MercyA Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 What does this theology say about people born with both or ambiguous genitalia? Moreover, what does one's personal theology have to do with a public business restroom? To answer your first question, nothing. Sin involves choice. The Scriptures cited wouldn't apply to rare cases of birth defects. To answer your second question, again, nothing. It was brought up (I thought) as a tangential issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Just curious, why is the trans person so uncomfortable about using the women's room like in the past? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bibiche Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Sigh. It seems to me that if one is using religion to promote hate and intolerance there is something fundamentally wrong with one's religion, or at the very least with one's interpretation of it. 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) I wholeheartedly agree with you that Christians are not under Mosaic law. The failure of some Christians to recognize this is the root of many problems in the church. However, the New Testament does indeed speak to transgender presentation: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 I am well-aware that many attempts have been made to explain away this passage. I feel no need to defend it or argue about it. Truth speaks for itself. Seriously? I'm not a Christian and haven't studied this verse before, and even I can spend ten minutes on Google and find out that the word in question, malakos/malakia, isn't referring to transgender people. Edited February 13, 2016 by Mergath 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 There is also a very good documentary on PBS that followed several teens and their families as they explored the issue. I can't imagine anyone could watch it and not feel a great deal of empathy and admiration for all of the individuals involved. Do you (or anyone reading this) have the name of the documentary? It has recently come to my attention that I have a transgender individual in my extended family and would like to pass on some resources to an older relative who is accepting and looking to understand all of it better. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bibiche Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Just curious, why is the trans person so uncomfortable about using the women's room like in the past? Because he is a MAN. Why would a vegetarian be uncomfortable eating meat like he did in the past? Seems pretty obvious to me. 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 or "effeminate" (the male recipient of male homosexual acts, generally a prostitute)? That is my understanding of the word after I researched it some. Transgendered is a complicated issue that is not the same as homosexuality. I agree with Mercy that I feel very sad for people struggling with those issues. (I don't believe it's demeaning to feel sad for them, since the ones I have known have faced very severe struggles and depression their whole lives. They also would rather not go through that.) I can't say that I know what the answer is from a scriptural viewpoint. But regardless, the reality is that there are transgendered people who have made the decision to transition out there in the world. They deserve to be treated respectfully and with kindness. I agree with justasque, that the men's discomfort will decrease while the women's will increase. If he is presenting as a man, he should use the men's bathroom. If someone has a problem with it, they can go to another floor or across the street. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 To answer your first question, nothing. Sin involves choice. The Scriptures cited wouldn't apply to rare cases of birth defects. Being transgender isn't a choice either. If God considers it a sin, maybe God should stop making little children be born in the wrong bodies. 19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 I will also say from my personal viewpoint....Even if transitioning is wrong scripturally (which I'm not sure about) someone who makes a choice to live with someone before marriage and commit fornication on a regular basis is (to me) much more culpable from a scriptural viewpoint than someone who chooses to transition because the alternative is life-long depression or suicide. I'm just pointing out an inconsistency here. It is interesting to me the things we like to get in an uproar about. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paige Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) Sure. I think "effeminate" applies in a general way here. You are absolutely correct to point out that it is listed separately from offenses involving sexual behavior (fornication, adultery, homosexuality). "Effeminate" refers largely to appearance; that is, to a man who intentionally chooses to display womanly characteristics. I assume that if that is a sin for men to be effeminate, the reverse would be true for women. It would make no logical sense for it to be otherwise. This is where we differ in how we see the transgender issue: IMO, the transgender female to male person is a man. He has a man brain and the brain is the core of who a person is. Effeminate conveys a man acting like a woman when he is in fact a man. IMO, a transgender female to man would be acting effeminate if he pretended to be a woman and didn't transition. KWIM? It's putting on an act for others. With someone who has ambiguous genitalia, it is easy to say we should ask the person what gender (if any) the person identifies as and accept that the person knows what he or she is talking about. Since there's many different types of ambiguous genitalia and other issues physically that people can be born with, it is not a stretch to imagine that the issue can include people with normal appearing sex features of the the opposite sex. With transgender, I see it as simply a more complex case of ambiguous genitalia- isn't the brain the biggest sex organ? I just read about a man in India or somewhere like that who was a full grown adult before he learned that he actually had the internal organs of a female and had been menstruating for years! FWIW, he continued to identify as a man. We are just beginning to learn that what we thought of as a simple issue (gender) is quite complex. Edited February 13, 2016 by Paige 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Seriously? I'm not a Christian and haven't studied this verse before, and even I can spend ten minutes on Google and find out that the word in question, malakos/malakia, isn't referring to transgender people. Yes, seriously. The Greek word literally means "soft" and was translated as "effeminate" in the King James and other versions by people who knew what they were doing. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Being transgender isn't a choice either. If God considers it a sin, maybe God should stop making little children be born in the wrong bodies. We all have innate tendencies towards certain sins. I know I do. It doesn't mean we aren't accountable for our actions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaConquest Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 What does this theology say about people born with both or ambiguous genitalia? Moreover, what does one's personal theology have to do with a public business restroom? Didn't you know? We are a Christian nation, so the rest of us yahoos have to abide by their holy book. :gnorsi: 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) Because he is a MAN. Why would a vegetarian be uncomfortable eating meat like he did in the past? Seems pretty obvious to me. Well it doesn't seem obvious to me. Those of us who feel the non-trans men should "get over it" are feeling that way largely because relieving oneself in a room with another person of whatever gender is not worth fussing about. Especially assuming that there is semi-privacy in there. I don't equate elimination to eating. Others may disagree. I think people on both sides are holding the trans person to a different standard than everyone who isn't trans. The trans person has he absolute right to make his favorite choice but nobody else does. Is it really hurting the trans person to go in the ladies' room? I really want to know how this makes sense. He sees us as women and doesn't want to use the same bathroom as we. Meanwhile his male colleagues see him as a woman and don't want to use the same bathroom as him. Aren't they both kinda wrong? Edited February 13, 2016 by SKL 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbel Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Well it doesn't seem obvious to me. Those of us who feel the non-trans men should "get over it" are feeling that way largely because relieving oneself in a room with another person of whatever gender is not worth fussing about. Especially assuming that there is semi-privacy in there. I don't equate elimination to eating. Others may disagree. I think people on both sides are holding the trans person to a different standard than everyone who isn't trans. The trans person has he absolute right to make his favorite choice but nobody else does. Is it really hurting the trans person to go in the ladies' room? I really want to know how this makes sense. He sees us as women and doesn't want to use the same bathroom as we. Meanwhile his male colleagues see him as a woman and don't want to use the same bathroom as him. Aren't they both kinda wrong? It doesn't hurt anyone. But if the trans person is dressing like a man and otherwise living like a man, despite the fact that previously he had been dressing/living like a woman, then it will be uncomfortable for the women using the restroom because they would not be expecting a man in there. In particular (this has been brought up already), in a law office, there may be clients using the restroom and it would be disconcerting to walk into the room marked "women" and see a man there. (Because - this seems to need repeating though I don't know why - it is a cultural norm that men and women use separate restroom facilities, thus the ubiquitous doors with the cute silhouettes and the words "men" and "women" on them.) If the trans person was still presenting as female, then yes, that person should use the women's restroom. But he is not. It's a difficult time for everyone involved, I am sure. But I don't find it hard to understand. I assume there is a point at which the trans person is ready to make the "switch" (sorry if that is a poor word choice) from dressing/presenting as a woman to presenting as a man. I assume that time has come for the individual in question. Maybe I have that wrong but I know someone will correct me if so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrixieB Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Do you (or anyone reading this) have the name of the documentary? It has recently come to my attention that I have a transgender individual in my extended family and would like to pass on some resources to an older relative who is accepting and looking to understand all of it better. Growing Up Trans 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) Yes, seriously. The Greek word literally means "soft" and was translated as "effeminate" in the King James and other versions by people who knew what they were doing. :) That's quite a leap to go from a "soft man" to "a person with gender dysphoria who chooses to transition." Especially when the original text, based on what I've read, seems far more likely to refer to a person's morals than their gender. Edited February 13, 2016 by Mergath 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 We all have innate tendencies towards certain sins. I know I do. It doesn't mean we aren't accountable for our actions. As the mother of a transgender child, this response has me stunned. You are either woefully ignorant or horribly cold-hearted. Yes, we all have tendencies toward certain sins. I tend to overeat on sweets, procrastinate, and talk too much at parties. However, I actually feel better about myself when I don't commit these sins. I don't despair, find life meaningless, and kill myself. Do you understand that people who transition are trying to alleviate crushing depression that makes them suicidal? And that transitioning is the course of treatment with the greatest chance of success? What kind of God would "hold them accountable" for that? 27 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Yes, seriously. The Greek word literally means "soft" and was translated as "effeminate" in the King James and other versions by people who knew what they were doing. :) Isn't the KJV notoriously inaccurate? I mean, it's certainly very pretty, but.... 