Understanding Trans: Parts 1-3

[Note: this is one of a series of posts written over the course of five-plus years at another site which I am importing to this site by hand. It will serve to preserve the content as the old site is eventually shuttered. As such, it will have the appearance of a huge wave of new posts. Feel invited to browse through this content if it is new to you. Comments, feedback, and follows appreciated. If it's not new to you, I ask your indulgence while this process is ongoing.]

(originally posted in two parts in March 2013)

Part One
Here we go. Come in, take a seat. The lecture is just about to begin.

As I alluded to last week, I'm going to attempt to make this series an “entry level” discussion. For many of you, particularly veterans of this blog, much of this is “old news” but I ask you to be patient with me. Somewhere out there, right now, someone is searching the internet for information. They just found out about their husband, their boyfriend, their brother, their son – and everything they know about being trans they learned watching Jerry Springer. Someone is looking for help with these feelings they do not understand and have been made to believe they should be ashamed and embarrassed. Maybe they are 15...or 50. Maybe they are 35, or 21. Sure, there are tons of really good in depth sites out there, some more technical and complex than others. But maybe they ended up here, and they just want something on their level.

This is for them. In the mean time, maybe you have a hard time explaining to your wife, your sister, your mom, just what's going on with you. Maybe you can't find the right words. This is for you, too.
One caveat before I begin:
I will use terms and pronouns which are in the context of the male-to-female aspect of being trans. This is not to minimize or dismiss the reality of female-to-male trans persons, but rather simply for ease of communication. Given it's the experience from which I speak, it's the choice that comes most naturally to me. You should read each of those references as including the unspoken addendum “or vice versa” as the F2M is just as valid a state of being as M2F.
[ed. note: Likewise transgender includes non-binary and gender non-conforming persons but this is entry level stuff and at the time I was going lightly on references to non-binary identity. In retrospect that wasn't the best choice]

With that said – let's dig in. The term “transgender” is pretty much everywhere in the news lately. In the last year, several important legal and policy precedents have been set which are exciting for those of us who are trans. Sadly, while our “profile” has been elevated in the public consciousness, accurate information has been much harder to find. Indeed, even in the most sympathetic of reporting and commentary, there's often a basic flaw which undermines the clearest understanding of being trans in the minds of those who are uninitiated.

Properly understood, “transgender” is simply a broad descriptive term which covers pretty much any state of being, or behavior, or both, which does not conform to the commonly accepted gender norms in a given culture. It is a very broad term and is, thus, quite imprecise when being used to discuss any specific issue. In fact, it is so awkward that there's considerable controversy even among trans people themselves as to how these terms are best applied. I do not propose to get lost in that particular patch of weeds on this site though, or in the context of trying to provide a simple overview.

Under the transgender umbrella are both those who have a physiological condition present from birth that is atypical of the “normal” (statistically speaking) sex characteristics of the human body, as well as those people who, for whatever reason, choose to behave, all the time, or part time, in away which does not conform to “gender norms.” While there is, as I said, some debate within the trans community about the terminology, I'll attempt to provide an easy to grasp framework that the newcomer can “wrap their head around” and caution you that you might well find some trans related sites which do not use the terms in just this way.

Broadly speaking, those with a physiological condition are called “intersex” (that which used to be called “hermaphrodite”). It had long been understood that being intersex was a separate thing from being transsexual, but more and more we are coming to understand the specific physiological basis for being transsexual and, in my view, the most logical understanding now is to consider being transsexual a subset of being intersex, or at least a cousin to.
Intersex, then, is a person with some physical characteristics typically associated with females, and some typically associated with males. This may affect genitalia, or chromosomes, or hormone production and process, or any other sex-specific physical characteristic. We now know that the human brain is, in fact, sex specific, and so logically it is also subject to the intersex phenomena. I try to avoid the use of the term “birth defect” as it has a pejorative sense, but since it is commonly used and understood – these conditions are “birth defects” like any number of other conditions, they have no choice component, nor any moral component. An intersex person is intersex in the same sense that you are, for instance, blue eyed. Or in the sense that one is autistic. Their only question is not whether or not to BE intersex, but what they will do about it when it is discovered that they are.

The problem we face is that if one is intersex in a way which a person can visibly identify, say they have both ovaries and a penis, or they have XXY chromosomes, then the public is wildly accepting and supportive of their necessary decisions. On the other hand, if the condition is not so visually easy, because it is the brain itself that is “misgendered” (i.e. that person which is, or rather was - I'll get to that, commonly called a transsexual – one who seeks to change the sexual makeup of their body to align with their perception of self) then most people simply don't understand and insist that it's simply a “lifestyle choice.” It is important, in my view, for the non-trans person to understand the distinction between those who wish to transition to the “other gender” full time, and those who do not but still are gender non-conforming. And that will be my subject next time.
During this series, I encourage anyone who has a question to speak up and at the end, if there are any, I'll do a post answering any points I was unclear on or failed to address.

Part Two

All too often within the trans community, efforts at distinction – which is a very necessary thing in the process of understanding – are read as efforts at competition, a seeking of superiority. Most of the time this is not the case. I will readily acknowledge that the position-seekers are out there. I've been grieved on many occasions to see some trans woman speak derisively of crossdressers in remarks than can serve no practical purpose other than to “get over” on someone. In so doing the trans woman commits exactly the same sort of condescension that the cis woman would comment in criticizing her.

That said, if we are to help the cis-world understand the spectrum of being trans, it does us no good to muddy the waters and be unclear about our distinctiveness. While it is true that there is a sort of “gender spectrum” which doesn't feature bright bold lines of demarcation between one “sort” and another, we can nevertheless speak in some general terms - and should, in order to clear up misconceptions, allay ill-founded fears, and gain support.

Please read what follows in that context.
I'm sometimes troubled that so much over our equality activism is constructed on the foundation “transgender” when that is such a broad and nebulous term. I think we can all agree that as a general rule, there's no place in our society for causing harm to another because they do not conform to cultural gender expectations. But that is only a matter of basic human dignity that ought to be at the root of any civilized society. On the other hand, there are things which are objectively true of the transsexual that are not true of the crossdresser, and vice-versa. It's only right and proper that we note, and openly acknowledge, that distinctiveness when trying to promote acceptance in the ill-informed culture at large.

So let's put his in the most basic terms. You may have noticed that I have, on a few occasions now, used the term "transsexual." The widely published "official position" of trans activism is that the word is obsolete and no longer considered proper to use. I respectfully decline to comply. However, the usage which I argue is proper to keep the word in service for is narrow and specific, used only to clearly communicate the following points.

