NO THE FUCK WE SHOUDLN'T
Let that piece of shit book die with its aging user base.
It has been the number one contributor to the denigration, persecution, torture, and murder of countless people for simply being different than it says.
I see she/her in your username. Please read Timothy 2:12 if you still think you want to live by the bible's teachings. This is the kind of shit you're ironically supporting.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2%3A12&version=NIV
Pulling things out of context let's you think and justify just about anything. The letter to Timothy is in response to particular people in a particular church at a particular time. Go research it.
But the main point of the whole text is: the world is full of suffering, people are good and people are bad, but we should work to be better and lessen suffering. -Forgive those who trespass against you. Love even your enemies. Those who are not against us are with us. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
The Christian right are literally the kind of judgmental people Jesus criticizes. All good forces should work together, rather than creating strawmen that can split progressives.
I'd argue it being so easy to misinterpret is exactly why it should be allowed to die off as a religious text. Normal idiots DO NOT need any reason to view it as anything more significant than the dead sea scrolls or the like. Just some ancient artifact they know of but don't really care about.
The letter to Timothy is in response to particular people in a particular church at a particular time. Go research it.
I mean, this actually illustrates my point pretty well. What's stopping others from using quotes out of context? Surely this won't be abused, nor has it been abused in the past. /s
But the main point of the whole text is: the world is full of suffering, people are good and people are bad, but we should work to be better and lessen suffering.
Let's start by **NOT **promoting the same book used to persecute LGBTQ, non believers, and believers of other religions. This is not a starting point for this community.
The Christian right are literally the kind of judgmental people Jesus criticizes. All good forces should work together, rather than creating strawmen that can split progressives.
I'm not going to back down on this or agree to work with the christian right. Treating people properly isn't up for negotiation. I've seen this book and its followers hurt real people in real life repeatedly and I won't stand for it being part of some LGBTQ movement. If this book teaches kindness and compassion, then why do its followers insist on acts of malice toward those who don't align? You can't put this book in a position of power and be picky and choosy and interprety about what parts are meaningful and how things should be construed.
FWIW Jesus as told was a good guy who treated people with kindness and compassion. But I will continue to condemn the countless past and ongoing atrocities carried out in his name as well as the book that encourages them. For me, for my family, and for my friends.
The bible that has been and is still being used to persecute queer people. And has been used as a justification for colonizing and committing countless genocides?
no, thanks.
The Bible is a queer text? Um... what?
Some of the earliest written interpretations of the Bible (the Jewish midrash) saw Adam, the first human, as being intersex and having both male and female characteristics until God made Eve later (thus separating male from female):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgynos
This is mentioned in the Jewish midrash, the idea of the androgynos is brought up in Genesis Rabbah, a Jewish commentary on the Bible written sometime between 300 CE and 500 CE. The commentator asserts that Adam, in the story of Creation, was created by God as an androgynos. It continues to say that later, when Eve was fashioned from his rib, God separated out the sexes, assigning Adam as male and Eve as female.
The New Testament was surprisingly positive about mixed-gender people, who were at the time called "eunuchs", which we know encompassed intersex and some other gender non-conforming people in the concept of the ancients:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex_people_and_religion#Christianity
https://www.hrc.org/resources/what-does-the-bible-say-about-transgender-people
[T]he word “eunuch” in the ancient world would also sometimes be used for those who we would now call intersex. Trans scholars today aren’t interested in these individuals because they believe that eunuchs identified as transgender, but rather because some of the things the eunuchs in scripture experienced are similar to what trans people -- and intersex people -- experience today, particularly in terms of discrimination, oppression and dehumanization.
Once the people of Israel are freed from captivity, several prophets, including Isaiah, guide them in the rebuilding of their homeland. In Isaiah 56:1-8 God speaks through Isaiah and says that even though Deuteronomy 23 outlawed the participation of eunuchs in Israelite society, in the new Israel they will have a special place--God says, “I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off” (Isaiah 56:5, NRSV). This wide welcome would have been a relief for the eunuchs, but warring theological factions meant that as far as we know, this prophecy was never fulfilled.
Many years later, Jesus mentions eunuchs in Matthew 19:12, where he notes that there are many kinds of eunuchs, including “eunuchs who have been so from birth,” “eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others,” and “eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (NRSV). While the first group might include intersex people, and the second group people who were castrated by force, Christians have been arguing for centuries about who might be included in that third category. Regardless of whom he was referencing, what we do know is that in this moment, Jesus first of all does not denigrate eunuchs like others in his society may have done, and beyond that he actually lifts eunuchs up as a positive example. The fact that Jesus positively mentions people who are gender-expansive in his own time and place gives hope to many gender-expansive people today.