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 It doesn't hurt anyone. But if the trans person is dressing like a man and otherwise living like a man, despite the fact that previously he had been dressing/living like a woman, then it will be uncomfortable for the women using the restroom because they would not be expecting a man in there. In particular (this has been brought up already), in a law office, there may be clients using the restroom and it would be disconcerting to walk into the room marked "women" and see a man there. (Because - this seems to need repeating though I don't know why - it is a cultural norm that men and women use separate restroom facilities, thus the ubiquitous doors with the cute silhouettes and the words "men" and "women" on them.) If the trans person was still presenting as female, then yes, that person should use the women's restroom. But he is not. It's a difficult time for everyone involved, I am sure. But I don't find it hard to understand. I assume there is a point at which the trans person is ready to make the "switch" (sorry if that is a poor word choice) from dressing/presenting as a woman to presenting as a man. I assume that time has come for the individual in question. Maybe I have that wrong but I know someone will correct me if so. Well I guess my question is, with this trans person realizing he is on that borderline where going into the men's seems more appropriate to him than going into the women's, why is it everyone else's legal obligation to get this right? How in the world can there be a legal duty to provide whatever feels right to a transitioning person on a particular day? And at the same time there is no legal duty to make anyone else feel right? I agree that it is a difficult time for everyone involved, and that people need to look beyond themselves and gradually get comfortable with the new reality. But I think the trans person is included in that statement. I think that if he dresses like a man and has a man's name and haircut etc., he should use the men's room at work, but he should also understand that some folks don't feel right about it. It's not their fault he introduced himself as a women in the first place. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 That's quite a leap to go from a "soft man" to "a person with gender dysphoria who chooses to transition." Especially when the original text, based on what I've read, seems far more likely to refer to a persons morals than their gender. I trust that men who devoted their lives to translation knew far more about Greek (including figures of speech) than you or me. I don't see the point of continuing to argue about it, though. I believe "effeminate" means "effeminate," not something else. Whether you believe that or not is up to you. :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 I think people on both sides are holding the trans person to a different standard than everyone who isn't trans. The trans person has he absolute right to make his favorite choice but nobody else does. Is it really hurting the trans person to go in the ladies' room? I really want to know how this makes sense. He sees us as women and doesn't want to use the same bathroom as we. Meanwhile his male colleagues see him as a woman and don't want to use the same bathroom as him. Aren't they both kinda wrong? It probably is, actually. It's one more reminder that there is a disconnect between his physical body and his identify. One more reminder that in some people's eyes, he will never be a real man. One more time he feels "other." While the rest of the men will eventually get used to the new normal, and their discomfort with the situation will decrease, his will not. His discomfort will remain constant. It might be hard to imagine, but I see the light go out of my son's eyes over issues like this over and over again. It's like poking a stick at the sore so that it can't ever heal. In many ways, this is analogous to the move to get mentally and physically disabled people out of asylums and into public life. Do they sometimes make others uncomfortable? Sure. Do the rest of us just need to get over it, because our discomfort is not worth withholding the benefit to them? Absolutely. If I knew a man who worked in that building and was bothered by it, I would empathize with his discomfort, but I would also remind him that he has options--using the stall, for example, or going to a different floor. And I'd ask him to consider the women's perspective and his transitioning co-worker's perspective. 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 What kind of God would "hold them accountable" for that? We don't get define who God is or what His standards are. Trust me when I say I have every sympathy for people who struggle with these issues. I'm sorry if my posts have offended you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bibiche Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 As the mother of a transgender child, this response has me stunned. You are either woefully ignorant or horribly cold-hearted. Don't discount the possibility that it is both. Though I personally feel that it's more the latter. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Just curious, why is the trans person so uncomfortable about using the women's room like in the past? Well, possibly because the employee knows that his female co-workers, as well as any visitors to the office (including clients), will be uncomfortable to have him there. It is *considerate* for someone in this position to bring up the issue and work with their employer to find a solution. I think people on both sides are holding the trans person to a different standard than everyone who isn't trans. The trans person has he absolute right to make his favorite choice but nobody else does. Is it really hurting the trans person to go in the ladies' room? I really want to know how this makes sense. He sees us as women and doesn't want to use the same bathroom as we. Meanwhile his male colleagues see him as a woman and don't want to use the same bathroom as him. Aren't they both kinda wrong? I don't think the problem is that it's hurting the transgender employee to use the women's room. Although I assume there is some discomfort on their part, I don't think that's what's driving the request. I think you're assuming here that the trans employee is doing this because of their own feelings. But it's more complex than that. He's not just saying "Hey, I want to use this other bathroom, and you all will have to suck it up". He's saying, "Hey, there are societal rules that say women go to the women's room, men go to the men's room. Given those rules, and given that I am going to increasingly be perceived as male, it probably makes sense for me to start going to the men's room. But because this is a change, and I don't want it to be an awkward surprise to anyone, I'd like to talk to management and HR to work something out to minimize discomfort and make sure everyone is, if not on the same page, at least aware of the situation so they can plan accordingly." I think that if he dresses like a man and has a man's name and haircut etc., he should use the men's room at work, but he should also understand that some folks don't feel right about it. It's not their fault he introduced himself as a women in the first place. I am quite sure the employee is VERY aware that it is an awkward situation all around, and that many co-workers of either gender will feel uncomfortable. I am QUITE sure of this. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt. Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 I trust that men who devoted their lives to translation knew far more about Greek (including figures of speech) than you or me. I don't see the point of continuing to argue about it, though. I believe "effeminate" means "effeminate," not something else. Whether you believe that or not is up to you. :001_smile: Well, golly gee. I suppose a 21st century woman reading a translation of an Ancient Greek document knows more about the meaning of the English word than all the Greek lexicons ever produced know about the Greek word. If the English says 'effeminate' it must mean clothes! Who cares that the Greek doesn't reference clothing. The English does, and everybody knows that the Greek was only a stepping stone to get to English. The inspiration and authority apply to the documents the English translators produce -- clearly the original authors are no competition. Why? Because scripture us "clear" which means it's clear in English, because Greek isn't very clear -- amirite? Scholars and teachers are completely unnecessary in the church, but translators are perfect! That's why English speakers can surely trust their first impression of every prooftext. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 We don't get define who God is or what His standards are. Trust me when I say I have every sympathy for people who struggle with these issues. I'm sorry if my posts have offended you. Our beliefs about God say things about us, not God. We don't get to pass responsibility for our words and actions up the chain. 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 How in the world can there be a legal duty to provide whatever feels right to a transitioning person on a particular day? You seem to be suggesting that transgender individuals make their choices on a whim. "Oh, yesterday I was Debra, but I guess today I'll be Dick, and maybe tomorrow I'll be Debra again! Lol!" We don't get define who God is or what His standards are. If you're arguing that might makes right, then I guess that's the case, and morality doesn't need to come into it. If you're arguing that your god is moral and just, then you need to show that what you interpret his will as IS moral and just. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 To answer your first question, nothing. Sin involves choice. The Scriptures cited wouldn't apply to rare cases of birth defects. To answer your second question, again, nothing. It was brought up (I thought) as a tangential issue. Thank you for expanding on your understanding of how Scripture applies in this case. I think you are right that in the case of birth defects* (to use your term) that put a person outside the norm, grace must be given. However, are your sure that transgender people don't fit into this category in some way? We are only beginning to understand all kinds of things about the differences between people. We used to think autistic people were the way they were because their mother was not affectionate enough. We used to think mental illness came from demonic possession. As we learn more about genetics, our brains, and so many other scientific things, we are seeing that these things have specific causes that are due to innate differences in the way we are made. If we have to err on one side or the other, isn't it wiser to err on the side of putting transgender people into your "birth defect" category, than into your "sinful choice" category? (*I don't like the term "birth defects" because I don't think God makes mistakes. I appreciate the glorious diversity of the world He has given us, and the diversity of all of His people, including and especially those who are outside the norm in any number of ways, and who suffer for it.) We don't get define who God is or what His standards are. Trust me when I say I have every sympathy for people who struggle with these issues. We don't get to define His standards, but we do have to do our best to understand them. Isn't it important to weigh the affected people's testimony in trying to understand whether their actions arise from a sinful nature or from their innate, God-given, unique biology? 