Love Begins
Not today Justin
titsay
⁂
Kaledo Art
KIROKAZE
Game of Thrones Daily
d e v o n
RMH
No title available
Sweet Seals For You, Always
Misplaced Lens Cap
if i look back, i am lost
izzy's playlists!
ellievsbear
Mike Driver
wallacepolsom
No title available
DEAR READER
taylor price
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from North Macedonia
seen from T1
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from Morocco
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from United States
@always-polite
People like you need to be put down like dogs ngl
Unfounded accusations of pedophilia are leveraged at trans women often. It sounds like this user is declaring that they will be skeptical of future accusations against trans women until they see solid proof, in order to immunize themselves against accidentally joining smear campaigns without basis. That seems reasonable to me.
Kevin Waldman does small surveys on his school campus, usually with the aim of making some anti-woke point. This study is based on survey responses from only 49 people, and the interpretation is riddled with mistakes.
Discover insights into Identity Formation with psychFORM. Explore how LGBTQ umbrellas affect gay identities.
Notably, 90% of gay male respondents (38 of the 49) answered "No." to the following question:
"Do you believe trans students have a shared right to define the meaning of 'LGBTQ identity' for the community as a whole?"
So, we can see that the gay man respondents were already exclusionary of trans people. I don't know where Kevin Waldman found these guys.
Meanwhile, his personal writing on the subject employs a lot of conjecture.
As a liberal gay man and a psychological researcher, I have spent years studying mental health, gender dysphoria and identity formation. I b
gay men do not have to share the priorities of ideologues. they also do not enjoy having to deal with women calling themselves 'gay men', even if some don't want to voice objections b/c they know people like you will label them 'anti trans' for it.
like. gay men are generally 'exclusionary' of heterosexuals and women, too. for obvious reasons. you employing language like 'already exclusionary of trans people' as a shaming tactic used to coerce people who have different priorities to you like gays into capitulating to whatever it is that you want. gay men aren't 'excluding' anyone by establishing boundaries and being resistant to those who want to cross them.
The question was "should trans people have a share of defining the meaning of the LGBTQ community". The gay men said no. Why shouldn't trans people have a share of the meaning of the LGBTQ community? What does the T stand for? It only makes sense if the men being asked believe in LGB drop the T , ie. They are trans-exclusionary.
Kevin Waldman does small surveys on his school campus, usually with the aim of making some anti-woke point. This study is based on survey responses from only 49 people, and the interpretation is riddled with mistakes.
Discover insights into Identity Formation with psychFORM. Explore how LGBTQ umbrellas affect gay identities.
Notably, 90% of gay male respondents (38 of the 49) answered "No." to the following question:
"Do you believe trans students have a shared right to define the meaning of 'LGBTQ identity' for the community as a whole?"
So, we can see that the gay man respondents were already exclusionary of trans people. I don't know where Kevin Waldman found these guys.
Meanwhile, his personal writing on the subject employs a lot of conjecture.
As a liberal gay man and a psychological researcher, I have spent years studying mental health, gender dysphoria and identity formation. I b
guys last year was great but how about this pride month, to really own the terfs, we get a really good faith and honest understanding of their ideology and then totally destroy them by filling their tags a clear and scientifically/logically backed reasoning of why we disagree with them!! and if they dare argue we should reply in good faith and consider how their criticism of our ideology harms them! i dont think anyone has ever done this before so they would have nooo idea how to handle it! instead of using fascist tactics of silencing them or lying about what they truly believe, we turn their tags into truthful explanations of their beliefs and thoughtful criticism!!! that would be totally awesome and would totally work in our favour
maybe even pick up a radfem book and read it through before taking stuff entirely out of context and lying! this would be so fun
Hello, I will argue with you in good faith if that's what you want. I'll start by asking where you're at.
What's your position on trans people? Is it possible for a person to change their gender? Is changing your gender ever a good thing?
gender as a whole should be abolished, as it’s the foundation of patriarchy. gender is a tool of oppression, used to make women subordinate and submissive, and get men to join the military.
abolishing gender will also abolish gender dysphoria - i wholeheartedly believe it’s the best solution for trans people, compared to accepting that these people are going to be miserable until they spend thousands of dollars on cosmetic surgeries - that’s assuming those surgeries even do effect the misery. realistically speaking, you get hormones, you are happy for 5 minutes before you want top surgery, after that you want bottom, after that you want facial surgeries, then whatever comes next. there’s no end to it most of the time because a male person will always be of the male sex (vice versa). even if you could fully change sex, they’d be dysphoric about the past, the fact that they were born the “wrong” sex.
separate note: maybe be you can change gender - if you look enough like a woman, people who are unaware will treat you like one. gender is a social construct. that doesn’t mean you change sex, and i think women need sex-based protections and rights. bathrooms, changing rooms, prisons etc should be sex-based.
i reject the concept of gender, because it’s patriarchal, so ‘changing’ gender is irrelevant to me. i don’t “identify” with any gender because i don’t “identify” with a tool used to mark me as and shape me into obedient potential property.
current trans ideology reinforces gender roles in the extreme. “i’m wearing a skirt so you must think i’m a woman” “i always like playing with dolls so i must be a woman” “if you don’t want to wear makeup and dresses you must be a man”. it also places this social construct above material reality in terms of importance. the core of a lot of trans theory is the outright denial of sex (which is absurd by the way. i’m not going to waste my time arguing against “oh but words aren’t real so nothing is real” bullshit). what i’m trying to say is reinforcing gender roles is bad, yes. most of the time, changing gender is 99% reliant on gender roles and stereotypes.
tldr maybe you can change gender, and maybe i can do a bank robbery with a fake but realistic-looking gun because they’ll treat my fake gun as a real threat, and socially it’ll be registered as a real weapon. gender is a social construct and it should be abolished. that’s what acknowledging gender as a social construct has always been about - getting rid of it.
Alright, you want to abolish gender, an understandable although lofty goal. I'm going to argue that trans people and trans acceptance is actually a furthering of your goal rather than a reinforcement of traditional gender roles.
So, you want to abolish gender but keep sex. Would it be true to say that what you want is for everyone to be non binary? To not subscribe to the gender binary, and instead do their own thing and decide who they want to be without any preconceived notions passed down from the patriarchal past? It sounds like being agender, or some variation. Nonbinary people are your friends.
Let's talk about patriarchy. Patriarchy rests, broadly, on three justifications. Tradition, religion, and biology. Men are in charge because God said so, men are in charge because that's just how it is, and men are in charge because they're stronger/more logical/whatever other bullshit they make up.
The west has seen disillusionment with religion and tradition for a while now, and I think it's pretty easy to see that your enemy in your quest for gender abolishment (conservatives) are trying to fight against that change. They want to return to tradition, they want to enshrine religion in law. Unfortunately, people are waking up to the fact that religion and law are made up bullshit, so they need to fall back on biology.
Science. Logic and reason. Surely the godless libs won't discard science will they? It's clear that men should be in charge. Look at these studies which show they're biologically stronger, biologically taller, biologically more prone to taking risks, biologically earn higher wages... wait a second, this is bullshit too isn't it? It turns out that men aren't biologically more suited for power and privilege, it's just that patriarchal society protects the privileges of men and preserves that prejudice over time, as feminist science and literature is happy to point out.
Enter trans people. Trans people are the final nail in the coffin of the biology argument. Men and women aren't all that biologically different after all it turns out, at least not in the ways that matter. Yes, there's the penis and vagina difference, but they have the same brains, the same organs, the same thoughts and dreams. If a man can take some pills, dress different, and pass as a woman, then what are we still enshrining patriarchy for? If a woman can change into a man, then men must not be biologically distinct enough merit all the privileges. If gender is mutable, then the last pillar of the foundation of patriarchy, biology, must not be as strong as we think.
What you say about how the skirts and dolls = woman, sports and cars = men thing. Yeah, I get where you're coming from. We shouldn't force anyone into the boy/girl boxes, and saying that men who like skirts and dolls must actually be women seems to reinforce those boxes. I think, though, that trans people do a lot more to destroy those boxes than you're giving them credit for.
I assume you don't want to get rid of skirts and dolls and sports and cars, you just want people to be able to pick and choose which they want without it coming with the rest of the gender baggage. Trans people, broadly, do pick and choose. And they leave what they don't want behind. Talk to some. I get the feeling that when people just start to transition, they feel very insecure in their new identity. A new trans woman will probably get a whole new wardrobe, makeup, do voice training, etc. They share this behavior with cis women who are insecure as well. Trying to prop up their femininity by appealing to gender tropes. Once a trans woman has gotten comfortable with her new identity, she let's down her guard a bit. Starts wearing pants again (hey, they're practical!), picks back up her old "boy" hobbies. Maybe she feels she doesn't need to voice train to be a woman, or shave her legs. These are all things feminists advocate for right? That's what you're advocating for? I've seen trans women go through this journey in real time. The same is true for trans men (probably, I don't know any).
