Video removed

[Servus]

If that’s as far as the outrage went, I wouldn’t be making this point. But it isn’t.

People shouldn't find bizarre nonsense the hard left comes up with disturbing. They're clutching at pearls. They're hysterical. What gaslighting.

 

[DaisyDay]

I do apologize for my incorrect posting and inadequate summary of video.

The post can be edited to be correct. That would be a lot more useful than an apology. Just fix it.

 

[DaisyDay]

Mother and father are probably the most fundamental pronouns there are.

Mother and father are nouns, not pronouns. Pronouns - e.g. he, she, me, it, their, you, our - are used instead of nouns for convenience and brevity.

"mama" and "dada" are pretty much the first words a person says.

Depending on culture - "abba" "niam" - in other cultures.

Then there's how bizarre "non-gestating parent" probably sounds to many. It's like something out of dystopian science fiction like Brave New World. And it's being put into law. Many people, not just Republicans, will say.

Do you think that using "mama" and "dada" in legal and medical documents is more appropriate?

And since pronouns are already a serious matter to many, something like this could be the preverbal straw that breaks the camel's back.

So serious that people complaining have little idea what they even are, just that they are important.

 

[A New Dawn]

If that’s as far as the outrage went, I wouldn’t be making this point. But it isn’t.

The point of the outrage is that people (mothers and fathers, specifically) are being reduced to nothing but their secondary sexual characteristics, instead of acknowledging that “woman” means the sum-total of everything that is included in the female experience. Same with “man”. Being a woman is not a bandaid that someone can put on a mental illness and expect that it will change ANYTHING. That’s because it’s a MENTAL illness. Bandaids don’t work for that unless you are a two-year-old just needing attention.

 

[iluvatar5150]

People shouldn't find bizarre nonsense the hard left comes up with disturbing. They're clutching at pearls. They're hysterical. What gaslighting.

Gaslighting? Did you watch the video?

Here are some excerpts I pulled from youtube's AI-generated transcript (which, as far as I can tell, is accurate aside from some grammatical mistakes):

"Now, some people may look at this and say, "Well, it's just a change in wording." Really? No, it's not just that. It reveals something much deeper about the battle of world views in our culture. You see, it's a battle over two religions. God's word, man's word. "​

"Supporters say these changes are intended to accommodate same-sex couples surrogacy arrangements and individuals who identify differently than their genetically determined biological sex. In other words, those who reject God's word are forcing their worldview on the culture as they continue to flaunt their sinful lifestyles publicly. Those for this bill argue that the language is more inclusive and reflects today's society. Well, sadly, it does reflect the state of a culture that has by and large rejected the authority of God's word. Now, before we go any further, let's be clear. This discussion isn't really about vocabulary. It's about authority. Who is the ultimate authority? God or man? So, who gets to define reality? "​

"as Christians, we must understand this isn't merely a technical legal revision. It's part of a much larger cultural shift away from a morality that came out of the Bible to moral relativism that comes out of man being his own god."​

"Well, New York's bill is not just changing some legal terminology. It's a much bigger issue. It's changing the foundation for defining marriage and the family that God created. And the family is the backbone of the culture. The devil knows destroy the family and this will destroy the culture as it changes to a world view of anything goes anything except the absolutes of Christianity."​

He very explicitly ties the changing of this language to the destruction of the family and the broader culture. The video description (which is written by the account holder) opens with, "This is the sickening result of New York abandoning God."

The entire thing is textbook pearl clutching.

 

[Chaplain Jim]

The post can be edited to be correct. That would be a lot more useful than an apology. Just fix it.

Fixed on my end. Be Blessed.

 

[DaisyDay]

Thread removed

You didn't remove the thread, just the first post. Ask a mod to close the thread, if that's what you want.

Fixed on my end. Be Blessed.

Outstanding. Far from fixing it, you just made it worse.

 

[Chaplain Jim]

You didn't remove the thread, just the first post. Ask a mod to close the thread. Far from fixing

Please feel free to ask a mod.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The point of the outrage is that people (mothers and fathers, specifically) are being reduced to nothing but their secondary sexual characteristics, instead of acknowledging that “woman” means the sum-total of everything that is included in the female experience. Same with “man”. Being a woman is not a bandaid that someone can put on a mental illness and expect that it will change ANYTHING. That’s because it’s a MENTAL illness. Bandaids don’t work for that unless you are a two-year-old just needing attention.

Baloney. Not only did Ham's video expressed none of that, but that complaint doesn't even make any sense in this context.

Do you know what this bill actually does? It changes some terminology in the state's Family Court Act. That's it. Here's the whole thing, with markup showing the changes:

https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2025/S9316

What the heck does the totality of a female experience have to do with who has certain rights or obligations in a custody hearing?

I know a lot of you guys don't like to acknowledge trans people, but they exist, and this changes some language that acknowledges that and makes it more clear who is being referred to by each section of the law.

That said, thanks for reinforcing my earlier point about pearl clutching.

 

[A New Dawn]

Baloney. Not only did Ham's video expressed none of that, but that complaint doesn't even make any sense in this context.

Do you know what this bill actually does? It changes some terminology in the state's Family Court Act. That's it. Here's the whole thing, with markup showing the changes:

https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2025/S9316

What the heck does the totality of a female experience have to do with who has certain rights or obligations in a custody hearing?

I know a lot of you guys don't like to acknowledge trans people, but they exist, and this changes some language that acknowledges that and makes it more clear who is being referred to by each section of the law.

That said, thanks for reinforcing my earlier point about pearl clutching.