A transsexual, then, no matter how they may at any given time be conducting their lives (for whatever reasons) are those who understand themselves to BE the opposite sex from that which they were identified as at birth. In the context of this discussion, an “apparent” male who is convinced that they are, despite that appearance, female – including both those who have modified their body and/or social presentation already, and those who have not (or are somewhere along the path between those two extremes). It may well include those who have not yet realized fully the source of their mental distress, but we cannot practically identify them by that term until they resolve the doubt.
A crossdresser, on the other hand, is one who is perfectly happy with and comfortable in their male sexual identity and have no desire to physically alter their visible form to that of a female. For whatever reason, from profit (as in a professional drag queen ala RuPaul) to fetish to simple comfort, the explanations vary but the basic truth is, they like being a guy and their female behavior is a “persona” that they put on and take off as it suits them. Again, there are other valid forms of being transgender, a wide spectrum thereof, but for the casually disinterested trans person, the most common misunderstanding is the distinction between those who MUST transition and those who are occasionally non-conforming.
 
I, for one, object to the common practice of those who do feel they should be female (i.e. characteristic of transsexual) identifying themselves as crossdressers simply because their life circumstance prevents them from an actual transition. If I may, it is your heart and soul and mind that makes you who you are, not the circumstances of your immediate moment in life. I prefer that, for clarity sake, we be clear – at least among ourselves – about what we are and are not – no matter what our life situation. Because if we expect society at large to support us, we have to give them as much understanding of what our reality is as possible. It is our “otherness” that makes us problematic to them. Knowledge breeds familiarity which in turn brings compassion. Something to think about, no?

Part Three

How then may we describe the distinction between transsexual and crossdresser? To be fair, one must acknowledge the old saw that implies that a crossdresser is simply a transsexual three years earlier. There is some truth to the notion that a significant minority of male-to-female transsexuals are so afraid to confront the implications of their identity that they spend a great deal of time and effort trying to be “only” a crossdresser.

But that said, it is nonetheless true that many self-identified crossdressers have no interest, open or suppressed, in giving up their malen-ness permanently. While a skeptical spouse or partner may wonder and worry that their crossdresser partner may at some point want to transition, in most cases they do not have to fear that outcome. For the purposes of tonight's discussion, I will use the term crossdresser (CD) to refer to those men – the ones who have no interest in modifying their body or living as a woman full time. Transsexuals (TS) in these discussions are those who do need these things to achieve inner peace.

So if you are a concerned loved one who has NO idea what to expect from the CD or TS in your life, here's a very simplistic and rudimentary overview. A starting place for your understanding, not the sum of it. If your loved one identifies themselves as trans, that person that you think of as male sees themselves as female. The most compassionate and caring thing you can do is to affirm that no matter what your eyes tell you. Remember, he assumes you will reject him - her actually. She's been wisely advised to not admit to it unless she was prepared to lose literally everything – including you. The greatest gift you can give is to lovingly accept that “Larry” is now “Lisa.” You have every right to be concerned about the larger implications for you, your family, and your relationships and you have a right to express those and have them taken seriously. But these concerns do not require you to reject her female identity. She has a long, painful (physically and emotionally) and expensive process in front of her. Your understanding, if not your support, will be priceless to her.

On the other hand, for the CD almost none of this is true. He may well be hiding his hobby because he fears you will not understand it or find it attractive, but he is – on the whole – glad to be a man. He’s been raised in a culture that places a heavy exception on males to “be manly” and to avoid being “girly” at any costs. He probably has spent many years ashamed and/or confused about-why he has the fetish he does, and this fear/confusion naturally leads to denial and secrecy. It may well be that you find such behavior in a male partner unattractive, just as one might find that being tied up during coitus, or being a nudist, is an uncomfortable and unacceptable sort of relationship. But if that's true, it does not require you to be harsh, disapproving, judgmental to your loved one.
In the discussion of activism and politics, these distinctions mater. But ultimately, on the interpersonal level, the first rule is love. View all your upcoming difficulties and choices in that context.

(the rest of this series will be compiled in the next post)

Find My Stuff

As you can clearly see from the huge gaps between posting dates on this site, I've been very irregular in making contributions here and I've promised to do better before and, for the most part, haven't. I justify this somewhat by the fact that very few people are following this blog anyway, but I've got a minor situation and maybe I've come up with a way to deal with it and change the situation here ever so slightly.

Part of the reason for my neglect here is that I'm writing more regularly elsewhere. It goes without saying that it's better to be a paid contributor than a voluntary blogger who's only recompense is the minor thrill of seeing one's words published somewhere, even if it's only because you publish them yourself. Be that as it may, here's the problem that prompts this post.

I spend an inordinate amount of time on Twitter and use it to promote my writing in other places, but one's twitter profile only has room for one dedicated link and a limited number of characters in the bio so it's difficult to write at three or four different sites and direct readers to all of them. Therefore this is my workaround. I'll link this post (and chances are good that you are reading these words now because you followed that link) in my profile, and within this post redirect you to all the still existing places where you can find my work.

First off, I've been the sole contributor to a transgender blog called "The Girl Inside" for several years now. There's an interesting story behind that blog. it was founded by a friend of mine at a tine in her life when she was trying to "manage" her gender identity, as many do, by trying to be "just" a crossdresser rather than a transitioning transwoman. So the site she founded began life as a crossdresser resource, and only later evolved to include transgender issues in a broader sense. The remnants of that past are still very obvious.
When she invited me on-board I told her that my history was not one that included the "crossdresser phase" and I had really very little to contribute to that subject but she encouraged me to write what I knew. It didn't take long for me to move the subject matter away from fashion and makeup advice to the issues ever-present to the transitioning transperson. I do respect that many trans people process their journey via that path, but I'm stubborn about the distinction between a recreational male-identified crossdresser and the transsexual person who's committed to full time transition.  So when you visit the site, recognize that when you see the crossdresser trappings that's legacy content. You won't have to review the archives much to know the site is now about much more than that. Find it here: The Girl Inside

Before this personal blog, I had another and honestly I'm not sure if I remember why I moved. I can't vouch that everything found there is something I'd stand by now, seven years and more since I contributed to it but from time to time I may update and revise a post and move it here.

On another tangent, I'm a staff writer for All Heels On Deck where I write primarily about the Toronto Blue Jays and occasionally about other issues as part of a staff made up of women, women of color and queer baseball writers.