TLDR:
In conclusion, if you want to abolish gender, trans people are your friend. Nonbinary people already lead the charge on gender aboloshment. Trans people are good at dismantling the biological justification of patriarchy. Your concern over the reinforcement of gender norms is understandable, but can be explained by gender insecurity, which mellows out with time and mainstream acceptance. Thank you for reading.
I will also respond in good faith. I think we agree on a lot of points but veer off into different conclusions and also feel you’re missing a few steps.
Feminism is about women’s liberation from patriarchal control, the basis of this is reproductive control. This is done through religion, violence, and misogyny etc, these are the tools, but at the heart of it all is the fact that males are not as important to the human species as females, we need less of them to continue, so over thousands of years men have needed a way to keep control over women.
Gender, when talked about as separate to Sex, is social rules that control our behaviour and keeps us in our places.
You suggest that non binary people are our allies. I don’t see that, as in order for non binary to even be an identity it requires the notion of gender to exist in the first place. Some non binary people may want to escape the Gender rules associated to their Sex but in doing so they’re more akin to a drowning person pushing the person next to the underwear in their attempts to escape. Saying I don’t feel like a woman or a man, therefore I am something else is still validating the idea that the Gender rules are correct.
Equally I can see why you’d use the term agender but this is based on the idea that radical feminists also believe in Gender Ideology, we don’t. We don’t buy into Queer Theory either. So we are talking to each other with two different frameworks on language. We reject the notion of a Gender Identity completely as again that validates the existing patriarchal system. Instead we view ourselves as Female and everything else is about our personality or sexual orientation.
You say males and females are similar, not really, we have very different reactions to medicines, to types of exercise, our bone structure is different, our hormones are different, and so on. To dismiss Sex as not important or not that different is harmful to women’s liberation as we need to acknowledge the Male Default and demolish it. Women’s bodies and needs are different to men’s and it isn’t problematic to acknowledge that, the point is one type body is not inherently more valuable than the other! The world is built to serve males - the patriarchy- and we need to rebuild it to one that see the female body as equally human.
Gender Identity is not the way, it’s a sticking plaster to make yourself feel better under the patriarchy.
Sorry for the delay in my response. I will challenge you points now.
Saying I don’t feel like a woman or a man, therefore I am something else is still validating the idea that the Gender rules are correct.
I don't think that's fair. I've never met a nonbinary person who was supportive of gender roles. If there is a man box and a woman box, and Mr. Patriarchy seeks to keep everyone in the box they were born in, then you are trying to destroy the box from inside while nonbinary people are jumping out of the box. Destroying the box is a permanent solution which would work for everyone, sure, but for those who just want out RIGHT NOW, jumping out of the box seems like the fastest way to do it. Crucially, Mr. Patriarchy now has his attention split between the box-jumpers and the box-destroyers. Trying to drag nonbinary people back into the box so they can help destroy it is a waste of your time. Besides, they're probably already helping to destroy the box from the outside, you just can't see it from where you are.
I don't think that being nonbinary validates that gender roles are correct. Someone who rejects modern medicine and goes their own way (homeopathy, antivax, etc.) does not validate the correctness of medicine. Someone who leaves society to live in the woods alone (trappers, homesteaders, Christopher Thomas Knight) does not validate that civilization is correct. Why should leaving something behind validate it?
You say males and females are similar, not really, we have very different reactions to medicines, to types of exercise, our bone structure is different, our hormones are different, and so on.
True, but my point is that we are not different in a way that matters when it comes to deciding our rights and freedoms. Patriarchy wants to limit our freedom to choose how we dress, what we do for work, who is allowed to hold power, etc. If you accept that a man can become a woman then you lose the foundation of patriarchy, which is that man and woman have preordained and immutable roles. You lose the ideological underpinning which gives you the ability to limit rights and freedoms based on sex.
What you say about cars being designed for men is true. I've read invisible women. I'm aware of the statistical differences between male and female bodies. I believe that the male default needs to be ended.
You want to abolish gender. I think that trans people are your allies in this cause. If you look at your enemies, the people who defend and profit from gender roles, you'll notice that you share them in common with trans people. I believe that is evidence that trans people could be your allies. You both want the right to control your identity. You want to start with a blank slate. Nonbinary people also want to start with a blank slate. Binary trans people don't mind using one of the two existing templates, but don't want to have to use the one they were assigned at birth. Why shouldn't you be on the same side?
Trans people reinforce and give legitimacy to gender roles.
Nonbinary people are not crushers. They drew a line within the box and pretended it separated them from the others. Nonbinary requires the existence of a binary to exist. Gender abolition would make this category entirely meaningless.
We want the templates to stop existing, period. Not to add templates. Not to slightly change them. To END them.
Transitioning is a way to "correct" a feminine boy or a masculine boy. This, until recently, was usually correlated with either homosexuality or autism. Trans people perform gender to pass as the other sex. Trans people identify with social norms because you cannot know the qualia of another group, or even just person.
What does it mean to be a woman? How do you identify as one? Is this feeling in your head shared by all, most, many, any women? Where were trans women when women didn't have rights? We have records of gay and lesbian people before they had rights, even in times and places where they risked being killed. Why are so many of the so-called predecessors to trans people just homosexual people being alienated from their sex or some form of sex slaves?
What is happening, to whom, and why?
"Nonbinary requires tye existence of the binary to exist"
I'm sorry I just don't see how that's true. Yes, the words "non binary" are meaningless without a binary, but it's not like the life of a nonbinary person would change if gender disappeared overnight. They would remain the same people who seek to define themselves.
As an analogy, take the Amish. The Amish are "non technological". They define themselves based on their refusal to use modern technology. They do not, however, need us to use technology to retain their way of life. If technology was abolished one day, the Amish would just carry on. There's no reason they'd need to have an identity crisis. Why do nonbinary people need the gender binary to exist?
It would change, actually, if only because you can't be the third option of a non-existing system. You don't distance yourself from categories that do not exist. Referencing categories that no longer exist in your identity would leave holes.
That's kind of in the definition, actually. "Non-binary (also written as nonbinary) or genderqueer gender identities are those that are outside the male/female gender binary." Now, given this (incomplete) definition, I would like you to explain to me 1) how nonbinary doesn't at its core rely on the binary to exist 2) what you think would happen to that word in a world where there is no gender at all.
Your analogy would work if the Amish called themselves Non Technological and made it essential to their identity that they don't use technology but the rest of us *have* to. Because that's essentially what is assumed by claiming to be nonbinary. That refusal to perform the proper role means you're something else. Nonbinary means declaring something about both yourself and other people.
I cannot declare myself French and everyone outside my country non-French without saying something about both sides. If my identity is non[something], I'm defining myself around that thing and it is important enough to me to be a part of my identity, in a positive (add) or negative (subtract) way.
Yes, the literal term nonbinary defines itself in opposition to the binary. That is the term nonbinary people use because they live in a society in which gender is omnipresent and they want to define themselves apart from it.
Your analogy would work if the Amish called themselves Non Technological and made it essential to their identity that they don't use technology but the rest of us *have* to.
Critically, though, nonbinary people do not make it essential to their identity that everyone else has to perform gender. Nonbinary people would, as a whole, be ecstatic to see you challenge gender expectation in any way you like. They would support you in this endeavor. I don't understand where you get the idea that nonbinary people would ever be in support of "gender roles for thee, but not for me". That is just not how any actual enby acts in real life.
I think we're getting hung up on the fact that the word nonbinary refers to a binary to be apart from, but again, we do not treat any other group which defines itself in opposition to another as relying on the other. Anti-fascists do not want others to be fascists, and they would not have a crisis of identity if fascism were abolished. They would be happy!
I have never met a trans person in general who actually took any issue at all with someone refusing to perform the gender they were assigned while still identifying with it. I promise they either don't care or are happy to see you challenge society.
guys last year was great but how about this pride month, to really own the terfs, we get a really good faith and honest understanding of their ideology and then totally destroy them by filling their tags a clear and scientifically/logically backed reasoning of why we disagree with them!! and if they dare argue we should reply in good faith and consider how their criticism of our ideology harms them! i dont think anyone has ever done this before so they would have nooo idea how to handle it! instead of using fascist tactics of silencing them or lying about what they truly believe, we turn their tags into truthful explanations of their beliefs and thoughtful criticism!!! that would be totally awesome and would totally work in our favour
maybe even pick up a radfem book and read it through before taking stuff entirely out of context and lying! this would be so fun
Hello, I will argue with you in good faith if that's what you want. I'll start by asking where you're at.
