Not none, but similar ones on a wotmania CMB with orders of magnitude more activity and posters (again, including at least two transgendered people) drew far fewer complaints because they were far less belligerently demeaning. I know that from authoring more than a few.

Just for the record: Transgendered=/=gay. Transgendered people certainly CAN be gay and often are, but some are also straight. That is actually a good example of how mutable gender is distinct from unalterable sex: Does "straight transgendered" mean someone attracted to their ORIGINAL or NEW gender? Is someone born a man and attracted exclusively to women, but also a transgendered woman, a lesbian or straight transgendered woman? If exclusively attracted to men, are they still gay? WERE the gay when identifying as a woman despite their male anatomy? Are THEY the straight transgendered woman? All because GENDER changed, but neither sex nor sexuality did.

Agreed, at least for my part: I strongly prefer Holmes' "clear and present danger" test from Schenk, because the vagueness of Brandenburgs "imminent lawless action" is perversely too broad AND narrow at once. The letter of Brandenburg denies First Amendment protection to ALL civil disobedience, even NON-VIOLENT forms (and violence is a critical test for me.) Were Brandenburg just a decade earlier it could have been used to justify arresting civil rights protesters: Segregation was the law, so urging people to defy it by sitting at white-only lunch counters or refusing to move when ordered to the back of the bus was "inciting imminent lawless action." On the other hand, exhorting crowds to "kill whitey" REMAINS perfectly fine as long it does not imply "right now." It is OK to urge murdering people GENERALLY, but not the immediate murder of anyone standing right there.

Westboro fails BOTH tests, IMHO, because under the legal principle of "fighting words" they are practically begging surviving veterans and families to beat the snot out of them, just as Cannoli is provoking people with transgendered friends/family along with the transgendered themselves. But what really bothers me (since ya'll are discussing THAT group) is that the Klan has also used Brandenburg to avoid prosecution by essentially arguing their rallies state no specific plan of action or targets, just frequently and explicitly encourage murdering non-whites whenever the opportunity arises rather than right this second. How indiscriminate mass murder without warning is LESS dangerous escapes me. Imminent acts are far more transitory than present dangers, because a danger can continuously persist to a far greater extent than an act.

In general, I oppose hatred but support the RIGHT to hate along with the right to many things I oppose. But right of expression ends where it indisputably harms another, including all violence. In addition, the Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection and Privileges & Immunities Clauses forbid LEGISLATING even nonviolent discrimination. I still feel we should let markets correct bigoted business owners through revenue lost by denying some patrons and consequent ostracism by others, but public service is just that, and the public is everyone.

That is a fair point as far as it goes; guilt by association is never merited, and arguments should always be to merit, never author. It makes a (too often literally) grave difference that Klan arguments go much farther than the noted similarity; again, they do not simply claim the right to express disagreement, but express hatred, to the point of urging murder. Since the right to express disagreement is not in dispute, Klan comparisons are only valid to the extent one shares their less tolerable positions, so disavowing them disavows the Klan. All that said, the right to express disagreement was NEVER in dispute, so charges of liberal censorship are equally invalid.

That is largely what the OP did though; "arguments to meanness" simply jeopardize man cards so badly "fairness" was substituted. But look at the substantive objections: Liberals make me do this, liberals forbid I do that. Not things that are human or civil rights; not "liberals make me have a sex change" or "liberals forbid I (verbally) transbash," but "liberals say things I dispute, and refuse to smack people in the head until they stop being transgender." Boo hoo, he is "forbidden" to dictate others peoples lives, and cloaks resentment of that in righteous indignation.

Have I written you off? Did beetnemesis? He explicitly denied it further down the post, (correctly) noting writing off people precludes responding. As long as we are still having a discussion, WE are still having a discussion; I spend very little time beating up strawmen.

Sorry, card-carrying liberal here (despite a long-time friend recently telling me he has long considered me "the most conservative liberal I know,") and I have made that same "argument to original sin" many times. The problem is it is no axiom outside Christianity and therefore provides no SUPPORT anywhere else unless universal depravity is first PROVEN. Frankly, humanitys record is such I think it SHOULD be recognized as an axiom, but many people still dispute it so it is not, even though the evidence is overwhelming in that I have never met anyone who denied universal depravity and could provide counterevidence by truthfully noting they (or ANYONE they knew of) had NEVER done ANYTHING wrong. Yet most still required reminders of the evidence.

