Needed: A coalition of feminists and conservative Christians

[Swag365]

I've been pregnant and I'm still terrified of it.

Heck I am a man and I am scared of it!

 

[Swag365]

In my experience, conservative Christians don't agree with the full equality of women and men. They wish to see women excluded from particular roles in the church, (and often in society), and see the family as a hierarchy in which women are to be subordinate. (Obviously there is a spectrum and those views might be held to a greater or lesser extreme).

And at least, on this forum, disagreeing with those positions is enough that those Americans with whom I interact tend to instantly label me as "liberal."

Thanks. I wonder if there is not a better term? At least for me, I have run into plenty of folks (like at many non-denominational evangelical churches) who I would consider to be "conservative Christians" but more or less take the "full equality" view. I think there are plenty of churches that would say "men and women should submit to each other" but are pretty "conservative" in the sense of upholding traditional Christian values.

 

[Paidiske]

Thanks. I wonder if there is not a better term? At least for me, I have run into plenty of folks (like at many non-denominational evangelical churches) who I would consider to be "conservative Christians" but more or less take the "full equality" view. I think there are plenty of churches that would say "men and women should submit to each other" but are pretty "conservative" in the sense of upholding traditional Christian values.

There's certainly a difference between theologically conservative, socially conservative, and morally conservative. When we're talking about feminism I guess we're mostly comparing feminists with people who are socially conservative?

 

[com7fy8]

not a new article,

I would say look at what the Bible actually says and understand what God means. If you get into what people of different groups say and want, this can get tangling and mangling, because ones of different groups can all be misunderstanding God's word. And so, God will not help people of differing wrong views to develop some common wrong view.

So, I would say get straight first about what God really means, then go with this. But it seems to me the article is saying that both feminist and evangelical people can be mistaken; and this would mean mistaken ones of either side/group are not understanding God's word.

In the article there seems to be something that means certain feminists don't want to marry because a man would keep them from getting what they want. Well, this would not work well with Jesus, to say the least. I mean > if a person gets with Jesus, we are not to expect Jesus to go with what we want and our own way. And, of course, a man is no Jesus, but going after merely what I want is not going to help me find out how to love.

I would say the right reason to marry someone is because of how it is so good to share with him or her. And things I might want should have nothing to do with it . . . compared with how beneficial it is simply to have love with that person. This would be like to why we want to be with God . . . for Himself, not merely for using Him or keeping Him around for if and when we might want to use Him for something.

And profiling all men to be a threat is not wise. How is a woman to find out how to really love, if she is supposing any man she could get is not going to be trustworthy????

Why would you marry someone you don't even trust? And why would you feel you are so superior that no man is trustworthy, but you can trust yourself?

I would say become able to tell the difference, and get with a man whom God has made into a trustworthy person and a good example for you. And be his good example; help each other.

But just reforming systems can not change our real character. Only God can change us so we become able to love, and able to tell the difference about who God knows it is good to trust.

 

[bekkilyn]

I've been pregnant and I'm still terrified of it. I think that women not being keen on pregnancy (or motherhood, which is such a cultural idol) is probably much more common than is talked about.

But yes, I know what you mean. We live - from puberty to menopause - always aware of that potential and its consequences.

I don't believe that God has called every woman to motherhood or even "womanhood" in the stereotypical sense of the word. I believe many people are culturally pressured into parenthood (men and women) who were called for something else entirely.

There are other physical aspects that can be particular to women even if say, she doesn't have a uterus, or is infertile. For example, women typically have wider hips than men, and while those hips can be good for "baby production" so to speak, it puts her at an athletic disadvantage compared to males in many types of sports.

A trans woman even after hormones and having surgeries is not going to ever experience that disadvantage. There are so many little pieces and parts that make up female anatomy that the very best a male can do to copy it is still going to fall very short (and vice versa).