Also, I contribute regularly to BPToronto writing primarily, but not entirely, about the minor league system and prospects.

Before I accepted that invitation I had my own Blue Jays focused blog where my profound wisdom and abject error are collected together and still online for anyone to see at The Southpaw .

You can also find my collection of short stories on Amazon. Painted Ponies was published four years ago and I'm still mostly not working on a couple of other projects that may or may not ever be finished but I think these are pretty good.


Finally, you can connect with me on Facebook where I sometimes wax verbose on some political position by following this link: https://www.facebook.com/tammy.rainey.9

Hopefully from time to time I'll write something that will make it worth your clicks.

Re-thinking the Bible and LGB/T People

The purpose of this post is to preserve some remarks I made on this subject on Facebook a couple of days ago. Some readers ask that I record them in a sharable format and so I shall. But first, a couple of paragraphs to provide context for other readers.

There is an incredible amount of really good material out there right now, and a new wave of some incredibly bad material, addressing how one reconciles Traditional Christian doctrines about human identity and sexuality with a modern understanding of these identities and the physicality associated with them. I do not propose that what I will write for this humble blog to be a contribution to the conversation on that level. But I have some thoughts.

It seems to me that the recently published material out there takes a pretty binary position. The repressive material such as recent works by Andrew Walker and Ryan T. Anderson, or the infamous Nashville Statement (which I addressed at length here) obviously takes a hard line against any expression of LGB/T identity. Even though they have shifted grudgingly off the denial that there is something innate about being gay or trans (barely) they still maintain a strict "repress it" position which effectively amounts to the same thing, except more cruel. They do so of course because, assuming you impart noble motives to them, they are absolutely committed to the Traditional doctrine that the Bible forbids both. As Article 10 of the Nashville Statement makes clear, they view it as a non-negotible litmus test of authentic Christianity to affirm that view. On the other end of the spectrum, most of the progressive material (which I endorse) argues that at a minimum the Bible CAN be read without finding condemnation for either trans or homosexual identities, if not must be read thus. The remarks that I am about to share present a point of view that falls, in a sense, between these contrasting positions.

 Much of the Traditionalist literature that acknowledges there is something beyond choice in being trans or homosexual still insist that with God's help, such a person can be "delivered" from acting on those "desires" as is argued in Stephen Black's book "Freedom Realized." The unaddressed question though, is to what is the person conforming - the edict of God or the tradition of men?

Yes, people can force themselves to conform to the demands of human tradition - either sincerely or as an outward facade - but such conformity does not (a) prove an actual change in the underlying nature; or (b) represent a validation of the tradition being conformed to. While I recognize that as one who's career and livelihood is completely dependent on being an officer in the anti-LGB/T army and thus, Black (or Walker or Anderson or passionately anti-trans Denny Burk) is wildly unlikely to actually give thoughtful consideration to the possibility they have been in error, I will nevertheless offer you the counter-argument that I offered in repose to the Nashville Statement, if as nothing more than a general response for the benefit of more fair minded readers.

While I recognize that there are passages in the Bible that can be interpreted as condemning all same sex relationship (there are not any against being trans, but I'll lay that aside for now) and I recognize that if the Bible is of any value at all, there is one objective reality when it comes to God's opinion on any given topic... the reality is that after 2,000 years Christians do not have unanimous consent on it (God's opinion) - on any given topic concerning human behavior or, indeed, very much else. So here's a question that deserves consideration:
 
Various Christian denominations have fundamental disagreements with each other about the nature and method of salvation, arguably the most important doctrine communicated in the Bible, yet well educated well intentioned and Christ seeking scholars cannot arrive at a unanimous consent on the details. Even so, the vast majority of Christians show deference and respect to their fellow believers who differ on this key topic, recognizing it is possible for sincere believers to disagree in their interpretation. On the single most important thing God revealed to us.

This is also true of a great many other doctrines big and small such as Baptism, the time and nature of worship, use of alcohol, how to dress, and so forth, and in the vast majority of cases (a couple of denominations are exceptions) there's obvious mutual respect. And yet according to these folks on this ONE issue - two actually, gay and trans are distinct and separate things, but they think of them as one - there can be NO deviation from their preferred interpretation of the relevant Scripture. 

So here's my question: how is it possible that an Omniscient God left room for his imperfect creation to disagree among themselves about the single most important message he ever authored for them, BUT at the same time was unmistakably clear about his view on the use of the penis? How does that make ANY sense? Do we REALLY think that's the model Christ walked for us in the Gospels? Prioritizing the Doctrine of sex and gender above all else in Scripture? How can anyone believe that?

Christ ministered to the outcast, the marginalized, the pariahs of society - Pharisees created pariahs by their traditions.He rebuked the Pharisees repeatedly, his "go and sin no more" remark was to a woman who was caught in an act that literally EVERY Christian recognizes as sin you can rightly infer that message to any person involved in actual sin, but that message does not give Black et al the last word on what IS sin. Christians of good faith have a GREAT deal of disagreement about what constitutes sin. Unless the SBC (and others) wants the holiness churches haranguing them because their wives wear makeup and jewelry and pants and their men sometimes wear beards because it's okay to impose YOUR concept of sin upon those with a different view? 

I was a preacher myself for 20 years, I know the drill. It's understandable that a congregation will be taught doctrine according to their denomination's views and their pastor's understanding, that process is not at issue here (even though that environment can be toxic for LGB/T kids) What is at issue is Pharisees taking THEIR definition of sin outside the congregation and trying to enforce it as a requirement upon the entire society, regardless of differing views even among Christians. The fact that Christians can come to the conclusion that "x" (whatever X may be) is sinful is natural, the notion that therefore EVERYONE must agree and comply that "x" is sinful and must be avoided is arrogant Phariseeism that looks nothing like what Christ modeled for us. The folks are very intent on LEGISLATING their doctrine upon all, even though both Paul and Peter specifically said "don't do that" and Christ said "my kingdom is not of this world". And failing that, using the power of collective shunning and shaming to force into compliance those they mark as deviant, even in the absence of legal recourse. 

For example: if you sincerely believe the Bible forbids interfaith marriages, then your task is to only marry a Christian - NOT to go about finding every person married to someone of a different faith and lecturing them about their sin, Scripture says each of us will give an account of our OWN sins, and that there is no man who is a mediator between man and God. If that person believes that God does not forbid that marriage, that's between them and God. It doesn't concern you (and so much the less so when Pharisees try to enforce their doctrines under color of law). Remember, too, that what a given church - say the SBC - or a given person is absolutely convicted is sinful changes over time. 60 years ago millions of "Good Christians" were absolutely convinced race mixing was sinful. Did God change his mind? No.

