are extremely high, repression for gender dysphoria is rarely successful, and it is a miserable condition in which the sufferers feel alien to their own bodies. Would any of us wish to be in such a condition? I don't think so, so it seems to me that it is unloving to disallow it to others. Some will make the argument that transition is sinful, so it isn't loving to allow it, however, suicide is a much greater sin than transition is in any case, and so it would be better to allow transition than to allow a much more serious sin that would be difficult to repent of.

So, that is my argument, from a Christian perspective, that trans people transitioning is licit. What do other Christians say, do any irreligious people have issues with this argument?

I can't find any issue with the argument. Barring the ability of Trans people to transition is cruel and denying them their proper pronouns is petty.

So, hear, hear.

It is not a religious issue.

Transphobia is immoral just like homophobia, and I want no part of any religious organization that supports either. Christianity is dying in the west because young people want nothing to do with the hatred and immorality of homophobic and transphobic churches.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Would any of us wish to be in such a condition?

I rather enjoy genderbending occasional dysphoria aside.

It's a good argument. Treating others with compassion is a great rule to live by.

I'm curious as to your stance on trans people engaging in sexual activity? Assuming you think homosexual activity is a sin, it would seem that the only solution would be for trans people to be celibate (as many churches recommend LGB people be,) but I'd be interested to know your thoughts.

First American Empire wrote:Transphobia is immoral just like homophobia, and I want no part of any religious organization that supports either. Christianity is dying in the west because young people want nothing to do with the hatred and immorality of homophobic and transphobic churches.

Pretty much this. You cannot neatly separate continued homophobia and acceptance for trans people. At least not ethically. *stares at Iran*

Thanatttynia wrote:It's a good argument. Treating others with compassion is a great rule to live by.

I'm curious as to your stance on trans people engaging in sexual activity? Assuming you think homosexual activity is a sin, it would seem that the only solution would be for trans people to be celibate (as many churches recommend LGB people be,) but I'd be interested to know your thoughts.

That I'm not sure about, but I lean towards accepting sexual activity by trans people as long as it isn't sodomy.

Grenartia wrote:

First American Empire wrote:Transphobia is immoral just like homophobia, and I want no part of any religious organization that supports either. Christianity is dying in the west because young people want nothing to do with the hatred and immorality of homophobic and transphobic churches.

Pretty much this. You cannot neatly separate continued homophobia and acceptance for trans people. At least not ethically. *stares at Iran*

How are the two necessarily linked?

Grenartia wrote:
Pretty much this. You cannot neatly separate continued homophobia and acceptance for trans people. At least not ethically. *stares at Iran*

Do you have any evidence for your assumption that UMN is homophobic?

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Thanatttynia wrote:It's a good argument. Treating others with compassion is a great rule to live by.

I'm curious as to your stance on trans people engaging in sexual activity? Assuming you think homosexual activity is a sin, it would seem that the only solution would be for trans people to be celibate (as many churches recommend LGB people be,) but I'd be interested to know your thoughts.

That I'm not sure about, but I lean towards accepting sexual activity by trans people as long as it isn't sodomy.

Well, wouldn't it depend on whether or not they could reproduce?

Bienenhalde wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:That I'm not sure about, but I lean towards accepting sexual activity by trans people as long as it isn't sodomy.

Well, wouldn't it depend on whether or not they could reproduce?

No, I don't know why you all of the sudden have an obsession with whether people can reproduce. It has no bearing on whether they're allowed to have sex.

Thanatttynia wrote:Assuming you think homosexual activity is a sin, it would seem that the only solution would be for trans people to be celibate

I wouldn’t say it’s he only solution.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:That I'm not sure about, but I lean towards accepting sexual activity by trans people as long as it isn't sodomy.

Maybe you’d like to watch just to make sure?

Soviet Computocracy wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:That I'm not sure about, but I lean towards accepting sexual activity by trans people as long as it isn't sodomy.

Maybe you’d like to watch just to make sure?

No, I'd rather not.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:No, I'd rather not.

Then I guess you’ll have to believe, in your heart of hearts, that no one would dare do butt stuff against the dictates of ancient Jewish writers written exclusively for Jews.

Soviet Computocracy wrote:

Thanatttynia wrote:Assuming you think homosexual activity is a sin, it would seem that the only solution would be for trans people to be celibate

I wouldn’t say it’s he only solution.

Well, homosexual activity is sexual activity between people of the same sex or gender... two transgender people could be of the same sex but opposite genders, or conversely of the opposite sex but the same gender, which would really make all sexual activity between transgender people homosexual activity. It's a sort of interesting sort-of-contradictory quandary.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Thanatttynia wrote:It's a good argument. Treating others with compassion is a great rule to live by.

