Tag Archives: Christian persecution complex

Gender and Sexuality, Religion

Let’s rewrite the dialogue!

Leave a comment

[Content Note: Transphobia]

Adam4d comic panel.
A panel from Adam For’ds web comic, “Hate Speech.”

Today, I thought it would be interesting to take Adam Ford’s most recent web comic and write some new dialogue for it.

Random Person: Do you accept the scientific research that strongly that brain chemistry, hormones, and other factors can cause a person experience themselves as a gender that differs from the biological sex they were assigned at birth?

Transphobic Christian:  Well no.  That doesn’t fit in with what I believe the Bible says, so I assume that it’s false.  I choose to believe instead that people just decide they want to be a different gender.

Random Person:  Interesting.  There is actually over two decades worth of peer reviewed scientific research that shows that such discrepancies occur and are a natural phenomenon.  How do you address them.

Transphobic Christian:  Well, here are some articles written by a handful of Christians I consider authorities on the subject, and I choose to believe their conclusions because they match what I’ve been taught the Bible says.

Random Person:  Interesting.  Have those articles been peer reviewed?

Transphobic Chistian:  Well, no.  [Alternative:  I don’t know.]

Random Person:  I’m actually familiar with this article and its author.  Are you aware of the huge methodological flaws other experts in this field found with this work?

Transphobic Christian:  No.  I’m not sure I believe you.  And even if you’re right, I’m still inclined to believe the article’s conclusions.

Random Person:  Because they confirm what you believe?

Transphobic Christian:  Well, yes…..But I think it’s important to remember that God says there are only two genders.  And I think it’s important we have a conversation about…

Random Person:  Conversation!  Okay.  There are hundreds of books, articles and blog posts written by transgender people.  Many of them have gone to great lengths to share their stories and their experiences and how they’ve felt.  How many of them have you read?

Transphobic Christian:   Well, none of them.

Random Person:  So let me get this straight.  You’ve failed to look into any of the many scientific studies that have been made on this topic.  You’ve failed to listen to transgender people’s own lived experiences and instead choose to reinterpret their lives to fit your predefined beliefs.  So it sounds to me like this important conversation has been happening for some time without you.

Transphobic Christian:  Well, when you put it that way….

Random Person:  So why do you expect anyone to listen to you in a conversation you’ve completely ignored up to this point?

Fin.

Well, that’s my take on it.  I welcome my readers — especially those who are are transgender or are far more knowledgeable about the issues involved than me — to write  their own dialogue.  Or point out where I got something wrong or wrote something troubling.

And now I will specifically address any transphobic (and yes, I get to decide whether that label applies to you on my blog, though I will listen carefully to the counsel of any trans person — except your “one transgender friend”) Christians who may want to respond:  Your best bet is to just not do it.  This is probably not the thread for you.  If you want to defend yourself or argue with me, be prepared to immediately demonstrate that you have done your homework and actually know the issues and not the usual straw men arguments. Failure to do so will get you shown the door faster than defecating on my living room couch.  So like I said, your best bet is to just keep silent and move on.  Or remain silent, listen, and learn something.

Gender and Sexuality, Politics

The latest dishonesty of Maggie Gallagher

2 Comments

[Content Note:  Homophobia, Sexual Orientation Change Efforts, Infertility]

This morning, Maggie Gallagher used her column at the National Review to chime in on the law New Jersey governor Chris Christie recently signed that prohibits licensed therapists from offering “conversion therapy” to minors.  Of course, Maggie is dead set opposed to the new law and considers this the latest example of Christian persecution and infringement on (Christian) religious liberties.

Of course, in decrying this law, she fails to exercise her religious liberty to be honest, something that I’m fairly certain is supposed to be pretty central to the Christian faith.  She starts out by decrying a press release that someone wrongly slapped her name on it, offering the following criticism:

I dislike using language that portrays gay people as “homosexuals” who are “tormented” by same-sex desires.

Um, since when?  Let’s go to Gallagher’s own words:

Please note, this is different from saying that homosexuals are mentally ill. In a simple biological framework, abstracted from all religion and morality, homosexuality is like infertility. It is a sexual disability, preventing certain individuals from participating in the normal reproductive patterns of the human species.

While Maggie can technically argue that she’s not saying gay people are mentally ill the above statement, I’m not sure that calling them “disabled” is any better.  And no, my being gay is not the same as my being infertile (and I am deeply sympathetic and sorry to anyone who is infertile and hurt by Gallagher’s choice to appropriate what may be a painful reality for them).  To the best of my knowledge, I am perfectly capable of sexually reproducing, either by having sex with a fertile woman or via sperm donation.  My being gay simply means I am not inclined to engage in sexual or romantic relations with women.  There’s a whole world of difference between the two things she’s comparison and the comparison strikes me as insulting and demeaning to everyone caught by it.

So yeah, for her to say that she “dislikes” it when gay people are portrayed as “homosexuals” who are “tormented” by their desires when she has much said things just as horrible?  Completely dishonest.

Of course, her continuing statement in today’s column suggests she’s not really opposed to saying that gay men (and note how she’s now going to erase all the lesbians in addition to the bisexuals she’s already been erasing) are “tormented” by their sexual desires so much as she’d in support of portraying all men as so tormented:

Among other things, as far as I can see for most men, of whatever orientation or state in life, being tormented by sexual desire is pretty much the human condition for long stretches of life, rather than an unbearable cause for condescending pity.

I don’t know what men Gallagher is hanging out with.  I certainly don’t feel tormented by my sexual desires.  I don’t get the impression that most of the men — regardless of sexual orientation — I know feel particularly tormented, either.

Of the bill itself, Gallagher makes the following claim:

Governor Christie just endorsed a law that thus excludes many gay teens who wish to live in accordance with Bible-based values from the circle of care; he has outright banned chastity as a goal of counseling.

Now having looked at the text of the bill, I admit that it’s a bit confusing, and it’s not immediately clear to me what qualifies as “attempts to change behavior” as mentioned in the bill.  However, I will note what Dr. Warren Throckmorton said back in May concerning the bill and the Sexual Identiy Therapy Framework he promotes:

I believe SITF would be safe if this bill passes. I have discussed this issue with some of the bill proponents and they agree. In any case, since we do not attempt to change orientation, we are not doing anything covered by the bill. I do not attempt to reduce attractions since I don’t think it is possible in any psychological manner. I think people succeed in handling their attractions in such a way as to better comport with their beliefs. Avoiding situations and practicing religious disciplines may help give a sense that attractions are being reduced but I don’t think this is what the NJ bill is aiming at. If ever it is, I will be more vocal in opposition.

Note that Throckmorton actually talked to the bill’s proponents about his questions regarding the law and SITF, which does consider helping a client remain celibate a valid course if the client decides it’s the best choice for hir life.  I’m inclined to take his interpretation of the law and how it will be applied compared over Gallagher’s who admits that she hadn’t even looked into the law before yesterday.  I sincerely doubt she contacted any of the bill’s backers for clarification.

Acknowledgements:

  • I found out about Maggie’s commentary on the bill via The New Civil Rights Movement.
  • I gleaned the link to the bill’s text from Dr. Throckmorton’s blog.
  • I found the link to Gallagher’s quote comparing homosexuality to infertility through GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project page for her.