LOL. So your’ve not paid any attention to the myriad of cases where one parent wants to transform their child into a different “sex” because of their (the parent’s) liberalness while the opposing parent wants a normal family with normal words for parents and pronouns? This IS an issue with court proceedings.

 

[iluvatar5150]

LOL. So your’ve not paid any attention to the myriad of cases where one parent wants to transform their child into a different “sex” because of their (the parent’s) liberalness while the opposing parent wants a normal family with normal words for parents and pronouns? This IS an issue with court proceedings.

Which has nothing at all to do with the law in question here, which only changes the terms describing the parents.

 

[A New Dawn]

Which has nothing at all to do with the law in question here, which only changes the terms describing the parents.

It forces an agenda through the court system to show bias for one side of the issue.

 

[DaisyDay]

The point of the outrage is that people (mothers and fathers, specifically) are being reduced to nothing but their secondary sexual characteristics,

Do you know what "secondary sexual characteristics" are? Organs involved in reproduction are primary, so gestating and non-gestating refer to primary sexual functions, not secondary. Referring to people by their secondary sexual characteristics would be calling women "breasts" and is generally considered vulgar.

instead of acknowledging that “woman” means the sum-total of everything that is included in the female experience.

Goalposts moved! We've moved from talking about mothers (and fathers) to talking about the entirety of the female experience - which would be terrible unhelpful in a document concerning, say, custody of a child as the "entirety" includes virginity and not having children.

Same with “man”.

Even less so as "woman" is often meant an adult who is not a man, but "man" often includes women and all of humanity. "Man" does not equate to "father" whereas "non-gestating parent" does. "Non-gestating parent" could also refer to a woman partner, an egg donor, etc.

Being a woman is not a bandaid that someone can put on a mental illness and expect that it will change ANYTHING.

No kidding - a woman is a person while a band-aide is a thing. Mental illness can affect anyone.

That’s because it’s a MENTAL illness. Bandaids don’t work for that unless you are a two-year-old just needing attention.

If you are referring to transgendered people, allowing people to express their self-perceived gender has been shown to work.

And band-aids do work for their purpose - to keep wounds clean and protected. That they may provide the comfort of being cared for is more than a placebo for children. Even the perception of being cared for does help heal.

 

[DaisyDay]

Please feel free to ask a mod.

It's not my circus, not my monkeys.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It forces an agenda through the court system to show bias for one side of the issue.

Which, again, has absolutely zero impact on the "side" that doesn't like transgenderism.

 

[Chaplain Jim]

It's not my circus, not my monkeys.

 

[Servus]

Mother and father are nouns, not pronouns. Pronouns - e.g. he, she, me, it, their, you, our - are used instead of nouns for convenience and brevity.

Depending on culture - "abba" "niam" - in other cultures.

Do you think that using "mama" and "dada" in legal and medical documents is more appropriate?

So serious that people complaining have little idea what they even are, just that they are important.

You're pretty much just heckling.

 

[Servus]

Gaslighting? Did you watch the video?

Here are some excerpts I pulled from youtube's AI-generated transcript (which, as far as I can tell, is accurate aside from some grammatical mistakes):

"Now, some people may look at this and say, "Well, it's just a change in wording." Really? No, it's not just that. It reveals something much deeper about the battle of world views in our culture. You see, it's a battle over two religions. God's word, man's word. "​

"Supporters say these changes are intended to accommodate same-sex couples surrogacy arrangements and individuals who identify differently than their genetically determined biological sex. In other words, those who reject God's word are forcing their worldview on the culture as they continue to flaunt their sinful lifestyles publicly. Those for this bill argue that the language is more inclusive and reflects today's society. Well, sadly, it does reflect the state of a culture that has by and large rejected the authority of God's word. Now, before we go any further, let's be clear. This discussion isn't really about vocabulary. It's about authority. Who is the ultimate authority? God or man? So, who gets to define reality? "​

"as Christians, we must understand this isn't merely a technical legal revision. It's part of a much larger cultural shift away from a morality that came out of the Bible to moral relativism that comes out of man being his own god."​

"Well, New York's bill is not just changing some legal terminology. It's a much bigger issue. It's changing the foundation for defining marriage and the family that God created. And the family is the backbone of the culture. The devil knows destroy the family and this will destroy the culture as it changes to a world view of anything goes anything except the absolutes of Christianity."​

He very explicitly ties the changing of this language to the destruction of the family and the broader culture. The video description (which is written by the account holder) opens with, "This is the sickening result of New York abandoning God."

The entire thing is textbook pearl clutching.

That's actually the standard Christian view. Only secularized Christianity which conforms and submits to the world would have a problem with it. That's why I have a hard time telling secular Christians apart from non-christians in many debates.

 

[iluvatar5150]

That's actually the standard Christian view. Only secularized Christianity which conforms and submits to the world would have a problem with it. That's why I have a hard time telling secular Christians apart from non-christians in many debates.

No, tying a lagnuage change to the destruction of American culture (which, as a Christian, why would he even care?) is not "the standard Christian view." It might be the standard view amongst a reactionary part of conservative American evangelicalism, but it is not "the standard Christian view." Christianity is quite a bit bigger than that.

 

[Servus]

No, tying a lagnuage change to the destruction of American culture (which, as a Christian, why would he even care?) is not "the standard Christian view." It might be the standard view amongst a reactionary part of conservative American evangelicalism, but it is not "the standard Christian view." Christianity is quite a bit bigger than that.

The crux of what you quoted is godliness vs worldliness. The language change represents twisted worldly views and mores. It bolsters worldly depravity. And Protestantism, Catholocism and Orthodoxy sees it as such. Except for that which has become secularly liberal and given in to worldliness. It's a wheat and chaff test between those who oppose such things and those who give into it and support it.