I'm curious as to your stance on trans people engaging in sexual activity? Assuming you think homosexual activity is a sin, it would seem that the only solution would be for trans people to be celibate (as many churches recommend LGB people be,) but I'd be interested to know your thoughts.

That I'm not sure about, but I lean towards accepting sexual activity by trans people as long as it isn't sodomy.

i.e. that it was between someone born male and someone born female? or literally sodomy?

And I edited this into my post but took too long before you replied lol:

Also, your argument rests on the idea (which I agree with) that it is a greater sin to deny trans people the opportunity to transition than it is to lead them to sins like suicide. Would you extend this same argument to other behaviours traditionally condemned by many churches? I ask since I get that the paucity of references to it in the Bible or by Christian thinkers and leaders indicates that being transgender or accepting transgenderism is not necessarily unloving towards God (or towards the 'sinner' were it a sin,) whereas other behaviours are referenced by those sources... but I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the matter. I guess it would depend on whether or not you believe the Bible is the literal and uncorrupted word of God, but even so extending that same compassion to other behaviours would, I feel, follow the spirit of the word of God, if not the letter.

Soviet Computocracy wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:No, I'd rather not.

Then I guess you’ll have to believe, in your heart of hearts, that no one would dare do butt stuff against the wishes of ancient Jewish writers.

To UMN it's more or less a teaching issue, and those kinds of issues really only matter for the people who want to sincerely be in good standing with the faith.

Thanatttynia wrote:It's a sort of interesting sort-of-contradictory quandary.

If you accept the dictates of ancient Jewish patriarchs written exclusively for Jews.

Seems to me a medical issue, and medical issues shouldn't be moral ones. Historically speaking, the Christian churches have not had what we would recognize as a unitedly negative outlook on what are, to the modern eye, 'trans' issues; so I don't really see a problem with this. It seems to me reactionary nonsense, whereas anti-gay sentiments are at least fairly consistent and scripturally supported. So I agree with the OP, in a broad sense, as I'm not religious.

Salus Maior wrote:

Soviet Computocracy wrote:Then I guess you’ll have to believe, in your heart of hearts, that no one would dare do butt stuff against the wishes of ancient Jewish writers.

To UMN it's more or less a teaching issue, and those kinds of issues really only matter for the people who want to sincerely be in good standing with the faith.

^

Thanatttynia wrote:

Soviet Computocracy wrote:I wouldn’t say it’s he only solution.

Well, homosexual activity is sexual activity between people of the same sex or gender... two transgender people could be of the same sex but opposite genders, or conversely of the opposite sex but the same gender, which would really make all sexual activity between transgender people homosexual activity. It's a sort of interesting sort-of-contradictory quandary.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:That I'm not sure about, but I lean towards accepting sexual activity by trans people as long as it isn't sodomy.

i.e. that it was between someone born male and someone born female? or literally sodomy?

And I edited this into my post but took too long before you replied lol:

Also, your argument rests on the idea (which I agree with) that it is a greater sin to deny trans people the opportunity to transition than it is to lead them to sins like suicide. Would you extend this same argument to other behaviours traditionally condemned by many churches? I ask since I get that the paucity of references to it in the Bible or by Christian thinkers and leaders indicates that being transgender or accepting transgenderism is not necessarily unloving towards God (or towards the 'sinner' were it a sin,) whereas other behaviours are referenced by those sources... but I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the matter. I guess it would depend on whether or not you believe the Bible is the literal and uncorrupted word of God, but even so extending that same compassion to other behaviours would, I feel, follow the spirit of the word of God, if not the letter.

I mean literal sodomy.

It depends on the behaviors, some behaviors have traditional condemnations with good reasons behind them, but there is very little traditionally said on what we could call transsexuality.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Bienenhalde wrote:Well, wouldn't it depend on whether or not they could reproduce?

No, I don't know why you all of the sudden have an obsession with whether people can reproduce. It has no bearing on whether they're allowed to have sex.

I thought that contraception and homosexuality were forbidden because they inhibit reproduction.

Soviet Computocracy wrote:

Thanatttynia wrote:It's a sort of interesting sort-of-contradictory quandary.

If you accept the dictates of ancient Jewish patriarchs written exclusively for Jews.

You realize that nobody's asking you to do anything, right?

Bienenhalde wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:No, I don't know why you all of the sudden have an obsession with whether people can reproduce. It has no bearing on whether they're allowed to have sex.

I thought that contraception and homosexuality were forbidden because they inhibit reproduction.

Contraception is in the Roman Catholic Church, but it's only in the Roman Catholic Church, most Christians don't share this interpretation.

Homosexuality is forbidden in large part because it is sodomy, not that it inhibits reproduction.