What's your position on trans people? Is it possible for a person to change their gender? Is changing your gender ever a good thing?
gender as a whole should be abolished, as it’s the foundation of patriarchy. gender is a tool of oppression, used to make women subordinate and submissive, and get men to join the military.
abolishing gender will also abolish gender dysphoria - i wholeheartedly believe it’s the best solution for trans people, compared to accepting that these people are going to be miserable until they spend thousands of dollars on cosmetic surgeries - that’s assuming those surgeries even do effect the misery. realistically speaking, you get hormones, you are happy for 5 minutes before you want top surgery, after that you want bottom, after that you want facial surgeries, then whatever comes next. there’s no end to it most of the time because a male person will always be of the male sex (vice versa). even if you could fully change sex, they’d be dysphoric about the past, the fact that they were born the “wrong” sex.
separate note: maybe be you can change gender - if you look enough like a woman, people who are unaware will treat you like one. gender is a social construct. that doesn’t mean you change sex, and i think women need sex-based protections and rights. bathrooms, changing rooms, prisons etc should be sex-based.
i reject the concept of gender, because it’s patriarchal, so ‘changing’ gender is irrelevant to me. i don’t “identify” with any gender because i don’t “identify” with a tool used to mark me as and shape me into obedient potential property.
current trans ideology reinforces gender roles in the extreme. “i’m wearing a skirt so you must think i’m a woman” “i always like playing with dolls so i must be a woman” “if you don’t want to wear makeup and dresses you must be a man”. it also places this social construct above material reality in terms of importance. the core of a lot of trans theory is the outright denial of sex (which is absurd by the way. i’m not going to waste my time arguing against “oh but words aren’t real so nothing is real” bullshit). what i’m trying to say is reinforcing gender roles is bad, yes. most of the time, changing gender is 99% reliant on gender roles and stereotypes.
tldr maybe you can change gender, and maybe i can do a bank robbery with a fake but realistic-looking gun because they’ll treat my fake gun as a real threat, and socially it’ll be registered as a real weapon. gender is a social construct and it should be abolished. that’s what acknowledging gender as a social construct has always been about - getting rid of it.
Alright, you want to abolish gender, an understandable although lofty goal. I'm going to argue that trans people and trans acceptance is actually a furthering of your goal rather than a reinforcement of traditional gender roles.
So, you want to abolish gender but keep sex. Would it be true to say that what you want is for everyone to be non binary? To not subscribe to the gender binary, and instead do their own thing and decide who they want to be without any preconceived notions passed down from the patriarchal past? It sounds like being agender, or some variation. Nonbinary people are your friends.
Let's talk about patriarchy. Patriarchy rests, broadly, on three justifications. Tradition, religion, and biology. Men are in charge because God said so, men are in charge because that's just how it is, and men are in charge because they're stronger/more logical/whatever other bullshit they make up.
The west has seen disillusionment with religion and tradition for a while now, and I think it's pretty easy to see that your enemy in your quest for gender abolishment (conservatives) are trying to fight against that change. They want to return to tradition, they want to enshrine religion in law. Unfortunately, people are waking up to the fact that religion and law are made up bullshit, so they need to fall back on biology.
Science. Logic and reason. Surely the godless libs won't discard science will they? It's clear that men should be in charge. Look at these studies which show they're biologically stronger, biologically taller, biologically more prone to taking risks, biologically earn higher wages... wait a second, this is bullshit too isn't it? It turns out that men aren't biologically more suited for power and privilege, it's just that patriarchal society protects the privileges of men and preserves that prejudice over time, as feminist science and literature is happy to point out.
Enter trans people. Trans people are the final nail in the coffin of the biology argument. Men and women aren't all that biologically different after all it turns out, at least not in the ways that matter. Yes, there's the penis and vagina difference, but they have the same brains, the same organs, the same thoughts and dreams. If a man can take some pills, dress different, and pass as a woman, then what are we still enshrining patriarchy for? If a woman can change into a man, then men must not be biologically distinct enough merit all the privileges. If gender is mutable, then the last pillar of the foundation of patriarchy, biology, must not be as strong as we think.
What you say about how the skirts and dolls = woman, sports and cars = men thing. Yeah, I get where you're coming from. We shouldn't force anyone into the boy/girl boxes, and saying that men who like skirts and dolls must actually be women seems to reinforce those boxes. I think, though, that trans people do a lot more to destroy those boxes than you're giving them credit for.
I assume you don't want to get rid of skirts and dolls and sports and cars, you just want people to be able to pick and choose which they want without it coming with the rest of the gender baggage. Trans people, broadly, do pick and choose. And they leave what they don't want behind. Talk to some. I get the feeling that when people just start to transition, they feel very insecure in their new identity. A new trans woman will probably get a whole new wardrobe, makeup, do voice training, etc. They share this behavior with cis women who are insecure as well. Trying to prop up their femininity by appealing to gender tropes. Once a trans woman has gotten comfortable with her new identity, she let's down her guard a bit. Starts wearing pants again (hey, they're practical!), picks back up her old "boy" hobbies. Maybe she feels she doesn't need to voice train to be a woman, or shave her legs. These are all things feminists advocate for right? That's what you're advocating for? I've seen trans women go through this journey in real time. The same is true for trans men (probably, I don't know any).
TLDR:
In conclusion, if you want to abolish gender, trans people are your friend. Nonbinary people already lead the charge on gender aboloshment. Trans people are good at dismantling the biological justification of patriarchy. Your concern over the reinforcement of gender norms is understandable, but can be explained by gender insecurity, which mellows out with time and mainstream acceptance. Thank you for reading.
I will also respond in good faith. I think we agree on a lot of points but veer off into different conclusions and also feel you’re missing a few steps.
Feminism is about women’s liberation from patriarchal control, the basis of this is reproductive control. This is done through religion, violence, and misogyny etc, these are the tools, but at the heart of it all is the fact that males are not as important to the human species as females, we need less of them to continue, so over thousands of years men have needed a way to keep control over women.
Gender, when talked about as separate to Sex, is social rules that control our behaviour and keeps us in our places.
You suggest that non binary people are our allies. I don’t see that, as in order for non binary to even be an identity it requires the notion of gender to exist in the first place. Some non binary people may want to escape the Gender rules associated to their Sex but in doing so they’re more akin to a drowning person pushing the person next to the underwear in their attempts to escape. Saying I don’t feel like a woman or a man, therefore I am something else is still validating the idea that the Gender rules are correct.
Equally I can see why you’d use the term agender but this is based on the idea that radical feminists also believe in Gender Ideology, we don’t. We don’t buy into Queer Theory either. So we are talking to each other with two different frameworks on language. We reject the notion of a Gender Identity completely as again that validates the existing patriarchal system. Instead we view ourselves as Female and everything else is about our personality or sexual orientation.
You say males and females are similar, not really, we have very different reactions to medicines, to types of exercise, our bone structure is different, our hormones are different, and so on. To dismiss Sex as not important or not that different is harmful to women’s liberation as we need to acknowledge the Male Default and demolish it. Women’s bodies and needs are different to men’s and it isn’t problematic to acknowledge that, the point is one type body is not inherently more valuable than the other! The world is built to serve males - the patriarchy- and we need to rebuild it to one that see the female body as equally human.
Gender Identity is not the way, it’s a sticking plaster to make yourself feel better under the patriarchy.
Sorry for the delay in my response. I will challenge you points now.
Saying I don’t feel like a woman or a man, therefore I am something else is still validating the idea that the Gender rules are correct.
I don't think that's fair. I've never met a nonbinary person who was supportive of gender roles. If there is a man box and a woman box, and Mr. Patriarchy seeks to keep everyone in the box they were born in, then you are trying to destroy the box from inside while nonbinary people are jumping out of the box. Destroying the box is a permanent solution which would work for everyone, sure, but for those who just want out RIGHT NOW, jumping out of the box seems like the fastest way to do it. Crucially, Mr. Patriarchy now has his attention split between the box-jumpers and the box-destroyers. Trying to drag nonbinary people back into the box so they can help destroy it is a waste of your time. Besides, they're probably already helping to destroy the box from the outside, you just can't see it from where you are.
I don't think that being nonbinary validates that gender roles are correct. Someone who rejects modern medicine and goes their own way (homeopathy, antivax, etc.) does not validate the correctness of medicine. Someone who leaves society to live in the woods alone (trappers, homesteaders, Christopher Thomas Knight) does not validate that civilization is correct. Why should leaving something behind validate it?
You say males and females are similar, not really, we have very different reactions to medicines, to types of exercise, our bone structure is different, our hormones are different, and so on.
