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.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.
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.not a new article,
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.
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?
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?
First, thank you for taking the time and making yourself clear.misunderstanding of feminism.
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 betterthe 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.
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.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.
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 >Love in general is a risk. One must become vulnerable in order to love.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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 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?
so my concern is primarily for kids who have other mental health issues and self-diagnose themselves with gender dysphoria
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
Am I cisgender if I don't really believe in gender at all?
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 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?
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.
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").
A few centuries ago, you would have been a nun. That might actually have worked out quite well.
Eh, you can always be an Anglican somewhere else in the world. TEC seems to represent one extreme of the global communion.
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.