Elon Musk's transgender-identifying son blasts Christian Post for 'misgendering'

[Michie]

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk's transgender-identifying son Xavier, who now goes by the name Vivian Jenna Wilson, recently criticized The Christian Post for publishing an op-ed that referred to him with masculine pronouns.

"The Christian Post just published an article calling me a Trans-Identified Son who's just a tragic little gay boy. Love thy neighbor right," Wilson wrote Friday on Threads. "I am unamused."

The Feb. 26 op-ed, titled "The tragic story of Elon Musk and his trans-identified son," was written by contributor Joseph Sciambra, who argued that Musk's assertion his son was "born gay" is unsubstantiated and likely a means of deflecting from his own neglectful parenting.

Continued below.

Elon Musk's transgender-identifying son blasts Christian Post for 'misgendering'

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk s transgender-identifying son Xavier, who now goes by the name Vivian Jenna Wilson, recently criticized The Christian Post for publishing an op-ed that referred to him with

www.christianpost.com

 

[PloverWing]

Hmm. If Vivian were to ask me, I'd say this is a time to pick one's battles. The Christian Post (based on what I've seen of it here on CF) is emphatically not trans-affirming, so I think Vivian should not have been surprised by the language in the article. There's no need to pay attention to the Christian Post at all. There's plenty of other stuff in the world to read. Take a breath, walk away, and read a good newspaper instead.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Hmm. If Vivian were to ask me, I'd say this is a time to pick one's battles. The Christian Post (based on what I've seen of it here on CF) is emphatically not trans-affirming, so I think Vivian should not have been surprised by the language in the article. There's no need to pay attention to the Christian Post at all. There's plenty of other stuff in the world to read. Take a breath, walk away, and read a good newspaper instead.

Christian voices are always worth listening to when they proclaim the truth such as Elons son being a man instead of a woman. It's just basic common sense.

 

[RileyG]

Christian voices are always worth listening to when they proclaim the truth such as Elons son being a man instead of a woman. It's just basic common sense.

I agree.

 

[ozso]

I googled "Xavier Musk" and got "Vivian Jenna Wilson" instead.

 

[RileyG]

I googled "Xavier Musk" and got "Vivian Jenna Wilson" instead.

There are other examples which I won’t share here. Weird how google knows IMMEDIATELY who you are talking about.

By you, I mean in the general sense.

 

[FireDragon76]

Hmm. If Vivian were to ask me, I'd say this is a time to pick one's battles. The Christian Post (based on what I've seen of it here on CF) is emphatically not trans-affirming, so I think Vivian should not have been surprised by the language in the article. There's no need to pay attention to the Christian Post at all. There's plenty of other stuff in the world to read. Take a breath, walk away, and read a good newspaper instead.

I agree. I wouldn't dignify the Christian Post with my time because these kinds of folks thrive off of engagement, they see it as a form of validation. It's how evangelical fundamentalist culture works.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I agree. I wouldn't dignify the Christian Post with my time because these kinds of folks thrive off of engagement, they see it as a form of validation. It's how evangelical fundamentalist culture works.

Well we all have things we wouldn't dignity with our time. Most Christians for instance don't respect the mental illness of men calling themselves women.

 

[PloverWing]

I agree. I wouldn't dignify the Christian Post with my time because these kinds of folks thrive off of engagement, they see it as a form of validation. It's how evangelical fundamentalist culture works.

For the Christian Post in particular, there's the element of exaggerated, distorted headlines, which I assume are there to draw clicks and thus to draw ad revenue. We've seen lots of examples of Christian Post articles here on CF where the headline doesn't even agree with the text of the article, and we've seen other examples where the authors of the articles are going out of their way to use biased and inflammatory wording in the article.

If one wants to engage with conservative Christian thinkers, there are other publications one can read. (First Things comes to mind, for example.) But the Christian Post seems pretty close to Christian clickbait.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For the Christian Post in particular, there's the element of exaggerated, distorted headlines, which I assume are there to draw clicks and thus to draw ad revenue. We've seen lots of examples of Christian Post articles here on CF where the headline doesn't even agree with the text of the article, and we've seen other examples where the authors of the articles are going out of their way to use biased and inflammatory wording in the article.

If one wants to engage with conservative Christian thinkers, there are other publications one can read. (First Things comes to mind, for example.) But the Christian Post seems pretty close to Christian clickbait.

Right. So we can entertain the reading of articles like this one: The Dirty Science - First Things

....but I have to get through the paywall.

 

[PloverWing]

Right. So we can entertain the reading of articles like this one: The Dirty Science - First Things

....but I have to get through the paywall.

My father subscribed to First Things for a number of years. (Old-style: Sent them money, and the printed magazines came in the mail.) I disagreed with a number of articles, and sometimes the articles even made me mad, but they were carefully-written essays presenting the author's point of view in a coherent way. For that reason, I think of First Things as a totally different bucket of fish from the Christian Post.