The claim is that we are reducing people to their anatomy, but the fact is that our anatomy is still a very real experience for us every day of our lives, even if women never use certain parts to birth a child, and even if men never use particular parts of their reproductive systems to help create a child.

To deny all of that in favor of gender pseudoscience in order to pretend we are physically something we are not isn't helpful.

While people who have dysphoria can be treated by getting hormones and acting as if and presenting as the opposite sex can help them, it doesn't at all mean that the entire world needs to pander to the delusion outside of individually treating each person how he or she needs to be treated.

That doesn't mean that if there is a common shower I need to use (like in military basic camp, for example) that I want male-bodied people in there with me regardless of how they "present" or what pronouns they choose to us.

 

[bekkilyn]

And profiling all men to be a threat is not wise. How is a woman to find out how to really love, if she is supposing any man she could get is not going to be trustworthy????

Why would you marry someone you don't even trust? And why would you feel you are so superior that no man is trustworthy, but you can trust yourself?

I think this is a misunderstanding of feminism. While yes, there have been writers who have stated things like, "every man is a potential rapist," the point was more along the lines that women need safe spaces from people who are potentially a threat, since violence against women is predominantly from males. I think people cherry pick those statements out of context to claim that feminists "hate men" when it's vocalizing a violence issue that is very much a reality to women.

Love in general is a risk. One must become vulnerable in order to love. In a broader sense, every person is potentially a threat until they are no longer a stranger and trust develops over time. It's true for men too.

God is really the only "person" who can be 100% trusted.

 

[Silmarien]

There are other physical aspects that can be particular to women even if say, she doesn't have a uterus, or is infertile. For example, women typically have wider hips than men, and while those hips can be good for "baby production" so to speak, it puts her at an athletic disadvantage compared to males in many types of sports.

A trans woman even after hormones and having surgeries is not going to ever experience that disadvantage. There are so many little pieces and parts that make up female anatomy that the very best a male can do to copy it is still going to fall very short (and vice versa).

I'm not so sure of that. Blaire is hilariously dainty in this video:

I think it's best to view trans-women as being in some sort of Venn diagram relationship with "cis"-women. (I don't like the term either, but the more I talk about the issue, the more useful it really is. "Biological women" includes trans-men, after all, and they are on a different part of the Venn diagram.) We face certain issues that are the same, and others that are different, and that is just self-evident. Of course, if people started talking about "cis-women's issues," "cis-women's rights," and so forth, all hell would break loose. Again.

We also always talk about potential conflicts between the transgender movement and women's rights due to the presence of trans-women, but one thing I was just thinking about is mental health diagnoses in general and how they still reflect behavior seen in men rather than women. I probably have a mild case of Aspergers, but I was never diagnosed because how it manifests in girls was not very well documented (and probably still isn't).

It actually involves dysphoria. I have never "felt" like a man, but for reasons that I can't really pin down, I do sometimes have the sensation of not being "right" in my femininity. And it was much worse as a child. I was crazy in general in the way that only people who later go into philosophy are, haha, but if that had happened in the current climate, I don't know if I would have self-diagnosed myself as having gender dysphoria because it was the most visible thing that fit. They can rule out the kids who just prefer playing with toys coded to the opposite gender, but could they easily rule out a girl who was masking Aspergers and had decided that her body was wrong because she really did feel like it was?

 

[bekkilyn]

I'm not so sure of that. Blaire is hilariously dainty in this video:

LOL I like her!

I think it's best to view trans-women as being in some sort of Venn diagram relationship with "cis"-women. (I don't like the term either, but the more I talk about the issue, the more useful it really is. "Biological women" includes trans-men, after all, and they are on a different part of the Venn diagram.) We face certain issues that are the same, and others that are different, and that is just self-evident. Of course, if people started talking about "cis-women's issues," "cis-women's rights," and so forth, all hell would break loose. Again.