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Our beliefs about God say things about us, not God. We don't get to pass responsibility for our words and actions up the chain. My beliefs about God are based on Scripture. If you think that "says things about me," I'm fine with that. I take full responsibility for all my words and actions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie12345 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Gendered bathrooms are nothing more than a social construct. People get uncomfortable when social constructs shift. Reasonable people get over it. What men and women DO in a bathroom isn't really different. Stuff comes out, and we all flush it down the drain. We're used to doing so in a segregated manner, but that doesn't mean we NEED to be segregated in order to do our business. Personally, I hate peeing with other people and try to avoid it. Forget pooping all together. My discomfort has never been based on genitalia or sexuality (separate things.) It's based on pee and poop (and blood) being gross. Which I own as a personal issue, since I'm well aware that they're all normal biological functions. I've never shown my genitalia to other women in a public bathroom, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't show men if they were to pee in a stall next to me, nor would I expect them to show me theirs. Given that men's bathrooms generally include stalls, I don't see how it's any different. 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 If we have to err on one side or the other, isn't it wiser to err on the side of putting transgender people into your "birth defect" category, than into your "sinful choice" category? Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and doing so with gentleness, justasque. I believe it's always wiser to err on the side of taking Scripture at face value, considering that our decisions will have eternal as well as temporal consequences. Bowing out of this discussion now, all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 We don't get define who God is or what His standards are. Trust me when I say I have every sympathy for people who struggle with these issues. I'm sorry if my posts have offended you. Wait, are these statements contradictory? I trust that men who devoted their lives to translation knew far more about Greek (including figures of speech) than you or me. I don't see the point of continuing to argue about it, though. I believe "effeminate" means "effeminate," not something else. Whether you believe that or not is up to you. :001_smile: As a person who is learning quite a bit about the issues surrounding translation of all works, I don't think we can definitively say that the writers of the KJV were speaking only for God - although that may have been their intention. Translations of anything can create issues not foreseen by those translating. To truly understand a work, you need to seek to understand the original. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) I trust that men who devoted their lives to translation knew far more about Greek (including figures of speech) than you or me. I don't see the point of continuing to argue about it, though. I believe "effeminate" means "effeminate," not something else. Whether you believe that or not is up to you. :001_smile: Many volumes have been written by bible scholars pointing out the inaccuracies and bias in the KJV translation. For instance, the word translated into "helpmeet" is a word that in the original is applied to males and females. Yet in KJV, it's only applied to females. ALL translations can introduce the cultural norms and bias of the translators. Edited February 13, 2016 by LucyStoner 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 I trust that men who devoted their lives to translation knew far more about Greek (including figures of speech) than you or me. I don't see the point of continuing to argue about it, though. I believe "effeminate" means "effeminate," not something else. Whether you believe that or not is up to you. :001_smile: So the men who translated the word malakos as "effeminate" in that one place in the Bible know everything there is to know about ancient Greek, but all the Biblical translators who chose a different word or phrase for that word are just ignorant? Even if they, too, "devoted their lives to translation"? And you know so much about ancient Greek, and about all these translators, that you know which ones chose the "correct" word and which ones chose the "wrong" word? Amazing. In the Gospels, malakos is translated as "soft" or "delicate" ("a man dressed in soft (malakos) clothing"). Why doesn't it say "dressed in effeminate clothing" if that's the only possible way to translate that word? Because they're not talking about women's clothing, they're talking about fine/delicate/luxurious clothing. And that's a sense in which the word is often used — to describe a man who isn't rough and tough, who is morally weak and lives in luxury. E.g. Aristotle: ""One who is deficient in resistance to pains that most men withstand with success, is soft (malakos) or luxurious, for luxury is a kind of softness (malakia); such a man lets his cloak trail on the ground to escape the fatigue and trouble of lifting it, or feigns sickness, not seeing that to counterfeit misery is to be miserable." "People too fond of amusement are thought to be profligate, but really they are soft (malakos); for amusement is rest, and therefore a slackening of effort, and addiction to amusement is a form of excessive slackness." To claim that this word can somehow be stretched to cover a trans person is beyond ridiculous. 18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truscifi Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 I would like to hear Texas T's idea on how a company should address this too. Sincerely. As far as I can tell her solution is that trans people shouldn't exist. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chocolatechip Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) NM, thought better of it. Edited February 13, 2016 by chocolatechip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) I believe it's always wiser to err on the side of taking Scripture at face value, considering that our decisions will have eternal as well as temporal consequences. This sums up for me the whole entire problem with referring to their religion for moral solutions, much less practical ones. Xians around the world and throughout time have insisted that they err on the side of taking the scriptural texts correctly, and yet xians have yet to come to a single conclusive, cohesive understanding of even the most rudimentary elements of the xian faith. In two thousand years, xians can't even agree on which texts count as scripture, or the importance and value of other texts that aren't canonized, but hold a measure of importance in some way. They can't agree on the nature and character of the god of the stories, or even which stories are actually real, historic events vs. allegories or even poetry. They can't agree on what the nature and function of the clergy ought to be, what the role of women ought to be in church or in society, what constitutes as a sin, or what to do when that sin has been exposed. They can't agree on what eternal or temporal consequences even are, much less how to reduce the risks of bad consequences and increase the probability of good ones. The one and only thing they all agree on is the value of faith, the importance of belief. The matter of how much faith or belief is employed at any given time isn't even universally accepted! It doesn't matter that this same policy - faith - inspires diametrically opposing ideas (as we can see in this thread alone). It doesn't matter that this same policy - faith - inspires public policy and private behavior known to be harmful, hurtful, or deadly. What matters is that faith is valued, ignorance is ignored, and trust and emotions are considered more heavily than factual information. Why anyone believes this policy - faith - ought to trump known factual information when it comes to solving problems in society, is frustrating, and a bit frightening. It would be considered unethical, irrational, and self-serving in any other context than popular religion. Can you imagine if a group of people demanded to apply public policy based on interpreting the dreams of virgins? Can you imagine if LGBTQ people had to appeal to the Wise And Insightful Dream Interpreters to argue for their safety and consideration in society? What possible argument must one come up with to counter the interpretation of dreams, erred on the side of face value, considering those decisions will, they assure us, have eternal as well as temporal consequences? Edited February 13, 2016 by albeto. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) I'm not sure why the Bible is relevant in employment matters anyway, unless the US is a Christian theocracy, which it isn't. If anyone feels they are aiding and abetting sin by sharing a bathroom with a trans person, the onus, so far as I can see, is for that person to own their religious perspective and to adjust their own behaviour to suit. I don't understand why the person who is doing something legal - transitioning - in a non-religious environment - the work place - should have to be the one to use the metaphorical porta-potty. As a Bible-believing Christian, I agree with this. ETA, except the suggestion was a real port-a-potty, not a metaphorical one ;) Edited February 13, 2016 by goldberry 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 As a Bible-believing Christian, I agree with this. ETA, except the suggestion was a real port-a-potty, not a metaphorical one ;) I have been thinking about this all afternoon and I have to say I do agree. We are living in a world gone mad, IMO, and there are many many things that just, to be honest, freak me out. I really don't need to even list those things, but basically I just try to live my own faith and obey the laws of the land until such laws interfer with me practicing my own faith. I have had a bit of practice in this during my lifetime....being a member of a non mainstream religion....I have often been thrust into situations that leave me uncomfortable, but are seen by most people as normal.... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillyDilly Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 It's not hate, it's 'loving someone so much that you won't support them in their sin'. We see this world view every time an LBGTIQ issue comes up here. I don't know how you convince someone the sky is blue when they insist it's green. http://www.empiricalzeal.com/2012/06/05/the-crayola-fication-of-the-world-how-we-gave-colors-names-and-it-messed-with-our-brains-part-i/ Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 http://www.empiricalzeal.com/2012/06/05/the-crayola-fication-of-the-world-how-we-gave-colors-names-and-it-messed-with-our-brains-part-i/ Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk That's an interesting link (although like most such links it ignores the fact that some languages distinguish between blue and light blue in the same way that English distinguishes between red and pink, which is mildly irksome), though I'm not sure how it... applies? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I have been thinking about this all afternoon and I have to say I do agree. We are living in a world gone mad, IMO, and there are many many things that just, to be honest, freak me out. I really don't need to even list those things, but basically I just try to live my own faith and obey the laws of the land until such laws interfer with me practicing my own faith. I have had a bit of practice in this during my lifetime....being a member of a non mainstream religion....I have often been thrust into situations that leave me uncomfortable, but are seen by most people as normal.... My problem with this aligns with my problem with referring to religion as I stated just above. People decide subjectively what "practicing my own faith" means, and how much it should justify hostile behavior towards others. From "Religious Freedom" bills that protect some form of unethical discrimination against a non-threatening group, legislation that promotes religion in schools, religious regulations that protect the worst kinds of criminals, certain "rights of passage" that cannot be justified by any reasonable or rational arguments, the