#like believe what you want but conservative christians want to act like they are oppressed so bad and they're just getting on my last nerve

[aquareegia]

BMTH has been taking the piss out of christianity for a while and some people just realised that??? BRUH! what the fuck have you been listening to the entire time? bc it sure as hell wasn't BMTH lol.

[butch-reidentified]

I notice articles of Radfems' teaming up with conservatives to curb trans activists. I thought radfems are left-leaning. Why do radfems team up with the right wingers if that's the case?

This is going to be long but contain a lot of very important information people need to understand about the radfem perspective on gender compared to both the conservative one and the genderist one.

I don't personally know any radfem who would ever do this so the simple answer is I can't tell you why someone would bc I've never even witnessed it, let alone gotten to ask their reasoning. People who call themselves gender critical and get called TERF aren't necessarily radfems. Radical feminism is by definition a left wing ideology. If you were active on radblr, you would see frequent posts calling out conservative women who try to act all buddy-buddy with radfems re: trans stuff. We on radblr do not tolerate that or their presence - at least not in the corner of radblr where I exist. I block right wing blogs on sight.

Contrary to popular trans belief, we don't agree with conservatives on trans matters either. Where conservatives want to reinforce gender, maintain the existence of gender, and are bioessentialist (a term genderists use incorrectly btw*) by nature of their predominantly Christian beliefs, radfems are gender atheists and abolitionists.

*Bioessentialism doesn't mean "vagina = woman, penis = man." It refers to the belief that women (aka female humans) are genetically/inherently nurturing, caregivers, emotional, sensitive, intuitive, quiet, physically weak, like pink and princesses and flowery dresses, etc., and that men are genetically/inherently strong, resilient, tough, outdoorsy, aggressive/violent, stoic, rational, leaders, like trucks and mud and red meat, etc.

While bioessentialism is the belief that all these stereotypes are innate, these stereotypes themselves are what make up gender. "Gender stereotypes" and "Gender roles" are redundant phrases. Gender *is* just stereotypes based on sex. Male aka "amab" people are expected to adhere to the truck-loving, tough, aggressive, stereotypes mentioned above. Those stereotypes are placed based on their physical body - the male body - not placed on them because of their INTERNAL "gender identity." For proof, look no further than the baby gifts an expecting mother receives after finding out the sex of her unborn child: they are not random, gender-neutral gifts, they're blue pajamas with dinosaurs on them because boy.

Radfems want to eliminate gender. We view sex as a neutral biological fact, like your height, foot width, or hair or eye color.

Imagine if, before a baby is born, doctors tested its future hair color, and that information was believed to determine everything about the child. Oh, it's a brunette! So it will be opinionated, love playing with building blocks, enjoy science, and its favorite color will be green! Oh, a blond? Well, better get it yellow EVERYTHING covered in butterflies, and order some craft supplies (blonds are just naturally more creative than brunettes, of course). Be prepared... blonds are soft and sensitive and moody. They're very artistic but struggle to keep up in math and science classes, and are so indecisive!

This is what gender is. A massive, all-encompassing set of traits that are assigned to one sex or the other, designed explicitly by patriarchy to maintain the oppression of the female sex. It defines everything, starting with how people treat you before you're even born, including who you will be expected to be all your life forever, up to what jobs you're likely to get and how much you'll be paid. Society has decided that which type of gametes your body is designed to produce (whether or not you successfully produce them is utterly irrelevant to what your body is DESIGNED genetically to do) determines every last thing about your life. There's a stronger argument for astrology than gender.

So conservatives want to perpetuate gender, keep males doing all those things I listed (which we call "masculinity") and females doing all those things I listed (often called "femininity"). Radfems want gender gone. We want your sex to be no more relevant to your life than your height or hair color. We believe that regardless of whether your body is structured to produce large gametes or small ones says absolutely fucking nothing about who you are, what you are capable of, your likes or dislikes, your intelligence, or anything else.

So, no. I would sooner die than team up with conservatives. We have nothing in common. You are by definition NOT radical feminist if you support gender and will team up with those who do, just to ~own the trains~. That isn't a no true Scotsman, it's just how definitions work.

I am not against trans people. I am 100% in favor of safety and protection for trans people. I simply don't view gender the same way many trans people (specifically those we call genderists or TRAs) do. I don't believe in an internal gender identity any more than I believe in an internal hair color identity. I do, however, believe in EVERY human's fundamental rights to bodily autonomy, healthcare, self-expression, non-discrimination, etc. I believe clothes and toys and hobbies and occupations and likes and dislikes and skills and weaknesses all have zero to do with your sex.

This is my struggle with gender identity ideology: nobody has been able to answer the most fundamental defining question I have about it. If, as many trans activists claim, their gender identity has nothing to do with clothing, nothing to do with haircut, nothing to do with being hairy vs shaven, nothing to do with personality traits, nothing to do with likes and dislikes, nothing to do with whether you prefer dolls or hotwheels, nothing to do with all those stereotypes I mentioned... but it's also not simply a descriptor for one's sex, what is left? What remains to give gender meaning? What is a boy/man or girl/woman? Without referencing any sex stereotypes or sexed body parts, how do you know which one you are?

If anyone could give me a genuine, logical answer to this, an explanation for gender identity that has nothing to do with sex stereotypes and makes concrete sense, on God I would become the biggest TRA on earth.

Because I don't believe that gender is anything more than sexist stereotypes, the idea of gender identity is incompatible with my values. Because I view sex as a simple biological fact which should be as neutral as hair color, I don't think it makes sense to believe one can fully and truly change sex. If you dye your hair blond, the roots will still grow in the original brown color determined by your genetics. You may be able to appear as a blond and convince some people you are naturally blond, but it doesn't *actually* change the reality.

I believe there are people with physical sex dysphoria, like myself and my best friend, for whom medical transition is in many cases beneficial (it was for me) in alleviating those odd "phantom sex characteristic," very neurological-seeming symptoms. But while having a double mastectomy did help the sensations, it didn't turn me into a male human (man), and I have certainly never wanted to be one. My best friend lives a life where everyone perceives her to be female, though she was born male, simply because the medical process she went through to alleviate those neurological sensations resulted in people perceiving her as female (passing). Her "social transition" was not intentional or gender related, just an incidental byproduct of the medical one. It was simply easier, and probably safer, to assimilate into social womanhood than to tell everyone she's actually male despite appearing female, though she still does not have a gender identity, does not wear makeup or skirts or perform femininity, and couldn't care less about pronouns - I use "she" because that's how my brain naturally perceives her. Outside of this concrete, material, neurologically plausible view of sex dysphoria (which still has nothing inherently related to *gender* about it), I don't understand what it means to be trans.

Radfems want both sexes to be utterly free to be whoever they are, without being influenced/socialized into gendered (aka sex-stereotypical) behaviors and preferences. We want males comfortable & safe wearing flowery sundresses and crying often and being homemakers if they wish, and females under zero societal pressure to shave, wear makeup, etc., and totally free to speak their minds and wear cargo shorts without so much as a sideways glance. Conservatives want males to be "masculine" and females to be "feminine," whereas we want "masculine" and "feminine" to be as absurd concepts as "blondian" and "brunettian" sound. Fundamentally, radfems & conservatives exist in opposition.

Anyone who has an issue with trans people, and for whom that issue is so important they'll team up with conservatives just to fight the trans movement, has utterly lost sight of the goal of feminism (if they were feminist to begin with), which is female liberation. Radfems believe gender abolition is a crucial step toward female liberation; working with people who want to enforce gender such as conservatives would be working against our own interests.

I've been on radblr a few years and never seen anyone team up with conservatives. Whoever you've heard about in the news, idk who they are, but I fully condemn cooperation with the right wing and assure you that is not something your standard radfem will tolerate. Much like how most trans people feel about Caitlyn Jenner.

[shivology]

okay. one day i will stop talking about islam but it's not gonna be today. anyway, to overcorrect on post-9/11 islamophobia, a lot of liberal spaces infested by the types of muslims who will call you islamophobic and disrespectful of their culture when you call them out on their homophobia or transphobia and who will deny the infestations of misogyny and antiblackness and antisemitism in their (our) communities because Um Actually You Don't Get The Full Context, have started to almost . idk the word but like, deify? whitewash? sugarcoat? islam as if it's like. One Inherently Good Singular Ideology Misunderstood By White People For Racism Reasons. when yes, obviously, islam and muslims who live in the west are oppressed, but that's not all islam is. and it's such disservice to act like Islam cannot be oppressive to so many people who do live in the global south living either directly under islamist rule or just in conservative muslim-majority communities, to say that no actually we're a peaceful religion and we WORSHIP women actually! like to gaslight people who have actually been forced to wear the hijab, who have actually been victims of misogynistic honor-based violence, who have actually been pulled out of school to be married off to a 50 year old man because "the prophet did it so it's islamically ok!"

and it's tricky to talk about because you don't want to fuel islamophobia (which, like antisemitism, is obviously a legitimate tangible thing, but also can be weaponized) also it is so fucking ANNOYINGGGGG to watch discourse on islam be led by people who have never experienced oppression fueled by islam like sure you're a good ally to guys like mohamed hijab but also people like sara hegazy mahsa amini etc etc all these people are real people who were tangibly hurt in the name of islam. there is a reason why a man like andrew tate felt it was ok for a man like him to convert to islam and there is a reason why so many Muslim men welcomed him with open fucking arms. you're sure not a good ally to queer people and atheists and christians and jews who have been tangibly hurt in the name of islam.

and we can discuss the doctrine itself, we can talk about the effects of colonialism, we can talk about how no actually islam doesn't say that lets not conflate between ~ real religion and corrupt regimes but the thing issssss. religion is literally what you make of it. it is an idea. there is a book and you take what you take from it. there is no such thing as "the correct way" to practice religion, especially when all Abrahamic religions have the capacity to be peaceful AND the capacity to be violent. what is REAL representation? who are you to say what real representation is, anyway? who decides what is extremism? why do you, personally, get to pick and choose who and what represents a certain religion?

islam, like Every Religion Ever, manifests itself in different ways depending on ur social context. whether you have the means to exact oppression via religion or whether you are disenfranchised because you're an ethnic or racial or religious minority. religion has and always will be used both as a tool for good (community building, etc) or for evil (daaesh, lol) it's not about religion itself. it's about how you use it and its place in the social pecking order.

anyway. tl;dr. i hate oversimplication and i hate overcorrection. quite frankly, it's orientalist and racist, to assume that an organized religion followed by over a billion people in most countries in the world, all believe the same beliefs. even if u think these beliefs are "good." here's over a billion of us and some of us are bound to be cunts! statistically.

