There seem to be a lot of people who claim that (a) gender is genitals, and (b) God is male, but who somehow aren't willing to draw the logical conclusion!
2
Discussion
Loading...
@victorgijsbers god is a dick?
I realise that may not be the logical conclusion, but...
@victorgijsbers but they also won't accept that surgery to change genitals changes gender
Or that people born with intersex genitals exist
1
@sean I agree that there are a few more problems with their position!
1
@sean (I was moved to make the post by reading a news item about republicans criticising the democratic candidate for Texas senate because he has said that God is non-binary.)
1
@victorgijsbers the progress of American theocracy is scary
Somehow they have smuggled an awful lot of gender policing in under the guise of "just" being anti-trans
I guess it isn't surprising that they are policing Gods genitals now - without (as you say) actually drawing the conclusion of their own dogma
1
@[email protected] @[email protected] Even as a Christian myself I always find this line of argument bizarre because if you believe the biblical prophets were, well, prophets, they record God referring to himself by both genders depending on what aspects of himself he's taking about.
1
@[email protected] @[email protected] You can make the argument (and theologians have) that God normally uses male pronouns for himself so it is respectful to do the same. But to me that sounds exactly the same as respecting anyone else's choice of pronouns?
1
~3 more replies (not shown)
@mavnn @victorgijsbers it seems to be that theologians can (and do) make pretty much any kind of argument they want to.
While ignoring all the stuff about feeding the hungry, and rich men not entering heaven.
Not to mention all the rules about food, clothing, and circumcision.
I
1
@[email protected] @[email protected] Eh. I don't really want to get into a discussion about how theology works (unless you're especially curious?) but I do sometimes feel the need to point out that the right wing crap spouted in a lot of these situations is religious language as a paper thin veneer over the hate, not a coherent theology. In the same way I don't want the hate, I'd rather the push back from it targeted the actual hating rather than the veneer. Which is why I actually like it when people point out (as Victor did) 'this makes no sense even in their own framework' because then I can step up and agree that no, it really doesn't.
1