That's the thing though. Men and women have always been in a venn diagram and trans men and transgender women are already included in it. Hormones and testosterone are going to be a factor, but when you get down to it, we are all (regardless of how we "present") either a biological man or a biological woman with the physical advantages or disadvantages that come along with it, hormones and surgery and medications aside. None of those things is going to actually turn us into the opposite sex. In most cases, it's not really going to matter because most of us don't depend on our male or female biological features for going through life, but when it comes to activities that do, such as sports, it does matter very much.

If we're talking about fair and wish to be inclusive of trans people in sports, we're probably just going to need to create new divisions for both trans women and trans men.

We also always talk about potential conflicts between the transgender movement and women's rights due to the presence of trans-women, but one thing I was just thinking about is mental health diagnoses in general and how they still reflect behavior seen in men rather than women. I probably have a mild case of Aspergers, but I was never diagnosed because how it manifests in girls was not very well documented (and probably still isn't).

It actually involves dysphoria. I have never "felt" like a man, but for reasons that I can't really pin down, I do sometimes have the sensation of not being "right" in my femininity. And it was much worse as a child. I was crazy in general in the way that only people who later go into philosophy are, haha, but if that had happened in the current climate, I don't know if I would have self-diagnosed myself as having gender dysphoria because it was the most visible thing that fit. They can rule out the kids who just prefer playing with toys coded to the opposite gender, but could they easily rule out a girl who was masking Aspergers and had decided that her body was wrong because she really did feel like it was?

I think what you've written here is why the term "cis" doesn't even make any sense. I know for me I have *definitely* not been right with "femininity" per se, but I am confident it is not because I have dysphora or am a man in a woman's body, but because of all the false and harmful social constructs that have been built up around what "femininity" and "masculinity" represent when it comes to female and male. It really needs to be okay for boys to wear skirts and play with dolls and still be boys, and for girls to play with trucks and shave their hair and still be girls without all of the harmful "roles" that we try to put people in. Right now, we have people who see a "butch" girl and then tell her that she's not a girl but a boy and that she needs to take hormones and have surgery to "fix" her rather than just celebrating the unique person she is. But a "butch" woman is never going to be "cis" even if she's not trans, because it doesn't make any sense at all because she doesn't match up with all the female stereotypes.

Surgery and hormones need to be the absolute last resort for practically anyone considering how damaging it can be, not to mention irreversible to the extent that the person is never going to be able to reverse all of it back to the way it was.

Outside of the genuine threat to women and girls to have male-bodied people in their safe spaces, it's also a genuine danger to people who are pushed into being trans when what they really needed was validation for being the unique and perfectly-created person they are.

I've questioned at times why God didn't just make me a male when I never was called to use any of the female reproductive stuff and why he often led me into places that are stereotypically "male," and the answer that keeps coming to me is that I am able to communicate with and relate to women in ways that I would never have been able to do had I been created as male. So am I a man in a woman's body because I don't fit in with all the female gender stereotypes or care about using the female stuff to produce children? No, not at all. I'm a woman who was simply not called to stereotypical "womanhood," and it's taken me over the course of years to figure it out.

But who is to say that if I was a small girl now refusing to wear frilly dresses and wanting more than anything to be an astronaut that this trans movement wouldn't be pushing me to take hormones and get surgery to be the "boy" they believe I should be?

 

[com7fy8]

misunderstanding of feminism.

First, thank you for taking the time and making yourself clear.

I can profile feminists. It is more challenging to let each one speak for herself.

the point was more along the lines that women need safe spaces from people who are potentially a threat, since violence against women is predominantly from males.

I suppose there is more to feminism, than only having a safe space. But thank you, I did not think of this . . . perhaps because I'm a guy, not to profile all men, but I myself have had a tendency not to notice things ladies could be concerned about, but I can be critical, instead; so . . . God bless me to learn better

I think people cherry pick those statements out of context to claim that feminists "hate men" when it's vocalizing a violence issue that is very much a reality to women.