[boreal-sea]

@vriskarights

Reply to this post:

https://www.tumblr.com/vriskarights/706085331968065536/why-do-tras-call-lesbians-who-dont-like-dick

For whatever reason, Tumblr isn't letting me reblog to add my answer to your questions. Before we get to the questions though:

"by definition, no lesbian likes dick."

First, we're going to immediately denounce your transphobia right from the get-go.

Lesbians can like dick. Dicks are not gendered. Dicks can be attached to women. Trans women with dicks exist. Cis women lesbians can like trans women lesbians with dicks.

Lesbianism is not about "not liking dicks" and that's a super weird way to define your sexuality.

Now, if you personally don't like dicks, even when they are attached to women, that's fine. You're allowed to have a no-dick preference. Just don't sit there and act like you get to define lesbianism for the rest of the planet, because you don't.

Moving on.

"Do you have any sources of radfems partnering with and benefitting fascist organizations?"

Yes, I do. It's not hard to find these sources. Radfems saying things like "At least ISIS knows what a woman is" are literally everywhere.

Here's a news article for you from The Washington Post, "Conservatives find unlikely ally in fighting transgender rights: Radical feminists".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/02/07/radical-feminists-conservatives-transgender-rights/

The Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) has become very friendly with conservatives of various kinds in recent years. They've been featured on Tucker Carlson's show and have presented at the Heritage Foundation, which is an organization that promotes conservative values. WoLF received money from another conservative Christian organization, the Alliance Defending Freedom, to help promote an anti-transgender bill during the Obama administration.

That's a lot of damning evidence from just one source. Believe me, there are more. Bottom line: transphobic radfems eagerly align themselves with conservatives when it suits their needs.

"How is recognizing the relevance of biological sex to sexism and homophobia fascist? And how are we bioessentialist--what innate qualities do we assign to males and females?"

Recognizing that humans generally come in two sexes is not fascism. It becomes bigotry when you decide - against the evidence of science - that sex is binary and immutable. It's bigotry to say either sex has any inherent qualities. It's bigotry when you decide gender and sex are inherently linked and that trans people do not exist. Bigotry becomes fascism when you try to pass oppressive laws to enforce your bigoted beliefs, like anti trans laws.

Many radfems do assign inherent qualities to the sexes. Not all of them do it outright - it's much more of an unconscious bias. But almost all radfems are disgusted by males, masculinity, and manhood. Many radfems believe whether consciously or unconsciously that males are, at their core, bad.

Testosterone is usually listed as the thing that causes this badness. We'll get into how this affects their opinions on cis men and trans women, but I first want to prove this is bioessentialism by using trans men as an example. The radfem's fear, hatred and revulsion of trans men, and the way they talk about trans men, is all rooted in bioessentialism and associating maleness with disgust.

"Trans men who go in T become ugly, they're balding, greasy, covered in acne, fat, smell bad, and they're hairy" - all of those are innate qualities they associate with maleness and disgust. To radfems, body hair on a trans man isn't just hair, it's gross, even though they're feminists and they're supposed to support natural body hair.

The intense body shaming radfems express towards trans men betrays not only their own hypocrisy with regards to body positivity, but their bioessentialism as well. They would not be revolted by these traits if they did not associate them with maleness, and maleness with being bad and negative.

Almost all radfems I've seen have said something along the lines of "all men are bad". They don't ascribe this badness to socialization and often rarely even mention "male socialization" - no, they directly associate maleness with badness, as noted above.

Radfems are often not just afraid of males, they are disgusted by maleness, masculinity, and manhood. That's assigning a quality to the sexes: male = disgusting, female = good. That's bioessentialism.

Other innate qualities I have seen radfems assign to the sexes: males are always bigger and stronger than females, and females can never (or very rarely ever) overpower males. Therefore males are a risk to females, but females cannot be threatening or dangerous towards males. This is why radfems feel females need safe spaces but males do not. This is also why radfems rarely ever believe male rape victims of female rapists, and in some cases, do not believe males can be raped by a female at all.

That's all bioessentialism. And maybe you don't believe any of those things, but a lot of radfems do, and it informs their rhetoric. This is why radfems treat trans women like predators: not because of "male socialization", but because trans women were assigned male at birth, and that makes them tainted from the womb.

Cis men are completely capable of controlling themselves; they are not biologically predisposed towards cheating or rape or violence. That's all socialization's fault. But you'd never think that, listening to radfems.

Testosterone in someone's system does not make them good or bad, ugly or pretty. It does not make someone predisposed towards violence. It's just a hormone. If anything, listening to trans men describe their experiences and how T makes them feel proves that cis men who are actually awful cannot blame their behavior on their biology, as they desperately want to do.

Next!

"Believing that man is the word word adult human males and that woman is the word for adult human females (as the dictionary states) isn't bioessentialist as it ascribes no innate qualities (i.e. tough, nurturing, sporty, motherly) to the sexes."

The problem with the claim that male = man and female = woman is that it only works if language is immutable and never changes, and if trans people don't exist. I've already explained how radfems very much do assign qualities to the sexes. The belief that male = man and female = woman is bioessentialist because it erases the existence of binary trans people and nonbinary trans people, plain and simple. If you argue the only way to be a man is to be male, you are assigning a quality to both of those things.

"Recognizing trends brought on by socialization and observable in statistics != assigning innate qualities to males and females (i.e. acknowledging that the majority of violent crime is committed by men is not bioessentialist because it is a fact)."

It wouldn't be bioessentialist if radfems didn't follow it by saying that these statistics mean "ALL men are untrustworthy". The instant you say every man should be treated as potentially violent, it's bioessentialism, because you are now applying violence to maleness as an inherent quality.

"I have been called a fascist and a nazi for not liking dick,"

No you haven't.

"and for acknowledging that my female homosexuality (exclusive same sex attraction) is what makes me a lesbian."

This is why you have been called a fascist and a nazi, for reasons explained above. Not liking dick is perfectly fine; redefining lesbianism around your hatred of dicks is weird and also transphobic.

"As have many lesbians (hence why we’ve grown to be critical of the trans movement--it is homophobic and to our detriment, and why should we sacrifice ourselves when we’re already an oppression minority?)."

Cis lesbians as a whole have not become critical of the trans community. Transphobes like you are, thank the gods, a tiny minority. Most cis lesbians love their trans siblings, both trans women and trans men.

You are tiny, loud, annoying parasites leeching off feminists and lesbians. Like mosquitos.

[cherryblossomshadow]

(comment courtesy of @alyssamorningway)

[Image 5 ID and source (https://twitter.com/CrappyFumes/status/1542473210414899204): Tweet from apple bottom brains (@/CrappyFumes) reading:

Evangelicals don’t think life is supposed to be good. They think life on earth is supposed to be a crucible that tests if you’re fit for heaven. If evangelicals take over society the quality of life for everyone is going to STEEPLY decline. Count on it.

Like if you think our society is obsessed with punishment NOW… these people literally think that death for a believer is a merciful release from a world of earthly sin. They think DEATH should be LOOKED FORWARD TO. They don’t want to improve society. They want apocalypse.

/end ID]

.

Other gems from the twitter thread:

unedited google document (@/ShyReplyGuy) quote-retweeted with:

And the idea that people are becoming "equal" is just people being given something extra they don't deserve

A rich person donating freely is someone choosing what to do with their own wealth

Welfare is forcing support for people who don't deserve it at other's expense

They really are the embodiment of "when you're accustomed to privileges, equality feels like oppression"

Gems from the article:

In [Calvin's] version of religion, the religious ministers should rule society as the government

Calvin picked up on a recurring thread in some Christian sects: the cosmic view of Manichaeism. Calvin’s cosmology was an extreme dualism of Good versus Evil — God versus Satan — with humans stuck in the middle of this cosmic war. This world belonged to Satan, at least until the “end time.” The world itself and the things in it were evil, including worldly pleasures. Calvin used his political power to ban such activities as music and dancing as sinful.

Calvin believed that humans were fundamentally depraved and incapable of being good. Only God is good and only by God’s direct action could a human think or act with moral goodness. Without God’s intervention, humans are left in the clutches of Satan

Calvin believed that humans lacked free will. Humans are servants either of God or Satan. Humans couldn’t even choose who to serve. God preordained some people to receive salvation (The “Elect”) ... Like others who preach determinism, Calvin was not consistent in it. He frequently fell back to acknowledging individual free will, for himself

Despite condemning worldly pleasures, Calvin taught that God gave worldly wealth and prosperity to the Elect, and denied it to others. This translated to the beliefs that wealth is a sign of virtue and that poverty is conjoined with moral depravity.

The worldview of Calvinism is that we are at war with Satanic forces. Calvinist ethics responds to that belief with the demand to be ever on guard against the wolf of evil that would devour us if we slip up even once and lose salvation. To be a good person is to be a slave to Calvinist Law. Any other path is to fall into slavery to Satan and become an evil person.

Humans considered to be evil are condemned by Calvinism as being without hope of redemption. This logically follows from the beliefs in predestination

Hell is a deserved eternal punishment and sentence is carried out without appeal, without hope of repentance or redemption. Calvinist ethics therefore demands that “good people,” “The Elect,” likewise condemn others and shun them as enemies of the good. Calvin’s strict dualism creates an unbridgeable gulf between those who are good and those who are evil. Evil people are fundamentally depraved and irredeemable and thus wholly Other. 

This dynamic has been dramatized in such fictional works as The Scarlet Letter and The Crucible. In real life, this dynamic is repeatedly played out in conservative politics, which sees the world in dualistic terms of “the good” manifesting dominion over “the evil.”

Calvinist dualism has created a mindset that frequently manifests in conspiracy theories.