Rather, failing and imperfect human beings were forced to realized their traditional doctrine, no matter how sincerely held, was in error (or perhaps in some cases simply recognized their ministry would suffer if they kept preaching that) and that has happen many many times in church history, and it continues to in our generation. 

I'm not even finding fault here with your interpretation of those relevant passages, rather I'm finding fault with the arrogant assumption that you can't POSSIBLY be wrong - on this ONE subject there is no mistaking God's word. That, folks, is the way of the Pharisee. 

I have, as you can see from my other infrequent posts her and my regular posting at The Girl Inside, quite a bit else to say on the subject of the intersection of traditional religion and trans identities, including prominently some theories about the motivations of the Traditionalist Pharisees.  I want to make clear here that my intent is not to impart credibility to the arguments of the Traditionalists, but to present a different angle on viewing the topic which steps outside the "You're wrong/No you're wrong" debate. Ultimately, one has to be able to at least CONSIDER the possibility their view is in error if they are ever going to grow in wisdom and knowledge. My appeal to people like Mr. Black (however doomed to failure) and those who might find their arguments persuasive (perhaps softer ground for the seed) cannot start with "let me tell you why you are wrong" unless the question is first asked - will you even consider it possible that you might be?

Feel free to share this material as you see fit. Link backs to either blog (or both) are appreciated.

The Nashville Statement: A Rebuttal

(Note: cross posted from another site for which I write)

Regular readers of this site are familiar with my continued confrontation with the unsound and abusive decelerations of "Evangelical Christian" (falsely so-called) Traditionalists towards LGB/T people and particularly as they make reference to trans people. For some of you then, you will have seen before some of the points I intend to make here but for the sake of a comprehensive response, it is necessary.
Likewise, you may have seen this preliminary disclaimer but it bears repeating: When I respond to an abusive religious act I do so within the context of assuming the overall theological system for the sake of argument. It would be a futile pursuit and well beyond the scope of my interest to attempt to defeat either the entire Christian worldview, or that particular flavor thereof known as "Evangelical." Rather, I make my case within the assumption that the larger theological claims (A creator God for example) and that even within this theology their attacks are unsupported. If you read this from a skeptical, or even atheistic point of view, it's necessary for you to understand this.

What follows then, are excerpts from today's "Nashville Statement" issued jointly by the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and an outfit called the "Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" made up, as you might suspect, of the usual suspects when it comes to political Phariseeism. This document seeks to be yet ANOTHER manifesto from the Traditionalist position raging against the growing acceptance for the moral free-agency and legal equality of LGB/T persons. A thousand words could easily be written about this crowd's fixation with this subject above all others but...I've probably written a thousand words about that more than once so I'll move on to the document at hand this time. Along with each excerpt, a brief rebuttal. I purposely write this before having read anyone elses response so that the thoughts are, insofar as I can make them, my own. Due to the quoting, the article will be considerably longer than usual, about three times as long, I hope you find it worthwhile anyway.
--------------------------
From the preamble:

"As Western culture has become increasingly post-Christian, it has embarked upon a massive revision of what it means to be a human being."

No, sirs. Rather Western Culture is increasingly understanding of and accepting of the reality that their are biological exceptions to the general principles of the sexual and gender binary. There is no significant movement towards any philosophy which revises or redefines humanity in general.

"Many deny that God created human beings for his glory, and that his good purposes for us include our personal and physical design as male and female."

No, sirs. The Biblical witness is not disputed (even by yourselves in other contexts) in that it minimizes God's concern with our physicality and prioritizes the spiritual inward person. Has not God said "Man looks upon the outward appearance, but God looks upon the heart"? Other than Paul's reference to one's body as a temple, there's virtually nothing in the New Testament that can be interpreted as God's having an overt interest in one's physical structure. Indeed, later in the Statement you make direct reference (in Article 6) to words of Christ which speak to the exact opposite conclusion.

"The pathway to full and lasting joy through God’s good design for his creatures is thus replaced by the path of shortsighted alternatives that, sooner or later, ruin human life and dishonor God."

Here we find the overt telegraphing of the real intent here - to read into Scripture the extra-biblical conclusion that accepting one's gender identity (or sexual orientation) leads to ruin. The very great many healthy and fulfilled lives of LGB/T persons - many if not most of them Christians themselves - bear witness to the contrary, but because human religious tradition has declared that ruin awaits, it is necessary for the 21st century Pharisees signing this Statement to declare the Bible has said so when it has not.

"This secular spirit of our age presents a great challenge to the Christian church. Will the church of the Lord Jesus Christ lose her biblical conviction, clarity, and courage, and blend into the spirit of the age?"

How often has the church down through 2,000 years repeated this question to it's later shame? Especially the SBC? Indeed did not this very question ring from the rafters of churches across the south (and elsewhere) a mere 60 years ago on a different but similar subject? How often will the church repeat the error of assuming that because a concept violates tradition it therefore violates God? Since before the days when Galileo (and others) ran afoul of the Vatican (and others) by saying "and yet, it moves" the church has been repeating this error and still they rush headlong to do so again.

"Our true identity, as male and female persons, is given by God. It is not only foolish, but hopeless, to try to make ourselves what God did not create us to be."

This alludes to the Traditionalist cliche that "God made you (individually) what you are" - this is a persistent bit of pseudo-doctrine that does not stand even a little bit of logical scrutiny. If we assume that every detail of one's physicality is personally and specifically custom designed for each child by God during pre-natal development, then we are forced to affirm that when a child is stillborn, or born with some horrific developmental defect which causes their death within minutes, that that is precisely the outcome God designed and intended. Do you know ANY one who would agree that this is the case?
Moreover, later in the Statement (Article 6) the writers acknowledge the existence of Disorders of Sexual Development which place some people clearly outside the parameters of a strict sexual binary of the sort the entire statement is designed to defend. Once these conditions are recognized as legitimate and real biological outcomes, then the inescapable logical outcome can only be one of two conclusions: (a) Either God does NOT custom design every detail of every individual born (with the intent of a strictly binary outcome); OR (b) God specifically designed these non-binary outcomes which, if true, defeats the entire rational for this Statement.

"We believe that God’s design for his creation and his way of salvation serve to bring him the greatest glory and bring us the greatest good."

I'm just going to leave this right here until I get to Article X. Hold this thought.
 --------------------------
From Article 1

"We also deny that marriage is a mere human contract rather than a covenant made before God."