True, but my point is that we are not different in a way that matters when it comes to deciding our rights and freedoms. Patriarchy wants to limit our freedom to choose how we dress, what we do for work, who is allowed to hold power, etc. If you accept that a man can become a woman then you lose the foundation of patriarchy, which is that man and woman have preordained and immutable roles. You lose the ideological underpinning which gives you the ability to limit rights and freedoms based on sex.
What you say about cars being designed for men is true. I've read invisible women. I'm aware of the statistical differences between male and female bodies. I believe that the male default needs to be ended.
You want to abolish gender. I think that trans people are your allies in this cause. If you look at your enemies, the people who defend and profit from gender roles, you'll notice that you share them in common with trans people. I believe that is evidence that trans people could be your allies. You both want the right to control your identity. You want to start with a blank slate. Nonbinary people also want to start with a blank slate. Binary trans people don't mind using one of the two existing templates, but don't want to have to use the one they were assigned at birth. Why shouldn't you be on the same side?
Trans people reinforce and give legitimacy to gender roles.
Nonbinary people are not crushers. They drew a line within the box and pretended it separated them from the others. Nonbinary requires the existence of a binary to exist. Gender abolition would make this category entirely meaningless.
We want the templates to stop existing, period. Not to add templates. Not to slightly change them. To END them.
Transitioning is a way to "correct" a feminine boy or a masculine boy. This, until recently, was usually correlated with either homosexuality or autism. Trans people perform gender to pass as the other sex. Trans people identify with social norms because you cannot know the qualia of another group, or even just person.
What does it mean to be a woman? How do you identify as one? Is this feeling in your head shared by all, most, many, any women? Where were trans women when women didn't have rights? We have records of gay and lesbian people before they had rights, even in times and places where they risked being killed. Why are so many of the so-called predecessors to trans people just homosexual people being alienated from their sex or some form of sex slaves?
What is happening, to whom, and why?
"Nonbinary requires tye existence of the binary to exist"
I'm sorry I just don't see how that's true. Yes, the words "non binary" are meaningless without a binary, but it's not like the life of a nonbinary person would change if gender disappeared overnight. They would remain the same people who seek to define themselves.
As an analogy, take the Amish. The Amish are "non technological". They define themselves based on their refusal to use modern technology. They do not, however, need us to use technology to retain their way of life. If technology was abolished one day, the Amish would just carry on. There's no reason they'd need to have an identity crisis. Why do nonbinary people need the gender binary to exist?
Before I delete this app for the weekend:
Transwomen, I have a genuine, good faith question from a radfem. And this is legit good faith. We are not attracted to you, lesbians. Or, as you believe, TERF lesbians. Even, let's say, if it was bigoted to not want to date you... why do you try to push OUR boundaries, specifically? Isn't that counterintuitive?
You talk all day about the trans community wing stereotyped as predators. I even agree there's a kernel of truth there, though I personally believe it's not the trans thing, but because that's how GNC people themselves are seen. What do you think trying to slip through someone's boundaries will do for that? I don't think it'll help.
Also, just... If you really believe we idealogically hate you for existing and want you dead, a relationship with a radfem would, theoretically, end in you being abused by us. Why would you put yourself at risk? That's considered emotional self harm, and I don't speak for all of us, but I don't want to be the blade you use to hurt yourself via dating someone you're concerned wants you dead.
Again, this is legitimately me asking in good faith. I don't understand why you push for lesbian radfems to re-evaluate our sexual orientations to include you if we're so unsafe to you.
Have a good day/night. Stay safe and warm during this cold spell and, depending where you are, potential bomb cyclone. I heard those are like snow hurricanes.
I am not trans and was not invited, I am going to answer anyways.
Trans women don't want to date you, not really. But they hate that you rule them out, because it means you don't see them as women. Trans women really want to feel like women, and when terf lesbians refuse to date them it feels the same as terf lesbians telling them they aren't women, because that's what it is.
Why do trans women care about the opinions of terfs so much? Because when terfs invalidate trans women it feels like betrayal. Terfs are largely leftist, or could be leftist, if not for their lack of acceptance of trans people. They feel so close to being allies, yet right at the finish line they turn on trans women and say no, not you. Betrayal is a much more emotionally motivating feeling than just being the target of hate. It's why trans people and terfs fight so much more online than trans people and white supremacists and neonazis. It's why they hate JK Rowling so much more than Ron DeSantis. It's the betrayal. Someone whose validation would mean so much to you, left-leaning lesbian women, being replaced with hate and scorn. Trans women date each other all the time, but if a trans woman dates a cis lesbian, she can be secure in the knowledge that a cis person is validating her gender identity, rather than another trans woman who has reason to validate the other, to get that validation in return.
Do you think it's possible for someone to be attracted to cis women, not attracted to trans women, and not a bigot?
Yes, it's possible. No one controls their attraction.
However, if you aren't attracted to trans women because the thought of them or the thought of intimacy with them repulses you, it might be worth reflecting on where that impulse comes from.
OK so let's say purely hypothetically if that a young woman's first exposure to the gay community is in 2016, when the popular narrative is that trans women are absolutely women and any person who is attracted to cis women must be attracted to trans women, and let's say she dates trans women but doesn't feel a spark or any sort of chemistry, but persists anyway because she knows that it's cruel to exclude them, cruel and bigoted to be repulsed by them, and yet whenever the idea of being intimate comes up it leaves her totally cold and feels like a chore...
And she falls in love with cis women and AFAB people but not trans women...
And she fantasizes about characteristics that AFAB people have or tend to have...
And she finds she gets along with AFAB people better...
And is excited by the idea of dating someone who shares her own experiences of growing up and living as an AFAB person....
if all this happens, do you think it might be fair to say that people like her deserve to have their natural orientation respected? that they should have language and community and culture for themselves, that they don't need to share with people they aren't attracted to?
Is it possible that such a woman might, without wishing pain or suffering or loss of human rights upon any person in the world, might just dream of being able to openly talk about her orientation and openly seek only partners she is actually interested in, without being accused of wishing genocide on anyone, or in the best case scenario, endlessly being asked to question and ruminate upon and analyze her own involuntary sexuality?
Thank you for your time.
Yes, that would be fine. I'm sorry if you felt compelled to have a relationship with someone you weren't attracted to. No one ever has an obligation to give intimacy to anyone they don't want to.
In the original post I never meant to imply that all cis lesbians need to be willing to date trans lesbians. I'm just giving my own understanding of why a trans lesbian might feel a yearning for the love and acceptance of a cis lesbian.
When I've seen this topic brought up in trans spaces it normally goes the same way. "Yes, we wish all cis lesbians would consider us. No, we don't expect them to, nor do we think they must hate us if they don't find us attractive. We understand attraction isn't something you can control."
guys last year was great but how about this pride month, to really own the terfs, we get a really good faith and honest understanding of their ideology and then totally destroy them by filling their tags a clear and scientifically/logically backed reasoning of why we disagree with them!! and if they dare argue we should reply in good faith and consider how their criticism of our ideology harms them! i dont think anyone has ever done this before so they would have nooo idea how to handle it! instead of using fascist tactics of silencing them or lying about what they truly believe, we turn their tags into truthful explanations of their beliefs and thoughtful criticism!!! that would be totally awesome and would totally work in our favour
maybe even pick up a radfem book and read it through before taking stuff entirely out of context and lying! this would be so fun
Hello, I will argue with you in good faith if that's what you want. I'll start by asking where you're at.
What's your position on trans people? Is it possible for a person to change their gender? Is changing your gender ever a good thing?
gender as a whole should be abolished, as it’s the foundation of patriarchy. gender is a tool of oppression, used to make women subordinate and submissive, and get men to join the military.
abolishing gender will also abolish gender dysphoria - i wholeheartedly believe it’s the best solution for trans people, compared to accepting that these people are going to be miserable until they spend thousands of dollars on cosmetic surgeries - that’s assuming those surgeries even do effect the misery. realistically speaking, you get hormones, you are happy for 5 minutes before you want top surgery, after that you want bottom, after that you want facial surgeries, then whatever comes next. there’s no end to it most of the time because a male person will always be of the male sex (vice versa). even if you could fully change sex, they’d be dysphoric about the past, the fact that they were born the “wrong” sex.
separate note: maybe be you can change gender - if you look enough like a woman, people who are unaware will treat you like one. gender is a social construct. that doesn’t mean you change sex, and i think women need sex-based protections and rights. bathrooms, changing rooms, prisons etc should be sex-based.
i reject the concept of gender, because it’s patriarchal, so ‘changing’ gender is irrelevant to me. i don’t “identify” with any gender because i don’t “identify” with a tool used to mark me as and shape me into obedient potential property.
current trans ideology reinforces gender roles in the extreme. “i’m wearing a skirt so you must think i’m a woman” “i always like playing with dolls so i must be a woman” “if you don’t want to wear makeup and dresses you must be a man”. it also places this social construct above material reality in terms of importance. the core of a lot of trans theory is the outright denial of sex (which is absurd by the way. i’m not going to waste my time arguing against “oh but words aren’t real so nothing is real” bullshit). what i’m trying to say is reinforcing gender roles is bad, yes. most of the time, changing gender is 99% reliant on gender roles and stereotypes.
tldr maybe you can change gender, and maybe i can do a bank robbery with a fake but realistic-looking gun because they’ll treat my fake gun as a real threat, and socially it’ll be registered as a real weapon. gender is a social construct and it should be abolished. that’s what acknowledging gender as a social construct has always been about - getting rid of it.