That is a key problem, because virtually everyone who does not accept universal depravity (or some analogue) considers it (ironically) unnatural and wrong to deny anything that appears integral to their being. Rejecting INBORN carnality rejects the natural v. spiritual man argument; everything "natural," present from birth, inseparable from a person etc. is a defining quality. Expecting they deny that is like asking they deny their eye color: It is what it is however one feels about it, and no one should be made to feel guilty about any immutable, fundamental quality they could not control even if inclined. The Catholic Church addresses homosexuality (which, again, is distinct from being transgendered) perfectly in dogma and horribly in practice, but even the dogma is irrelevant to non-Catholics except as evidence of hypocrisy.

So yeah, you are perfectly free to make the arguments (really) but no, non-religious people will not accept them, at least not without deeper foundation work first. Expecting to build a house on Rock is expecting too much of logic. I remain convinced logic is sufficient to get one to Deism, and probably Theism; no one gets to Christ except by faith, because if God COMPELS belief by PROVING His existence He denies us free will and thus HIS love along with ours, plus it is beyond presumptuous for anyone (much less an inveterate sinner) to make demands of God in the first place.

All that is a RELIGIOUS rather than POLITICAL difference though; just look at a religious conservative disputing both my religious views and (some of) Cannolis political ones. Despite claiming one, conservatives have no monopoly on Christ (Who sadly has none on them either:) No one does.

Well, there we are then: Only 3 righteous liberals to go to save RAFO, though these days it is hard to find 3 RAFOlk of ANY kind (“Let every evil lung fill!”)

TransGENDERISM (in such a long complex discussion I also cannot promise to always maintain the distinction; old habits die hard. )

Religion and politics (to name but a few things) each affect mood, thinking and behavior, too, but few classify them as mental illness; those effects may be NECESSARY to show mental illness, but not SUFFICIENT: Other factors are also required. One is frequent stress and inability to function, but being transgendered cause that, or fear of LIVING as transgendered due to ATTACHED STIGMA? My sample is small, but I have never heard any transgendered people say BEING transgendered caused them any misery, only that DENYING and CONCEALING it caused great misery. I have uniformly heard transgendered people—even post-operative ones (whose beds are made)—express MASSIVE relief, peace and far greater happiness almost the moment transitioning begins. I have never heard any say BEING transgendered caused any daily work/relationship problems, but heard many say social INTOLERANCE caused huge problems with family, friends and/or colleagues. On the other hand, many others have said family, friends and/or colleagues were mostly far more tolerant than expected, contributing to that sense of relief; being transgendered cost them neither their careers nor familys love: They were just conditioned to EXPECT it would.

The sole area I can see being transgendered (at least medically) ITSELF might cause problems with family and/or “ability to function” is childbearing, at least as technology stands. But some forethought (and no one has a sex change without a LOT of forethought) sperm or eggs can be saved pre-op to ameliorate that problem, which surrogates can further address. The remaining issue is how/when to break all that to a potential mate, and how they react.

Back when I still wasted time on FB I ran across a post from someone angrily denying any duty to tell dates, boy/girlfriends or even SPOUSES they are transgendered: That is private and anyone “intolerant” enough to CARE whether they are transgendered is probably an awful undesirable partner anyway, but the “prejudice,” and thus onus to ASK, is solely on them. Never mind that ASKING NON-transgendered people if they are one is at least as awkward and alienating as REVEALING ones transgendered state to them, even if they are not potential (much less actual) romantic partners, but ESPECIALLY if they are. And never mind that most people want to eventually have kids, and a transgendered person always knows THAT answer, while any straight partner must either ask or wait for the other person to reveal: Where does that unequal knowledge place the onus?

Before anyone mentions it: Yes, I am aware of adoption, but the most absolute form of union between people is LITERAL merger at the genetic level, jointly nurtured and taught from birth. I would never diminish the adopted parent relationship in any way, and it largely provides the latter part of that—but not the experience of looking at ones child and physically SEEING ones spouse. Again, the absence of that in no way cheapens adoptive parenthood, which remains infinitely rewarding and gratifying (ideally no less so for the child.) But a biological relationship cannot help but greatly ENHANCE parenthoods joys. Even if the other parent is a psycho permanently part of the childs (and thus other parents) life.