Calvin, naturally, believed he was one of God’s Elect and thus believed he was fit to rule as sovereign. His dictatorship was a utopia (if you could call it that) of complete obedience to the rule of God’s Law as interpreted by Calvin and administered by his church. He became known as “The Tyrant of Geneva” because of his extreme tactics in maintaining control over every aspect of his subjects’ lives, including executions.

The Calvinist legacy has created what Harold Bloom has called “the primary God of the United States”. The Calvinist God protects the United States, the ordained world leader, from its enemies foreign and domestic. United States citizens are God’s Elect — at least those Americans who are good Fundamentalists.

The worldview of U.S. Conservatism has its roots in Calvinism. We decidedly see this in religious Fundamentalism, where Calvinist doctrines have been the core dogma of the “religious right” for centuries. 

The Calvinist dualistic worldview has spilled over into secular America. A corollary to this conception of evil is that attempts to help the disadvantaged in society is actually not just a waste of time but morally wrong. In essence, it is aiding evil. The poor are poor because they deserve to be poor because of their sinful nature. Calvinism also lies at the root of political ideology of Libertarianism, the pretentious (and false) name for the “I got mine, you get yours” brand of economic politics. Like Calvinism, Libertarianism believes that wealth and poverty reflect ethical character not social realities. If someone’s facing serious problems in their life, they must have done something to deserve it, which also reinforces the fallacious worldview that we are not allowed to blame the conservative system.

The conservative notion of American exceptionalism, from the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny to the current “leader of the free world,” is inspired by Calvinism. The Right’s disdain for those who are different is an ethical view responding to the belief that difference itself is a sign of moral failing. The Right’s hostility against the government helping the disadvantaged is manifests the Calvinist belief that we should not help the undeserving. Reactionism on right-wing radio, television, and the Internet is the 21st century manifestation of the 16th century ideology of Calvinism and its obsession with evil.

Image descriptions below the cut:

[Image 1 and 2 ID and source): Twitter thread from Chris Alvino (@/ChrisAlvino) reading:

I saw a Christian nationalist who got COVID thanking God for their strong immune system, and then suddenly something clicked for me—They view those with weakened immune systems as deserving of sickness. It's exactly like poverty...

Christian nationalists believe that if you're rich, you earned it and are in God's good graces. Likewise, if you are poor and suffering, you earned that as well. It's what you deserve for being out of God's graces.

And the way this person was talking about their immune system, it felt EXACTLY the same as when they talk about wealth and poverty. Deep down, these people think we DESERVE to be sick. And if we die, that's God's plan/we deserved it.

So they will never truly care about the poor or the sick (the same exact people Jesus told them to care about). We deserve to suffer (and ultimately die) bc we were not blessed with a good immune system. Is it any wonder we can't get them to wear masks to protect the vulnerable?

/end ID]

.

[Image 3 ID and source: unedited google document (@/ShyReplyGuy) quote-retweeted with:

There was a good thread on here, that I won't be able to find, about how it's important to remember they have a fundamentally different view of the world.

They believe there's a natural order to things and diversity and "wokeness" are violations of that natural order.

Chris Alvino (@/ChrisAlvino) quote-retweeted with:

This is such an incredibly difficult concept for my brain to grok. I've read stuff like this before but it never sticks. Like it is just so alien to me... Which must be what compassion and empathy feel like for them. It's also probably why it took me so long to recognize it

/end ID]

.

[Image 4 ID and source 1 and 2:

C̶͚̃a̵̯͠s̸͌͜s̷̜̎ả̵̻n̵̥͑d̸̓ͅr̶̦̽a̵̛̠ Complex̸̗́ 🐀 (@/amorvincitomnia) quote-retweeted with:

They also believe death comes with a reward 🤷‍♀️ Why bother living if all dying means is ‘going home’

Chris Alvino (@/ChrisAlvino) quote-retweeted with:

Oh yeah, 100%. It's why they don't want to make anything materially better in the here and now

dirtycommiebarbie🌹🖤 (@/comradecoquette) quote-retweeted with:

Literally JUST saw someone when asked point blank about people with immune disorders/pre-existing conditions say 'that's their battle to fight they clearly did something in a past life to have that, it's not my job to make up for them'. Never seen someone say it that baldly. 🙃

/end ID]

[pingnova]

Thanks for being honest about how hostile most Christians are to even the most basic show of support for queer people. Christians love to claim the Bible is only full of nice things and any of the overwhelming evil that's come out of it over the millennia is just random bad faith outliers who weren't true christians. The reason those folks probably think their religion supports their bigotry is because the official church organizations materially do support their bigotry and have for centuries, even if it's not supported by the words in the book

Christianity is synonymous with colonization, it has been the single largest concentrated force for homophobia cisheteronormativity misogyny forced pregnancy and child abuse for the entire lives of everyone alive today, at the very least. Personally i don't think it's worth trying to reclaim an ideology that's filled with bigots and officially stands for bigotry. I don't think there's anything worthwhile in there that you couldn't find somewhere else where it isn't packaged along with bigotry. If someone publicly affiliates with Christianity, they're broadcasting to strangers there is a high likelihood they don't recognize the personhood of over half of the people on this planet and believe they will be cosmically punished for their divergence. I'm going to assume they're a bigot until they prove they're not, and after that point, I'll wonder why they lend their name to an organization that stands for bigotry if they don't believe in it.

I don't think this is an unfair assumption. I saw how American Christians acted toward queers during AIDS, I'm not just gonna forget. They were very vocal. That's what Christianity means to millions of people around the world

Yes I agree if someone tells me they're Christian I'm instantly on guard for these reasons. I do personally find redeeming value in it but I'm fully aware of the terrible things people have done in its name. Forced conversions, boarding schools, anti-abortion campaigning, advocating for more queers to die during AIDS. Too many to list here. As a queer Christian myself I can't really afford to be romantic about it. I believe Christianity could do so much good, and yet the majority of those who claim it choose not to. So I tend to not talk about my personal conviction IRL too much, and if I do I make it clear as quickly as I can that doesn't eclipse my queerness or progressive convictions, but actually goes along with it.

A lot of unpleasant and conservative brands of Christianity get a pass on account of "religious freedom" and I feel like I'm in a particularly good place to openly criticize them. I also practice this religion and don't feel the need to oppress people over it. In fact we have a lot of the opposite convictions. So I don't think enacting laws to hurt people because you believe something or its "in the bible" is right, because that's not part of MY version of your religion and i didnt see that in MY bible. Sus. I can only do so much tho, being queer I'm marginalized and then being ELCA I'm kind of marginalized in the wider Christian world, like my post outlined. There are Christian bodies out there doing good but sadly they are the minority. They shouldn't be the minority, especially bc none of that conservative crap is "in the bible", but that's the reality. And even those groups likely did terrible things in the past and now have to grapple with how to right that.

To me, bigotry is not a religion. That's my motto. People and groups can practice whatever religion they want, but they should be held accountable for their bigotry no matter what. And I give them an unimpressed stare if they try to tell me it's what their religion says.

[ironwoman359]

This is probably not the best place to ask, but you’re also a Christian woman too. I was wondering what you thought about what the Bible says about women and how we must submit to husbands and some other stuff that has me (a potential ace) Christain woman kind of terrified. I would go to my church but social anxiety and my church is pretty conservative. I don’t want to think that we’re just second rate citizens with this. Um…that’s all. You don’t have to answer. Love your Tumblr. It’s one of the main ones I look at. Thanks for countless enjoyment!

— — —

(I’m responding on the submission and not the ask because the ask refused to post properly, I think it was too long for Tumblr’s fancy)

So I know you just asked for my thoughts and not a biblical interpretation lesson, but I didn’t spend 3 months writing an exegesis in college for me to never use those skills again, so buckle up for something of a long answer! (literally, this is almost 3 thousand words, so....sorry about that) *rubs hands together* The thing we need to take into consideration when reading the bible is Interpretation; any truly honest biblical scholar would tell you it is a mistake to take every word in the bible at its literal face value, ESPECIALLY since most of us are reading translations of scripture, not the original ancient hebrew/greek/aramaic/whatever else. So when interpreting scripture, we must consider these things:

Author (Who wrote it?)

Audience (Who was it written for?)

Context (What is written around it?)

So the verses you’re referencing are Ephesians 5:22-23, and in the NIV, they read as follows:

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Isolated from author, audience, and context, they sound pretty sexist, don’t they? And male authority figures have used these verses as justification for the oppression of women for centuries, just as white men used the passage only a few verses away, Ephesians 6:5, as justification for the oppression and ownership of black people (Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ). So let’s look at each of the points above in regards to Ephesians 5 and 6. First, who wrote it? Sometimes that can be a tricky question to answer, but in this case, it’s actually very easy (though there is still a bit of fuzziness/debate). Traditionally, Ephesians is one of the Apostle Paul’s letters to the early church. Specifically, to the body of believers in Ephesus, a Greek city that was a part of the Roman Empire at the time. According to two different study bibles I have, the letter of Ephesians was not addressing any particular problem that the church in Ephesus had (as was often the case with Paul’s letters), but was meant as an encouragement of faith and to increase his readers’ understanding of what it meant to be a follower of Christ. So now what about the Context? Why are the verses at the end of chapter 5 and beginning of chapter 6 so damning to our modern sensibilities? To answer that, we must look at the passages both in context to the verses around them, and in historical and cultural context (which is where 1 & 2 come into play again). Going back to the beginning of chapter 4, which is subtitled “Unity in the Body of Christ” (and remember, these subtitles and groupings were come up with LONG after they were written; we grouped sections together in a way we thought was most logical, which honestly for a book as short as Ephesians I would argue is barely even necessary), we can see that the letter from chapter 4 onward is about living a Holy and Godly life. Chapter 4 urges us to be “completely humble and gentle, be patient, bearing with one another in love” and warns us against living “as the Gentiles* do, in the futility of their thinking.” *Gentiles in this case meaning not neccesarily all non-Jews, but non-believers. AKA, we should live like Jesus lived, WWJD and all that jazz. If the Holy Spirit is in our hearts and our relationship with God is at the forefront of our lives, then that should show clearly in our actions. The very first verse of chapter 5 reads “Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” Chapters 5 and 6 especially are meant to act as a sort of guide for how a follower of Christ should act. There’s some stuff about obscenity, greed, sexual impurity, 5:15 sums it up pretty well basically, “Be very careful, then, how you live- not as unwise but as wise,” and then we reach the all important verse. Ephesians 5:21, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” That’s a full sentence, just that there. Submit to one another. The following three sections are all subsections of this point: one for Wives submitting to Husbands, one for Children submitting to Parents, and one for Slaves submitting to Masters. But when looking at all of these, bad shepherds (ie, racist, sexist assholes) like to ignore that first bit, submit to one another, just as they like to ignore 5:28, which says “husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself;” or they ignore 6:4 which says “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord;” and they ignore 6:9, “Masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.” I do highly encourage you to read chapters 4, 5, and 6 in full, or at least start at 4:17, which is where Paul starts talking about “Living as Children of Light,” because it makes the intent of these apparently damning verses much more clear. Paul is stating that as Christians, we should treat everyone around us with honor and respect. According to one of my study bibles, the grammar of the original Greek suggests that the “submission” involved in all three sections is intended to be mutual submission, and is to come from a filling of the Holy Spirit. However, to be quite frank, Paul still Lived In A Society. A highly structured, patriarchal society, in which all members of a household (women, children, slaves) were expected to submit to the patriarchal head of that household. Male children until they reached adulthood, Slaves until they were freed (remember that, while by no means a purely morally good thing, the system of Roman Slavery was VASTLY DIFFERENT from the Atlantic Slave Trade that men later used this passage to justify existing), and women, unfortunately, for their whole lives. In another one of his letters, what is now the book of Galatians, Paul says in chapter 3 verse 27-29 that “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” This would have been radical at the time. Paul is promising all people of all genders and classes that, in the eyes of God, they are Equal, One, and all “sons,” meaning that they all have a right to the Inheritance of the Father (remember, at this time and in this culture women did not get any inheritance, and younger sons got significantly less than the firstborn. Paul assures the believers that they ALL are equal receivers of the Promises of God). But this equality that Paul speaks of was, in his eyes, a spiritual equality. He was not particularly concerned with overthrowing the earthly patriarchal society that subjugated women and lower classes, but rather instructed all members of that society who also were Believers to submit equally to one another out of love and respect, for they were all Equal in God’s eyes and would be Equal in heaven. This is why he both tells women to submit to and obey their husbands, but also husbands to love, cherish, and care for their wives. Children, obey your parents, but Fathers, don’t be dicks to your kids. Slaves should obey their masters (slavery was much more like a job that you weren’t allowed to quit until your boss said so) but Masters shouldn’t abuse their slaves. There are Societal Authorities, and Paul is telling his readers “look you can’t just go around not respecting those Authorities, but also hey, if you’re the Authority? That’s not a free pass to be an asshole.” As one of my study bibles puts it, “Paul counseled all believers to submit to one another by choice…this kind of mutual submission preserves order and harmony in the family while it increases love and respect among family members.” Paul is basically saying “it’s better for everyone if we all get along, and remember that Christ had a servant’s heart, and intentionally lowered himself for us, so we should do the same for each other.” And while a patriarchal class system is still super sucky for like 80% of the people involved, at least it’s a whole lot more bearable if everyone involved is being a Nice, Good Member of that Society. You mentioned being worried about being treated like a “second rate citizen.” The fact of the matter is that when this was written, women were second rate citizens; that is the context in which Paul is writing. And while I firmly believe that that was wrong, in every sense of the word, Paul wasn’t especially concerned about challenging that aspect of society. Priority one was “Spread the Gospel” and Priority two was “Don’t Get Killed while Spreading the Gospel.” Speaking of Paul, let’s talk a little more about Saul of Tarsus, shall we? In all literary analysis, it is important to examine the author’s beliefs and what biases may have made their way into the work. And while we believe the bible to be a Holy Book, it can and should be subject to the same rules of literary analysis as non-religious texts. First, you must ask yourself, what do you believe about the bible? There are four general ways of looking at it (which are called Theories of Inspiration).

The bible is the Divine Word of God, dictated word for word across centuries directly to its human authors by God Himself.

The bible is the Divine Word of God, written across centuries by men Inspired by the Holy Spirit. While they are writing in their own words, this Inspiration means that the bible is Wholly Perfect with no errors.

The bible is the Divine Word of God, written across centuries by men Inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, because they are imperfect, fallible men, there is a possibility of errors in the text, both in the account of events that happened and in the teaching therein.

The bible is a collection of accounts written by men, with no Divine Intervention from God. It is not Holy, God’s Word, or Infallible.

I was raised to believe theory 2, but now I personally believe theory 3. And since I’m the author of this analysis, it is through the lens and bias of theory 3 that I now present my next point: Paul was sexist. I don’t think he was maliciously so (see again, Galatians 3, and the statement in Ephesians 5 that men should honor, cherish, and care for their wives), but he was a product of his time who had ingrained ideas about women and their place in society. This does not A) mean he was right about how women should act OR B) mean that we should toss out everything he had to say, about women or otherwise, because he was Problematic. Most biblical authors were, in fact, Problematic. Either by our modern standards, due to the time in which they lived, OR by the standards of their own time, because God liked to use Imperfect People (we’re all imperfect, but He liked particularly imperfect people) in His plans. David was an adulterer and murderer. Paul happily sent dozens of Christians to their deaths. Peter was hotheaded and super prejudiced against Gentiles and Samaritans. And most of them were, in one way or another, sexist, racist, and homophobic. These biases then found their way, intentionally or not, into their writings, and then other racist, sexist, homophobic men used those writings to justify systemic oppression of anyone who was not like them. Oppression that is not Christlike. So where does that leave us, in our 21st century application of scripture to our daily lives? We must examine how it was to be read at the time (which we have done), and then see what we can apply from it to our own lives. For myself in my marriage, I look again to the original grammar of Ephesians 5, that indicates the submission is to be mutual. I “submit” to my husband, and he “submits” to me. In other words, our relationship is built on Trust, Clear Communication, and Respect for one another. Sometimes we have to compromise, and I have to put aside my own desires for his sake, or he must set aside his own desires for my sake. It is a willingness to listen to one another, to approach conflicts with an open mind, to consider each other’s feelings before we speak. It is an equal, mutual submission based on love for each other, which doesn’t contradict what Paul says at all. God created all people to be equal. Humans are stupid sometimes and try to insist that we know better, try to create hierarchies and use the bible to try and justify that, but that doesn’t mean those humans are right. If your church is trying to make you feel less than because of your gender, or if you date somebody who pushes TradWife rhetoric and tries to use Ephesians as their justification, then you Run, and feel justified in doing so. (Especially if they also try to use Paul’s words to tell you why you owe your partner sex; see again, Paul was not only sexist but also lived in a patriarchal time when women were second class citizens that had very specific expectations placed on them AND he wasn’t even in a relationship himself, forgive me if I take his advice on my sex life with a grain of salt. Without doing this whole process again, a good modern reading of “don’t deprive one another” is “don’t use sex as a weapon in your relationship/withhold it for bs reasons when you’re mad at each other, etc. Like all other relationship things, sex (or a lack thereof) with your spouse should be based on mutual trust, communication, and love, not petty arguments or the standards of others.)

Trust me, as an ace woman myself, I totally get the fear. I’ve felt it myself, in the past. But God’s intentions for you are not that you become a doormat or servant to a man. If a romantic relationship (or any other partnership) is part of His plan for you, then the bible clearly states, both in Ephesians and elsewhere, that it should be one built on Love and Trust, not Subjugation and Servitude.

I hope this helped you, and again, sorry it was so long XD. Have an amazing day! <3

[rametarin]

The ink wasn’t even wet yet.

So LilNas did a silly and once again completely harmless performance thing involving him fucking Satan in a music video in the most hilarious, Wayanes Brothers-esque outfit for the job I have ever seen.

There really wasn’t time for anybody of value to be offended or really voice complaint about it in any numbers that really matter. The voices of outrage and the stranglehold they had on the religious right of today is paltry peanuts by comparison to the lockstep, marching and goosestepping of the mega evangelical churches of the late 70s and throughout the 80s.

It was just sorta taken for granted that The Wacky Westboro Baptist Types and any buffoon that still goes to church would get their knickers in a twist and start harumphing by the millions about LilNas’ objectively harmless exploit into having sex with a cartoonish low budget Satan.

And the music journos and others in entertainment cultures reacted about how I expected. Seguing into, “Oh look! It’s the Satanic Panicers! Because that was a thing, you know! And they’re still at it!”

So in come the articles about the very real history of the US’s Moral Majority and their big huffy puff pieces about, “degradation” and “degeneracy” and harumph and fi and foo and won’t someone think of the children and how the mean ole Christians wanted to gatekeep literature and media based on certain Christian moral undertones.

Which is true. Don’t get me wrong. It was a cringe and eyeroll worthy last hurrah of when, while defanged and declawed legally on a federal level and most civil and decent places on a state level, the Moral Majority still played to their pews and organized to try and become the defacto arbiters of what was acceptable vs. outrageous content not to expose the kiddies to. It was an exertion of their social and soft power in the hearts and minds of their flocks and believers to dictate the content a whole community could sell, advertise and make cultural without getting ostracized and possibly hurt by radicals.

However, by comparison, today is not back then. Doom and Mortal Kombat and hyper violent videogames and occult and Satanic imagery are old hat. Our daytime cartoon shows for children can casually play with themes of magic and infernalist powers that would’ve been cancelled or censored or banned in the 60s and 70s; and the 80s blew those standards to hell. There really ISN’T any real outrage about Lil Nas fucking Muppet Satan. You can surely find some among the usual mouthbreathers that will always be loud and represent a section of the US that these self-proclaimed, “progressives” hate to begin with, but other than that, the matter is settled. At this point, Satanic Panic isn’t really a thing on the radar in the mainstream. At best, you can point to some cloistered community of people that come together because they voluntarily believe that stupid shit and grumph about it on social media.

But that brings me to my ultimate point.