And it can mean a man does not know how to love. Not being capable of real love is a problem; if a guy does not know how to love a woman who is close to him, Jesus says, "He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much." (Luke 16:10) So, from this I see that if a man is cruel with one person, his character making him able to be cruel is also effecting if he is capable of truly loving anyone else.

His feelings and his acting could change, from one person to another; but "Love suffers long and is kind" > 1 Corinthians 13:4. So, even if I am suffering, somehow, God's love is strong and stable to keep me being "kind". And only Jesus can change me so I am really like this.

And I have noticed how, even if a lady is not doing anything at all to hurt me, still I can get upset and hurt for no real reason and blame her. So, to say the least, this is not loving. But Jesus keeps us gentle and humble.

Love in general is a risk. One must become vulnerable in order to love.

God's love has God's power to keep us safe (1 Peter 3:13), at least inside ourselves (1 John 4:18), so we can forgive and then not keep on suffering. Therefore, I would say, a safe place to be is with Jesus so evil people can not control our attention and keep us suffering >

"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:21)

But I agree it is wise to manage our circumstances and social choices so we do not trust the wrong people. This is included in overcoming evil.

In a broader sense, every person is potentially a threat until they are no longer a stranger and trust develops over time. It's true for men too.

God is able to make us able to tell the difference. And He personally guides us while we obey Him in His peace . . . guiding us according to all He knows is really true about people > I think this is a Bible basic > Colossians 3:15.

In my opinion after knowing a person or two, one reason why people get with the wrong people is because they are trying to use people for what they want. And while they can fool themselves into living selfishly, they also can fool themselves about who they trust.

There is what I call the "you can use me" act > talking smart so people will suppose you will be intelligent enough to understand what they want > talking and acting nice so they will be fooled into hoping you will be nice about making their dreams come true. And there is toning the voice in a way which can make you seem honorable and mature and trustworthy.

And there are predators who have been able to talk and charm total strangers into trusting them so they could isolate their victims and do whatever they wanted to them. I suspect they put on the "you can use me" performance which worldly people look for. Not to mention there is such acting which can have a person even fall in love with someone who later turns out to be a total stranger even after years of being together.

So, only Jesus can have us get wise to ourselves and then be able to perceive others honestly. I would say this is the safest place to be.

 

[bekkilyn]

First, thank you for taking the time and making yourself clear.

I can profile feminists. It is more challenging to let each one speak for herself.

I suppose there is more to feminism, than only having a safe space. But thank you, I did not think of this . . . perhaps because I'm a guy, not to profile all men, but I myself have had a tendency not to notice things ladies could be concerned about, but I can be critical, instead; so . . . God bless me to learn better

There is definitely more to feminism than having a safe space, but people do tend to like some of the more, let's say "salty" quotes from feminists and make them into something that they weren't intended to be.

And of course any group is going to have people who disagree with one another and some who legitimately are hateful, but feminism is a big umbrella and many feminists have very happy, healthy, and loving relationships with men. However, there are issues that are important to and sometimes even exclusive to women (i.e. women's health) and feminism gives those issues a voice.

And it can mean a man does not know how to love. Not being capable of real love is a problem; if a guy does not know how to love a woman who is close to him, Jesus says, "He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much." (Luke 16:10) So, from this I see that if a man is cruel with one person, his character making him able to be cruel is also effecting if he is capable of truly loving anyone else.

His feelings and his acting could change, from one person to another; but "Love suffers long and is kind" > 1 Corinthians 13:4. So, even if I am suffering, somehow, God's love is strong and stable to keep me being "kind". And only Jesus can change me so I am really like this.

Love is difficult. Too many think of it as a 'feeling' but in scripture, it's often used as a verb. *Love* God, *love* your neighbor, etc. While it can be something we feel, it's also something that we do, and there is a big emphasis on love all throughout scripture. And yes, how can we know how to love others as Christ loved if we don't know him and allow the Spirit to transform us?

