The Christian Vanguard

A friend asked me for biblical data concerning transgenderism. Here is what I wrote. I just copy-pasted from instagram, so, no spacings. I'll come back and edit later.  Okay, so, throughout the Bible, we have the warnings and condemnations about temple prostitutes. You see it in Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:24,15:12 22:46 and 2 Kings 23:7. So, you need to know some background, but these prostitutes were also trans (we'll just say trans for now, not trans-vestite, gender, or sexual). How do we know this? So from the textbook "Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia" it says this: "Since homosexual love was perfectly tolerated in the land, provided that it did not harm anyone, it should not be surprising to see professional homosexuals here, as if to balance the 'religious' prositutes mentioned above, the assinu, the kurgarru, the kulu'u, and even, on occasion, the kolû, who had rather a bad reputation in this regard, although we do not really know why. Nor...

I have this friend. Well, I had this friend. I had a bit of a crush on her. She was smart, did collegiate debate, was a convert to Catholicism from the ICOC just like me, but, having the luck that I do, she ended up actively participating in the homosexual lifestyle and from what I can tell, now identifies as transgender, though her and I stopped talking before the transgender stuff happened. The last conversation her and I had was an argument on whether I should call her "Tony", which she apparently legally changed her name to. She tried to justify it by saying she identified strongly with St. Anthony and so she took up his name, but I didn't buy it. I saw where this was going, and I refused to call her "Tony." She got so upset and refused to talk to me unless I called her by her preferred name. We haven't talked since. So, should we call transgender people by their "new" names. Should we call Bruce Jenner "Caitlyn"? Should we call ...

In just about every talk I hear on transgenderism, talks that try to normalize the disorder, there is a preemptive argument that genitals don't determine who or what you are. I heard it recently here , and the way he phrased it, as "genitalifying", makes me want to say something about this very common argument.  The most important point to be made is that this is a straw-man. We do not say that because you have a penis, you are a man, or because you have a vagina, you are a female. And I would press any critic to actually cite a philosopher who argues this. You probably won't find it in those terms. This is what you probably will find, and is what has been said for a very long time and is not criticized by those who want to normalize madness, which is, a male is that which has the power to reproduce actively, and a female is that which has the power to reproduce passively.  This is a better definition because it helps classify what things are, not just in hum...