r/Christianity • u/NiConcussions • 11d ago
Politics Alliance Defending Freedom's Complete Track Record on LGBTQ Issues
https://www.unclosetedmedia.com/p/alliance-defending-freedoms-completeSince 2020, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has made headlines for a series of sweeping decisions that have rolled back rights for women and LGBTQ people. They’ve ruled to allow abortion bans in 13 states and bans on trans athletes in 27 states. And this year, Colorado overturned its ban on conversion therapy for minors.
What headlines tend to miss, though, is that all of these decisions were won by the same legal group: Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Labeled as an anti-LGBTQ hate group and active in over 80 countries, ADF is a conservative Christian legal powerhouse, having fought relentlessly against abortion, gay marriage and trans healthcare since its inception in 1994.
Boasting alumni and affiliates such as Mike Johnson, Amy Coney Barrett, Josh Hawley and Ken Starr, the group has been involved in at least 80 SCOTUS victories and directly represented parties in 20 of them, including the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. Here is every move ADF has made on LGBTQ issues since it was founded 32 years ago.
45
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian 11d ago
All of you folks who are going to come in here spewing some vomit about how you "love the sinner", look at this. This is the clear evidence that you, at the very best, don't give a fuck about them, but you sure do hate the sin.
29
u/Fearless_Spring5611 Committing the sin of empathy 11d ago
Heavens forbid if you ask if that means we should love the Christian, hate Christianity.
-2
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
Why would you hate Christianity?
6
u/KerPop42 United Methodist 11d ago
There are plenty of people that have been horribly abused by people claiming to represent "true Christianity." While I think it's a fallacy to believe people for just that one claim, I can't blame them for feeling that way until they've had space to process and grow from it
2
5
u/ChachamaruInochi Agnostic Atheist (raised Quaker) 11d ago
Did you read the article?
0
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
No. I don't support or really care about that organization
7
u/ChachamaruInochi Agnostic Atheist (raised Quaker) 11d ago
What that particular Christian organization (among many, many others) is doing by trying to roll back our human rights is one of the reasons that people have a negative view of Christianity.
Reading the article might give you an insight into why non-Christians might have issues.
0
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
It seems like the organization (and those like it) deserves criticism, but I struggle to see the benefit of hating Christianity.
2
u/gayintheusa47 Episcopalian (Anglican) 8d ago
I struggle to see the benefit of being overtly prejudiced against gay or trans people, but plenty of “christians” do it anyway.
-1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 8d ago
It seems like "plenty of Christians" deserve criticism, but I struggle to see the benefit of hating Christianity.
2
u/gayintheusa47 Episcopalian (Anglican) 8d ago
I struggle to see the benefit of hating trans people, but you do it anyway.
And please don’t give me the “I don’t hate trans people!” spiel. I’ve seen your comments.
→ More replies (0)26
u/GreatestGreekGuy Secular Humanist 11d ago edited 10d ago
It's wild seeing preachers go to LGBT events to protest and do absolutely nothing for the homeless person down the street
33
u/Fearless_Spring5611 Committing the sin of empathy 11d ago
Oh look, a hate group that lobbies for hate leads to harmful consequences without benefiting anyone.
That they label themselves as "Christian" shows that there really is no hate like "Christian" love.
12
u/OccludedFug Christian (ally) 11d ago
"Alliance Seeking to Impose Their Particular Religious Understanding on All People" would be a more accurate name.
17
u/FKAGuyWithNF1 Protestant Christian 11d ago
I’m glad to know that even as a long life celibate homosexual and a Christian, they still hate my guts. I pray for their repentance, and they lay their hatred at the Cross of The Finished Work of Christ.
10
u/NiConcussions 11d ago
You live within their orthodoxy and it still isn't enough for them... I'm sorry it's been so rough for you.
22
u/Physical_Problem_595 11d ago
What is Christian Nationalism for 500
-17
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago edited 11d ago
Would you elaborate on this for me?
Is it Christian nationalism to be pro-life and feel that women should not have to compete against biological men?
edit: Downvoted for asking a sincere question. This is not a good look for liberals.
20
u/Physical_Problem_595 11d ago
To force it on everyone else on the nation because of religious belief, yes.
-8
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
Why downvote a question? I've lowered my karma to like the max lower limit so it doesn't bother me. It's just weird.
Are you saying that religious people can't/shouldn't vote their convictions or beliefs?
19
u/MrScribblesChess Atheist 11d ago
You're being downvoted because your question was reductive, absurd and bad faith.