We also need to learn to love ourselves. I don't believe we can know how to love other people unless we can also love ourselves. (Not in a narcissistic, prideful way, but in a compassionate and kind way.)

And I have noticed how, even if a lady is not doing anything at all to hurt me, still I can get upset and hurt for no real reason and blame her. So, to say the least, this is not loving. But Jesus keeps us gentle and humble.

Oftentimes, we are our own worst enemies!

God's love has God's power to keep us safe (1 Peter 3:13), at least inside ourselves (1 John 4:18), so we can forgive and then not keep on suffering. Therefore, I would say, a safe place to be is with Jesus so evil people can not control our attention and keep us suffering >

"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:21)

But I agree it is wise to manage our circumstances and social choices so we do not trust the wrong people. This is included in overcoming evil.

God is able to make us able to tell the difference. And He personally guides us while we obey Him in His peace . . . guiding us according to all He knows is really true about people > I think this is a Bible basic > Colossians 3:15.

In my opinion after knowing a person or two, one reason why people get with the wrong people is because they are trying to use people for what they want. And while they can fool themselves into living selfishly, they also can fool themselves about who they trust.

There is what I call the "you can use me" act > talking smart so people will suppose you will be intelligent enough to understand what they want > talking and acting nice so they will be fooled into hoping you will be nice about making their dreams come true. And there is toning the voice in a way which can make you seem honorable and mature and trustworthy.

And there are predators who have been able to talk and charm total strangers into trusting them so they could isolate their victims and do whatever they wanted to them. I suspect they put on the "you can use me" performance which worldly people look for. Not to mention there is such acting which can have a person even fall in love with someone who later turns out to be a total stranger even after years of being together.

So, only Jesus can have us get wise to ourselves and then be able to perceive others honestly. I would say this is the safest place to be.

"Be wise as serpents and gentle as lambs."

 

[Silmarien]

That's the thing though. Men and women have always been in a venn diagram and trans men and transgender women are already included in it. Hormones and testosterone are going to be a factor, but when you get down to it, we are all (regardless of how we "present") either a biological man or a biological woman with the physical advantages or disadvantages that come along with it, hormones and surgery and medications aside. None of those things is going to actually turn us into the opposite sex. In most cases, it's not really going to matter because most of us don't depend on our male or female biological features for going through life, but when it comes to activities that do, such as sports, it does matter very much.

I don't think this is entirely true. Assuming that a transwoman is passing very well, she's definitely going to run into a lot of the social issues that a woman would. Sexual harassment, risk of sexual assault, all the minor things that go hand in hand with being viewed as a woman in society. Being biologically male doesn't exempt them from most of the social issues associated with being a woman (though sometimes they seem to meet it with male entitlement, leading to the people who think they have the "right" to compete in woman's sports and beat everyone).

Similarly, I would imagine that a transman would have social issues specifically related to being viewed as a man. It seems to me that they're going to have problems associated with both of the genders, and then problems that are unique to themselves as well, instead of just being easily classed as male or female. I think we need to keep both biology and socialization in mind here, since I do think a transwoman would face some of the oppression that a woman would. But not all of it, and she would have a bunch of other struggles that come with being transgender.

I think what you've written here is why the term "cis" doesn't even make any sense. I know for me I have *definitely* not been right with "femininity" per se, but I am confident it is not because I have dysphora or am a man in a woman's body, but because of all the false and harmful social constructs that have been built up around what "femininity" and "masculinity" represent when it comes to female and male. It really needs to be okay for boys to wear skirts and play with dolls and still be boys, and for girls to play with trucks and shave their hair and still be girls without all of the harmful "roles" that we try to put people in. Right now, we have people who see a "butch" girl and then tell her that she's not a girl but a boy and that she needs to take hormones and have surgery to "fix" her rather than just celebrating the unique person she is. But a "butch" woman is never going to be "cis" even if she's not trans, because it doesn't make any sense at all because she doesn't match up with all the female stereotypes.

