#i think people are used to the '[prefix]sexual' meaning sexuality but that isn't inherently the case with transsexual

[uncanny-tranny]

Is transsexual like, being trans or only being attracted to trans people. Also if it’s the latter woould it be considered fetishization? I’ve heard so manny things I figured is probably just best to ask the transsexual themselves

I suppose some people might use "transsexual" as a sexuality, though many people would recognize that as t4t, or trans4trans if the person in question is trans themself.

Usually, when people talk about transsexuals, they mean people who are transitioning or have transitioned. Historically, the transition was medical - hormones, surgery, and the like, though in modern times, I've seen transsexual used more and more by a variety of people.

Though it isn't inherently fetishization to be into transsexuals, I think it becomes so when you do not see us as equal beings with intrinsic value. I don't think being "into" us is the bad part, but the way you treat us is often what would indicate if fetishizing is occurring.

[dimonds456]

Aight, what you see above is an article that's getting passed around by proshippers. I'm making my own post separate from theirs to discuss the contents of this article and why I believe everyone *should* read it, while also I don't believe the article is correct.

The article was written by a Japanese artist who had been harassed for "proshipping" online, even though they themself did not partake in anything more than aging up 15-year-old characters to 19. As far as they claim, that was it (though the artwork itself is not provided).

Someone had DMed them, asking if they were a proshipper, or a "problematic shipper", to which they shrugged and went "I guess so?" and then that person-referred to as A- started spreading it to all their friends that A was a proshipper and to avoid them, leading to soft blocks, harassment, ect.

Something I'd like to point out that is correct about this article is the meaning of "proshipper." It doesn't mean "problematic ships." Instead, "pro" is the prefix, not an abbreviation. The meaning is in reference to someone who is unbothered by any specific type of ship, and/or supports the creation of problematic ships. This difference is, I feel, important, not because the definition is changed, but because how people view that definition changes substantially.

Keep that in mind.

Something else of note here is the cultural difference. The artist is from Japan, and according to them, Japan allows ships of any kind. Japan, as a country, is proship, which creates vast and varied artistic expressions. Any and everything is allowed.

And, according to worldpopulationreview.com, the age of consent in Japan is 13 (though articles are saying they're rethinking this law).

Again, I recommend reading the article for yourself to fully understand the artist's point of view, but I'd like to break down where the author was wrong about many things. A lot of them stem from cultural differences and are normalized, so you can't really blame them, but it's good to keep in mind when interacting with proshippers from all over the world.

Something they're right about is harassment. I don't think people should be being harassed for stuff like this. Blocked? Yes.

The first thing they got wrong was the general assumption that fiction doesn't affect reality, or that antis cannot tell the difference between fiction and reality. This (at least for a lot of us) isn't true. Using myself as an example, it's clear to me that fiction and reality are two different worlds.

However, to say that fiction doesn't affect reality is false. Both worlds influence each other. If an adult starts dating a 13-year-old in fiction, younger audience members who watch that will see that relationship play out. Depending on how it's portrayed, this can either help or harm that audience member. If this relationship is deemed bad in that piece of media, then the younger members of that audience will remember that, vs if they say it's okay, THAT'S where you've crossed into proship territory that is actively harmful towards your audience.

I am a firm believer that anything should be allowed in fiction, as long as the author is respectful, responsible, and considers the ramifications of their work towards a real audience. So like, having a relationship between a 19-year-old and a 13-year-old should be allowed to be portrayed, as long as it isn't positive. By not allowing these stories to be told at all, that's leaning into some book burning shit.

What the author did, aging up 15-year-olds to 19, is not inherently bad, especially since they say it wasn't sexual in nature (but again, the art itself is never presented).

The second thing they get wrong is calling us a minority. I don't believe there were any studies done on this, but I don't think the majority of Americans go around talking about shipping children with adults? Again, it's a cultural difference that was influenced on this specific artist BY other proshippers. It's a biased view from both sides. I do not believe any studies have officially been done on this subject, so you cannot call us a minority. But, we can't call you a minority, either. I'm not sure how many there are on either side.

But also, I don't think that really matters. Continuing my topic from before with fiction affecting reality, if someone in that audience can get hurt because of your story, then it doesn't matter if the majority don't. It's still harmful and can affect reality- THIS reality- in negative ways. By drawing proship art and saying it doesn't matter because it's fiction, you're helping to normalize this art for ACTUAL predators. It doesn't matter how many proshippers there are, this is STILL harmful.

Something else I noticed, but I cannot point specifically to this article as evidence for, but it may be influencing the author, is the idea of in-fandom vs outside-fandom. The author mentions this a couple times, though usually in reference to the cultural differences between Japan and America.

The author is outside the US fandom, and so doesn't fully understand its inner workings or why so many of us are anti-proship "purest"s. I don't know how else to explain this besides going up to your grandparents and asking them if they think proshipping is okay.