So, those of you who got married in any sort of civil ceremony - you're not really married, according to these folks. In reality, the question of marriage settled by Obergefell is one of CIVIL marriage which is not beholden to or under the authority of any religious authority. These folks are perfectly free to restrict the sacrament of marriage within their individual houses of worship according to any traditions and doctrines they may hold applicable. They are NOT entitled to nor justly empowered to extend their traditions and doctrines to the administration of civil marriage. This is a distinction the Pharisees refuse to recognize.

From Article 2

"We deny that any affections, desires or commitments ever justify sexual intercourse before or outside marriage."

Laying aside the extreme unlikelihood that the signatories of this Statement are uniformly in compliance with this sentence and always have been (there's a lot of arrogance in the concept of "yes when I was young and foolish I did it too but God forgave me so it's all good"), If this is a teaching they wish to affirm they are entitled to, but they set up their trap by then denying the person in question a legitimate marriage and ask that person to take on a burden they themselves never have to consider. From

Article 3

"We deny the divinely ordained differences between male and female render them unequal in dignity or worth"

Remember what I said about things the church used to teach that they have come to deny now? Yeah, that's one of them. If they were wrong about this point back then - and they were - why are they so arrogant in their position now?

From Article 4

"The divinely ordained difference between male and female reflect God's original creation design and are meant for human good..."

Yeah? That's swell because their is no movement of any significance to mitigate the distinct physical differences between male and female. You are reframing the trans discussion in terms that give you license to oppose it but your terms are a lie. About 1% of the population finds in themselves a gender identity that is incongruent with their outward physical construct, virtually all of those people seek to conform the outward appearance to the inward identity by conforming to the gender binary - simply on the other side of it. A tiny minority of those folks are uncomfortable with either binary classification but even they (with a tiny fringe of exceptions - and if we're going to talk about a tiny fringe I've got a few C"Christian" pastors like Fred Phelps or Kevin Anderson that we need to discuss) are not saying "None of you can be binary, being binary is completely wrong for everyone!" Rather, they are simply asking for your empathy and respect as the deal with the difficulties in their own life.
Also? According to your own creationist dogma, NONE of us perfectly reflect God's creation design as described in the Eden story because of an event known as The Fall with which I believe you are familiar. Adam and Eve, insofar as the Bible describes, were perfectly healthy without any physical defect. And yet we know that no human exists who can be described thus. The Bible says they were innocent in that they had no need even of clothing - yet there you stand, not only dressed but prepared to be outraged at any sign of nudity. So let us dispense with the deception that just because a state of being existed in Eden it is therefor rigidly incumbent upon all post-Eden humanity.

From Article 5

"We affirm that the differences between male and female reproductive structures are integral to God's design for self conception as male and female"

Now we're getting into the meat of it. In the very next Article you acknowledge the existence of people born in a physical state that is an exception to this binary arrangement you here insist upon. IF in point of fact a clearly binary "reproductive structure" is indispensable for one's self understanding as male or female, then whence comes any gender identity or role for intersex persons? And if in fact you acknowledge the legitimacy of these exceptions to the rigid binary, from whence comes the insistence that trans people cannot possibly represent a different manifestation of "exception"? I'll tell ya whence - from human tradition.
The statement goes on to deny "that physical anomalies...nullify the God-appointed link between biological sex and self-conception." Essentially this fully admits that they know full well what the counter-argument is and the only response they can muster is "is not!" To be clear, no one suggests that the existence of intersex person - or trans persons - proves that the typical congruence between physicality and gender identity is illegitimate or not normative. What it DOES demonstrate, indisputably, is that exceptions exist.

 From Article 6

"...those born with disorders of sex development are...acknowledged by our Lord Jesus in his words about 'eunuchs born that way from their mother's womb'"

And THIS, folks, is how you know that these are not men making an innocent mistake of hermeneutics but people deliberately and with malice aforethought misusing Scripture to serve the purpose of defending a human cultural tradition. The walk right up to the single most crucial passage in all of Scripture for determining God's view of trans people and selectively quote it while ignoring the rest. That verse (Matt. 19:12) goes on to say that some eunuchs are "made that way by men" and others "made themselves eunuchs." Now, it is true that a eunuch in the Biblical sense is not entirely a perfect analogue for a modern trans person but it is very close. As noted in the statement, the first group would seem to be intersex person, but the second group - whether made by force or voluntarily - are surgically modified persons who do not play the social and cultural role expected of one of their birth sex. And the third group, while traditionally assumed to be those who'd taken a religious vow - this is only a retroactive assumption. Christ does not make further comment which would clarify that. Jesus goes on to say "accept them" but the 21st Century Pharisees wish to pick and choose which they will accept.
Bonus point - the God these people profess to serve himself ordered an entire people group to enforce upon all males a surgical modification of the "god designed" reproductive organs. Likewise the same God ordained as a prophet and a Scripture writer a man who, by virtue of his position at court, was most certainly a eunuch. Hmmm.

From Article 7

"...that self conception as male or female should be defined by God's Holy purposes in Creation and Redemption as revealed in Scripture."

Nothing in Scripture describes any such purpose at odds with sexual transition. The typical tactic is to default to reproduction (which has nothing to do with the doctrine of redemption) but this dodge falls apart when one notes the absence of condemnation for, for example, voluntary sterilization.

From Article 8

"We deny that sexual attraction for the same sex is a part of the natural goodness of God's original creation..."

And? Neither is divorce. Neither is, say, diabetes or autism. So what? Post fall, remember?

From Article 9 (nevermind - circular reasoning)

 From Article 10

"We affirm that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness. We deny that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree."

There are actually 14 articles but I'm going to conclude with this one because I do not want any reader to miss the gravity of this statement. These men have written, and mostly men (and a few women) have attested their name in affirmation, that complete rejection of trans identification and same-sex relationships is AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF SALVATION.
Are you getting this? If you accept an LGB/T person YOU CANNOT BE SAVED.

Laying aside difference of organizational structure there appears to be about 40 different distinct variations of Christian belief. Certainly their are a number of major groups with readily identifiable doctrinal difference which, for the most part, Christians "agree to disagree" about, including numerous behavioral matters.But let me take just one. There are a number of distinct and contradictory doctrines within the body of Christianity about how an individual is redeemed to God.
How. 
One. 
Gets. 
Saved.