Surgery and hormones need to be the absolute last resort for practically anyone considering how damaging it can be, not to mention irreversible to the extent that the person is never going to be able to reverse all of it back to the way it was.

Outside of the genuine threat to women and girls to have male-bodied people in their safe spaces, it's also a genuine danger to people who are pushed into being trans when what they really needed was validation for being the unique and perfectly-created person they are.

I've questioned at times why God didn't just make me a male when I never was called to use any of the female reproductive stuff and why he often led me into places that are stereotypically "male," and the answer that keeps coming to me is that I am able to communicate with and relate to women in ways that I would never have been able to do had I been created as male. So am I a man in a woman's body because I don't fit in with all the female gender stereotypes or care about using the female stuff to produce children? No, not at all. I'm a woman who was simply not called to stereotypical "womanhood," and it's taken me over the course of years to figure it out.

But who is to say that if I was a small girl now refusing to wear frilly dresses and wanting more than anything to be an astronaut that this trans movement wouldn't be pushing me to take hormones and get surgery to be the "boy" they believe I should be?

I don't disagree with you. I think a transgender identity should really require a genuine diagnosis of gender dysphoria... which according to the new rules makes me transphobic, it would seem.

To the best of my knowledge, people are generally speaking not pushed towards transitioning simply for being butch or liking the color pink. They have to persistently think that they are the wrong sex, so my concern is primarily for kids who have other mental health issues and self-diagnose themselves with gender dysphoria.

But yeah, I agree that the "cis" label is problematic, since there is no one normal way to understand one's gender. I don't think a small group of people with a very specific condition should be tossing a label at everyone else that basically just assumes that the rest of the population has a similar underlying understanding. Am I cisgender if I don't really believe in gender at all? Or am I nothing? Am I an it?

 

[Radagast]

so my concern is primarily for kids who have other mental health issues and self-diagnose themselves with gender dysphoria

That's certainly a grave concern. A child may indeed be certain that "something is wrong." But the statement "this wrongness would be fixed if you transitioned" is an extremely dubious hypothesis.

The child's feeling that "something is wrong" may be due to (1) dissatisfaction with gender stereotypes (the classic "tomboy"), or (2) strong shared interests with boys the same age, or (3) some underlying medical/mental condition.

Undiagnosed Asperger's, I suspect, would involve elements of all three.

to the best of my knowledge, people are generally speaking not pushed towards transitioning simply for being butch or liking the color pink. They have to persistently think that they are the wrong sex

Nowadays kids are on puberty blockers long before anybody knows whether they think that "persistently" or not. And puberty blockers are a one-way street. Once you start them, there's no road back to the person you would have been without them (for one thing, because puberty blockers destroy the nexus between processes that are supposed to happen at the same time, and for another because they damage the child's ability to say "I don't want this").

Am I cisgender if I don't really believe in gender at all?

A few centuries ago, you would have been a nun. That might actually have worked out quite well.

 

[bekkilyn]

I don't think this is entirely true. Assuming that a transwoman is passing very well, she's definitely going to run into a lot of the social issues that a woman would. Sexual harassment, risk of sexual assault, all the minor things that go hand in hand with being viewed as a woman in society. Being biologically male doesn't exempt them from most of the social issues associated with being a woman (though sometimes they seem to meet it with male entitlement, leading to the people who think they have the "right" to compete in woman's sports and beat everyone).

Similarly, I would imagine that a transman would have social issues specifically related to being viewed as a man. It seems to me that they're going to have problems associated with both of the genders, and then problems that are unique to themselves as well, instead of just being easily classed as male or female. I think we need to keep both biology and socialization in mind here, since I do think a transwoman would face some of the oppression that a woman would. But not all of it, and she would have a bunch of other struggles that come with being transgender.

