Don't Tell BiT This

[silverscreenselect]

Canadian soccer player Quinn became the first openly transgender athlete to medal in the Olympic games as part of the gold-medal-winning Canadian team. She also competed in 2016 but only came out as trans last fall. Another openly transgender athlete, a New Zealand weightlifter, also competed in Tokyo but did not medal. Quinn plays professionally in the US National Women's Soccer League.

[Estonut]

Canadian soccer player Quinn became the first openly transgender athlete to medal in the Olympic games as part of the gold-medal-winning Canadian team. She also competed in 2016 but only came out as trans last fall. Another openly transgender athlete, a New Zealand weightlifter, also competed in Tokyo but did not medal. Quinn plays professionally in the US National Women's Soccer League.

Why would he have a problem with this? Quinn was born a woman and is now playing against women as a man. Nowhere near the same unfairness as the other way around, as with the Kiwi weightlifter.

[BackInTex]

Canadian soccer player Quinn became the first openly transgender athlete to medal in the Olympic games as part of the gold-medal-winning Canadian team. She also competed in 2016 but only came out as trans last fall. Another openly transgender athlete, a New Zealand weightlifter, also competed in Tokyo but did not medal. Quinn plays professionally in the US National Women's Soccer League.

Why would he have a problem with this? Quinn was born a woman and is now playing against women as a man. Nowhere near the same unfairness as the other way around, as with the Kiwi weightlifter.

I don't have a problem with women competing against women even if they play as make believe men (with the caveat they are not taking male hormones as was the case with the female high school wrestler in Texas).

Quinn, as she likes to be called, identifies as non-binary, though, so neither man nor woman. Her "transgender" status is because the thinks she's transitioned from woman to something else. So I'm not sure how she thinks she should be playing on a women's team when she doesn't consider herself a woman. But given her confusion I guess she thinks she can do whatever she wants and everyone else has to accept it.

Laurel Hubbard is a different story. Here you have a 43 year-old man trying to compete against women. I've very happy for the women who earned their medals that he did not medal. The whole thing is a joke.

For the record, I don't care if someone wants to pretend they are something they are not, but don't require me to also pretend. I won't.

[Pastor Fireball]

I thought LeBron James was the first tranny gold medalist.



God help her, I wouldn't touch LeBron James's pussy with Hillary Clinton's dick.

[Carmelo Anthony]

I thought LeBron James was the first tranny gold medalist.

God help her, I wouldn't touch LeBron James's pussy with Hillary Clinton's dick.

Now I know what to look out for in the Lakers locker room showers next season...

[Bob78164]

For the record, I don't care if someone wants to pretend they are something they are not, but don't require me to also pretend. I won't.

But you are pretending. You're pretending that their lived experience doesn't matter. You're pretending that you know them better than they know themselves.

Nowhere in the Bible can I find a command that gendered English-language pronouns be used exclusively in a manner to comport with chromosomic identity. Try as I might, I just can't find that there, and I'll wager that you can't either.

That's because the English language's use of gendered pronouns is a social and cultural convention, much like America (but not Scotland) deems a skirt to be women's clothing. So when you insist on misgendering people, all you're doing is making a cultural statement. You're selfishly insisting on your own right to openly express your disapproval of how they're living their life, no matter how much pain your obstinacy causes other people, some of whom you might not even know are transgender, or have transgendered loved ones. It's pretty much the same as if you insisted on walking up to every transgender person you run across and confronting them with your opinion. You (probably) wouldn't offer an unsolicited opinion of that nature to complete strangers, but your insistence on misgendering people is a passive-aggressive version of exactly that conduct. Kind of the opposite of what I think of as the compassion urged by your professed faith.

That is, of course, your right in a free society. But the exercise of that right comes with social consequences, so when you complain about those consequences, you can expect your complaints to fall on deaf ears.

One other thing, by the way. If you ever discover that one of your co-workers, or vendors, is transgender, I strongly suggest that you reconsider your stance. I'm quite confident that deliberately and persistently misgendering someone is actionable sexual harassment (hostile work environment) for which you and your employer both could be held liable in damages. So you may find yourself quite literally putting your money where your mouth is. And if that happens, my guess is that your employer won't be particularly sympathetic. (And before you ask, no, my firm would not be seeking such a case. Our Employment Department represents employers against employees, not the other way around.) --Bob

[Spock]

Bob#s>>>"Nowhere in the Bible can I find a command that gendered English-language pronouns be used exclusively in a manner to comport with chromosomic identity. Try as I might, I just can't find that there, and I'll wager that you can't either."<<<<

Wow, even after 20 years here, you learn something new every day. I never pegged you for a guy that spent substantial time studying the bible.

[Spock]

Bob#s>>>"Nowhere in the Bible can I find a command that gendered English-language pronouns be used exclusively in a manner to comport with chromosomic identity. Try as I might, I just can't find that there, and I'll wager that you can't either."<<<<

Wow, even after 20 years here, you learn something new every day. I never pegged you for a guy that spent substantial time studying the bible.

While I have nowhere near the biblical scholarship background that Bob# s has-It appears (at least on the surface) that Deuteronomy 22:5 approaches the topic. It will be interesting to see his years of thoughts and scholarship on this verse.

Isn't a man putting on a woman's genitals worse than putting on their clothes? This verse also seems to forbid the idea of calling a man a woman and so forth.

>>> “A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God."<<<

[earendel]

Bob#s>>>"Nowhere in the Bible can I find a command that gendered English-language pronouns be used exclusively in a manner to comport with chromosomic identity. Try as I might, I just can't find that there, and I'll wager that you can't either."<<<<

Wow, even after 20 years here, you learn something new every day. I never pegged you for a guy that spent substantial time studying the bible.