idea of "practicing my own faith" can easily be found justifying aggressive, harmful behavior towards those who are punished for not adhering to the "right" religious behaviors. Work places ought to be safe for all their employees, just like towns and cities ought to be safe for all their citizens. Practicing a religious faith shouldn't be licence for hostile activity against others, and while I don't mean to suggest you take advantage of that yourself, the argument not only allows for it, it promotes it when chosen. To me, that is unjustifiable, and that's why that argument (not you personally, but the impersonal argument itself), "obey the laws of the land until such laws interfere with me practicing my own faith" is problematic. To bring it back to the OP, in what way could creating a hostile work environment for a non hetero-conforming employee be considered "practicing one's own faith"? I can't imagine it, but people have conceived of arguments that promote just such a thing. Then they push for legislation to make that hostility protected under law. It's barbaric, in my opinion, to deny individuals their own autonomy because it doesn't conform with the popular religion of that culture. It's no less barbaric to do so informally, such as in the workplace, even when it violates no law. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) He should use whatever washroom he'd use in circumstances where people did not know him from 5 years back. Possibly it being a transition time for everyone, in a sense, offices/cubicles could be (re)assigned so that people who are not disturbed have their personal office/work spot near his and whatever washroom he would most often use, and people who would be disturbed would have theirs on another floor, since a one time move might be easier than daily going to a different floor to use the loo. Edited February 16, 2016 by Pen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Practicing a religious faith shouldn't be licence for hostile activity against others, and while I don't mean to suggest you take advantage of that yourself, the argument not only allows for it, it promotes it when chosen. To me, that is unjustifiable, and that's why that argument (not you personally, but the impersonal argument itself), "obey the laws of the land until such laws interfere with me practicing my own faith" is problematic. The laws of the land get to decide what action or inaction of mine (in practicing my religion) is illegal. I in turn get to decide what my hill to die on is. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PineFarmMom Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) The laws of the land get to decide what action or inaction of mine (in practicing my religion) is illegal. I in turn get to decide what my hill to die on is.Yes...this!!!! I have seen civil disobedience on the part of Christians and not. It is part of standing for our beliefs and practicing our conscience. I'm thinking those like Corrie ten Boom would have let many people die had they bent the knee and just obeyed unrighteous laws!!! Edited February 16, 2016 by Texas T 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daria Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Yes...this!!!! I have seen civil disobedience on the part of Christians and not. It is part of standing for our beliefs and practicing our conscience. I'm thinking those like Corrie ten Boom would have let many people die had they bent the knee and just obeyed unrighteous laws!!! Are you comparing the actions of Corrie ten Boom, who risked her life to save innocent people, with the actions of a lawyer who refuses to walk downstairs to use a different restroom? 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 The laws of the land get to decide what action or inaction of mine (in practicing my religion) is illegal. I in turn get to decide what my hill to die on is. But if you get to choose a hill, then so do others. And while agree with Albeto that I don't believe you'd resort to violence, the same isn't true for everyone who holds a religious belief. When someone feels their hill to die on is worth taking out others, we call them extremists, especially if they practice a minority religion. So where does it stop? You get to decide what hill to die on. Who else gets that freedom? How do we choose between people we think will hold their ground peacefully and those we aren't sure of. Do you see how this can get out of hand? Most laws of the land, btw, are to protect minorities. The Founding Fathers said as much. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PineFarmMom Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Are you comparing the actions of Corrie ten Boom, who risked her life to save innocent people, with the actions of a lawyer who refuses to walk downstairs to use a different restroom?. Nope!! I was responding to the lengthy message speaking of Christians having no right to disobey laws that go against their conscience!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I'd still say get over it, but that's me. My experiences camping and in the AF have gotten me over such small problems long ago. It's not like we're talking about skinny dipping at a couples only resort. It's a restroom. I was just thinking the same thing. I have a hard time with the whole gender segregated bathroom thing because I've spent many a day in situations in which this was crazily impractical, and everyone muddled through the best they could. It worked out. I have always assumed that there were people of different sexual orientation using the restrooms at the same time I was so a transgender person would simply not be an issue. It might be worth it to bring that up to the men involved. Once they consider that not every person who has ever shared a bathroom with them is likely heterosexual, then once that assumption has been challenged, it might encourage them to adjust more quickly for their co-worker. Stalls are there for a reason. It will take a while for everyone to adjust, but really the men just need to get a stiff upper lip and be gracious to their colleague. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.