Friday, May 18, 2012

Transgender Transgression



OK.  So we will now discuss the transgender Bill that was again presented in our provincial parliament last week.  A Bill presented as forecast in our previous blog post here.  A Bill endorsed by gays and goofs voted into our parliament. 

A Bill to be seen as a major gaffe if it passes.  Just as the loosened EU immigration policy is now seen as a major gaffe by Britain, Germany and Netherlands.

A Bill intending to introduce Freedom of Gender Expression into the Ontario Human Rights Code- since Freedom of Sexual Expression (in the bedroom) is seen to be far too limiting for transgenders.   A Bill intended to encourage and endorse the gender expression of fragile transgender folk.  A Bill intended to reduce the incredible suicide rate of these gender dissonant folk.  As if additional dissonance will help.

A Bill introduced with mathematical appeals to grant transgender folks “greater” and “more equal” rights.  Not unlike the mathematically challenged pigs of Orwell’s Animal Farm demanding to be even “more equal”.

A Bill introduced with pejorative appeals against “trans phobia”.  A Bill that might just as well make appeals against ‘paedo phobia’

A Bill introduced with the popular martyr card of Jenna.  And not just the martyr card of creepy Jenna - but also the martyr card of tipsy Toby.   
A nice Ukrainian boy who wore a skirt under his jeans.   A ‘marvelous martyred musician’ [succumbing to drugs after living trans] we are told.  A martyr with a stained glass window honoring him in the sanctuary of a United Church.  The stained glass image which prefaces this post.

A parliamentary appeal led by a ‘nice Muslim boy’… a boy who should know his scripture better. And a parliamentary appeal led by a United Church preacher… a preacher who should know her scripture better.  Bleeding-heart appeals by wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15).

Appeals with patronizing allusions to scripture.  Allusions  like… ‘a crowd of witnesses’, ‘when we all celebrate after’ and like “God Bless”.  Allusions that just don’t pass scriptural muster in this appeal.

And it is this scriptural muster that we will continue to examine.  This time examining all of Ephilei’s ‘scriptural objections’… having already dealt with his ‘scriptural contentions’ in the previous post.  Objections that may be found here.

Genesis 1:27-
It's hard to motivate myself to write about this because it's so ridiculous. I'll expand on it later. The text says, "male and female" not "male or female." … To say humanity is "male and female" means humanity has characteristics of both.

And what do the Hebrew experts of the NET Bible say?

55 sn The distinction of "humankind" as "male" and "female" is another point of separation in God's creation. There is no possibility that the verse is teaching that humans were first androgynous (having both male and female physical characteristics) and afterward were separated.

Exodus 20:17-
To condemn transexualism by calling it coveting is ridiculous and here's why. To "covet" in the biblical sense here means to desire to take ownership of a particular object belonging to another. It does not mean to desire anything or to desire anything that someone else has.

Another dull objection.  Look up the study note in the NET on this one. Or just think about Eve coveting the wisdom of God in the Garden.  Fail!

Deuteronomy 22:5-
Here we have surprising admission by Ephilei.  That “Hebrews did not have separate words for sex and gender”.  Yet this is the intention of the aforementioned Bill isn’t it?   To introduce and obfuscate?  Also…

Different scholars have different theories for the motivation of this but they all acknowledge this theme. I myself believe the reason hearkens to the Collective Unconscious, specifically the mind's need to create order from their chaotic world.

Hmmm… and having looser definitions actually creates order? 

Deuteronomy 23:1-
in relation to Deuteronomy 23:1, there is a clear progression in Scripture which culminates in the implied acceptance of the genitally-mutilated by Jesus in Matthew 19:12 and the conversion, baptism, and acceptance into the Kingdom of God of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-39.1 [Footnote] 1. Also most commentators accept that Isaiah 56:4-5 removes the ban on the genetically mutilated being admitted to the "assembly of the Lord." (p46)

Well… in that Matthew passage Jesus speaks of those to whom it has "not been given” not to become ONE FLESH.  And Jesus is actually condemning those that are averse to that ONE FLESH order that was “given”.  Including a condemnation of those who “make themselves” eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. 
Yet it is conceded that the Ethiopian eunuch and the eunuch of Isaiah may still enter the Kingdom of Heaven… albeit as ‘drier trees’.

Matthew 19:4-
Nothing new here.

1 Cor. 11:14,15-
Answering No to the rhetoric question as we must, we must conclude the Holy Spirit either goofed or this was never a question at all but an affirmation that Nature does not dictate our gender expression.

Hmmm… makes the whole passage rather irrelevant then, huh?  Or does God actually dictate our gender expression?
And finally…

Objection: Christ and the Bride-
I'm tempted to call this the most absurd, but unfortunately there is great competition.
If we were to truly mirror Heaven, we should give up marriage altogether (as Jesus practiced and Paul encouraged).

But we are often told that marriage IS a mirror of Heaven (though often a cloudy one).  And Jesus and Paul did NOT 'encourage' giving up on marriage.  Mere howling at the moon.

Then androgynous-Ephilei gets even weirder with his assertion here

Jesus must be an androgyne… Jesus appears an angel, and therefore androgynous, in other places as well….  Jesus as an androgyne seems thoroughly convincing to me… an androgyne is defined as a person fully female and fully male. That means vagina, clitoris and/or penis, scrotum and/or labia, breasts, and facial hair.

Boy, that would have freaked out the disciples of Jesus.  Who would have followed that sort of rabbi?
Also, consider the many times that Jesus disrobed (foot washing) and was disrobed (the cross).  Yet, we hear no mention of this enormous anomaly… for very good reason.  Because it is a product of Ephilei’s vain imagination.

In closing, gays and goofs have failed to give us good reasons for introducing new Human Rights.  For promoting looser living.
For introducing far “greater” Rights for sexual deviants. 

Rights that will detract from those less deviant. 
Rights that God certainly will not "bless".