Alright, you want to abolish gender, an understandable although lofty goal. I'm going to argue that trans people and trans acceptance is actually a furthering of your goal rather than a reinforcement of traditional gender roles.
So, you want to abolish gender but keep sex. Would it be true to say that what you want is for everyone to be non binary? To not subscribe to the gender binary, and instead do their own thing and decide who they want to be without any preconceived notions passed down from the patriarchal past? It sounds like being agender, or some variation. Nonbinary people are your friends.
Let's talk about patriarchy. Patriarchy rests, broadly, on three justifications. Tradition, religion, and biology. Men are in charge because God said so, men are in charge because that's just how it is, and men are in charge because they're stronger/more logical/whatever other bullshit they make up.
The west has seen disillusionment with religion and tradition for a while now, and I think it's pretty easy to see that your enemy in your quest for gender abolishment (conservatives) are trying to fight against that change. They want to return to tradition, they want to enshrine religion in law. Unfortunately, people are waking up to the fact that religion and law are made up bullshit, so they need to fall back on biology.
Science. Logic and reason. Surely the godless libs won't discard science will they? It's clear that men should be in charge. Look at these studies which show they're biologically stronger, biologically taller, biologically more prone to taking risks, biologically earn higher wages... wait a second, this is bullshit too isn't it? It turns out that men aren't biologically more suited for power and privilege, it's just that patriarchal society protects the privileges of men and preserves that prejudice over time, as feminist science and literature is happy to point out.
Enter trans people. Trans people are the final nail in the coffin of the biology argument. Men and women aren't all that biologically different after all it turns out, at least not in the ways that matter. Yes, there's the penis and vagina difference, but they have the same brains, the same organs, the same thoughts and dreams. If a man can take some pills, dress different, and pass as a woman, then what are we still enshrining patriarchy for? If a woman can change into a man, then men must not be biologically distinct enough merit all the privileges. If gender is mutable, then the last pillar of the foundation of patriarchy, biology, must not be as strong as we think.
What you say about how the skirts and dolls = woman, sports and cars = men thing. Yeah, I get where you're coming from. We shouldn't force anyone into the boy/girl boxes, and saying that men who like skirts and dolls must actually be women seems to reinforce those boxes. I think, though, that trans people do a lot more to destroy those boxes than you're giving them credit for.
I assume you don't want to get rid of skirts and dolls and sports and cars, you just want people to be able to pick and choose which they want without it coming with the rest of the gender baggage. Trans people, broadly, do pick and choose. And they leave what they don't want behind. Talk to some. I get the feeling that when people just start to transition, they feel very insecure in their new identity. A new trans woman will probably get a whole new wardrobe, makeup, do voice training, etc. They share this behavior with cis women who are insecure as well. Trying to prop up their femininity by appealing to gender tropes. Once a trans woman has gotten comfortable with her new identity, she let's down her guard a bit. Starts wearing pants again (hey, they're practical!), picks back up her old "boy" hobbies. Maybe she feels she doesn't need to voice train to be a woman, or shave her legs. These are all things feminists advocate for right? That's what you're advocating for? I've seen trans women go through this journey in real time. The same is true for trans men (probably, I don't know any).
TLDR:
In conclusion, if you want to abolish gender, trans people are your friend. Nonbinary people already lead the charge on gender aboloshment. Trans people are good at dismantling the biological justification of patriarchy. Your concern over the reinforcement of gender norms is understandable, but can be explained by gender insecurity, which mellows out with time and mainstream acceptance. Thank you for reading.
I will also respond in good faith. I think we agree on a lot of points but veer off into different conclusions and also feel you’re missing a few steps.
Feminism is about women’s liberation from patriarchal control, the basis of this is reproductive control. This is done through religion, violence, and misogyny etc, these are the tools, but at the heart of it all is the fact that males are not as important to the human species as females, we need less of them to continue, so over thousands of years men have needed a way to keep control over women.
Gender, when talked about as separate to Sex, is social rules that control our behaviour and keeps us in our places.
You suggest that non binary people are our allies. I don’t see that, as in order for non binary to even be an identity it requires the notion of gender to exist in the first place. Some non binary people may want to escape the Gender rules associated to their Sex but in doing so they’re more akin to a drowning person pushing the person next to the underwear in their attempts to escape. Saying I don’t feel like a woman or a man, therefore I am something else is still validating the idea that the Gender rules are correct.
Equally I can see why you’d use the term agender but this is based on the idea that radical feminists also believe in Gender Ideology, we don’t. We don’t buy into Queer Theory either. So we are talking to each other with two different frameworks on language. We reject the notion of a Gender Identity completely as again that validates the existing patriarchal system. Instead we view ourselves as Female and everything else is about our personality or sexual orientation.
You say males and females are similar, not really, we have very different reactions to medicines, to types of exercise, our bone structure is different, our hormones are different, and so on. To dismiss Sex as not important or not that different is harmful to women’s liberation as we need to acknowledge the Male Default and demolish it. Women’s bodies and needs are different to men’s and it isn’t problematic to acknowledge that, the point is one type body is not inherently more valuable than the other! The world is built to serve males - the patriarchy- and we need to rebuild it to one that see the female body as equally human.
Gender Identity is not the way, it’s a sticking plaster to make yourself feel better under the patriarchy.
Sorry for the delay in my response. I will challenge you points now.
Saying I don’t feel like a woman or a man, therefore I am something else is still validating the idea that the Gender rules are correct.
I don't think that's fair. I've never met a nonbinary person who was supportive of gender roles. If there is a man box and a woman box, and Mr. Patriarchy seeks to keep everyone in the box they were born in, then you are trying to destroy the box from inside while nonbinary people are jumping out of the box. Destroying the box is a permanent solution which would work for everyone, sure, but for those who just want out RIGHT NOW, jumping out of the box seems like the fastest way to do it. Crucially, Mr. Patriarchy now has his attention split between the box-jumpers and the box-destroyers. Trying to drag nonbinary people back into the box so they can help destroy it is a waste of your time. Besides, they're probably already helping to destroy the box from the outside, you just can't see it from where you are.
I don't think that being nonbinary validates that gender roles are correct. Someone who rejects modern medicine and goes their own way (homeopathy, antivax, etc.) does not validate the correctness of medicine. Someone who leaves society to live in the woods alone (trappers, homesteaders, Christopher Thomas Knight) does not validate that civilization is correct. Why should leaving something behind validate it?
You say males and females are similar, not really, we have very different reactions to medicines, to types of exercise, our bone structure is different, our hormones are different, and so on.
True, but my point is that we are not different in a way that matters when it comes to deciding our rights and freedoms. Patriarchy wants to limit our freedom to choose how we dress, what we do for work, who is allowed to hold power, etc. If you accept that a man can become a woman then you lose the foundation of patriarchy, which is that man and woman have preordained and immutable roles. You lose the ideological underpinning which gives you the ability to limit rights and freedoms based on sex.
What you say about cars being designed for men is true. I've read invisible women. I'm aware of the statistical differences between male and female bodies. I believe that the male default needs to be ended.
You want to abolish gender. I think that trans people are your allies in this cause. If you look at your enemies, the people who defend and profit from gender roles, you'll notice that you share them in common with trans people. I believe that is evidence that trans people could be your allies. You both want the right to control your identity. You want to start with a blank slate. Nonbinary people also want to start with a blank slate. Binary trans people don't mind using one of the two existing templates, but don't want to have to use the one they were assigned at birth. Why shouldn't you be on the same side?
Before I delete this app for the weekend:
Transwomen, I have a genuine, good faith question from a radfem. And this is legit good faith. We are not attracted to you, lesbians. Or, as you believe, TERF lesbians. Even, let's say, if it was bigoted to not want to date you... why do you try to push OUR boundaries, specifically? Isn't that counterintuitive?
You talk all day about the trans community wing stereotyped as predators. I even agree there's a kernel of truth there, though I personally believe it's not the trans thing, but because that's how GNC people themselves are seen. What do you think trying to slip through someone's boundaries will do for that? I don't think it'll help.