Sorry if that got tangential, but it is the only truly serious yet inevitable issue I can see as a consequence of being transgendered. As elsewhere noted, Jenner already sired half a dozen kids by three different wives and now publicly identifies as “non-sexual,” making all of that a non-issue. For younger people that is less so, just one more reason I agree with those who would deny legal minors all medical treatment with permanent effects, whether or not their guardians grant permission for that treatment.

True, no one should be forced (or pressured) to hide their sexuality, but everyone ostentatious about it merits natural complaints for publicly displaying their sexuality ITSELF, not its particular form. It might be hard (even though true) to convince others one is as expressively disgusted about straight PDAs as gay ones, but as long as the rule is consistent, it is fair. Not necessarily reasonable; when I go out to eat or the movies, especially with my toddler, I do not want the people next to me having sex regardless of WHAT their sexuality is, but people who say things like “could you please stop kissing: I am trying to eat” have never made much sense to me. Plenty of people say it to straights and gays alike though, so are more neurotic than bigoted. And still properly distinct from gender; we do not give people with no Y chromosome dirty looks for walking down the street in a dress, and should treat others doing so no differently (OK, if a guy has a beard and a dress I will think it bit strange, but that is because even women prone to thick facial hair rarely have beards.)

Here my ignorance of details emerges: I do not know how inevitable gender identity (nor sexuality) is. I suspect it is a combination of nature AND environment, like many things, but the precise ratio, the permanence of gender identity, and when that permanence exists (assuming it is not “birth”) has great bearing on whether ANY “remedial” or “therapeutic” measures would even be POSSIBLE, whether or not they were moral. If gender identity is wholly or even largely inborn, attempts to alter it can be no more than an excruciatingly and permanently scarring waste of time for all involved: The sole options are “repress or do not; there is no ‘try.’”

It is unclear that is justified EVEN from a purely religious perspective, because SEXUAL MORALITY is distinct from GENDER IDENTITY. Tons of straight “cisnormal” people commit fornication and adultery daily. Gender identity does not dictate sexual identity, so even if one accepts the biblical prohibition of (male) homosexuality (one of the few parts of the Torah the Holy Spirit and first apostles maintained for gentile Christians) transgendered people can be either gay OR straight. I guess I answered my own earlier question: Since homo/heterosexuality is a function of SEX, a physically male gay person who transitions to a woman remains gay despite attraction to the opposite GENDER (NOT sex) and a straight person who does the same remains straight. So adherence to Christian doctrine sometimes requires abstinence (and not only for gays) but I see no reason it requires repressing gender, even gender at odds with ones sex.

The Torah DOES forbid cross dressing, but also pork, shellfish and using the bathroom within a campsite, and I do not believe ancient Jewish High Priests left Jerusalem every time they defecated any more than any of us leave our modern permanent campsites to do so. We do not execute our children for sass either. There are MANY OT prohibitions designed to preserve Israels identity either as a small group of nomads or a slightly larger settled nation among exclusively pagan neighbors, but the Christian position is quite clear that the written Word only DESCRIBES righteousness: The Word Made Flesh DEFINES it.

I will take that on faith since I cannot recall each persons initial response in full and am too tired to doublecheck. I believe most people did dispute rather than ignore his thesis though, with some variation of “no one denies people with Y chromosomes are just that, only that their immutable sex makes their gender equally so.”

My standard line (partly paraphrasing Socrates, arguably the first pagan monotheist) is that the unexamined faith is not worth professing, because faith that cannot withstand scrutiny rarely withstands much else. Goes along with the line about fear of Hell keeping no one out of it, because only love by and for God can do that, which in turn goes with loves inability to be coerced. Even by “loving” smacks to the head, even if the (former) Secy. of Health and Human Services were to mandate them. Only one Being has the power or right to COMPEL anyone to do anything; since HE refuses it is the height of presumption and essence of evil for any other to attempt with neither power nor right.</platitude>

I believe it is closer to 7 billion, just for the anal retentive record. Labels have value so long as we remember humanity does and will always consist of 7+ billion unique individuals. Being a leftist no more precludes my Christianity (or vice versa) than Martin Luther Kings, and being on the right no more precludes anyones areligiousness (or vice versa) than it did Ayn Rands. Though I must reiterate than when I see a deeply intelligent person publicly proclaim Rand and St. Thomas Aquinas his two greatest guides I cannot help thinking he is so full of excrement his eyes must be brown, and unqualified to run so much as a hot dog stand whether he is lying or “merely” delusional.