These people posting these masturbatory articles about the history of Satanic Panic and those wacky Christians (they never specify all the conservative or fuddy-duddy Jews in the Abrahamic tradition of faiths, for some reason) are sort of speaking about it in this wishy-washy way that tries to claim the mass hysteria is as real today as it ever was back then.

And it isn’t. It just simply isn’t.

All the old people between 50-100 in the 1970s-1980s are themselves 100 and dead, now. Their kids are in their mid-60s and, while conservative, nowhere near as intolerant statistically as the stodgy, “no mentioning witches in front of children, no magic or occult things” religious conservative values of their parents age.

The Satanic Panic, the microcosm of believers stirred into a frightened panic over non-Christianity competing with their ideology in the country, is all but dead. Secular civic government barely finds them a road block, and while corporate media might cowtow to them as a reliable paying consumer base for specific niche products, they don’t bow to them and self-censor like they used to.

Yet, you read the articles by these people trying to take this opportunity to tell the youth about how widespread and dogmatic and intolerant the Christian hegemony was in the US, and then they say, “they’re still like that today.”

They’re so desperate to get inside the youth’s heads to shape their teen rebellious phase over whom they think the entrenched powers are and how to defy them for shits and giggles, that they’re taking the image of North American Christianity out of the moth balls from how it used to be and trying to say, “it’s the same. Nothing has changed.”

Now, I’m not accusing Lil Nas of being in on a conspiracy. Lil Nas does shit to entertain and be silly. He’s done absolutely nothing wrong.

But whether or not he did it on purpose, the asymmetrical system of the usual suspects picked it up and ran with it. To, “stawt a convuhsayshun uwu” about what idiots and assholes Christians are in the US. Taking advantage of this... barely blip on the cultural radar that’s getting more press due to the nothingburger “controversy,” because they take for granted that it upsets some imaginary vitriolic majority.

So they have their own little in-group conversation about, “Oh how CONTROVERSIAL Lil Nas is!” and talk about really sticking it to those frumpy stumpy fuddy duddies, or whatever. And..

no. This isn’t fucking Madonna kissing Black Jesus. This isn’t Ozzy Osbourne tossing a chicken out into his audience or biting the head off of a bat.

This isn’t even the wholesale manufactured nontroversy that is the record industry making a great big scene out of poking white America with a stick that was Eminem’s phony baloney career.

This is just Hot Coffee except the people finding it controversial are giggling over just how much it must make, “those people” stew with fury and backpat themselves over the accomplishment of rustling The Power’s jimmies.

They’re trying oh so hard to stir up the hornets nest, to just milk whatever little performative bear rage and indignancy left in the Christian right to seem like they’re the status quo, that they’re the intolerant and outraged and impotent power structure and source of oppression and theocratic intolerance, a danger to our civic secularism and liberal society by sheer numbers and reach in power.

And...

There’s just nothing left of them to do that.

So even trying to act like Lil Nas is doing more than upsetting the Minions Meme Boomers on Facebook that really have next to no power anymore just comes off as out of touch, desperate and pathetic.

[rf-times]

Radblr needs to be better about simply blocking trads on here. I can't see these people as anything but malicious because of what they do. Taking feminist arguments and removing the leftist ideals to push conservative values. For a lot the orbiters on here feminism is just a phase for them because they feel depressed. They'll move on eventually when they get bored. Or when they feel the feminists here are being top hard on men.

I think the most harmful version of this is the racism and nationalism. There'll be blatant racist shit like "black men act like animals, immigrant men are dangerous and infiltrating our countries, third world countries need to be civilised." and women will reblog it and when criticised for racism and told it comes from racist sources they'll be like "uwu but i'm supporting women of colour?? Men of colour oppress women of colour so therefore literally any means of attacking moc must be feminist"

And I would say that feminists need to confront racism and colonialist attitudes with as much passion as they confront their internalised misogyny but most feminists don't particularly confront their internalised misogyny to the extent they need to at all. You see so many women who still clearly believe so many of patriarchy's lies "women are weak and stupid and inferior and masochistic." but now also believe that men oppress women. They don't want to read theory and end up not understanding or believing in socialisation, instead opting for "women are spineless doormats who crave abuse genetically and we're doomed."

Then there's the "gender critical" women who don't even really believe that men oppress women ("you're too hard on men! feminists have a duty to change men and if you don't believe men can be changed through a woman's love then you're saying we're going to live in patriarchy forever"), believe femininity is natural, that lesbians are predatory, etc.

Then religious (mainly Christian but a couple Muslim women too) women who refuse to think critically ("Our patriarchal father figure loves men and women equally" does not cut it for radical analysis lol) and pro-forced birth women.

Long story short, radblr won't get rid of trad women until it sorts its values out rather than paying lipservice to it. Less "radical feminism can't be racist because it's the main sort of feminism in third world countries!" and more introspection is key.

[atauruswithtoomuchcaffiene]

lil nas / christian cry babies

Dude.... I don't know how many times we'll have to go through this same conversation, but since it's come up again, I want to give my take on it. I live in one of the most conservative cities in Colorado. When I was in high school, my country became the teen suicide capital of the nation. Of. The. Nation. When it was first happening, nobody really knew what was going on. In my school district alone, we had 3 suicides within two months. One of them including a middle school boy. When it started happening more, people were able to draw connections. One of those connections was that a large portion of these kids were heavily involved in New Life / Young life- a HUGE church in my city. Another connection was that those same kids were in the LGBTQIA+ community. Even after this came to the attention of the public, people made excuses. Whether it was people saying, "you can't prove it had anything to do with the church", or, "they just didn't believe enough", people made excuses. It was heartbreaking and exhausting to watch. Just last year, one of my friends from high school committed suicide. They were queer, and had recently come out as non-binary. COVID was at its height, so a small memorial for the family was planned. However, they were a huge part of the community and I wanted people to be able to say goodbye, so I hung up a pride flag with their name and a sharpie, left some flowers. Hundreds of people came and said their goodbyes. It is so frustrating to watch people dismiss the harm that the Christian community has caused the LGBTQIA+ community. While I understand that religion is a huge part of some people's life, it should not be applied to those around them. Religious freedom is the freedom for YOU to choose what YOU believe in, and want to follow. It is not, "I believe in this, so should you, I'm going to treat you like shit and make laws against your existence based off of it". There's an awesome thing called separation of church and state that's supposed to keep all of that from happening. Unfortunately, a lot of states don't give a *single* shit about that. This all came to my mind due to the Lil Nas video getting so much negative attention from Christians. While I understand why they would be offended, there's a few reasons why I just...do not care. a) People use religion for art all the time. And not just Christianity. So I'm not sure why Christians are acting like they're oppressed because someone decided to dance on satan for a music video. b) Context and culture are what it's all about. You have to acknowledge that Lil Nas has been put through absolute hell for his queer identity, including (but not limited to) the Christian church. While I understand taking offense to the video, what I absolutely cannot wrap my head around is what they AREN'T upset about. There are people getting harassed, beat, and killed for their queer identity to this day in the name of Christianity. And I could be wrong, but I'm pretty damn sure that nowhere in the bible does it say, "make sure to call gay people f*gs and murder transgender people". Yet people do it. All. The. Time. Using Christianity to back it up. And yes, there are many other religions that do "not agree" with homosexuality or being trans, but in the United States, Christianity is what people most commonly refer to when defending their homophobia/transphobia with religion. The majority of our lawmakers, if religious, are Christian. So it wouldn't really make sense for Lil Nas to talk about other religions that have not directly affected HIM.

[religioused]

When the Spirit is in Charge

by Gary Simpson

Acts 10:44-48 (CEV)

While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit took control of everyone who was listening. Some Jewish followers of the Lord had come with Peter, and they were surprised that the Holy Spirit had been given to Gentiles.

46 Now they were hearing Gentiles speaking unknown languages and praising God. Peter said, "These Gentiles have been given the Holy Spirit, just as we have! I am certain that no one would dare stop us from baptizing them." Peter ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and they asked him to stay on for a few days.

Reflection:

“While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit took control of everyone.” “The Holy Spirit took control.” Keep this line in mind. We will come back to the theme.

There is a lot going on today. This is Mother’s Day. We are combining Mother’s Day and Father’s Day into one day. We are celebrating family. This is also the second week of Asian History Month.

This is a day when we recognize and appreciate the many people who had parenting roles in our lives, including, but not limited to:

• Biological, foster, and adoptive parents.

• Parents of choice.

• Aunts, uncles, grandparents.

• Teachers.

• Neighbors, employers and supervisors.

As I prepare to light this candle, I encourage you to think of people who provided loving parenting and quasi-parenting roles in your life.

The second candle is for all members of our families.

The third candle is for the Asian people in our community and our lives.

We light these candles as a way of thanking God for the people who built into our lives, for families of origin and families of choice, and for Asians who pioneered Canada and who continue to pioneer Canada.

May is Asian History Month. During May, Canadians are encouraged to learn more about the achievements and contributions of Asian Canadians. A few groups we might not think of as Asian, include:

• Some Arabs, such Lebanese, and some Jewish people, and some Russians.

• Persians, Afghanis, Turks.

• Indians and Pakistanis.

There are so many Asian different countries of ancestry and so many different cultures, languages, and religions that we could spend years learning about our neighbors, friends, classmates, and colleagues.

Currently, I think we might be seeing more hate targeting Asian communities than we have seen at any other time since World War 2. The importance of learning about the history and contributions of Asians is very high. Some people are calling the Coronavirus the Chinese virus. Let’s compare hate crimes before and after the Coronavirus pandemic. A comparison of Vancouver hate crimes between January and September of 2019 and 2020 showed an 878% increase in hate crimes targeting Asians.(1) This is added to the ongoing problem of hate targeting many people of broadly Asian descent. About 18% of all Canadian hate crimes in 2017 targeted Jewish people. In 2017 17% of Canadian hate crimes targeted Muslims.(2) A total of 35% of all hate crimes were religious hate crimes. Because some Muslims and some Jewish people have Asian heritage, this means that some of the religious discrimination is targeting Asian people.

In contemporary society, it almost feels like there is no such thing as a freak accident – somebody always has to be at fault, so we seek to blame and to litigate. So some people are referring to the Coronavirus as the China virus. That might be a factor in the massive increase in hate directed toward Asians.