Finally, we see another important eunuch in Acts 8:26-40 who travels all the way from Ethiopia hoping to worship in the temple in Jerusalem, and who meets Philip, one of Jesus’ followers, on the way home. Up to that point, we don’t have a record of eunuchs becoming part of the early Christian church, but in this story in Acts we hear about this Ethiopian eunuch who, after hearing about Jesus, asks Philip “What is to prevent me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:36, NRSV). While Philip could have said that there was no precedent for this situation--that the Ethiopian’s ethnicity as a non-Israelite or his identity as a eunuch might indeed prevent him--instead, Philip baptizes him with no questions asked and no strings attached. This story of a gender-expansive person of color welcomed as one of the first Christian converts is a powerful part of our spiritual history.
Well, yeah, I know about that, it's really true, and not only in the Bible, but I don't think that's enough to say that the Bible is a queer text.
depending on your definition of queer, but I tend to agree
The Bible doesn't have the gender concepts contemporary Christian conservatives have, and in some sense that makes it outsider and queer - but that doesn't mean the Bible's gender and sexuality concepts are the same as contemporary queer identities.
Gender diversity is also known in Judaism, specifically from the Talmud. But it's a bit different from modern understanding of gender. The channel UsefulCharts explains it better than me in the following timestamped youtube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBeDU09o9Hw&t=1312
Awesome, thanks for this!
And yes, the modern concepts of gender (both the conservative and the LGBT+ concepts) are rather different than ancient concepts of gender. That apparently won't stop either side from trying to use the Bible to affirm their contemporary gender concepts, but that's just not intellectually honest.
I would not call the Bible a queer text in the sense of being a text with contemporary queer identity (like you said), instead it is a text with accounts of genders that are not consistent with the dominant, rigid, and conservative gender and sexual ideology that queer people are victimized by - maybe this is not the same as being a "queer" text, but it does at least put the gender concepts in the same "outsider" status as queer people are today. In a sense it is "queer" in the political umbrella sense of being outside the dominant ideology.
Good reply, I agree.
government to acknowledge only two genders, erasing the identities of an estimated 1.6 million Americans who are transgender
Let's reiterate that the "2 genders" thing is a cocktail of misconceptions and erroneous assumptions about sex and gender. It erases intersex and non-binary identities, but it does not at face value refute directly gender transitions, unless the problematic context is upheld.
So please don't reproduce the false idea that the adage "there are only two genders" has anything to do with the existence of transgender people, because this way you perpetuate the misinformation.
Their articulation of "2 genders" is bioessentialist and in the case of the U.S. government, explicitly trans-denying (Trump's executive order for examples defines two genders based on gametes, something that is clearly meant to deny trans identity).
I don't think you can reasonably consider the "2 genders" idea as trans-accepting, even if there is theoretically some articulation of a gender binary that could be trans-affirming - that's just not the context we're in.
I didn't. Trumps executive order is explicitly cisgenderist, but trans people are not a third gender.
You need to add that "gametes" stuff for it to invalidate gender transition. Like, even TERFs made this point only in the recent years. This is not to mean that the "2 genders" adage is trans-accepting, but it does not exclude trans people by itself, as it literally does with intersex and non-binary. It is the shared set of beliefs that makes it such the transphobic slogan, and before "gametes" it could be a number of other things - like gender essentialism.
People who say "we accept all genders, we let trans women into the women's toilet" are in fact third-gendering trans-people. This is IMHO problematic, and people with your or OPs record of curating trans-related journalism should be aware of it.
There are a few problems here:
you are using "trans" in a way that might be a bit more narrow than I was meaning, i.e. you seem to use it to mean a person who was born one gender of the binary and who transitions to be the other, rather than as the umbrella term that encompasses gender non-conforming people, non-binary people, cross-dressers, drag performers, as well as people who transition socially and/or medically.
You are splitting hairs on the gender binary as if we should be considering it as a separate from the anti-trans gender concept. Instead I think there is a dominant gender ideology that both thinks of gender as binary and is trans-denying.
Here were some of your statements I was responding to:
["two genders"] does not at face value refute directly gender transitions,
the false idea that the adage “there are only two genders” has anything to do with the existence of transgender people
I think to the contrary that the "there are only two genders" does relate to transgender people - particularly trans people who do not fall strictly within that binary or who fall somewhere on a spectrum between two poles, but even for people who do fit one one pole or another of the binary, transitioning from one pole to the other often gets treated as wrong / impossible / invalid under the gender binary concept because it's baked into the concept that the binary is rigid - you can't "change" your gender, and you can't be in between, which is how people see and understand gender and trans people under that gender concept (as trans people "changing" and as being in-between, esp. during transition, but even after).
So while I don't disagree with your point that third-gendering can be invalidating to some binary trans people (and the author was being lazy / over-simplifying / ignorant and thus could have done better), I think it's a little mistaken to focus so much on this small mistake and to direct that anger towards the pro-trans author (your ally) when the larger context is what matters and is still accurate - the dominant, oppressive gender concept is anti-trans, and the author is right to call out the anti-trans policy as anti-trans.