The Church of Christ, and the Charismatic doctrines, and the Baptist, and the Catholic and the Presbyterian formulation and more - cannot possibly be reconciled collectively into a single unified doctrine of salvation. Yet you guys are not at constant warfare declaring all others to not be legitimate Christians if they do not share your position (some do, but not all of them).

So - and I want to direct this question specifically at the authors - it is your argument that God Almighty in his wisdom communicated in such a manner about the single most important doctrine in Scripture that disagreement about it is tolerable, BUT he communicated so VERY clearly about his view of the penis that to dissent from that doctrine puts one outside the sphere of legitimate Christianity? Remember that quote from the preamble about "God's way of salvation"? Shouldn't there be unanimous consensus on what exactly that is before you presume to lecture people on their innate identities?

 Seriously? I have my doubts, sir, that your motivation here is in any sense the desire to honor the revealed will of God as faithfully as possible. With all due respect, one does not have to be a theologian to see the obvious and unmistakable errors in your case. That being the case, one is forced to speculate about your true motives. But I'll leave that speculation aside for another day.

In conclusion - I'm willing to recognize that the verses related to homosexual activity are open to a variety of interpretations, among them your hardline view; I'm certainly willing to acknowledge the verses supporting the strict marriage confines of sexual activity (to the extent that I acknowledge various other standards which are imperfectly applicable to humanity such as the standards for divorce); and in contrast I've yet to see any of you make even a vague and shaky case using sound biblical exegesis for classifying being trans, or transitioning, as sinful. However, the unmitigated arrogance of declaring that those who interpret these passages differently from yourselves are by definition not Christians at all is breathtaking. If there had ever been any doubt that modern American traditionalist Evangelicalism (and their political allies) are firmly committed to the path of the first century Pharisee, rather than Jesus Christ - this Statement firmly removes those doubts.

 May God have more mercy on you all then you are willing to extend to those with whom you disagree.

The Perfect Scam

Wow. Over a year since I made use of this blog space. Such a waste. I really should do better!

Okay, here's today's lesson. It's called The Perfect Con and no, in this case, it's nor directly about Donald Trump (although the implications of it worked to his benefit). Before I get into the details, though, let's define some terms I'll be using.

Many people on the left, particularly LGB/T persons, have had a rough experienced with organized religion and are pretty alienated to it. So when politically active Evangelical Christians (and their allies among Catholics, Mormons, Fundamentalists and Charismatics) behave badly, they generalize and say "All Christians...". I don't think that's fair. Whatever one might think of organized religion in general, or any particular theology, there are in fact a great many people who identify as Christians who are very kind, compassionate, and loving and who let their religion motivate them to good works and self sacrifice. 

So when I speak of the sort of folks who channel their religion into the sort of political activism that works to drive partisan conservative politics (even on subjects which have nothing to do with their religious views, I need another term. I can't simply say "Evangelicals" because not all Evangelicals run in that crowd and not everyone in that crowd is an Evangelical. I wanted a term that described anyone within the nominal sphere of Christian religions who's belief system and worldview motivated them to involve themselves in politics with the goal of invoking the secular political power structure to enforce their doctrinal rules and traditions on everyone, whether or not that person believed those things themselves.

As a brief example of how this works, take same sex marriage (and before that, interracial marriage). It is a historical truth that in this country the government's definition of civil marriage (and that's all the government has the authority to speak to - the marriages it recognizes in civil law) has not necessarily been conjoined to any specific religious tradition. When racists in the 20th century had laws against interracial relationships, they tried to defend them with religiously informed traditions but it was rightly determined that one could not legislate their religious views on those who did not share them. The state needed a secular reason for the ban and it had none. The same applies to same sex marriage. When someone argues that the state must defend marriage "as god intended it" they are asking the state to enforce a religious view on people who may not share it. Which is what these folks unabashedly wanted, still want, to do.  

So we are speaking of people who expect all people to obey the religious rules they determined to be correct by force of law and actively seek to manipulate the political system to lay that burden on the public. Sounds to me very much like the Pharisees described in the New Testament. For awhile I called them NeoPharisees but it works either way. When I say Pharisees, then, I mean the politically active professed Christian, of whatever sort, who seeks to manipulate the political system to support laws and policies that enforce religious traditions upon all by force of law, whether or not any individual subscribes to them, with little or no secular rational for the law or policy in question. Their history goes back to blue laws, anti-gambling measures, prohibition, so-called "decency" laws and segregation. In the current hour, they are almost uniquely obsessed with crusading against LGB/T equality.

Who are the Pharisees of our day? The most prominent face of this crowd is Tony Perkins. I'm not going to make this post that much longer by telling you about him, if you are reading this you already know. Anyone allied with, or in agreement with Perkins in the religious community in a leadership position is a NeoPharisee. The leadership of his organization, the Family Research Council and their mother organization Focus on the Family, the leadership of American Family Association and all their on-air personalities on the radio network. Prominent "ministers" such as Franklin Graham, literally hundreds of self-described "ministries" from NOM, to FML, scores of  pundits like Michelle Malkin and Erik Erickson, anyone associated with Liberty University, several legal defense organizations like Liberty Council and Alliance Defending Freedom. The whole scope of online "Christian" media like Charisma News and OneNewsNow (owned by AFA) and LifeSiteNews (a Catholic outfit). Basically anyone in a position of prominent political or media influence claiming to speak from a "real" or "genuine" Christian authority who exclusively supports conservative "culture war" political issues.

But there are millions more who follow these leaders wherever they are led. I don't speak of these as Pharisees because they are not the "lawgivers" but those being dictated to.  The term I use here is "Traditionalist" because inevitable the Pharisee appeals to the follower by asserting that their traditions are under assault. Indeed, very often the moral cause they are fighting for is rooted in human tradition that's simply been grafted onto their Christian doctrines (for example, there's no real Biblical support for opposing trans people, the whole doctrine is of human traditional origin). These folks have unwittingly shifted their first allegiance from the God they claim to worship, to the body of tradition they are indoctrinated into. Sometimes I'll refer to these people as "sheep."

Now, with that said, the purpose of this essay is to expand upon something I allude to in various conversations. It may only serve to be a resource I can link back to from time to time but there's value, I hope, in having it laid out in somewhat exhaustive terms. What I'm saying here I base not on an outsider's point of view. I spent most of my life as a loyal Traditionalist, so much so that I willingly allowed and supported the premise that I myself was a deviant and pervert  and hated myself for it. Whatever the Pharisees told me I believed and I was willfully blind to any info from the "liberal" sources outside my echo chamber. Not that I'm out of that trap, I have the wherewithal to analyze their con from all angles, and this is what I see. There's a sort of three point circuit in operation which requires all three to function properly. Pharisee leaders, Conservative - usually Republican - politicians, and obedient sheep Traditionalist voters.