I think we're on two different venn diagrams. I was thinking biologically and you were thinking more socially. Socially there probably would need to be four different circles.

I don't disagree with you. I think a transgender identity should really require a genuine diagnosis of gender dysphoria... which according to the new rules makes me transphobic, it would seem.

Yep! Self ID is the only non-transphobic choice it would seem! (And one that I of course reject for all the reasons we've already discussed!)

To the best of my knowledge, people are generally speaking not pushed towards transitioning simply for being butch or liking the color pink. They have to persistently think that they are the wrong sex, so my concern is primarily for kids who have other mental health issues and self-diagnose themselves with gender dysphoria.

It's the young people who I was primarily talking about. For example, parents have a tomboy and are afraid she's gay, so they pressure her into transitioning so they won't have a gay kid. Or other kids might keep telling her that she's like a boy and so she thinks she needs to actually be one. That sort of thing.

But yeah, I agree that the "cis" label is problematic, since there is no one normal way to understand one's gender. I don't think a small group of people with a very specific condition should be tossing a label at everyone else that basically just assumes that the rest of the population has a similar underlying understanding. Am I cisgender if I don't really believe in gender at all? Or am I nothing? Am I an it?

I still don't see why we need a label at all. The true trans population is miniscule and trans already describes them, so we really don't need a different label for everyone else unless we want to buy into all the gender psuedoscience.

 

[Silmarien]

That's certainly a grave concern. A child may indeed be certain that "something is wrong." But the statement "this wrongness would be fixed if you transitioned" is an extremely dubious hypothesis.

The child's feeling that "something is wrong" may be due to (1) dissatisfaction with gender stereotypes (the classic "tomboy"), or (2) strong shared interests with boys the same age, or (3) some underlying medical/mental condition.

Undiagnosed Asperger's, I suspect, would involve elements of all three.

Yep. I never really had the first two, though... in high school, I was a moral nihilist and crazed environmentalist who thought that civilization was the worst thing that had ever happened and Mother Nature would one day swallow it all back up. I didn't have anything in common with anyone. I had a mad philosopher thing going on even before I started studying it, so I think I was dealing with stuff that was totally off the charts for childhood psychology, Aspergers or not.

In retrospect, I have a hard time figuring out why I was the way I was in high school--I was all about evolution and how humans meant nothing on the cosmic side, with shades of New Atheism, since I was a skeptic in a similar way, and I don't really think you can end up like that by accident. I must have been picking up on the culture wars, so if it had happened today... I don't know. The part of the culture wars I picked up on might have been not feeling quite the same as other girls instead of being off in the far reaches of insane, misanthropic environmentalism.

Nowadays kids are on puberty blockers long before anybody knows whether they think that "persistently" or not. And puberty blockers are a one-way street. Once you start them, there's no road back to the person you would have been without them (for one thing, because puberty blockers destroy the nexus between processes that are supposed to happen at the same time, and for another because they damage the child's ability to say "I don't want this").

Yeah, I have a lot of trouble believing that the activists are championing anyone's interests but their own when they do things like engaging in witch-hunts to get clinics with a different approach to treating younger children shut down. (And then someone tried to get the journalist canceled too.)

It's really interesting to see how the way this is dividing the left. My progressive friends did not immediately grab the metaphorical pitchforks when I told them that I supported J.K. Rowling, so I feel a bit better about the whole thing. I'd slipped so deeply into radfem identity politics that I think I was closer to canceling them without even talking because I was suddenly perceiving everyone who disagreed with me as misogynistic. Good ol' identity politics.

A few centuries ago, you would have been a nun. That might actually have worked out quite well.

Haha, I've actually considered that. It's probably one of the reasons that I find Catholicism as attractive as I do, since celibacy is still such a strong aspect of it.

I was resisting in part because of the complementarianism, and in part because I do support the LGBT+ community, but now that not being a queer theorist is apparently transphobic, I'm a little bit worried about the Episcopal Church going totally off the deep end, so I don't know anymore.