Because of the pandemic, we are afraid – afraid for our jobs and businesses, our freedom and convenience, our way of life. We are also afraid of getting sick. We may mask our fears with angry outbursts and hate. Some of the anger and fear targets Asian people. Fearing members of other groups, xenophobia, is nothing new. Some xenophobia was probably working behind the scenes in ancient Palestine.

Perhaps, Jewish people had reason to feel a little threatened by non-Jewish people. There is a history of conflict ranging over more than 4,400 years. An USA Today article indicates that Jerusalem was captured and recaptured at least 20 times. Conflict over Jerusalem seems to have started no later than 2,500 years before Christ and ended in 1967.(3) Over 575 years before Christ, Solomon's Temple was destroyed. Another Temple was built about 515 years before Christ.(4) Jewish protests against Antiochus IV resulted in a backlash against Jewish people. He marched on Jerusalem, ordered the killing of 80 thousand people and sold about the same number into slavery. He also desecrated the Temple.(5) By about 63 AD, the area of ancient Israel came under Roman rule.(6) Jewish people, once again, found themselves under the control of a foreign imperial power. Roman rule was not always ideal. Pontius Pilate was so brutal that in 37 CE, he was ordered to give an account to the emperor.(7) The roots of xenophobia were probably fed, watered, and nourished by oppression coming from Gentiles.

Earlier in Acts Chapter 10, Peter has a vision that shows Peter that God is a universalist God, an inclusive God for all people. Then we read part of Peter’s sermon and we see the Holy Spirit poured out upon the Gentile Believers. “I am truly convinced . . . that there is no favoritism with God, but that He is ready to receive any man in any nation who reverences Him and who does what is right.”(8) “The Holy Spirit took control.” As Peter is making the point that righteous people of all nations are accepted by God, the Spirit fills the Gentile followers of Jesus. This sermon could be the first sermon preached about Jesus.(9) There are a number of important elements in Peter’s sermon. I think two important parts of the sermon are the universal, worldwide nature of the Gospel, and the anointing of God being poured out upon Gentiles.

The dream helped Peter understand that the Kingdom of God is inclusive and universalist and that God breaks down the barriers of fear, prejudice, discrimination, and hate between groups of people. “The Holy Spirit took control.” The Spirit comes down on Jesus' Gentile followers. This manifestation of God was not expected by Jesus' Jewish followers and it was evidence that God accepted Gentile Believers completely. Seeing an unexpected move of God in the lives of others has the power transform our lives and to help us love people we used to fear or believe are either deficient or defective.

God’s love is impressive. From a Trinitarian perspective, God’s love is shown in the incarnation. “In Jesus, God entered the world and took on” human life. God loved and cared enough accept the “limitations of humanity.”(10) This is a love that let the world slander Christ, brand Christ a heretic, pursue Christ, and judge, crucify, and bury Christ.(11)

Vernon McGee’s Bible commentaries are interesting. He relates interesting illustrations. He tells a story about a small-town storekeeper. A family arrived and wanted to know what kind of a town it was. The wise storekeeper asked, “What kind of town did you come from?” The reply was that they came from an incredible town. People in their former town cared about each other. The storekeeper replied, “This is just the same kind of town.” The family decided that they just might make the town their new home. A little later, another visiting family arrived. They also wanted to know what kind of town it was. The storekeeper asked what their old town was like. The family indicated that the town was mean. The people did not care about anyone. The storekeeper replied, “This is just the same kind of town.” The second family decided to drive on.

A person who heard both stories asked what the storekeeper was doing, because he gave the two families very different responses. The storekeeper responded, “I've learned that any town will be the same kind of town that you left – because you will be the same kind of person.”(12)

When the Spirit of God is in control, we are a different people, a people filled with the Spirit of the risen Christ. Because we are different – Spirit filled, we notice that others are different too. When the Spirit is in control, love is present. The transforming love of the risen Christ is generally seen as a proof that we walk in the footsteps of Christ. John 13:35. “If you love each other, everyone will know that you are my disciples.”(13)

I am going to conclude with one more story. This is about how God changes people by the proof of the Spirit of God moving in people's lives who we do not think God moves in.

Grant is a United Methodist pastor. He has over 304 thousand followers on TikTok. He is a dynamic, loving figure on TikTok. He did not start as a progressive pastor. He was a conservative Evangelical. He admits that he was one of the kind of Christians who would leave comments on social media telling progressive Christians that they were going to hell. Something changed.

He relates that while he was still conservative, he was welcomed into the church and became friends with a person who helped change his life. This person, on his first Sunday at the church, came up to him, hugged him and said, “I am the resident lesbian,” and she welcomed him, telling Grant how glad she was that he was at their church. Grant was at the church to be the youth director. He got to know her, her former husband, and the children. The love they shared as a family caught his attention.  

He notes, “The first step to me changing my faith was seeing fruit in people that I previously thought were wrong.” He saw love in people he disagreed with and his theology started to change. He started to see complexity and nuance in the Bible. What I think was the key in his story of change is what he describes as “seeing the Spirit of God” in people he previously disagreed with and that made him realize that “God is love.”(14)

Notes

(1) Sherina Harris. "Reported Anti-Asian Hate Crimes up 878% in Vancouver: Police." 2020 October 30, 13 April 2021.<https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/anti-asian-hate-crimes-2020_ca_5f9c3403c5b61b5109e705a6>.

(2) "Facts and Figures: Discrimination and Hate Crimes Statistics." Government of Canada. 16 October 2020, 13 April 2021. <https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/federal-anti-racism-secretariat/facts-figures.html>.

(3) Oren Dorell. “Jerusalem has History of Many Conquests, Surrenders.” USA Today. 05 December 2017, 02 May 2021.

<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/12/05/jerusalem-history-israel-capital/923651001/>.

(4) David Horton, ed. The Portable Seminary. 2nd ed. (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 2018), 239.

(5) Horton (2018), 240.

(6) Horton (2018), 241.

(7) Horton (2018), 242.

(8) William Barclay New Testament, Acts 10:34-35.

(9) William Barclay. The New Daily Study Bible: The Acts of the Apostles. Kindle ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), e-book.

(10) William Barclay. The New Daily Study Bible: The Letters of John and Jude. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), e-book.

(11) William Barclay. The New Daily Study Bible: The Letters of John and Jude. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), e-book.

(12) J. Vernon McGee. Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee. Kindle ed. (Pasadena, California: Thru the Bible Radio, 1998), e-book.

(13) Contemporary English Version.

(14) “Story Time: Deconstruction.” @pastor_g TikTok. 04 May 2021, 04 May 2021. <https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMeqSR5KB/>

[alyss-not-cis]

My Oppression as a Pansexual

Hi there! My name is Alyss, I'm a bigender pansexual, and I'm a Christian.

Being a Christian, my family is extremely conservative. Like, Ben Shapiro conservative.

I was adopted when I was 10, and started homeschooling in a Christian community when I was 11 because I was being bullied in my public school. During that time, I was undergoing a lot of depression and guilt because I realized I started liking girls (this was before I identified as bigender).

In our community, homosexual acts and feelings are considered demonic, as well as mental health issues. I was struggling with both, and became overwhelmingly suicidal because of that guilt. I attempted suicide twice at the age of 11 and my parents never did anything to help me. I was terrified of coming out to them about my feelings towards other girls, so only tried to talk to them about my mental health. They believed that there was a spiritual problem with me, and instead of taking me to a therapist or looking more into the problem, they had family pray over me.

I felt like the black sheep of the family, and stayed in the closet battling my sexuality for years after. Then, when I was 14, I accepted my sexuality as bisexual. I had a few flings with both men and women in the Christian community, and tried to help as many people in the LGBTQ+ Christian community as possible because I had also endured their feelings. Then, at the age of 15, I started my sophmore year in a Christian highschool.

In this highschool, you don't celebrate Halloween, you can't show your knees or shoulders, baseball caps are a sin, etc. I had found a group of LGBTQ+ allys and members in the school and we became amazing friends until my senior year. I had switched my label to pansexual because I had a small relationship with a nonbinary on Instagram (who is still one of the nicest people I have ever met), and had a few fellow bigender partners. By this time, I was at the beginning of my senior year and a lot of people in the school knew I was pansexual.

The school had a VERY strict rule against LGBTQ+ to where you weren't even allowed to talk about it without receiving academic probation. The second quarter of that year, I had a failing grade in Chemistry, so my mother and I were called into a meeting with the school's director and my chemistry teacher. I had already been through this process before, but I had a terrible amount of disrespect for this chemistry teacher. Not only did she make the class about politics (not chemistry, which is what we were PAYING for), but she made extremely offensive comments about the LGBTQ+ community in the class (I was the only student in the class who wasn't straight, and almost everyone in that class knew except for her).

During the meeting, the director had decided to bring up a couple of complaints she had heard about me. One was the fact that I came to school in a onesie (it had footies that were against school policy), and I had worn "dark" make up. Then the last was that I was claiming I was pansexual.

I thought my heart had stopped, and my face went pale. Neither of my parents knew I was pansexual, and now I was being outed at my school in front of my mother and homophobic chemistry teacher.

The next half hour was spent listening to lectures about how I was giving a bad influence to the younger, more impressionable kids at the school and that I needed to seek help. My mom tried to defend me, saying "Well, I'm sure she didn't mean what she said. Right?" And she looked at me. I said no. I meant what I said, and you know what? I was proud of it.

I had to sign an agreement saying I was on academic probation for breaking the rules for the next coming quarter. I was crying my eyes out the whole day, sobbing my eyes out in front of anybody and everybody (making my one-on-one tutoring session VERY uncomfortable for my pre-calc teacher). My parents had now found out I was pansexual.

That night, I had sent out a text to my group of friends about what had happened, trying to seek comfort. They were incredibly supportive, yet very hostile towards the director. I had laughed it off as a joke, and sent a text saying "Put the snitch in a ditch." A very immature comment, and I do agree that I shouldn't have said that.