So while I don’t disagree with your point that third-gendering can be invalidating to some binary trans people (and the author was being lazy / over-simplifying / ignorant and thus could have done better), I think it’s a little mistaken to focus so much on this small mistake and to direct that anger towards the pro-trans author (your ally) when the larger context is what matters and is still accurate - the dominant, oppressive gender concept is anti-trans, and the author is right to call out the anti-trans policy as anti-trans.
You are splitting hairs on the gender binary
I agree with both the above. Sure I am nit picking, but for good reasons (I explain below). But you are mistaken in assuming I am "angry" at the author. I am just expressing the only noteworthy thought I had about this article. I upvoted the thing!
you are using “trans” in a way that might be a bit more narrow than I was meaning
Well, normally I don't, in fact I recently explained that since biological sex is not a fixed binary it is absurd to assume that gender identity is.
umbrella term that encompasses gender non-conforming people, non-binary people, cross-dressers, drag performers, as well as people who transition socially and/or medically
This is a very well put together and comprehensive list, and I don't even think these terms are mutually exclusive. But I do make some conceptual distinction between (just an example) drag queens and trans women, I think it is more accurate to define "trans" in terms of gender identity not expression or performance. I would use "trans*" or "GNC" as an umbrella term, like in a future red book or style guide.
Since we can now use some shared terms, let me rephrase. 3rd-gendering is not just alienating to trans-binary people, I think it is literally dehumanizing to all GNC people. That's why I pointed it out.
Ah, thank you for your reasonable response - I really appreciate it! 😊
It sounds like we're making progress.
First, let me apologize for assuming anger on your part, I think I misread your tone and I sometimes conflate calling out injustice with being fundamentally an expression of anger (even though it is righteous anger). Either way I am listening and I hear that you weren't coming from a place of anger, but instead you are trying to make a point.
Second, I think "trans*" was short lived and has died as an umbrella term, and just "trans" has largely replaced it - however, I'm happy to use "trans*" moving forward anyway, I think it's helpful in this particular context to clarify when we mean an expansive umbrella.
Within that trans* umbrella, I think the reason drag performers are included has to do less with identity reasons (i.e. it's not a claim that trans* identity is performative), but rather because trans* is a political identity that has to do with alliance of disparate groups who are victimized by the same oppression. The same people banning drag shows are passing anti-trans legislation, so trans* is a banner that allows us all to work together against our common enemy. This is a bit like when anti-racism activism is based in racial concepts that are rooted in racism, an uncomfortable reality if you try to reify the identities based on that, but a necessary way of operating when engaging in projects of justice. So it's because drag performers are engaging in a kind of gender activity that gets punished the way trans people and other gender non-conforming people do that we end up all calling ourselves trans*.
That said, drag almost assumes a cis identity and the cross-dressing as artifice, and many would never feel comfortable calling themselves "trans*" - this is a struggle the community has been having for a long time, the origin of the term "transgender" was originally to be an umbrella term that is inclusive of these kinds of gender non-conforming people who don't feel comfortable identifying as "transsexual" at the time (i.e. people who transition).
The terminology is so messy and it seems like every time we try to create a more inclusive umbrella term, it just becomes the new term for "trans people who medically and socially transition" (i.e. what "transsexual" used to mean). So "transgender" now feels awkward applied to drag performers (despite the term being created for them and cross dressers, etc.), and now the new umbrella term "trans" has likewise come to feel awkward that way too.
OK, finally I wanted to dig into your statement:
3rd-gendering is not just alienating to trans-binary people, I think it is literally dehumanizing to all GNC people. That’s why I pointed it out.
I wanted to check in on this and see what this means exactly. So, one way I understand this is that you're saying all gender non-conforming / trans* folks are dehumanized by third-gendering. At face value I understand what you mean intuitively - there is a tendency for cis people to feel uncomfortable with people who are not conformist in their gender, and they then theorize or think about these people as a "third" gender - an example might be the Thai katoey who are not respected or seen as women, but instead are referred to as effeminate men in some kind of third gender category (not "real men", but not women either).
So I understand "third-gendering" as an activity is often dehumanizing and other-izing.
However, from a logical point of view, I can't help but wonder what some non-binary identities are if not a "third" (or "other") gender? Many people have gender identities that don't seem to align with the binary, and I suspect you are very on-board with abandoning the gender binary in favor of a different way of looking at gender (please correct me if I'm wrong here, it's sometimes hard to read exactly - on the one hand it feels like you're affirming the gender binary for binary trans identities, but on the other hand you have admitted this makes no sense given what we know about the biology).
So if you'd like, please help me understand what you're saying - I assume you just mean the author's mistake is a bit too close to this practice of cis people lumping all trans* together and thinking of them as being in an "other" category, and that this is a big oopsie woopsie.
What...? Yeah, no.