Also, just... If you really believe we idealogically hate you for existing and want you dead, a relationship with a radfem would, theoretically, end in you being abused by us. Why would you put yourself at risk? That's considered emotional self harm, and I don't speak for all of us, but I don't want to be the blade you use to hurt yourself via dating someone you're concerned wants you dead.
Again, this is legitimately me asking in good faith. I don't understand why you push for lesbian radfems to re-evaluate our sexual orientations to include you if we're so unsafe to you.
Have a good day/night. Stay safe and warm during this cold spell and, depending where you are, potential bomb cyclone. I heard those are like snow hurricanes.
I am not trans and was not invited, I am going to answer anyways.
Trans women don't want to date you, not really. But they hate that you rule them out, because it means you don't see them as women. Trans people really want feel like women, and when terf lesbians refuse to date them it feels the same as terf lesbians telling them they aren't women, because that's what it is.
Why to trans women care about the opinions of terfs so much? Because when terfs invalidate trans women it feels like betrayal. Terfs are largely leftist, or could be leftist, if not for their lack of acceptance of trans people. They feel so close to being allies, yet right at the finish line they turn on trans women and say no, not you. Betrayal is a much more emotionally motivating feeling than just being the target of hate. It's why trans people and terfs fight so much more online than trans people and like white supremacists and neonazis. It's why they hate JK Rowling so much more than Ron DeSantis. It's the betrayal. Someone whose validation would mean so much to you, left-leaning lesbian women, being replaced with hate and scorn. Trans women date each other all the time, but if a trans woman dates a cis lesbian, she can be secure in the knowledge that a cis person is validating her gender identity, rather than another trans woman who has reason to validate the other, to get that validation in return.
this is genuinely so nice because i absolutely never see people acknowledge that radical feminism is a leftist stance. it's always "you're an ultraconservative fascist". what a breath of fresh air. i appreciate how earnest this is too, i don't think they themselves would acknowledge the hurt feeling all that often
i do not know where you yourself stand on these motivations, but here are some follow-up questions:
1) what makes not supporting the current demands of the trans community a regressive / un-leftist stance? is it truly a lapse in political consistency, or is radical feminists' opposition to the trans community and movement's agenda potentially consistent with their opposition to patriarchal male power? is every demand of a group facing prejudice reasonable based simply on the fact that they face prejudice?
2) is it possible to support someone's basic rights and a fight for safety and self-determination without "seeing" them a certain way / accepting their ideology in full, including not "seeing" them as a gender different from their sex?
3) is it a fair / humanizing practice to treat your partner as a "source" of anything other than mutual affection and support? when you pursue a relationship, romantic or platonic, what are you after? is it connection on the basis of shared humanity? or is it "validation" on the basis of what your partner represents, not who they are as a person?
what does it say about the state of mind of a transfem, that women - especially lesbian women - are reduced to a source and an object, tokenized, aren't engaged with as equal human beings, but instead are abstract wells of affirmation and validation? the latter is more of a leading question - your interpretation might differ - but i hope you see what i mean here.
you are welcome to reply or not (idk if i myself will keep going), but i'd like for you to sit with these at least 👍🏻
Thanks for the response, sorry I took so long to get back to you.
what makes not supporting the current demands of the trans community a regressive / un-leftist stance?
Leftism is a pretty wide collection of beliefs, but most of them boil down to a desire for equality. Equality in rights for all peoples, equality in opportunity, equality in wealth, equality in protections. Leftism is the fight for outcasts, those who have less and are seen as lesser. Because of that, it is supported by a coalition of outcast peoples. Black, indigineous, Muslim, women, gay, etc.
Trans people are often outcasts. Trans people are discriminated against in hiring. Trans people face obstacles to getting both gender affirming healthcare and general healthcare. These are problems they share with other oppressed groups, so it makes sense for leftism to fold them into its coalition to strengthen in in the battle for all its outcasts.
Because leftism is a coalition, it is vulnerable to internal conflict. If one group within it hates another, it fractures and loses power. The conflict between radfems and trans people hurts leftism, and so trans people see radfeminism as regressive.
Furthermore, radfems can often fall into regressive or un-leftist ways of thinking. Kelly Jay-Keen is willing to ally with neo-nazis to further her goals, JK Rowling will ally with homophobic organizations like the heritage foundation and platforms people like Matt Walsh and Emma Nicholson. Seeing prominent radfems pal up with fascists, and then the rest of the radfem community circle the wagons around those radfems, gives radical feminism a regressive character.
So, which of the current demands of the trans community are leftist? Well, any that demand equal legal protections, like for employment or housing. The demand for easier access to gender-affirming healthcare is leftist. The demand for the ability to change their ID and documentation to show their preferred gender is leftist so long as you believe transgenderism is valid.
I imagine you're worried about trans women's demand to be given access to women's bathrooms, and to that I say there is nuance. This isn't really a left or right question, it's just fundamentally whether or not you think that trans identities are real and valid, or if all trans women are just cosplaying. Either way, I think it's worth noting that the fear of predators gaining access to the women's bathroom is real and valid, but that trans women shouldn't pay the price for the misdeeds of predators.
Finally, radfeminist thought often reproduces oppressive gender roles. If you're hyper aware of predatory trans women using the women's bathroom you're likely to call the cops on a masculine-looking woman. If the law says you can only use the bathroom of your assigned sex at birth, then trans men using the women's bathroom will also have the cops called on them. It seems the only way then to use the women's bathroom is to be feminine.
2. is it possible to support someone's basic rights and a fight for safety and self-determination without "seeing" them a certain way / accepting their ideology in full, including not "seeing" them as a gender different from their sex?
Everything is possible.
Is it going to happen though? What are "basic rights"? I think that trans people would argue that the ability to use a public bathroom is a basic right, but if you reject gender ideology then you're probably going to reject the notion that trans people use the bathroom matching their chosen gender. If you reject gender ideology, what "basic rights" can you still be in favour of? Can you be against conversion therapy? Can you support government ID change? Can you support increasing accessibility to gender-affirming healthcare to adults? To kids? Which basic rights are you able to fight for, while still holding onto the belief that transgenderism is a farce?
3) is it a fair / humanizing practice to treat your partner as a "source" of anything other than mutual affection and support? when you pursue a relationship, romantic or platonic, what are you after? is it connection on the basis of shared humanity? or is it "validation" on the basis of what your partner represents, not who they are as a person?
Let's not conflate an understandable desire for something with it being good and healthy long term. There is a difference between me explaining why something happens versus saying it should happen.
Regardless, I think it is fair, since you can love someone for more than one reason. People get all sorts of things from relationships. Companionship, affection, security, or even validation in your gender. Cishet people get gender euphoria from dating the opposite sex, why not trans lesbians?
Of course, if you treat your partner as an abstract source of validation then you are mistreating them. You are putting them on a pedestal. You are in love with the idea of them, and do not see them as themselves. This is not a trans-exclusive outcome, it can happen in any relationship.
I hope I've given a fair response to each of your questions. If I sounded rude or dismissive somewhere then that's my mistake.
Before I delete this app for the weekend:
Transwomen, I have a genuine, good faith question from a radfem. And this is legit good faith. We are not attracted to you, lesbians. Or, as you believe, TERF lesbians. Even, let's say, if it was bigoted to not want to date you... why do you try to push OUR boundaries, specifically? Isn't that counterintuitive?
You talk all day about the trans community wing stereotyped as predators. I even agree there's a kernel of truth there, though I personally believe it's not the trans thing, but because that's how GNC people themselves are seen. What do you think trying to slip through someone's boundaries will do for that? I don't think it'll help.
Also, just... If you really believe we idealogically hate you for existing and want you dead, a relationship with a radfem would, theoretically, end in you being abused by us. Why would you put yourself at risk? That's considered emotional self harm, and I don't speak for all of us, but I don't want to be the blade you use to hurt yourself via dating someone you're concerned wants you dead.
Again, this is legitimately me asking in good faith. I don't understand why you push for lesbian radfems to re-evaluate our sexual orientations to include you if we're so unsafe to you.
Have a good day/night. Stay safe and warm during this cold spell and, depending where you are, potential bomb cyclone. I heard those are like snow hurricanes.
I am not trans and was not invited, I am going to answer anyways.
Trans women don't want to date you, not really. But they hate that you rule them out, because it means you don't see them as women. Trans women really want to feel like women, and when terf lesbians refuse to date them it feels the same as terf lesbians telling them they aren't women, because that's what it is.
Why do trans women care about the opinions of terfs so much? Because when terfs invalidate trans women it feels like betrayal. Terfs are largely leftist, or could be leftist, if not for their lack of acceptance of trans people. They feel so close to being allies, yet right at the finish line they turn on trans women and say no, not you. Betrayal is a much more emotionally motivating feeling than just being the target of hate. It's why trans people and terfs fight so much more online than trans people and white supremacists and neonazis. It's why they hate JK Rowling so much more than Ron DeSantis. It's the betrayal. Someone whose validation would mean so much to you, left-leaning lesbian women, being replaced with hate and scorn. Trans women date each other all the time, but if a trans woman dates a cis lesbian, she can be secure in the knowledge that a cis person is validating her gender identity, rather than another trans woman who has reason to validate the other, to get that validation in return.