The next morning, my mother had received a phone call from a detective saying I was under investigation for death threats against the director. I was immediately expelled breaking the probation by saying I was pansexual. All of my friends in that group chat were also expelled and under investigation.

I'm now not allowed to speak to any of them, and was forced to tell my parents I was straight because I was about to be kicked out. I'm now paying for my own education to complete my senior year and have lost connection to almost every person I was once friends with.

My point here is; being a part of LGBTQ+ in a Christian community as a minor is terrifying. I'd heard of many coming out horror stories from people I was close to, and hated seeing them suffering like I did.

I do consider myself a Christian, but you can be a Christian and not be this hateful.

The Bible says "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others?" Matthew 5:43-48.

Even if we, as members of LGBTQ+, are enemies to these conservative extremists, this behavior is unbiblical. The comment I made in the group chat was hateful, and I repent of my actions. I never should have said that, and I have learned from my mistakes. With that being said, it doesn't excuse the efforts of this school. I still love the people there, and am willing to treat them with respect, but I am not going to ignore discrimination.

My parents have even more oppressive. Whenever I'm around, they throw slurs at homosexuals on T.V., and they make fun of me openly behind my back in front of my younger brothers. They even accidentally sent a message in a group chat that I was in, making fun of the fact that I supported trans rights. And when they found out I could see those messages, they said they were entitled to what they said because it's "unnatural" and my feelings didn't matter.

This past week has been the worst so far with their homophobic and transphobic comments, it's gotten to the point where I can't even wear a hat backwards without my mom breaking down.

With that, I wanted to make this post as a safe space for anyone in a similar place and say that you're not alone. You are valid, you are not "filled with demons", and you are beautiful. I know that pain you're feeling, and I'm offering to help comfort and support you. God LOVES you, no matter what any Church Karen says.

Even if you don't believe in God, you're valid and safe here. You don't need to harbor any guilt for who you are, and you are gonna come out of this a strong, admirable warrior. I love you all, and remember to love yourself too.

Thank you for reading this, and remember to stay safe,

-Alyss

[filmnoirsbian]

It's hard to talk about my faith as a Christian without sounding like I'm trying to convert people. They seem to think that all Christians are inherently oppressive and when I try to explain how missionaries also do good, they don't listen. Do you ever feel like you aren't allowed to discuss your faith?

Firstly, I don't believe that missionaries do good. To deny the irreparable harm and cultural genocide that missionaries have done to so many vulnerable communities across the world is to deny reality. Somewhere along the line, the concept of "spreading God's word" began to mean only "proselytize" rather than "take the love and kindness for your fellow man that god taught you and spread that by helping others and living good lives." Doing good because you want something is not actually doing good. Transactional goodness is not godly.

Secondly, if you're having trouble discussing your faith without being accused of proselytizing, maybe reconsider the way you talk about Christianity with non-Christians. I am always honest and open when discussing my faith and I've never been accused of trying to convert someone--largely because I genuinely believe that faith is an inherently personal thing and that the act of converting to a different religion is something that you should not be persuaded or led into, but instead a decision that you must come to on your own.

Thirdly, it's impossible to argue that Christianity has not been used as a tool of oppression via european colonialism, predominantly in the west. But in those conversations, it is important to highlight the persecution that black and brown Christians suffer all over the world, especially in the south east, the levant, and north africa. These are people who are almost always forgotten by the west, and should always be part of the conversation regarding religious persecution.

It's true that many people--both conservative Christians and atheist leftists--need to learn how to discuss religion in a more respectful way. Sometimes I find myself having to explain my faith (& religion in general), but I typically view these conversations as a good test of my own reasoning, rather than growing defensive. What do I believe? Why do I believe it? How can I reconcile what I've been taught with who I am? I think it's good to ask yourself these questions every once in a while, if only to strengthen your beliefs and your relationship with your god(s). Believing in something unquestioningly just because you were raised with it is never going to give you the joy and comfort of knowing that you came to your belief system willfully. The goal, in discussing religion, should never be to convert the other person to "your side." It should simply be to leave feeling that you've both reached a higher level of understanding. Religion exists for many reasons, but one reason that crosses through every religion is to offer us an answer.

I hope this helps 💝

[spacebaubles]

CW: Transphobia/Homophobia/racism/sexism and all that horrible shit.

Here is your reminder for 2020: Think critically about the media you consume.

Last year, the dumpster fire that it was saw the coming out of JK Rowling as a TERF with her proclamation of support for Maya Forstater. I know you are probably sick of hearing about it but I give zero fucks about that. Scroll down like every other human adult does.

The reason why I am talking about this again is that for me it highlighted two things: how little research people undertake, and exactly how few people are scrutinising the information they have been provided.

For those of you who don't know: Maya Forstater was working for a think tank who worked on tackling poverty and inequality in the UK. Her work contract was not renewed by this organisation as her conduct online and within the workplace went against the workplace code of conduct. She refused to work with trans clients, she deliberately misgendered and harassed trans colleagues, and abused and harassed trans people on Twitter. In light of her behaviour, the organisation decided not to renew her contract.

Maya Forstater didn't really like this very much and tried to take her employer to court (to an employment tribunal). She argued that her exclusionary views on transgender people was akin to holding a religious belief and therefore said beliefs should be protected under the Equality Act - the UK's version of an anti-discrimination act which legally protects people from discrimination in the workplace and the broader community.

Under the Equality Act 2010 it is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of: age, gender reassignment, being married or in a civil partnership, being pregnant or on maternity leave, disability, race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion or belief, sex, or sexual orientation.

The act defines discrimination as:

-- Direct discrimination - treating someone with a protected characteristic less favourably than others.

-- Indirect discrimination - putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage.

-- Harassment - unwanted behaviour linked to a protected characteristic that violates someone’s dignity or creates an offensive environment for them.

-- Victimisation - treating someone unfairly because they’ve complained about discrimination or harassment.

These points above are the ones I want to focus on. The courts rightfully told Maya Forstater that her case was a crock of shit which prompted a Twitter campaign "IStandWithMaya" for people to show solidarity with her cause The UK press had painted a picture of a woman unfairly dismissed due to her views, and her want to "protect women". People not so much lapped it up but deep-throated the fuck out of it.

Now let's do a thought experiment for science. Let's replace the word "trans person" with "lesbian". Outside of fringe groups of people, it is socially less acceptable to discriminate against lesbians such as myself. People actually get angry when told of the discrimination that lesbians face.

Imagine I had to work with Maya Forstater. Imagine she refused to work with me. She called me "unnatural" and "sick" and a predator. She made me feel scared to come to work and physically unsafe being in her presence. She also harassed other lesbians online and had a following of people who supported her in doing so. Imagine when our imaginary workplace refused to renew her contract to protect my safety and the safety of our clients, she took our workplace to court.

In court, she argued that her anti-lesbian beliefs were the same as holding a religious belief and as such, under the Equality Act as you cannot discriminate against anyone for the religion they practice - her workplace should not have been unable to refuse to renew her contract.

What Maya Forstater wants is not the freedom to hold her beliefs without discrimination (i.e., In the same way as you cannot refuse employment to someone simply because they are Christian, or Jewish or Muslim), but the freedom to engage in actions based on those beliefs. The freedom to engage in harmful actions without consequences towards a class of people who are protected under the Equality Act. There is a difference between holding a belief and acting on that belief. You can have a belief. You can believe homophobic, sexist, anti-Semitic, racist or transphobic things. Discrimination occurs when you actively engage in harmful acts based on those beliefs towards the people those beliefs are about.

And that's what Maya Forstater wants. She wants legal protection to engage in emotionally and psychologically harmful acts by harassing her colleagues in real life and online, and refusing to help clients in need. And people supported that without even realising what they were supporting because they didn't critically analyse the situation. If she had won that court case, it would have been a massive blow to LGBTI civil rights.

Not only have people supported this without really looking at the situation, but they have also swallowed right-wing rhetoric used against cisgender women and other LGBTI people because it supports their bigotry against trans people.

An often-used example of this is the habit of Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists to attempt to devalue trans women by defining "Real Woman" as a person who has a uterus or the ability to get pregnant. Reducing cisgender women to specific body parts is a tactic used by right-wing conservatives to take away our rights. Particularly reproductive rights. Using the same tactics as a means to oppress trans/genderqueer/non-binary people harms the LGBTI community as a whole as well as straight cisgender women.

It amazes me the sheer number of women who will gleefully use the same tactics used against them as a means to justify their bigotry without even a hint of irony. They don't just hate trans people; they also don't give a fuck about your fellow ciswomen. TERFs getting into bed with right-wing conservatives isn't new. Bigots using right-wing talking points isn't new. It's been going on forever. TERFs are not your allies. They don't care about the LGBTI community. They don't care about protecting anyone.

But people passively (and sometimes actively) are okay with this because simple slogans and sensationalised falsehoods are easy to swallow than taking the time to really look at what is happening. Right-wing media has successfully painted LGBTI rights as a zero-sum game and spread the idea that for one group to gain rights, another group must lose them.

This is crap. Don't fall for it.

Stay critical and support your local queers. We're pretty fucking fabulous.

P.S: Just a note: You can still love and cherish Harry Potter while still understanding that Rowling's views don't reflect the universe she built. Don't stop loving HP because of an author. She might have created the universe, but it belongs to the fans now.

The full ruling is here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2019/06/Forstater-v-CGD-Judgement-2019.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj_-aD08-HmAhW2ILcAHWZzA-sQFjACegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2rfgLLGCwUemgI6Gq959Y1

More links:

https://www.leftvoice.org/life-after-stonewall-the-struggle-against-terfs-and-the-far-right

https://www.out.com/politics/2019/4/03/republicans-are-using-transphobia-sabotage-equality-act

https://www.thedailybeast.com/radical-feminists-and-conservative-christians-team-up-against-transgender-people

https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/right-wing-media-and-think-tanks-are-aligning-fake-feminists-who-dehumanize-trans

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/terf-trans-women-britain.html

https://www.politicalresearch.org/2016/08/11/the-christian-rights-love-affair-with-anti-trans-feminists

https://www.transadvocate.com/is-sadism-popular-with-terfs-a-chat-with-an-ex-gendercrit_n_18568.htm

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/9/5/20840101/terfs-radical-feminists-gender-critical

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/12/19/21029874/jk-rowling-transgender-tweet-terf

https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4090-i-m-not-transphobic-but-a-feminist-case-against-the-feminist-case-against-trans-inclusivity

https://jezebel.com/the-unholy-alliance-of-trans-exclusionary-radical-femin-1834120309

[atheistforhumanity]

What is it that was different about Christianity from other cults of the time that allowed it to turn from a small group of people in a desert to a world spanning tool of oppression

This is a very interesting question. It’s somewhat difficult to answer because it started as a variety of so many different groups. But there are a few elements that I believe contributed to Christianity’s spread. 