While I have nowhere near the biblical scholarship background that Bob# s has-It appears (at least on the surface) that Deuteronomy 22:5 approaches the topic. It will be interesting to see his years of thoughts and scholarship on this verse.

Isn't a man putting on a woman's genitals worse than putting on their clothes? This verse also seems to forbid the idea of calling a man a woman and so forth.

>>> “A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God."<<<

<Sigh> Here we go.
First of all, the verse quoted here has to be understood in its historical and cultural context. Other ancient Middle Eastern cultures practiced what we would call "cross-dressing" as part of their religious rituals. Hence Yahweh tells the Hebrews not to engage in such practices, just as Yahweh forbids other practices.

Second, there are a number of things that the Torah calls "abominations" - mixing two different types of fabric in a single garment, consuming an animal that doesn't have cloven hooves or chews cud (thus all pork products are banned), mixing dairy and meat at the same meal, planting two different types of seeds in the same garden, etc. Again, each of these has historical/cultural meaning. So, spock, if you're wearing a shirt that's cotton & polyester, sitting down to a plate of baby back ribs, you have more to worry about.

That said, someone who is transgender is complying with the dictate of Deuteronomy 22:5 because they identify as one gender and wearing the garments associated with that gender. Now a transvestite or drag queen, on the other hand, would fall under the prohibition.

However, in the end the proper understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures is in the teachings of Jesus, who on several occasions indicated that by clinging to the letter of the law the Jewish leaders were overlooking the important issues of justice, mercy, and love.

[BackInTex]

Bob#s>>>"Nowhere in the Bible can I find a command that gendered English-language pronouns be used exclusively in a manner to comport with chromosomic identity. Try as I might, I just can't find that there, and I'll wager that you can't either."<<<<

Wow, even after 20 years here, you learn something new every day. I never pegged you for a guy that spent substantial time studying the bible.

While I have nowhere near the biblical scholarship background that Bob# s has-It appears (at least on the surface) that Deuteronomy 22:5 approaches the topic. It will be interesting to see his years of thoughts and scholarship on this verse.

Isn't a man putting on a woman's genitals worse than putting on their clothes? This verse also seems to forbid the idea of calling a man a woman and so forth.

>>> “A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God."<<<

<Sigh> Here we go.
First of all, the verse quoted here has to be understood in its historical and cultural context. Other ancient Middle Eastern cultures practiced what we would call "cross-dressing" as part of their religious rituals. Hence Yahweh tells the Hebrews not to engage in such practices, just as Yahweh forbids other practices.

Second, there are a number of things that the Torah calls "abominations" - mixing two different types of fabric in a single garment, consuming an animal that doesn't have cloven hooves or chews cud (thus all pork products are banned), mixing dairy and meat at the same meal, planting two different types of seeds in the same garden, etc. Again, each of these has historical/cultural meaning. So, spock, if you're wearing a shirt that's cotton & polyester, sitting down to a plate of baby back ribs, you have more to worry about.

That said, someone who is transgender is complying with the dictate of Deuteronomy 22:5 because they identify as one gender and wearing the garments associated with that gender. Now a transvestite or drag queen, on the other hand, would fall under the prohibition.

However, in the end the proper understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures is in the teachings of Jesus, who on several occasions indicated that by clinging to the letter of the law the Jewish leaders were overlooking the important issues of justice, mercy, and love.

Yes, and Jesus never once mentioned eating dead babies was wrong...so I guess it's O.K.

[mrkelley23]

While I have nowhere near the biblical scholarship background that Bob# s has-It appears (at least on the surface) that Deuteronomy 22:5 approaches the topic. It will be interesting to see his years of thoughts and scholarship on this verse.

Isn't a man putting on a woman's genitals worse than putting on their clothes? This verse also seems to forbid the idea of calling a man a woman and so forth.

>>> “A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God."<<<

<Sigh> Here we go.
First of all, the verse quoted here has to be understood in its historical and cultural context. Other ancient Middle Eastern cultures practiced what we would call "cross-dressing" as part of their religious rituals. Hence Yahweh tells the Hebrews not to engage in such practices, just as Yahweh forbids other practices.

Second, there are a number of things that the Torah calls "abominations" - mixing two different types of fabric in a single garment, consuming an animal that doesn't have cloven hooves or chews cud (thus all pork products are banned), mixing dairy and meat at the same meal, planting two different types of seeds in the same garden, etc. Again, each of these has historical/cultural meaning. So, spock, if you're wearing a shirt that's cotton & polyester, sitting down to a plate of baby back ribs, you have more to worry about.

That said, someone who is transgender is complying with the dictate of Deuteronomy 22:5 because they identify as one gender and wearing the garments associated with that gender. Now a transvestite or drag queen, on the other hand, would fall under the prohibition.

However, in the end the proper understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures is in the teachings of Jesus, who on several occasions indicated that by clinging to the letter of the law the Jewish leaders were overlooking the important issues of justice, mercy, and love.

Yes, and Jesus never once mentioned eating dead babies was wrong...so I guess it's O.K.

Wow, there's an interpretation of Jesus I've never seen. I guess eating dead babies doesn't violate justice, mercy, and love in BiT's world. I'm glad I don't live there.

[BackInTex]

Wow, there's an interpretation of Jesus I've never seen. I guess eating dead babies doesn't violate justice, mercy, and love in BiT's world. I'm glad I don't live there.

I'm not sure how that violates justice or mercy, provided the baby died of natural causes. And it could, with a certain mindset, be considered a loving act. The point being, one you make, too, is there are other factors in whether something is right or wrong other than just what Jesus said or didn't say. I would use the phrase common sense, but many here have abandoned that long ago, if they ever had it.