Similarly, I subscribed to Christianity Today for a long time. (Again, print subscription.) The magazine got "fluffier" over the years, and I eventually dropped my subscription. But back when I subscribed, it contained well-thought-out articles. I sometimes disagreed with them, but my sense was that the authors wrote in good faith, not sensationalizing things to get more ad revenue.

Maybe there's something to be said for paid subscriptions.

 

[FireDragon76]

Right. So we can entertain the reading of articles like this one: The Dirty Science - First Things

....but I have to get through the paywall.

First Things is like a highbrow version of Christian Post, and less clickbaity, but it's got more or less the same kinds of problems. At the end of the day, First Things is basically just expressing an Evangelical Fundamentalist (usually Presbyterian) or Catholic Integralist point of view, with the same kind of drawbacks- dogmatism, often expressed in a mean-spirited manner, rather than diversity of perspectives and a generosity of spirit.

 

[FireDragon76]

Keep in mind, I find some things about Mainline Protestants genuinely annoying (which would take paragraphs to explain, it's alot more complicated than my problem with magazines like First Things or the Christian Post), and it's not like they can't be subject to their own ideological capture or "bubble", but in general I find Mainline Protestant bubbles to be alot less noxious.

 

[RileyG]

Well we all have things we wouldn't dignity with our time. Most Christians for instance don't respect the mental illness of men calling themselves women.

Agreed. These folks need real help. Period.

 

[RileyG]

My father subscribed to First Things for a number of years. (Old-style: Sent them money, and the printed magazines came in the mail.) I disagreed with a number of articles, and sometimes the articles even made me mad, but they were carefully-written essays presenting the author's point of view in a coherent way. For that reason, I think of First Things as a totally different bucket of fish from the Christian Post.

Similarly, I subscribed to Christianity Today for a long time. (Again, print subscription.) The magazine got "fluffier" over the years, and I eventually dropped my subscription. But back when I subscribed, it contained well-thought-out articles. I sometimes disagreed with them, but my sense was that the authors wrote in good faith, not sensationalizing things to get more ad revenue.

Maybe there's something to be said for paid subscriptions.

I must be very young. I’m Catholic, not Protestant, and never heard of First things. Hmmm….

 

[Michie]

I must be very young. I’m Catholic, not Protestant, and never heard of First things. Hmmm….

I’ve posted them on occasion in OBOB.

 

[RileyG]

I’ve posted them on occasion in OBOB.

Thank you! I obviously wasn't aware of them being popular, apparently!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My father subscribed to First Things for a number of years. (Old-style: Sent them money, and the printed magazines came in the mail.) I disagreed with a number of articles, and sometimes the articles even made me mad, but they were carefully-written essays presenting the author's point of view in a coherent way. For that reason, I think of First Things as a totally different bucket of fish from the Christian Post.

Similarly, I subscribed to Christianity Today for a long time. (Again, print subscription.) The magazine got "fluffier" over the years, and I eventually dropped my subscription. But back when I subscribed, it contained well-thought-out articles. I sometimes disagreed with them, but my sense was that the authors wrote in good faith, not sensationalizing things to get more ad revenue.

Maybe there's something to be said for paid subscriptions.

I think I generally agree with what you're saying. First Things is a more academically inclined magazine from the news outlet of the Christian Post, but even though I've read a little bit from both over the past 10 years, I'm not sure how hard I should be knocking the Christian Post on most counts. The Elon Musk article mentioned in the OP is the first instance of my hearing about him having a son who has a gender identification issue. It's news to me and I'm weighing what to make of the Christian Post's being cited for "misgendering".....

 

[2PhiloVoid]

First Things is like a highbrow version of Christian Post, and less clickbaity, but it's got more or less the same kinds of problems. At the end of the day, First Things is basically just expressing an Evangelical Fundamentalist (usually Presbyterian) or Catholic Integralist point of view, with the same kind of drawbacks- dogmatism, often expressed in a mean-spirited manner, rather than diversity of perspectives and a generosity of spirit.

.... I hear what you're saying. Diversity of perspectives and a generosity for hearing them out does seem to be in short supply these days.

Somewhere in all of this Left/Right/Center media evaluation is some reality we'll all bump up against at some point. I'm not opposed to hearing a few news reports of a more dogmatic sort, but I still prefer to have these hearings seasoned with grace.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

First Things is like a highbrow version of Christian Post, and less clickbaity, but it's got more or less the same kinds of problems. At the end of the day, First Things is basically just expressing an Evangelical Fundamentalist (usually Presbyterian) or Catholic Integralist point of view, with the same kind of drawbacks- dogmatism, often expressed in a mean-spirited manner, rather than diversity of perspectives and a generosity of spirit.

So you mean First things reflects actual Christianity instead of theological liberalism which denies things like the ressurection and says Christian values in civil society is verboten?