Since the 1970s, Pharisee leaders have evolved a sophisticated machine which generates for them financial gain and political influence. I won't take time here to crib the excellent work down by others about the origins of this machine, for that see this excellent piece at Politico, and watch this segment (and part two) by the wonderful Samantha Bee. My comments are about the structure of what has developed since. Have you ever noticed that virtually everything that any Pharisee group set out to crusade against eventually gets worse, as they define "worse", the longer they oppose it? There's a reason for that: success isn't really their goal. As the linked resources above demonstrate, the original goals were political and they still are.

So herein, let me describe to you how the Machine operates.

 

 

1. Pharisee leaders declare the X (whatever "X" happens to be in the given moment, at this time you can easily think of "X" as crusading against the equality of trans people) is a grave threat to good people, and liberals are pushing X. "You," they say to the listener/reader "should be afraid of X and angry and those trying to force it."

2. Listener/reader becomes angry and fearful, wonders what to do

3. Pharisees say "vote conservative and send us money so we can fight against X"

4. Sheep obey

5. Pharisee goes to Republican politicians "here's a bill we want you to pass, if you do we promise you big greasy piles of votes. If it goes to court, our allied legal team will defend it for you at no cost to the state."

6. Republicans pass bill, regardless of whether courts will allow it. Think HB1523 in Mississippi, or HB2 in North Carolina, both written by these very organizations.

7. Pharisees to sheep: "See? Republicans are fighting X, vote for them and send us more money so we can keep fighting"

8. Sheep obey

9. Law is taken to court, Pharisee lawyers defend it, while soliciting donations for the cost of the fight which total much more than they would have made had the state paid them straight up.

9a. Law upheld "Victory! Send us more money so we can keep up this great work"

9b. Law struck down. "Outrageous! Send us more money so we can fight the evil liberal judges!"

10. whether or not X is ever defeated, Republicans get elected, Pharisees get richer and more politically powerful, sheep remain afraid and angry and ever more gullible.

It's a perfect scam.

There are, of course, variations on the model. For example, when Democrats attempt to pass pro-equality legislation (for example) and the Pharisees rush to crusade against it they basically play the same game "Send us money so we can fight it!" If they win "We won, send us more money (and vote like we tell you to) and we'll keep fighting" and if they lose "this just shows our evil opponents are strong and well funded so send us more money to fight harder." Either way, same set of results. Actually changing the law or policy is a bonus, even if they eventually lose that progress, the real goal is money and political power. This Machine will continue to operate as long as the sheep stay gullible and ill-informed.

Most observers believe that what turned the corner on the "gay rights" movement was when so many gay and lesbian people came out over the last 20 years or so, because people found it harder to hate people as a group when they knew and liked (or loved) a member of that group. Not that we don't still have examples, like the attorney general of Louisiana, who find it in themselves to be hateful even when it's towards someone the claim is a loved one, but many people can't do that. The knowledge that, for example, their sister is a lesbian opens their mind to rethink the traditions of thought they'd be saturated in all their life. That's why the Pharisees invest so much of their resources into keeping the sheep ignorant and gullible. Their greatest enemy is knowledge. So our greatest weapon against them, is knowledge. It may seem as if we're banging our collective heads against a wall, put it's the engine that is changing our culture, little by little, for the better. But don't think for a moment that the Pharisees are going to give up their Machine any time soon.

Photos by flipchip / LasVegasVegas.com

What kind of future?

So. My wife and her (supposedly) most understanding family member saw fit to remind me of my place in their hearts with this little gem.
*sigh*
(this is going to be quite long, but you can't say this right in 20 words)

I'm not even going to get into an angry argument, and I'm asking right now for my actual friends to not go there either, however tempted you may be. But I did want to share it to make this very important point:

It is absolutely and unequivocally true that my transition has caused her indescribable pain and loss. She seems to believe that I can't imagine that or simply don't care (if I simply didn't care I'd have seized the moment and ran at the first of the year or, more exactly, left empty handed years ago, but nevermind that) but she couldn't be more wrong. I'm far more aware of the pain she's feeling than her or any of her allies could possibly hope to understand of what they would have me accept and live with, moreover, I doubt seriously any of them even think they need to try. Yes, I do in fact understand what she's feeling - a loss she would feel in one form or another whichever solution to me no-win dilemma I might have chosen (or could chose now) - but more than that I know how and why we got to this place, and THAT is the reason for this post, not any desire to hold her and her supporter up to criticism.

Here's why:

Because I, and everyone else in my generation trans or not were raised and formed in a world which was almost completely ignorant on the condition I'm dealing with. Even the "experts" were just reacting to outward signs and flailing for explanations, often getting it wrong - one of the most notorious explanations of it was entirely wrong. BECAUSE I was completely ignorant, I was SHAMED into fighting an impossible battle to deny this reality. BECAUSE the world was ignorant, it doubled and tripled the shame. Reveled in it. Wallowed in it. Took great pleasure in humbling and humiliating the very few of us willing to endure it in order to live the truth of their heart and soul. Those of us ashamed and afraid not only saw that shaming but even learned to do it to our own selves.

And so, like so many others, I tried desperately to "do the right thing" - hide my shameful secret and be "normal" - dare to fall in love, have the temerity to get married and have kids, and (in my case) become the very sort of shamer that had made me hate myself. And because I dared. Because I thought, honestly thought, that being what I am with something that could be controlled, repressed, repented of, I involved an innocent and unsuspecting woman in my life. I made her promises - in LOVE - and in all sincerity, that I'm not able to keep.

Because. I. Was. Lied. To.

Lied to by the whole world I lived in, the whole culture that surrounded me, all of it. Jokes like the one in this image were "everybody knows" and "common sense" and THAT is the lie. THAT is the shaming that everyone like me learned from their mother's knee and THAT LIE is why she is in pain tonight. Because of THAT lie, I put her in a no-win situation right along beside me.

It is an absolute abomination that one so desperately hurt BY that l;ie now thinks it makes sense to stand among those trying to push that same lie on a new generation of trans people.

You know what that means? A whole new generation that feels shamed and disputed and degraded by even those very people they trust most to love them; a new generation of parents ashamed of and abusive towards their own kids because they feel shamed to have a child who's trans; a whole new generation of people who, far more than half the time, will try to take their own lives rather than endure it (and far too often succeed)...and a whole new generation of trans people who will subject themselves to THAT LIE and try to "do the right thing" and fight it...and they will dare to fall in love...have the temerity to marry and have kids..and someday come to the breaking point and do to some other woman just what was done to my wife.