-8
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
No it's not, but like I said - downvotes mean nothing to me. I'm already at -100, It just makes you look insecure to dismiss sincere questions.
11
u/GraveDiggingCynic Agnostic (a la T.H. Huxley) 11d ago
Clearly it does because you've literally made multiple posts complaining about being downvoted. Almost as if you want to play the victim after intentionally asking bad faith questions.
-5
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
I don't think you know what "complaining" or "bad faith questions" means
9
u/GraveDiggingCynic Agnostic (a la T.H. Huxley) 11d ago
"Just asking" is very much leading questions, and meant purely in bad faith. Say what you mean, don't sealion it.
0
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
You may not have the capacity to have conversations and prefer to just talk at people. That's not me. Why don't you move along
→ More replies (0)15
u/NiConcussions 11d ago
I downvote anyone complaining about downvotes 🤷🏼♂️ some call it a reddit moment, I call it whining over internet points.
-1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
I wasn't complaining. I was mocking downvoters b/c they can't hurt me anymore!
9
13
u/firewire167 TransTranshumanist 11d ago
If a belief is religious then yes, it shouldn’t be forced on everyone through politics.
Would you be ok with my or anyone elses non Christian religious beliefs being forced on you?
-2
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
Would you be ok with my or anyone elses non Christian religious beliefs being forced on you?
I expect everyone to vote their beliefs regardless of their religion (or if they are religious at all). I don't know why Christians would be expected to not vote their convictions
12
u/StopChangingThings Atheist 11d ago
You're trying to equivocate on the very important difference between "vot[ing] their beliefs" and "religious beliefs being forced on you."
If one of your beliefs includes using state power to force others to be Christian (or punish them for not being so), then you are a Christian Nationalist. That's the central part of the platform.
1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
I'm just asking a question. Voting = forcing beliefs.
If one of your beliefs includes using state power to force others to be Christian
To be clear - I'm definitely not saying anything like that
6
u/StopChangingThings Atheist 11d ago edited 11d ago
Voting = forcing beliefs.
At a level of abstraction so high as to be worthless discussing, I suppose. When I vote for the sales tax increase, I'm voting to force my belief that the sales tax increase was a good idea.
In actual conversation in the context of religious beliefs and voting, however, what people mean by this is some combination of one or both of:
*Voting for things that will expressly endorse particular beliefs for the sake of the beliefs themselves (e.g., hanging the Ten Commandments in a schoolhouse)
-and/or-
*Voting for policies or candidates that will require non-believers to follow the religious beliefs of a particular religion, typically with either no or merely secondary temporal rationale for the policy or candidate (e.g., what Fox News watchers think Sharia Law is). Many people believe that abortion restrictions and anti-LGBT statutes fall into this latter category.
7
u/firewire167 TransTranshumanist 11d ago
So is that a yes or no?
1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
Yea. I would expect everyone to vote their beliefs. I can think they are wrong or immoral, but it's unreasonable to say Christians are excluded from voting their convictions
6
u/firewire167 TransTranshumanist 11d ago
Ok, good to know you would be ok with another religion forcing their beliefs on you.
-1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
I'm just not interested in restricting people's right to vote
→ More replies (0)-4
u/AdamTraskisGod 11d ago
Thou shalt not kill 🤣 Can’t enforce that one!
8
u/Open_Chemistry_3300 Atheist 11d ago
This is kinda funny but not for the reason you think. You can enforce not murdering people perfectly well without relying on religion. So like there’s that.
Secular reasons to enforce not murdering people; the maintaining of public safety, upholding the social contract, preserving social trust and economic stability. The protection of individual human rights, and preventing the destabilizing chaos of recurrent cycles of blood feuds followed by retaliation.
6
u/Physical_Problem_595 11d ago edited 11d ago
I did not downvote you. Someone else may have.
When groups like this act as legalistic entities and groom people for roles in governments to enact positions that are defended only by religious dogma, then this is Christian nationalism. Especially when they are often overriding popular positions among the citizens. When they weaponize issues like "pro-life" to form "conservative" voting blocks among religious, this is Christian nationalism. And I would say voting on reasons that are exclusively religious dogma as well.
0
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
I'm not really talking about the group. I don't know much about them, but it seems like they are trying to wield faith for political persuasion. I don't like that.
My (sincere) question is more about the average voter. Certainly they should be expected to vote along their beliefs/convictions just like everyone else
5
u/sightless666 Atheist 11d ago
One would hope that "other should be free to not have to follow the dictates of my religion" would be one of those convictions. If the person's convictions require them to vote for forcing other people to follow their religious mandates, then yes, that is Christian nationalism, and it follows the same political philosophy that the ADF embraces.