Do you think it's possible for someone to be attracted to cis women, not attracted to trans women, and not a bigot?
Yes, it's possible. No one controls their attraction.
However, if you aren't attracted to trans women because the thought of them or the thought of intimacy with them repulses you, it might be worth reflecting on where that impulse comes from.
Before I delete this app for the weekend:
Transwomen, I have a genuine, good faith question from a radfem. And this is legit good faith. We are not attracted to you, lesbians. Or, as you believe, TERF lesbians. Even, let's say, if it was bigoted to not want to date you... why do you try to push OUR boundaries, specifically? Isn't that counterintuitive?
You talk all day about the trans community wing stereotyped as predators. I even agree there's a kernel of truth there, though I personally believe it's not the trans thing, but because that's how GNC people themselves are seen. What do you think trying to slip through someone's boundaries will do for that? I don't think it'll help.
Also, just... If you really believe we idealogically hate you for existing and want you dead, a relationship with a radfem would, theoretically, end in you being abused by us. Why would you put yourself at risk? That's considered emotional self harm, and I don't speak for all of us, but I don't want to be the blade you use to hurt yourself via dating someone you're concerned wants you dead.
Again, this is legitimately me asking in good faith. I don't understand why you push for lesbian radfems to re-evaluate our sexual orientations to include you if we're so unsafe to you.
Have a good day/night. Stay safe and warm during this cold spell and, depending where you are, potential bomb cyclone. I heard those are like snow hurricanes.
I am not trans and was not invited, I am going to answer anyways.
Trans women don't want to date you, not really. But they hate that you rule them out, because it means you don't see them as women. Trans women really want to feel like women, and when terf lesbians refuse to date them it feels the same as terf lesbians telling them they aren't women, because that's what it is.
Why do trans women care about the opinions of terfs so much? Because when terfs invalidate trans women it feels like betrayal. Terfs are largely leftist, or could be leftist, if not for their lack of acceptance of trans people. They feel so close to being allies, yet right at the finish line they turn on trans women and say no, not you. Betrayal is a much more emotionally motivating feeling than just being the target of hate. It's why trans people and terfs fight so much more online than trans people and white supremacists and neonazis. It's why they hate JK Rowling so much more than Ron DeSantis. It's the betrayal. Someone whose validation would mean so much to you, left-leaning lesbian women, being replaced with hate and scorn. Trans women date each other all the time, but if a trans woman dates a cis lesbian, she can be secure in the knowledge that a cis person is validating her gender identity, rather than another trans woman who has reason to validate the other, to get that validation in return.
guys last year was great but how about this pride month, to really own the terfs, we get a really good faith and honest understanding of their ideology and then totally destroy them by filling their tags a clear and scientifically/logically backed reasoning of why we disagree with them!! and if they dare argue we should reply in good faith and consider how their criticism of our ideology harms them! i dont think anyone has ever done this before so they would have nooo idea how to handle it! instead of using fascist tactics of silencing them or lying about what they truly believe, we turn their tags into truthful explanations of their beliefs and thoughtful criticism!!! that would be totally awesome and would totally work in our favour
maybe even pick up a radfem book and read it through before taking stuff entirely out of context and lying! this would be so fun
Hello, I will argue with you in good faith if that's what you want. I'll start by asking where you're at.
What's your position on trans people? Is it possible for a person to change their gender? Is changing your gender ever a good thing?
gender as a whole should be abolished, as it’s the foundation of patriarchy. gender is a tool of oppression, used to make women subordinate and submissive, and get men to join the military.
abolishing gender will also abolish gender dysphoria - i wholeheartedly believe it’s the best solution for trans people, compared to accepting that these people are going to be miserable until they spend thousands of dollars on cosmetic surgeries - that’s assuming those surgeries even do effect the misery. realistically speaking, you get hormones, you are happy for 5 minutes before you want top surgery, after that you want bottom, after that you want facial surgeries, then whatever comes next. there’s no end to it most of the time because a male person will always be of the male sex (vice versa). even if you could fully change sex, they’d be dysphoric about the past, the fact that they were born the “wrong” sex.
separate note: maybe be you can change gender - if you look enough like a woman, people who are unaware will treat you like one. gender is a social construct. that doesn’t mean you change sex, and i think women need sex-based protections and rights. bathrooms, changing rooms, prisons etc should be sex-based.
i reject the concept of gender, because it’s patriarchal, so ‘changing’ gender is irrelevant to me. i don’t “identify” with any gender because i don’t “identify” with a tool used to mark me as and shape me into obedient potential property.
current trans ideology reinforces gender roles in the extreme. “i’m wearing a skirt so you must think i’m a woman” “i always like playing with dolls so i must be a woman” “if you don’t want to wear makeup and dresses you must be a man”. it also places this social construct above material reality in terms of importance. the core of a lot of trans theory is the outright denial of sex (which is absurd by the way. i’m not going to waste my time arguing against “oh but words aren’t real so nothing is real” bullshit). what i’m trying to say is reinforcing gender roles is bad, yes. most of the time, changing gender is 99% reliant on gender roles and stereotypes.
tldr maybe you can change gender, and maybe i can do a bank robbery with a fake but realistic-looking gun because they’ll treat my fake gun as a real threat, and socially it’ll be registered as a real weapon. gender is a social construct and it should be abolished. that’s what acknowledging gender as a social construct has always been about - getting rid of it.
Alright, you want to abolish gender, an understandable although lofty goal. I'm going to argue that trans people and trans acceptance is actually a furthering of your goal rather than a reinforcement of traditional gender roles.
So, you want to abolish gender but keep sex. Would it be true to say that what you want is for everyone to be non binary? To not subscribe to the gender binary, and instead do their own thing and decide who they want to be without any preconceived notions passed down from the patriarchal past? It sounds like being agender, or some variation. Nonbinary people are your friends.
Let's talk about patriarchy. Patriarchy rests, broadly, on three justifications. Tradition, religion, and biology. Men are in charge because God said so, men are in charge because that's just how it is, and men are in charge because they're stronger/more logical/whatever other bullshit they make up.
The west has seen disillusionment with religion and tradition for a while now, and I think it's pretty easy to see that your enemy in your quest for gender abolishment (conservatives) are trying to fight against that change. They want to return to tradition, they want to enshrine religion in law. Unfortunately, people are waking up to the fact that religion and law are made up bullshit, so they need to fall back on biology.
Science. Logic and reason. Surely the godless libs won't discard science will they? It's clear that men should be in charge. Look at these studies which show they're biologically stronger, biologically taller, biologically more prone to taking risks, biologically earn higher wages... wait a second, this is bullshit too isn't it? It turns out that men aren't biologically more suited for power and privilege, it's just that patriarchal society protects the privileges of men and preserves that prejudice over time, as feminist science and literature is happy to point out.
Enter trans people. Trans people are the final nail in the coffin of the biology argument. Men and women aren't all that biologically different after all it turns out, at least not in the ways that matter. Yes, there's the penis and vagina difference, but they have the same brains, the same organs, the same thoughts and dreams. If a man can take some pills, dress different, and pass as a woman, then what are we still enshrining patriarchy for? If a woman can change into a man, then men must not be biologically distinct enough merit all the privileges. If gender is mutable, then the last pillar of the foundation of patriarchy, biology, must not be as strong as we think.
What you say about how the skirts and dolls = woman, sports and cars = men thing. Yeah, I get where you're coming from. We shouldn't force anyone into the boy/girl boxes, and saying that men who like skirts and dolls must actually be women seems to reinforce those boxes. I think, though, that trans people do a lot more to destroy those boxes than you're giving them credit for.
I assume you don't want to get rid of skirts and dolls and sports and cars, you just want people to be able to pick and choose which they want without it coming with the rest of the gender baggage. Trans people, broadly, do pick and choose. And they leave what they don't want behind. Talk to some. I get the feeling that when people just start to transition, they feel very insecure in their new identity. A new trans woman will probably get a whole new wardrobe, makeup, do voice training, etc. They share this behavior with cis women who are insecure as well. Trying to prop up their femininity by appealing to gender tropes. Once a trans woman has gotten comfortable with her new identity, she let's down her guard a bit. Starts wearing pants again (hey, they're practical!), picks back up her old "boy" hobbies. Maybe she feels she doesn't need to voice train to be a woman, or shave her legs. These are all things feminists advocate for right? That's what you're advocating for? I've seen trans women go through this journey in real time. The same is true for trans men (probably, I don't know any).