First, in the early days, Christians were not only monotheistic (which was uncommon), but they asked members to be loyal to their meetings and denounce others. Believe it or not, it was common then for people to flow between different preachers, cults, and denominations. It’s as if you went to a different church in town every couple weeks to see what different people were saying. And more importantly people would go pray to the god who was most applicable to their situation. Christians put a stop to this behavior by saying, ‘there is only one true god, and you must only serve him or else.’ The Jewish god was already different from most of that era, because he was one god to fit all problems. There wasn’t a god attributed to each aspect of live or event in nature as with many religions. However, Christianity offered something even more different than the Jewish god. 

Christians were offering a personal savior. Not many people doubted the idea of an afterlife, and it made sense that they felt their actions in life determined how they would live. Jesus Christ claims to personal save their souls from evil and torment in the afterlife. Not only that, but he promises the chance for a personal relationship with him. This is radically different. Never before have the Gods treated humans as anything more than ants. Even the Jewish god was known to be vengeful and angry, and demanding. Jesus represented something different. A new path to a new afterlife. I believe the optics of this new god easily won people over and contributed to growth. 

Before the establishment of an “orthodox” sect, Christianity was a living religion. What I mean by that is the Gospel (the good word) was not set in stone and it was being developed and debated before people’s very eyes. Revelation was serious and important during early Christianity, but many more people used it much more liberally than they do today. As I’ve wrote about before, all sects of Christianity (including Catholics who we now consider orthodox) were writing and rewriting their own gospels, with many different versions of what Christ taught or wanted. These ideas were powerful and had social impact. Today we think of Christianity as very conservative, but in it’s birth it would have leaned left on the political scale. Those who were closely involved in the non-orthodox sects were part of a counter culture that would have attracted young people. 

Now, putting together the facts that Christianity did not allow poly-worship, and that it was part of a counter culture, it definitely had a radical element. The very early Christians sometimes acted like terrorists, making violent attacks to strike fear into the main culture and establishment throughout the Middle East and Egypt. Obviously, today, we know all to well of how organizations like this can gain support and grow quickly. 

All that being said, the counter culture movement by the common people had very little effect compared to the political savvy of Catholic (orthodox) members in the years to come. Like any counter culture, Christians were deeply disliked for a period of time. It took a different type of Christian, an establishment Christian to bring them into the main stream. Over decades this was achieved to the point that citizens of Rome in every strata of life could be Christian. 

Although society still carried heavy doubt, when Emperor Constantine had a spiritual experience on the battlefield, he immediately connected to his friends religion, Christianity. Constantine was not a believer or necessarily a supporter of Christianity before this, but someone (who escapes my memory) had his ear and filled his mind with Christian myth. As far as Christianity had come, if Constantine had not attributed his spiritual experience to Christianity, I have no doubt that Christian would be a small or even obscure cult, known as a run-off of Judaism.  

All of history would look quite different. 

[ex-terfs]

I’m curious about how you were introduced to trans exclusionary ideology, and when you realized how toxic it truly is. I’m genuinely curious.

Hello! Sorry for the hiatus.So this is my story & long rant post.I've been among TERFs/Radfems (AKA the Conservative side of "feminism") since 2015. In mid-2016 — with the dangers of having Trump as President — I started getting critical of everything going on in the community, deleted older posts, & stopped reblogging "trans-critical" stuff. In 2017 — after seeing TERFs celebrating that the 'Everyday Feminism' site was facing a financial crisis & after paying more attention at what our "enemies" were trying to say — I unfollowed all the bullies, & eventually started to despise seeing "trans-critical" stuff. Their hatred towards the "big scary Libfems" is what made me rethink my priorities.

Many parts of their ideology had peculiarly attracted my attention back in 2015. As a GNC person who celebrates gender nonconformity, their gender abolition theories seemed very interesting (& I later found out how bigoted they are towards GNC men & GNC people with different identities/pronouns). When I was a sex-repulsed person, their porn-critical & sex-negative theories also seemed very interesting to me (I later found out how bigoted they are towards sex-repulsed people — upholding heteronormativity & saying things like "Haha, nobody loves you", "If you're a man/bisexual/lesbian, you must perform oral sex on your gf"; but still, I'm NO longer in the sex-negative/SWERF community). People sending them death threats was also one of the reasons why I had joined their movement.

It always begins like this. Step 1: you begin exploring anti-kink/anti-porn stuff; Step 2: you begin exploring anti-"MOGAI" stuff; Final step: you turn into a transphobe. That's how I got into this mess.

Second-wave theories originally had a critical focus on the social construction of gender & sexuality, monogamy, submission/masochism, natalism, the family structure, the fear of nonconformity, emotional/economic dependency, religion, & violence.As a feminist, yeah, I still agree with most of these analyses. I love reading academic books. But there was something different about terf/radfem tumblr. & this is all I've noticed over the years.

TERFs treat their word like holy truth.

TERFs use Right-wing "sources" to back up their transphobic & sex-negative arguments (& often associate themselves with conservative groups).

TERFs claim that all men are "biologically/physically the same".

TERFs contradict themselves all the time: claim that sex-repulsed AroAces are "usual straights", mock people who just want to remain single, & at the same time still say that if you don't want to have sex with men, then "you're a lesbian"; they say that people don't owe you sex, & at the same time say it's "not okay" for men to sexually reject a woman for "bad reasons".

TERFs claim that lesbians who are anti-TERF or who don't believe in the "born-this-way" theory are "fake lesbians".

TERFs are against the idea of removing your secondary sexual characteristics; & if an AMAB person doesn't like their "secondary sexual characteristics", then they must be a "delusional fetishist" (srsly I identify as a woman, but I still wish I could remove my uterus & have a breast reduction surgery; & it's not for sexist reasons! Shocking, I know!).

TERFs claim that men can't be raped/abused by women (not all TERFs believe this, but I still see them quietly following the ones who do).

TERFs have definitely never read a book with a different perspective/purpose, yet they will act like total experts on any subject (TERFs act like they're experts on Postmodernism & Queer Theory, but they have no idea what these theories are actually about. These theories are both very complex & don't have only one definition! Shocking, I know!).

TERFs will assume you're a trans woman if you don't disclose you're actually AFAB (& they could still have doubts).

TERFs are very manipulative & use brainwashing tactics. If you're AFAB & anti-TERF, they will say it's because of your "internalized misogyny" & will try to guilt-trip you. Because how dare someone has a different opinion! If you're AFAB & proudly calls yourself 'genderfluid' or 'non-binary', TERFs will get offended.

TERFs claim that asexuality only exists "because of the prevalence of porn" (Aces & sex-repulsed people would still be here even if porn didn't exist! Shocking, I know!).

TERFs claim that men who call themselves 'feminist' are "all predators".

TERFs would rather include transphobic men in their spaces than "those evil libfems" (those women are enemies).

TERFs claim that radical feminism is the "only true feminism", & that all second-wave feminists were "radfems".

TERFs claim that GNC men are "fetishizing" femininity (but according to TERF logic, masculine men are not fetishizing masculinity).

TERFs are extremely bigoted towards sex workers, polyamorous people, people who don't want commitment, people who are sexually experimenting or who are promiscuous (which is also one of the reasons why I left the sex-negative community; their views on sex/lust/love are similar to the Christian conservative perspective).

I can definitely assure you I still very well remember most of their URLs & blog content. There are many TERFs who hide behind aesthetic blogs, & use subtle TERF language & comforting rhetoric — which you might not even notice if you don't know much about their specific type of language & tactics (e.g. complaining about the "neoliberal postmodern identities" & about people "erasing females"). This type of TERF also may follow a bunch of (trans-inclusive) anti-'MOGAI' & anti-kink blogs. If you're trans-inclusive & TERFs follow you, it's likely because your blog content doesn't make them uncomfortable.

Their blatant transphobia is absurd & paranoiac, & they don't hide it. Anyone who disagrees with them gets called a "handmaiden", "lesbophobe", "male", "genderist", "liberal", "libfem", "special snowflake" (I no longer consider myself a radical leftist, but I don't consider myself a centrist either). TERFs call trans women as a group "fetishists", "delusional", "mentally ill", "sociopaths", "narcissists", "pedophiles", "necrophiles", "incels", "genderfucks" + slurs like "tr*nny", "troon", "tr0n", "transes". They say that the trans movement is "coercing children to transition" & "forcing lesbians to have sex with penis". It's pure fear-mongering. Their views on trans men are also contradictory — there are times they claim that trans men are "straight girls who are trans just bc they read fanfiction & watch gay porn", & there are times they claim that trans men are "brainwashed butch lesbians" (Pick a side!).

I live in a very religious Latin American country. The majority of the population here is not educated on gender/sexuality issues. I got the chance of educating myself better only after I've learned English. And then some terfs had the gall to say "academic fields such as Gender & LGBT Studies & philosophy are oppressive & pretentious". In a country like mine with a dark history of military dictatorships, censorship & anti-intellectualism, being leftist means protecting the social sciences in education & freedom of the press.

So yes, I left the terf community bc unlike them, I think for myself & I hate bullying (i was in fact heavily bullied for years in school, & only bullying victims know how it truly feels like). My terf blog is now inactive; I had 1000+ followers. I'm a very quiet person irl & online; I was never vocal about my real opinions bc I don't like getting into heated discussions & I didn't want to be featured on that gross radfem-gossip blog.I was very transphobic back then. & now it's quite possible terfs will say to me "You were never one of us". I followed & liked their blogs, just like they followed mine. I was loyal & obedient. Now not anymore.