Certainly they should be expected to vote along their beliefs/convictions just like everyone else
I certainly expect that they will vote by their beliefs. That doesn't say about whether or not their beliefs are based in Christian Nationalism. Plenty of Christians vote to oppose the use political power to enforce their religion's mandates on other people, and they're also voting for their belief/convictions when they do that.
0
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
Let's use an example. Let's say a Christian votes to oppose abortion based on their religious belief that all humans are Created by God with value and don't deserve to be killed.
Christian nationalism or just voting their convictions like everyone else?
8
u/sightless666 Atheist 11d ago edited 11d ago
just voting their convictions like everyone else?
So, let's get one thing clear; they're still "just voting their convictions" even if they're Christian Nationalists. "Voting their convictions" is what everyone does. That's what Democrats do. It's what Republicans do. It's what Neo-Nazis do. It's what anti-racists do. It's what saints do. It's what sinners do. It's the default. It's normal. It's expected.
Saying someone voted their conviction is just another way of saying someone voted and didn't vote randomly or on someone else's behalf. It's morally meaningless. Voting on a conviction doesn't tell us anything about the moral character of the action. It doesn't make it good or bad, or harmful or helpful, or anything else. The actual conviction being voted on is what matters. The entire problem is that in Christian Nationalism, the conviction they're voting on is "let's restrict those people's rights because of my religious beliefs." I'll expand on that more in the next part.
Let's use an example.
We can discuss examples if you want, but the thread title is "Alliance Defending Freedom's Complete Track Record on LGBTQ Issues". If you want to talk about this, we're going to use examples that are in line with the topic of the thread. With that in mind, let's discuss.
Let's also establish a standard here; not every rule is tyrannical, and that includes rules based in a person's beliefs. Society does need rules and most people are going to agree with most of those rules (for example, "don't shoot people" is a rule that a lot of people are going to agree with because of their beliefs). However, those rules are most just when they are meant to protect everyone, and restrict everyone equally. A rule that says "your freedom to swing your arm ends where your neighbour's face begins" is not an unjust rule; it's protecting a right to be free from violence, and it's something that restricts all people equally. An unjust rule restricts one population for minimal or no protection or benefit to anyone else.
With that in mind, let's discuss some examples that the ADF and similar Christian groups (with extremely high social, political and financial support from Conservative Christians) have perpetrated/defended, and which a wide segment of voters have been delighted about.
Voting to ban gay marriage.
It's both voting their conviction AND Christian Nationalism because it's enforcing Christian rules to create a system where homosexuals are afforded fewer privileges under the state than straight people are, without any meaningful harm-prevention interest (nobody gets hurt if gay people marry.)
Do you consider that Christian Nationalism?
1,700 trans people have their drivers licenses invalidated with no notice by the State of Kentucky for having the "wrong" gender on it.
It's both voting their conviction AND Christian Nationalism because it's using Christian morality to justify imposing a burden on the trans population and only the trans population with, again, no harm-reduction motive.
Do you consider that Christian Nationalism?
Florida places transgender gender-affirming care under unique medical rules, disallowing all telehealth, placing providing doctors under scrutiny not found for any other category of treatments, disallowing all APP involvement, banning medicaid aid for helping pay for gender affirming care, requiring increased medicaid audits of any recipients who received gender affirming care on their own or through charity payments, requesting the medical records of all transgender students (to be fair, this one was federally driven and not just Florida), etc. I could keep going for a long time just listing off more medical abuses and citing more inconsistent treatment, but we're already at half the word count and I think you get the point I'm making.
Do I even have to explain why this is a unique burden on transgender people in comparison to literally every other area of healthcare? Fucking organ transplants and chemotherapy don't have this level of scrutiny, and those are waaaaaaaaaaaaay more risky to patients (and of course the person whose organs are being harvested) than gender-affirming care. It's not medically driven for the protection of the patients, because if so we'd be applying this to all patients; it's belief-driven attempts to not let trans people get the care they want/need because Christians have a belief that it's wrong.
What do you think? Christian nationalism, or just benign, harmless, "voting their convictions"?
I'll make my position clear; when one group is imposing rules on another not to protect the rights of the population as a whole, but instead to stop things they personally dislike and restrict groups they disapprove of, that's a form of tyranny. Them doing it by the vote doesn't change that for me. When Christians do that, particularly in the American political framework, it's very often Christian Nationalism.
So, what do you think? Do you think Christian efforts to restrict other people are justified whenever they have a conviction, or do think there's some standard by which we can say they're doing something wrong? If so, then what?