Upon hearing the actual definition- being unbothered or perpetuating any type of relationship between two or more characters in fiction- they might go "yeah I agree with that," because that does sound nice on paper. Freedom of expression.

But what antis have come to realize is that fiction DOES affect reality, and if you were to ask your grandparents if they thing a child should be in a relationship with an adult, they'd probably go "no."

This is purely because they don't understand the culture of being online, and the several, several subcultures that came to be. We know what proshippers are and what they represent, but someone outside fandom space wouldn't.

And now, to any proshippers reading this: first of all, thank you for hearing me out, lol. But then, I ask you to please re-evaluate why you're a proshipper. Is it for the freedom of expression idea, do you just not give a shit, or do you genuinely enjoy seeing kids and adults together? Maybe something else? I'm not going to tell you how to feel about that- you can come to your own conclusion- but I do ask that you re-examine that idea.

If the author is SOMEHOW reading this, first of all, thank you too. My goal here was not to harass you in any way, but to point out the core of why this article doesn't really work. I'm sure in Japan things are vastly different, and that's not your fault, OP. And although I don't stand by what A did to you, I do ask that you think again. Stuff like this does affect reality, even in small ways (but when it comes to p*dos, it can be FAR more harmful than good).

Proshippers help normalize unhealthy behaviors that can seriously hurt children for the rest of their lives. Do proships exist in reality? ...Yes. Not between fictional characters, but those characters can influence people in real life to go "oh yeah the incest ship was okay in this anime, which means it's fine if I'm like that, too." It's not fine. It's not okay.

Again, I'm not here to harass you, and ultimately it's up to you whether you choose to listen. I'm sorry for the harassment at all, that should not have occurred.

Back to my general audience, though, yeah. Again, read the article for yourself (which I do still highly recommend). It gives a good glimpse into the minds and ideas of some proshippers out there. I don't think OP is a bad person, just misinformed. And I believe the same of a lot of proshippers out there. We can't change their minds, but we can make sure misinfo like what is in the article is debunked, and spread correct information regarding the subject.

Some sources:

Again, read the article, do some thinking (on BOTH sides), and have a good one, guys.

[hobbitsetal]

Hi- so I was wondering... I've usually seen asexuality (and related terms) used in association with LGTBQ+, but I've also seen Christian blogs such as yourself talk about asexuality positively. Should there be a distinction between asexuality and other LGBTQ+ terms- is one Biblically okay and the rest declared sinful in Scripture? I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just a little bit confused and hoping you can shed a little light on the topic for me? Thank you!

Hey love! So let me begin by talking about asexuality itself--both word and concept--and then move to what seems the bigger question you're asking--are LGBTQ+ terms inherently sinful?

I've heard of people who say that calling oneself asexual (ace for short) is wrong because you're labeling yourself. Similarly, people would say that describing oneself as queer is wrong.

Asexuality is lack of sexual attraction. It's derived from the Greek, the prefix a- meaning not. Consider similar terms like apolitical (meaning, having no political affiliation). Is it a sin not to desire sex? No. One could conjecture that the apostle Paul was ace, going by his words in 1 Corinthians 7. The larger context is his instructions regarding sexual relations within marriage, but verses 6-9 read thus:

"I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

Are we hypothesizing to call Paul ace? Yes. But it seems a pretty good guess to me.

Let's talk about the word "queer." That one, even more than asexuality, is associated with LGBTQ+, but I have beloved Christian friends who use the word to describe themselves. Why?

Simply put, "queer" means "not straight." If one is not attracted to the opposite sex--i.e., straight attraction--then one is queer. Therefore, to be ace is to be queer. You may or may not be comfortable with that term. That's perfectly fine and entirely up to you. I've read posts written by LGBTQ+ folk debating whether they're comfortable with the word. My larger point is more to say I don't think ace or queer is inherently wrong to say/use to describe oneself.

And that was your larger question: can Christians use LGBTQ+ terms and remain Biblically faithful? My answer (and I could be wrong on this) is yes. For one thing, the Bible wasn't written in English. The terms we've picked up from the Bible aren't fully accurate to the Bible; our understandings of the Bible are of necessity filtered through our culture and our own language.

Terms like asexual and queer convey a world of meaning very quickly. I see no reason to come up with euphemisms or alternative phrases when the word that describes the topic is right there. Asexual. Not sexually interested. Queer. Not straight. Labeling oneself is how people understand each other. I would label myself Christian, female, heterosexual, writer. My friends might call themselves Christian, asexual, and whatever other terms would best explain them to other people. To describe oneself is not sinful.

Now, you didn't ask about whether asexuality itself is a positive thing, but I'm going to touch on this because I know it's a debated topic within some Christian circles and I want to be very clear. There is no moral weight attached to your attractions. There is considerable moral weight attached to your actions.

Sin is less about how you are as a person and what you are inclined toward, and far more about how you choose to act and what you choose to focus on. Having a desire isn't wrong. Giving in to wrong desires and being dominated by wrong desires is.