 

[Paidiske]

Eh, you can always be an Anglican somewhere else in the world. TEC seems to represent one extreme of the global communion.

 

[Silmarien]

Eh, you can always be an Anglican somewhere else in the world. TEC seems to represent one extreme of the global communion.

Oh, I do love Anglicanism globally. Though if I were to move, it'd probably be to southern Europe or Latin America, so I'd end up in a sea of Catholicism anyway, haha.

I'm really fond of liberal Anglo-Catholicism, since it manages to walk the tightrope between tradition and social liberalism in a way that I find really appealing. My first Episcopal priest was very much along those lines, but that might have been a stroke of luck. I don't know how common it is in this country in general.

I've felt trapped halfway between Catholicism and Episcopalianism for a while now, and the more disenchanted I get with progressivism, the more the disconnect grows. I just haven't decided if having to deal with the crazy reactionary side of Catholicism would be better or worse than the crazy reactionary side of TEC. I had thought worse, but the word "inclusiveness" is probably going to start triggering me now, since I will just hear "accommodate me, let me drain you dry, serve all your allies faithfully, and never complain about anything."

Of course, if I go Catholic, I might end up more than just triggered.

 

[bekkilyn]

I just made it a dealbreaker for me that I wouldn't belong to any religious institution or organization that did not allow full participation of both men and women, so that eliminated the Catholic church right from the beginning. I'm also not a very "high church" person. Even United Methodists can be a bit too high-churchy for me but it was a compromise that wasn't a deal breaker. Fortunately, the churches I'm currently appointed to are pretty laid back like me.

The word "inclusiveness" has started to become a trigger to me too, not because I don't think everyone deserves basic human rights, but because of all the things we've already discussed here.

 

[Silmarien]

Haha, I am quite High Church, so that limits my options in the opposite direction. I think my only options are Anglicanism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy... maybe Lutheranism too, but I have mixed feelings about its theology.

I was initially drawn to Orthodoxy, since Western Christianity was so poisoned to me that I needed the Orthodox approach to challenge everything I thought I knew, so... I don't love the all-male hierarchy, but I was really intrigued by the role that the presbytera could play in the community. That makes Catholic priestly celibacy almost a harder thing for me swallow than the all-male hierarchy, since it eliminates the Priscilla-Aquila dynamic also.

The all-male hierarchy would probably ultimately be a deal-breaker regardless, since it would make literally no sense to rage-quit the left because of a radfem meltdown and then go join the Patriarchy, lol. Being into Catholic philosophy makes it weird to be anywhere else, though, and part of me wants to go scandalize the Thomists by joining in whenever they start talking about sexual sin.

 

[bekkilyn]

Every church is going to be different even in a larger organization, so one might be more liberal, another more conservative, etc. I'd have to make sure there were no deal-breakers in the doctrine of the larger organization, but then it would be down to individual churches. So while you might be currently Anglican, there might be some issue with the local church that could be solved just by going to the other church down the street, so to speak, rather than changing denominations altogether.

 

[Silmarien]

Every church is going to be different even in a larger organization, so one might be more liberal, another more conservative, etc. I'd have to make sure there were no deal-breakers in the doctrine of the larger organization, but then it would be down to individual churches. So while you might be currently Anglican, there might be some issue with the local church that could be solved just by going to the other church down the street, so to speak, rather than changing denominations altogether.

Yeah, I think I will do that. There was one I checked out right before the pandemic hit, and I was pretty happy with it. My old parish had gotten super political and started to move towards conservative bashing, which was getting more and more frustrating, but I didn't really want to just disappear.

That's less of an issue after 4.5 months of being shut down, though. I'll either switch parishes entirely once this is over, or more likely go back to floating around between denominations like a leaf in the wind, haha. The Lutheran pastor calls me "her Episcopalian," and the Orthodox have been guilting me for not showing up as often as I used to anyway.