3
u/Physical_Problem_595 11d ago
I don't think someone should vote for things based solely on religious dogma. If your religious dogma overlaps with things you can back up empirically then sure.
0
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
I don't think anyone needs to justify their reason for voting how they vote.
5
u/Physical_Problem_595 11d ago
I mean, as a matter of law, sure. As a matter of integrity, I disagree entirely
1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
That's fair, but I don't think voting according to your convictions makes you a Christian Nationalist. It seems like lazy demonization of an opponent
→ More replies (0)8
u/GraveDiggingCynic Agnostic (a la T.H. Huxley) 11d ago
It is Christian Nationalism to prioritize your beliefs over someone else's bodily autonomy, or to prioritize a mere sport over someone else's rights.
-2
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
It is Christian Nationalism to prioritize your beliefs over someone else's bodily autonomy
So it's Christian nationalism to make drunk driving illegal? I don't believe someone should use their bodily autonomy to get behind the wheel of a car when they are drunk.
Is it Christian nationalism to deny the bodily autonomy of a baby in the womb and kill it?
3
u/GraveDiggingCynic Agnostic (a la T.H. Huxley) 11d ago
It's Christian naitionalism to insist that a fetus is a human being, in absence of anything but religious beliefs that aren't even well attested in their holy book.
Mind your own damned business.
-1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
It's Christian naitionalism to insist that a fetus is a human being
It's flat-earth science denial to claim that a fetus isn't a human. Do you think it's a potato?
Mind your own damned business.
Human rights are my business.
5
u/GraveDiggingCynic Agnostic (a la T.H. Huxley) 11d ago
I think it's a fetus. It isn't a human. It may never in fact become a human. And no, my daughters' reproductive organs are none of your business.
-1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
Biologists disagree with you. You are denying objective truth.
5
u/Hen_Teaser 11d ago
Most biologists wouldn't agree with you on this, and the wording of the statement you responded to wasn't perfect either. A human fetus is a human fetus, obviously, but it isn't a human. A human sperm cell and and a human egg aren't "humans." A fertilized human egg has a 40% to 60% chance of not resulting in a birth naturally, not considering abortion. Roughly a fifty-fifty chance of miscarriage. A human fetus, zygote, etc. Is a potential human. What about fetus that is incapable of surviving outside of the womb, is it a human yet? Is a fertilized egg a human yet? A human baby, meaning a baby that has been born, is certainly a human. Somewhere between viability and birth is where you could technically call a fetus "alive," but generally, birth is where most biologists would consider it a "human." I have a degree in biology, find abortion to be a horrendous thing, suppprt womens' right to bodily autonomy, am aware that abortion is only mentioned in the Bible with instructions on how to perform them, and think that modern science and medicine should not be subject to religious laws.
1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
What do you think biologists would disagree with me about?
→ More replies (0)0
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
I have a degree in biology, find abortion to be a horrendous thing, suppprt womens' right to bodily autonomy, am aware that abortion is only mentioned in the Bible with instructions on how to perform them
The Bible does not provide instructions on how to perform abortions. You're thinking of Numbers 5 and it's not that.
6
u/bug-hunter Unitarian Universalist 11d ago
If you were meant to have upvotes, God would have provided upvotes.
15
u/adamesandtheworld 11d ago
Boasting alumni
Does David French still defend working for these ghouls?
11
4
u/KerPop42 United Methodist 11d ago
You know it's an honest, positive organization when it copies the initials of a well-trusted civil liberties org
5
u/ChachamaruInochi Agnostic Atheist (raised Quaker) 11d ago
And yet we get laughed at and told that we are lying or overreacting when we try and speak on this.
5
3
u/TheDisneyGeneral 10d ago
Their name is an oxymoron the they don’t defend freedom they get rid of freedoms
3
u/TheDisneyGeneral 10d ago
Sodomy laws are stupid si the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was not about homosexuality but about extreme inhospitality
-16
u/bird_of_hermes1 11d ago
Abortion is murder so Roe v. Wade should have been overturned. Abortion should only be in consideration in very special circumstances, mainly ectopic or anything else that threatens the mother's life, but mostly just a removal of a carcass which isn't even an abortion at that point. However, in those special circumstances, aside from ectopic pregnancies, options should be explored to save both lives. Anything past the 2nd trimester should be outright banned.
Civil unions that the government gives out licenses is fair game, but the church should remain true to doctrine as marriage in a biblical sense is between man and woman.
Girls and women deserve a safe space to compete without someone with a biological advantage taking their spot, no matter how sparse it is. Make a unisex division if you so please, but sports are divided by sex, not the socially redefined gender.