Point being, labels were not created to dehumanize (who did Socrates dehumanize, or Plato if we consider him an unreliable chronicler?) Labels were created because valuable, valid and even VITAL descriptors to the extent ACCURATE—and not a micron further. When used to conflate, homogenize and diminish diverse multitudes based on a single common (and often irrelevant) trait, they harm our reasoning as much as their targets. Whether the label in question is “Christian” or “liberal.” Especially in the second case, because “liberal” means different and even OPPOSING things depending on time/location (and even when synonymous with the left, there are fundamental differences between “paleoliberal” Great Society/New Dealers and the “neoliberal” New Left, mainly in replacing universal economic equality, opportunity and empowerment with identity politics.)

Except both Options 2 AND 3 reflect ignorance; it is understood that a religiously obedient person would not KNOWINGLY disobey God by condoning relationships one knows God forbids NOR condemning those one knows He permits. My view of homosexuality would be far more comfortable but far less spiritually healthy could I plead genuine ignorance of Gods consistently stated view, but I cannot, and it remains His stated holy position however much discomfort that causes me. Christ is sinless but was crucified for those of us who are not, so I am still far more comfortable than I deserve.

The sole (slight) uncertainty is lesbians, because even after reading the whole text 2-3 times I recall NO biblical mention of lesbians before Pauls, and the first canons included all words certainly or just probably his as Gods, even parts of epistles that explicitly state themselves Pauls wise, learned but PERSONAL opinion (i.e. NOT necessarily the Holy Spirits.) Unless one assumes Paul ALWAYS identified such opinions in ALL his letters, it cannot be certain (and is indeed highly unlikely) the NT identifies all of them. And since Paul had no reason to believe the later Church would declare ALL of even his most trivial correspondence Gods voice, he had no cause to carefully identify all UNINSPIRED words; that was only reasonable in letters consciously intended as instruction (and is by no means always certain even there.) So when part of an epistle seems unclear/uncertain I compare it to the Gospels, Tanakh and most certain parts of other epistles, and above all to Gods necessary qualities and requested guidance of the Holy Spirit (which includes Christian fellowship.) And the other way around, too, because I do not want to end up like Andrea Yates or David Koresh.

A critical note: Anything and EVERYTHING the Torah previously discussed is necessarily covered by the Jerusalem Churchs response to debate over whether the Torah bound Gentile Christians, the core of which Acts 15:28-29 relates as

That covers MALE homosexuality because the Torah does, but not FEMALE homosexuality because the Torah does not. There are other good scriptural arguments (most notably Onan) that “Every Sperm Is Sacred” hit ironically close to Gods view, and lesbians have no sperm, so….

In terms of the transGENDERED it is noteworthy the Torah forbade transvestites, but that is problematic because (say it with me now) sex=/=gender. As Cannoli initially noted, different clothing, hormone treatment or even surgery cannot alter SEX: Nothing can. Even if something could, it is unclear whether that would be sexually IMMORAL, because it requires no sex act. That leaves us only “gender forms” and whether/how much they relate to “sexual ideals.” In terms of crossdressing alone, it is easy: “Male” and “female” clothing is temporally and culturally normative; exclusively male clothing in one time/place may be exclusively female in another, solely as a function of prevailing views, not divine doctrine, so “appropriate” fe/male attire changes as that prevailing view. The increasingly prevalent Western view is that men and women should each wear whatever suits their fancy, so even if sexual morality required clothing reflect sex (which is dubious) the issue would be moot now that there IS no absolutely “sexed” clothing.

Hormone and surgical treatments strike me as similar, again precisely BECAUSE they cannot alter sex and have no bearing on sex acts: We are dealing solely with forms rather than ideals, appearances rather than substance, so nothing identifiably sexual is involved. Again, transgendered people can and are still attracted to either sex, and their sex rather than gender determines whether acting on that attraction is immoral (assuming all other moral requirements are met.) It is surprisingly hard to find anything truly SEXUAL about being transgendered itself, which is highly suggestive. Gender is distinct from sex, and SEXUAL immorality is what Acts forbids.

Even so.