And yet in every single word and act in which she, and those who support her, and those who simply don't understand, and those who are still mis-informed about what the Bible says - all with the best of intentions! - that seeks to shame, humiliate, and mock trans people, all those well intentioned folks join hands with the hateful and mean-spirited folks to ensure that some innocent woman in the years to come will be hurting just like she is now.

And the worst part of it all is - she can't conceive that any of what I just wrote is true.

Those of you who REALLY want to be good, do good, treat people like you think Christ would have you treat them - please, for the love of the God whom you serve, STOP POSTING HATEFUL, CALLOUS, COLD-HEARTED BULLSHIT LIKE THIS!!!! When you do, it says far more about your heart than it does about mine.

Face Off

Less than 3 months and already another blog post? What's the world coming to?! My stars and garters!

So let me preface these comments with a very prominent disclaimer: I'm not in these comments attacking or disputing the existence of God as you - if you - believe him to exist. Those who know me know I've grown up in mostly Southern Baptist Churches, and those who know me reasonably well are aware there's still a license to preach in a box 'round here somewhere with the name I no longer claim on it. I can't say that I am, any longer, a fan of man-made orthodoxy. While the Bible says that Scripture is not of any private interpretation, it also says that each person gives an account to their own master, not to other people.

I have spent some time sorting out whether the things I believe are supported more by Scripture or by religious tradition, and that alone can cut away a lot of weeds, but also, I've tried to re-examine some on-the-surface irrational things and reconcile them with a point of view that doesn't go so far as "made-up-by-sheepherders." To the traditionalist believer, it's "falling away" at best, to the skeptic it's rationalization. Be that as it may, I still believe there is a real deity behind the New Testament concept of God  (i.e. a God of grace, not a god of law). But for the purposes of the rhetorical conceit of this post, I'm laying that aside. In some points here I'm saying "you" or "they" when technically it would be correct to say "we" but I think that would get confusing.

Hat-tip, by the way, to Jillian Page for her post which inspired this one - hopefully I can elaborate on the thought, and not just re-word it.

One of the fundamental premises of Traditionalist (i.e. Fundamentalists, Evangelical, Orthodox Catholics, Mormons and most Charismatics - as distinct from all Christians) hold about trans people is that we suffer a "delusion." Basing their entire concept of sex/gender on genitalia (except when they style themselves clever and bring in DNA) they insist it is self evident that one who believes they are authentically the gender that doesn't align with their genital sex is delusional. But as Page points out, there's a big elephant in that room - they believe in something much less objectively proevable than I do.

Go back 30 years and it would have been hard to say that. Until recent innovations in medical technology, claiming that a transsexual was "born that way" was necessarily a highly subjective claim. Most of the available evidence to be analyzed relied on the patients (collective) account of their internal perception of self, and the manner in which they dealt with it - and that reaction too subjective in that it couldn't be divorced from environmental factors (for example, in 1980 it wasn't the same thing to come out in California - difficult - as it was to come out in Mississippi - virtually impossible). It's only in the last couple of decades that we begin to accumulate objective observable evidence that there is a biological basis for the condition.

But that evidence has now been observed and the database of such is constantly growing. It is not entirely conclusive how it happens yet, though there are some pretty good hypotheses, but few things in science are conclusive. So the claim of the trans person is no longer entirely based on subjective "feelings" and, moreover, as more and more trans kids come to light the more popular "alternate explanations" for transsexualism can be objectively demonstrated to not be credible. In short, my so-called "delusion" has scientific credibility that is objective and not dependent on my subjective opinion.

Now contrast this to any system of organized theistic religion you might wish to name. For example, the religion I was brought up in. That system of belief holds that the Earth and all creation are considerably younger than the scientific evidence would suggest (by many orders of magnitude), it holds that the origin and history of life (as we know it today)  was radically different than what the science seems to suggest, and from there it holds one long series of claims after another than to the rational mind seem insanely improbable (i.e. that it's possible to cover the entire surface of this planet with water for just one example) and along the way cite the infallibility of a book they then have to work very hard to explain on some points (the idea that the sun stood still in the sky, for example, or that God commanded a pack of bears to kill children for mocking the baldness of his prophet). Yes, it is possible to rationalize much if not all of that and not kill the whole point of reading the book at all, but what I mean is the things that are held without being explained away (for example, taking the Noah story at face value rather than as a fable with a moral lesson.

Beyond that, the whole Christian experience, in the best light, could - by the unbeliever - be called delusional. You'd believe, at a minimum, that there is a being whom no one has ever seen, and for whom all evidence is subjective; a being wo, among many other puzzling aspects, was able to both pray to himself and answer his own prayers, to sacrifice himself to himself and resurrect himself from death; to whom the prayers of the righteous are persuasive even when they pray for contradictory outcomes; one who is always to be praised if we survive the tornado but not to be faulted when our neighbor does not. Some of you believe that being placed under the water for a few seconds is the difference between eternal bliss or eternal pain to name one of a hundred variants of ritualistic behavior, none of which have any objective evidence for their claims. Heck, the very claim of eternal bliss/damnation has no objective evidence.

But it is nevertheless passionately believed. To many people, including many who once believed it, that's the ultimate in "delusional" and yet it is THOSE people who MOST passionately condemn what they see as "delusion" in the trans person.

Am I arguing that religious beliefs ARE delusional? No, I'm not. Rather, I'm arguing that if the Traditionalist critic of trrans people is evaluated according to the very calculus they wish to apply to trans people, they score FAR worse on the "potentially delusional" tally. I'm suggesting that given that their belief system, AND MINE, is based on a big steaming pile of subjective experiences and speculative conclusions, that any such person is poorly positioned to question the legitimacy of my gender identity claims. Put another way, if you want to believe that the Earth was created in a week six thousand years ago, and you want to believe that any day now the true church will be Ruptured out in advance of Seven Years of Tribulation and you want to believe that all of humanity save eight people were destroyed in a flood - GREAT! Knock yourself out. That belief alone does me nor anyone else any harm (there are religious beliefs that do others harm, but lets not get too far into the weeds with the comparison).  I'll not call you delusional or try to get in your way.

BUT

You are not then in a position to criticize people who have actual objective tangible scientific evidence
in their favor as being victims of delusion who must be saved from their own error. At least have a little bit of intellectual consistency and self awareness.