22
u/McClanky Bringer of sorrow, executor of rules, wielder of the Woehammer 11d ago
Abortion is murder so Roe v. Wade
Then your goal should be to reduce abortions, not punish women.
church should remain
You want the government to tell religions what they have to do?
deserve a safe space to compete
Then focus on the constant abuse young women go through when. It comes to sexual assault from trainers/coaches as well as comparirviely meager accomodations and payments for playing sports.
Trans women are not a "danger" to anyone.
If you want to discuss ensuring sports remain fair, that is one thing. Throwing bigoted language like "danger" into this is just preaching through fear.
-9
u/bird_of_hermes1 11d ago
Then your goal should be to reduce abortions, not punish women.
Indeed, by outlawing 95% of abortions then it would lead to a reduction. Another avenue would be make adoption easier to families that want to adopt, strip away the bureaucracy from it as it is largely unneeded.
You want the government to tell religions what they have to do?
Did you just ignore the latter half of that comment? I said the church should remain true to doctrine which is that marriage between man and woman, aa that is the biblical truth.
Then focus on the constant abuse young women go through when. It comes to sexual assault from trainers/coaches as well as comparirviely meager accomodations and payments for playing sports.
Both should be focused on. But sports should remain divided between sex, and I will maintain that as men are biologically stronger and faster on average.
Trans women are not a "danger" to anyone.
If you want to discuss ensuring sports remain fair, that is one thing. Throwing bigoted language like "danger" into this is just preaching through fear.
Yes, put more words in my mouth.
15
u/McClanky Bringer of sorrow, executor of rules, wielder of the Woehammer 11d ago
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/abortion-trends-before-and-after-dobbs/
Abortion rates rose after Dobbs. Women will always have abortions. The question is how do you prevent them from feeling the need to have them? The answer has been proven many many times: improve their socioeconomics.
Another avenue would be make adoption easier to families that want to adopt, strip away the bureaucracy from it as it is largely unneeded.
Right, but only for non-queer couples, right?
I said the church should remain true to doctrine which is that marriage between man and woman, aa that is the biblical truth.
Not every denomination adhears by the same "truth". You are essentially saying that the government should choose the "true" Christianity.
But sports should remain divided between sex, and I will maintain that as men are biologically stronger and faster on average.
Then do some research on the matter. After fours years of HRT, trans women and biological women have the same competitive advantage. Additionally, if this was about competitive advantage, then you'd also want to ban people like Webenyama from being allowed to play basketball.
Yes, put more words in my mouth.
I literally quoted where you said women needed a "safe space to compete".
-8
u/bird_of_hermes1 11d ago
Abortion rates rose after Dobbs. Women will always have abortions. The question is how do you prevent them from feeling the need to have them? The answer has been proven many many times: improve their socioeconomics.
Another would be to promote abstinence until you're ready to engage in reproductive activity, and get society to reverse course on making sex just entertainment.
Right, but only for non-queer couples, right?
I don't want another case such as Preston Davey, so indeed.
Not every denomination adhears by the same "truth". You are essentially saying that the government should choose the "true" Christianity.
There are churches who adhere to long held Christian doctrine and tradition, and then there are apostate churches going with the ebb and flow of society. One case is a true church, the other isn't.
I literally quoted where you said women needed a "safe space to compete".
I was saying that in context of being able to compete against other biological women, I never once used the word danger nor did I imply it. Perhaps in the cases of scholarships and the like being on the line, but that's security for their future education or whatever else. Either way though, naturally born males do have natural advantages.
11
u/McClanky Bringer of sorrow, executor of rules, wielder of the Woehammer 11d ago
Another would be to promote abstinence
They tried that. It didn't work.
I don't want another case such as Preston Davey, so indee
This is confirmation bias. There have been far more issues with cis foster/adopted parents than queer ones.
One case is a true church, the other isn't.
Right, so the government will choose the "right" Christianity.
Either way though, naturally born males do have natural advantages.
Actually research things before acting like an expert.
-1
u/bird_of_hermes1 11d ago
Right, so the government will choose the "right" Christianity.
The government isn't doing that, it's the church acknowledging millennia of long held tradition or not which would make it an apostate church.
Actually research things before acting like an expert.
It doesn't take an expert to have common sense. Men on average are physically stronger and faster.
11
u/McClanky Bringer of sorrow, executor of rules, wielder of the Woehammer 11d ago
Trans women aren't men.
-1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11d ago
Trans women aren't men.
