New Declaration, Same Old Anti-Gay Message

[Sefiru]

I am confused as to why it was (a. necessary and (b. necessary right now.

< snip >

I'm also increasingly irritated by the fact that it was not written more openly to include churches with apostolic succession,

Slactivist contends that the function of such declarations is to be periodic membership check-ins for evangelical church leaders, which would make them a sort of substitute for apostolic succession.

[Sorcha]

Slactivist contends that the function of such declarations is to be periodic membership check-ins for evangelical church leaders, which would make them a sort of substitute for apostolic succession.

That's exactly what it is, or more properly a "you better agree with this if you wanna sit at our table" check. People are outright declaring anybody taking any issue with the declaration (such as supposedly establishing a Christian sexual ethic but failing to mention rape, assault, or abuse as sins) as Not Christian.

It was unnecessary. Nobody was in doubt about where Evangelicals stood on these issues (or transgenderism, for that matter). It won't change anybody's mind. It just lets conservative Christians feel self-righteous and smug (which are also, ahem, sins). The Facebook comments have been quite telling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sorcha]

I'm also increasingly irritated by the fact that it was not written more openly to include churches with apostolic succession, but that's just a side note. As it is written there are some problems from a Catholic (or Orthodox, Continuing Anglican, etc) viewpoint -- Br Andre-Marie MICM from the St Benedict Center writes more about that if one is interested as to why Bigots X disagree with Bigots Y -- but strong ecumenical support of tradition is always nice to see more of.

It's because, to evangelicals, the Catholic and Orthodox churches are completely apostate and not Christian anyway. They would have no interest in including them. Anglicans might squeak in, but they're suspect and not really un-Catholic enough.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Castus]

Yeah, tell that to any of the trans murder victims.

Oh.  Wait.  You can't.

The fact that transsexuality in the United States is, at this point in time, almost completely normalised and accepted within the mainstream isn't changed by any unfortunate murder of a trans person simply on account of their identity. Are there people who do not accept transsexuality as legitimate (i.e. that a man identifying as a woman is a woman and should be treated as such, etc etc) and are against it? Of course. There are even people who will resort to cruel and senseless murder; even though they are not representative of the norm.

A useful measuring stick for whether transsexuality is normalised is to watch and see the reaction to anti-trans measures or statements. The fact that Trump's ban of transexual soldiers in the military might as well have been taking a shit on the Oval Office during a press conference is telling. Or how about the fact that North Carolina's "bathroom bill" was received as if the Governor had declared hunting season against the homeless population? Six states issued travel bans, a Federal lawsuit was filed, and the state lost tens of millions of dollars in revenue after a massive across-the-board boycott was launched and businesses and conferences pulled out en masse. If one felt like tying trans acceptance more broadly into LGBT acceptance, they could point out that publicly identifying as opposed to homosexuality and transsexuality is career suicide for academics and small business owners. None of which is to mention, by the way, the fact that major corporations routinely launch pro-LGBT advocacy campaigns and will fold to even the slightest suggestion of discrimination.

There will always be trans and LGBT kids bullied in schools, or rejected by family, or even murdered because of their identity; and it is incumbent upon everyone to try and address these issues. However I cannot even fathom how one could reasonably argue that transsexuality has not indeed 'risen' or that it has not achieved almost complete normalisation in American society.

[Sorcha]

The fact that transsexuality in the United States is, at this point in time, almost completely normalised and accepted within the mainstream isn't changed by any unfortunate murder of a trans person simply on account of their identity. Are there people who do not accept transsexuality as legitimate (i.e. that a man identifying as a woman is a woman and should be treated as such, etc etc) and are against it? Of course. There are even people who will resort to cruel and senseless murder; even though they are not representative of the norm.

A useful measuring stick for whether transsexuality is normalised is to watch and see the reaction to anti-trans measures or statements. The fact that Trump's ban of transexual soldiers in the military might as well have been taking a shit on the Oval Office during a press conference is telling. Or how about the fact that North Carolina's "bathroom bill" was received as if the Governor had declared hunting season against the homeless population? Six states issued travel bans, a Federal lawsuit was filed, and the state lost tens of millions of dollars in revenue after a massive across-the-board boycott was launched and businesses and conferences pulled out en masse. If one felt like tying trans acceptance more broadly into LGBT acceptance, they could point out that publicly identifying as opposed to homosexuality and transsexuality is career suicide for academics and small business owners. None of which is to mention, by the way, the fact that major corporations routinely launch pro-LGBT advocacy campaigns and will fold to even the slightest suggestion of discrimination.

There will always be trans and LGBT kids bullied in schools, or rejected by family, or even murdered because of their identity; and it is incumbent upon everyone to try and address these issues. However I cannot even fathom how one could reasonably argue that transsexuality has not indeed 'risen' or that it has not achieved almost complete normalisation in American society.

None of that makes being transgender (transsexual is an out-of-date and non-preferred term) completely normalized and accepted. It makes it better *protected* than it was. It's still rejected outright by most conservatives, which is a very large segment of this country.

And discrimination based on gender is illegal and companies are not allowed to engage in it, which is a very good reason for companies to avoid it and fold if they're engaging in it.

Much of the travel ban/boycott was because organizers, etc. realized, for instance, that any trans attendees of their conferences would be legally banned from using the bathroom that matched their gender, and this was something they didn't want to condone. I think that's completely reasonable and don't feel particularly upset about it. Actions have consequences, as NC found out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Darkhawk]

The fact that transsexuality in the United States is, at this point in time, almost completely normalised and accepted within the mainstream

Castus, repeating the lie doesn't make it true.  The fact that the mainstream has noticed trans people exist now does not make for "normalisation" and "acceptance", it just means that the mainstream has moved on to a new category of people it is totally acceptable to unperson because some people just can't get on without having someone to shit on.

"Normalised and accepted within the mainstream" is not compatible with "people freaking out about where other people pee and passing laws about it", "generalised public mockery of out trans people because they are trans", "trans students committing suicide because administrators won't call them by their actual names", or any of the other shit that trans people have to deal with routinely.  If it were "normalised and accepted" people could actually get some fucking health care - and not just for transition-related stuff, I mean "not being left to die on the street because the EMTs go 'what is that, is it a man or a woman?' and refuse to provide emergency care."

Being trans is a major risk factor for being brutally murdered, and that risk goes tenfold for trans people (especially trans women) of color.  If trans people were "normalised and accepted", that would not be possible.

Trans people are the new bogeyman, now that gay people aren't.

Being the bogeyman is not acceptance.  It's a sick sort of popularity, maybe.

Yes, some people actually give a shit when they notice that other people are being treated as the bogeyman.  I'm not throwing a parade for the existence of people who have noticed that trans folks are human too and don't deserve to be treated as subhuman.  That's the bare minimum required to be something other than a festering shitbag.

(Edited to add a thing.)