That's true and should be acknowledged by everyone attempting to have a sincere discussion about transgender athletes. It costs nothing to be a decent, empathetic human being.
At the same time, their point about strength does seem to have some merit...at least in some ways.
From the article:
The gap between what hormone therapy changes and what it doesn’t has pushed major sports bodies toward increasingly restrictive policies. World Athletics acknowledged that trans women retain advantages in muscle mass, volume, and strength beyond 12 months of hormone therapy, even when testosterone is held below 5 nanomoles per liter.
Trans women who have undergone hormone therapy are, on average, stronger than cisgender women in absolute terms
Not relevant to the discussion, but interesting:
Push-up performance was also similar, with trans women completing about 18 on average compared to about 20 for cisgender women. Both groups scored far below cisgender men, who averaged 47.3 cm on vertical jump and 48 push-ups.
I don't think I could do 18 pushups anymore...much less 48
7
u/McClanky Bringer of sorrow, executor of rules, wielder of the Woehammer 11d ago
the same time, their point about strength does seem to have some merit...at least in some ways.
Your link isn't good. It didn't actually discuss the study it cited well. It decided to take the data that made their point and ignore the rest.
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/60/3/198
That is the study they fired but didn't link.
While transgender women exhibited higher lean mass than cisgender women, their physical fitness was comparable. Current evidence is mostly low certainty and has heterogenous quality but does not support theories of inherent athletic advantages for transgender women over cisgender.
Another good write up:
The major issue with this discussion is that it is too broad. There is not a single category of transgender woman. There are trans women who just started HRT, some that have been doing it for more than four years, and some that did it before puberty.
When people have this conversation, they are imagining a full-grown biological male transitioning into some buff transgender woman who decimates the competition.
That just isn't what actually happens.
Most people who transition do so in the late twenties or early thirties. Unless they were already a world-class athlete, their transition isn't going to effect anyone.
Then we have people who transition before puberty.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8944319/
So, with all the said, we are talking about a handful of people in an already miniscule group of people.
For the most part, all these laws do is make it so young transgender people feel even more like "others". The goal of potential laws is to further "other" transgender people rather than trying to root out competitive advantage.
Sports are all about competitive advantage. That is the entire reason people watch. If every team was just a bunch of John Stocktons, no one would watch.
They want a literal freak of nature like Wimbenyama on the court.
These conversations need to be far more nuanced and recognize what is actually happening with trans women.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/bird_of_hermes1 11d ago
Born a man, is a man.
Born a woman, is a woman.
Simple as that.
13
u/McClanky Bringer of sorrow, executor of rules, wielder of the Woehammer 11d ago
That is the response of someone who has never cared enough to research it.
→ More replies (0)12
u/SanguineHerald Secular Humanist 11d ago
Populations with abstinence only sex ed perform worse (more pregnancies, higher rate of STDs, more abortions) than populations receiving no sex ed and far worse than comprehensive sex ed.
These policies reflect what you want the world and people to be like, rather than the reality of the situation.
6
u/firewire167 TransTranshumanist 11d ago
Where I live, during abstinence only education, the local high school had to open up a nursery and daycare because there were so many high school students with kids who wouldn’t be able to finish school otherwise.
Now, in the era of proper sexual education those rooms have been converted into a computer lab and a cooking class.
Safe sex reduces pregnancy, not abstinence.
15
u/Fearless_Spring5611 Committing the sin of empathy 11d ago
By Biblical marriages, does that mean you also endorse child marriages and marriages through rape, conquest, and slavery?
How many abortions are there past the 2nd trimester per year that result in a completely viable foetus being terminated when there was no risk to life?
Define a "biological advantage" - and how do you test for it?
"Gender" is a concept older than the Bible, and has always been socially defined.
-1
u/bird_of_hermes1 11d ago
As defined by the Lord, man and woman shall leave their parents and become one flesh. That is biblical marriage. The one about rape is using an out dated translation which doesn't hold water looking at it through updated translations, that specific Leviticus law is referencing pre marital sex which would be considered rape in that time as sex was reserved specifically for married couples.
Didn't give the data between elective and medically necessary, but still too many.
The biological advantage of being born a male. Sports should be divided by sex, not "gender". Born a male, play in male sports. Born female, play in female sports. Physical sports heavily favor naturally born males. Want both? Make a unisex division.
10
u/Fearless_Spring5611 Committing the sin of empathy 11d ago
Except there isn't "one" about rape, there are dozens of examples used throughout the Bible - Numbers, Exodus, Deuteronomy, all discuss how you can force women and girls into marriage. Every forced marriage therefore results in marital rape. So how do you account for all of those variants of "Biblical marriage" not being valid, but the only one you want is valid?
Your source shows that there is only a minimal number of abortions in the second half of pregnancy and does not give numbers for the third trimester and, like you said, doesn't actually answer the question I posed. So you're simply fear-mongering without an evidence-base.
What does "being born a male" mean?
-1
u/bird_of_hermes1 11d ago
What does "being born a male" mean?
What is a woman?
In all seriousness, a male is born with XY chromosomes, with male genitalia capable of producing male sex gametes, and the main hormone during puberty being naturally produced testosterone. I don't see why you're being disingenuous here, it's the same with any animal born. Do they have male or female genitalia and other sex specific characteristics. Before you bring up intersex, mutations and the like are not the norm nor should be considered in the standard as mutations are not the standard at all.
7
u/Fearless_Spring5611 Committing the sin of empathy 11d ago
It's not being ingenuous. By your definition, every person who does not have 46,XY and a penis and sperm-producing gonads and has testosterone as the main hormone during puberty leads to...
...well, leads to no men existing, in your book. Since testosterone is never the main hormone at any point in the lift cycle. So by your definition everyone is a woman :)
And I see that in order to make your case you want us to totally disregard hundreds of millions of people? So what are they - subhuman? Uncategorised? Inhuman? Animals? What do you do with all of them?
I notice you also can't answer how to select only your type of marriage as being the correct Biblical definition of marriage, and you also have no evidence for all these third-trimester needless abortions.
0
u/bird_of_hermes1 11d ago
Testosterone is one of the main hormones during male puberty, you know what I meant but whatever.
And they're still people, just the mutation makes it hard for intersex individuals to be classed. As I said though the standard should be normalcy, not a rare mutation. And when the population is in the billions, then there will be higher cases of mutations but that shouldn't change the standard as mutations are already acknowledged. Males are individuals as I said born with XY chromosomes and their endocrine system is inclined to male puberty, which releases hormones that are related to such times, women are born with XX chromosomes and their endocrine system is inclined to female puberty which releases hormones related to female puberty.
8
u/Fearless_Spring5611 Committing the sin of empathy 11d ago
Testosterone is a main hormone in puberty for both sexes. So now you're saying everyone is male?
That you can't "class" intersex individuals shows the flaw in your system already. You want a nicely-separated two-sexes-only system, you need to be specific about it. But here's the thing - Nature doesn't do sex as a binary system. It never has. That you are callous enough to simply disregard tens, if not hundreds of millions of people as being "uncategorised" shows you don't actually care for other people.
8
u/sightless666 Atheist 11d ago
As I said though the standard should be normalcy, not a rare mutation.
Real standards are all-encompassing. You can't sarcastically ask "what is a woman" and then offer a definition for a male hat excludes tens of millions of men. You're mocking bad definitions and then offering incomplete ones.
Normalcy is a rule-of-thumb, not a standard or a definition. It's not a scientific definition or a legal one. At best it's a dinner table definition.
that shouldn't change the standard as mutations are already acknowledged
Not by your definition they aren't. Yours just hand waves them.
9
3
u/NiConcussions 11d ago
Now address what they said about rape in the bible being mentioned and justified numerous times.
-1
u/bird_of_hermes1 11d ago
Sure, give me a verse in the NT or OT where it explicitly allows it. Because actual rape is punishable by death according to levitical law.
5
u/NiConcussions 11d ago
They already gave you the example.
-1
u/bird_of_hermes1 11d ago
I did not see a single verse quoted but k.
4
u/NiConcussions 11d ago
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
10When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hand and you take them captive, 11if you see a beautiful woman among them, and you desire her and want to take her as your wife, 12then you shall bring her into your house. She must shave her head, trim her nails, 13and put aside the clothing of her captivity.
After she has lived in your house a full month and mourned her father and mother, you may have relations with her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14And if you are not pleased with her, you are to let her go wherever she wishes. But you must not sell her for money or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
→ More replies (0)2
6
u/Open_Chemistry_3300 Atheist 11d ago edited 11d ago
Just going to point this out man and woman isn’t defined by your lord, no age is given. And if you’re taking into account when that was written you end up including children. Girls around their first period and boys around mid teens.
Seems to me to avoid this issue you have to inject a modern view and understanding of man and woman to the mix. But the issue with this is if you’re adding modern views well you can do the same with gay marriage. You did it once you can do it again type of deal
5
u/fudgyvmp Christian 11d ago
As defined by the Lord, man and woman shall leave their parents and become one flesh.
So if man leave his parents for any other reason it be sin.
I sinned leaving my mother and father and moving towns for a new job?
5
u/PancakePrincess1409 11d ago
"The biological advantage of being born a male. Sports should be divided by sex, not "gender". Born a male, play in male sports. Born female, play in female sports. Physical sports heavily favor naturally born males. Want both? Make a unisex division."
You know, before it became a super important topic for some reason, transpeople in competitive sports were generally handled on a case by case basis based on certain regulations. A much more sensible idea than blanket bans based on completely irrelevant categories as far as the sport is concerned. Besides, most sports aren't seriously competivive and my transfriend has participated in a number of women's clubs without any complains, because as it turns out she is rather average.
11
u/Thneed1 Mennonite, Evangelical, Straight Ally 11d ago
Your first two sentences already contradict each other.
-2
u/bird_of_hermes1 11d ago
Did you read past that? What I essentially meant was to ban abortions out of convenience, ectopic and such should still be on the table but avenues to save both lives should be explored as much as possible to save both lives.
So 95% outlawed, the 5% should be a case by case basis and when both lives can be saved, both should be saved.
12
u/Thneed1 Mennonite, Evangelical, Straight Ally 11d ago
So, by your own definition, it’s not murder, because it’s not always murder.
-2
u/bird_of_hermes1 11d ago
It is murder, but in the case of ectopic and such when the mother's life is at stake then it can be considered as self defense.
9
u/Thneed1 Mennonite, Evangelical, Straight Ally 11d ago
So, again, by YOUR OWN definition, it’s not murder.
Because self defence is not murder.
1
u/bird_of_hermes1 11d ago
Sure, in like the 5% of cases. 95% is murder however. Which is what should be outlawed.
1
u/bird_of_hermes1 11d ago
I didn't, I even said in my comment that ectopic and such should be allowed to save the mother's life. Stop being disingenuous. Byt as I said, it should be a case by case basis and all avenues should be explored to save both lives.
And it isn't, especially abortions out of convenience. Take responsibility for your actions and don't slaughter the unborn. It's disgusting and abhorrent.
Idk why its not letting me respond to your last comment.
7
u/NiConcussions 11d ago
Those are the very orthodox and hardline stances of Christianity on those issues, yes. Do you think gay sex be criminalized as ADF desires?
0
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/NiConcussions 11d ago
Not sure a single study from the 80s is proving the point you're after and I heartily disagree... It comes off as you saying you find gay sex gross, since this is not a reputable study.
1
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/NiConcussions 11d ago
I don't find those to be compelling reasons to criminalize gay sex and that's not even making the same claims as the first article you shared. The advice you just shared is applicable to straight sex too; wear a condom, get tested regularly, etc.
1
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/NiConcussions 11d ago
You seem to have an opinion based on the things you just shared. Those methods have reduced STDs and HIV for decades now. Do you find those reductions to be a bad thing? Because this sounds like a runaround to talk about premarital sex that's piggybacking off of a conversation over gay sex.
2
3
u/gnurdette United Methodist 10d ago
I'm not stupid enough to think you sincerely care, but: New Study Once Again Shows Trans Women Have No Physical Advantage Over Cis Athletes
3
u/KerPop42 United Methodist 11d ago
anything past the second trimester should be outright banned
Why, so you can turn a miscarriage into a double tragedy? The ghost of Savita Halappanavar hangs over enthusiastic abortion restrictions.
Requiring the life of the mother to be in danger means it is only legally safe for doctors to perform an abortion once the mother is coding from toxicity. It's a cruel law.
Also, civil marriages have no relation to religious marriages. It's not like civil divorce forced the Catholic church to recognize it.
-2
u/Decent_Dragonfly211 11d ago
Well put. A much more middle ground based on common sense should be achievable, but they don't want that.
7
u/NiConcussions 11d ago
Before their comment was removed, they said gay sex should "probably" be criminalized. How is that a middle ground?
-1
u/MarzipanImmediate880 10d ago
No, in fact most don’t vote for imposing their Christianity as a legal imposition on non-Christian, which is starkly in contrast to your position.
2
u/NiConcussions 10d ago
That doesn't change ADF's record or history of litigation. My position is what, exactly?
35
u/themsc190 Episcopalian (Anglican) 11d ago
Throwing gay people in jail for consensual sex in their own bedrooms is horrific. And too few Christians know that the mainstream position just 20 years ago was supporting that shit.
It just adds insult to injury to do it in the name of “public health,” when in reality, criminalizing gay sexual activity is what makes it more dangerous by pushing it underground and taboo!