TLDR:
In conclusion, if you want to abolish gender, trans people are your friend. Nonbinary people already lead the charge on gender aboloshment. Trans people are good at dismantling the biological justification of patriarchy. Your concern over the reinforcement of gender norms is understandable, but can be explained by gender insecurity, which mellows out with time and mainstream acceptance. Thank you for reading.
guys last year was great but how about this pride month, to really own the terfs, we get a really good faith and honest understanding of their ideology and then totally destroy them by filling their tags a clear and scientifically/logically backed reasoning of why we disagree with them!! and if they dare argue we should reply in good faith and consider how their criticism of our ideology harms them! i dont think anyone has ever done this before so they would have nooo idea how to handle it! instead of using fascist tactics of silencing them or lying about what they truly believe, we turn their tags into truthful explanations of their beliefs and thoughtful criticism!!! that would be totally awesome and would totally work in our favour
maybe even pick up a radfem book and read it through before taking stuff entirely out of context and lying! this would be so fun
Hello, I will argue with you in good faith if that's what you want. I'll start by asking where you're at.
What's your position on trans people? Is it possible for a person to change their gender? Is changing your gender ever a good thing?
A chronically online TRA found time to manually add over 500 of us to a blocklist, they’re way too obsessed with us, this is deranged behavior.
Jokes on OP though, this is backfiring on them because now I’m going to use this list to find women to follow.
Isn't this the exact behavior terfs want to see? Quietly and non-confrontationally blocking people they don't want to interact with? Why mock this?
Why mock someone that entered a community just to manually add 500 usernames to a blocklist? Because that’s weird as hell? I get trans supportive communities recommended to me often, but you don’t see me trying to enter the Queer Anti-Capitalists community to make a public blocklist of their users.
Also in no way is this a quiet or non-confrontational way to act. OP knew that posting this would incite harassment against our accounts.
@always-polite in what world do you call a massive post shared "quietly and nonconfrontationally blocking people they don't want to interact with"?
Did you know that, when the masterlist OP became aware I knew of the blocklist, the reaction was to tell their followers "Friendly reminder that her asks are open." In what world is that nonconfrontational? In what world is that not inviting harassment? "Quietly and nonconfrontationally blocking accounts they don't want to interact with" would mean them blocking us, and Maybe sharing the usernames of people in PRIVATE MESSAGES.
C'mon now, you can't seriously be this dense.
I didn't know they said your asks are open. My reaction was based on what was included in the screenshots, where the OP says they will delete the post if it's used to incite harassment. If they hinted that their followers could send you hate mail then I'm sorry, that sucks and they shouldn't have done that.
@its-terf-or-nothin
You say they are obsessed, but so far as I can tell they made and used a blocklist specifically to interact less with terfs. That isn't obsessive behavior to me.
A chronically online TRA found time to manually add over 500 of us to a blocklist, they’re way too obsessed with us, this is deranged behavior.
Jokes on OP though, this is backfiring on them because now I’m going to use this list to find women to follow.
Isn't this the exact behavior terfs want to see? Quietly and non-confrontationally blocking people they don't want to interact with? Why mock this?
Synagogues are fine.
The rest are not compatible with western culture
I'm assuming you're referring to Islam. Is there anything which you object to in the Quaran which one could not find an equivalent of in the Bible? Or which progressive Muslims do not ignore?
I think it's unfair to deny to certain people their freedom of religion because of outdated parts of their religion which they ignore, when there are plenty of old-testament elements of Christianity which we ignore as well.
Sahih al-Bukhari 2658
Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind."
Sahih al-Bukhari 29
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said: "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful." It was asked, "Do they disbelieve in Allah?" (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, "They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, 'I have never received any good from you."
Sahih al-Bukhari 5134
Narrated `Aisha: that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Quran 4:34
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
Sahih Muslim 2167
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:
Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the narrowest part of it.
Quran 4:89
They wish you would disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so you may all be alike. So do not take them as allies unless they emigrate in the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take any of them as allies or helpers
Quran 9:29
Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, nor comply with what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth from among those who were given the Scripture, until they pay the tax, willingly submitting, fully humbled
Quran 2:65
You are already aware of those of you who broke the Sabbath [Jews]. We said to them, “Be disgraced apes!”
Quran 5:60
Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Shall I inform you of those who deserve a worse punishment from Allah ˹than the rebellious˺? It is those who earned Allah’s condemnation and displeasure [Jews]—some being reduced to apes and pigs and worshippers of false gods. These are far worse in rank and farther astray from the Right Way.”
Sahih Muslim 2922
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:
The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
Quran 23:5-6
those who guard their chastity except with their wives or those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession, for then they are free from blame
Quran 65:4
As for your women past the age of menstruation, in case you do not know, their waiting period is three months, and those who have not menstruated as well. As for those who are pregnant, their waiting period ends with delivery. And whoever is mindful of Allah, He will make their matters easy for them.
Quran 2:223
Your wives are like farmland for you, so approach them as you please. And send forth something good for yourselves. Be mindful of Allah, and know that you will meet Him. And give good news to the believers.
Sahih al-Bukhari 3237
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning."
Quran 5:51
O believers! Take neither Jews nor Christians as allies—they are allies of each other. Whoever does so will be counted as one of them. Surely Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.
Quran 98:6
Indeed, those who disbelieve from the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the Fire of Hell, to stay there forever. They are the worst of ˹all˺ beings
Sahih al-Bukhari 6878
Narrated `Abdullah:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
Sahih al-Bukhari 6922
Narrated `Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn `Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
Feel free to give these a read
Alright, so there are a few common threads between these. I'll try to list them all.
As you demonstrated, the Quaran says:
1. Women need to shut up and listen to men, and belong to their husbands
2. Non-muslims can be killed indiscriminately
3. Those who leave Islam must he killed
4. Marrying a 6 year old is fine
My goal is now to find passages in the Bible which state the same or similar things. If I am successful then I can prove that Christianity's holy book also has flaws or passages which haven't aged well. Then I will make a case for why we should trust Muslims to cherrypick which parts of their holy book they follow as well as Christians do. This combined should decouple Muslim people's behaviour from the worst parts of the Quaran.
1. Women need to shut up and listen to men, and belong to their husbands
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, you shall bring both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help in the town and the man because he violated his neighbour’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
Corinthians 7:4–5
The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
Corinthians 14:34-35
The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
Matthew 5:28
Everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart
Alright so the bible has verses which say women can't occupy positions of authority over men and verses that say they should be stoned to death for adultery.
2. Non-muslims can be killed indiscriminately
Chronicles 15:12-13
And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.
Luke 19:27
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.
The bible also contains verses which say to treat your enemy with kindness. Old books which are collections of writings by many witnesses tend to be contradictory. The Quaran has similar contradictions.
3. Those who leave Islam must he killed
Deuteronomy 13:6-9
If thy brother, [...] entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him [...]: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God,
Finally,
4. Marrying a 6 year old is fine
The bible admittedly doesn't have a clear verse about this, but the practice among ancient jews was that the minimum age for marriage for girls was puberty, or 12. It should be noted that many of Mohammed's wives were political marriages. He was a political figure and a warlord after all.
Regardless I'm not worried that Muslims are going to come to the west and start trying to reduce the age of consent. Generally, protecting child marriage is a conservative thing .
If we can trust Christians in the west not to try to apply everything in the Bible literally why can't we trust Muslims to do the same? One argument is that muslim-led countries are more backwards than the west. Fewer rights for women or queer people is a common theme. I think it's worth asking though what happens to the convictions of actual immigrants. In my experience, while first generation Muslim immigrants can be just as backwards as you fear, they can also be people who are immigrating in order to flee that kind of society. More optimistically, their children, the second generation, tend to be a lot more liberal than their parents. Many leave Islam or remain only in name. Many stop wearing hijabs and start eating pork. We worry about the corrupting influence of Islam on the west, but we should also remember the corrupting influence on the west of the Islamic people who come here.
There have been waves of immigration to the west over the course of history. The catholics, the Irish, the Germans and the jews, the Japanese and the Chinese, and now the Muslims. Every time the people living here worry that the new group won't assimilate, but a generation down the line the new group is standing with the old, worrying that the next wave won't assimilate. I see no reason why Muslims will be any different.
Great let's go through those verses. And I'll preface this by saying that we are not bound by the Old Covenant so using old covenant verses to say anything about Christianity is misguided. I'll focus on the verses which are applicable the covenant we are bound to
1. Women have to shut up and listen to their husbands
*1* Corinthians 7:4-5
This verse actually shows the equality of marriage in Christianity. The wife is her husband's and the husband is his wife's. This isn't related to the claim, and not comparable to the Islamic teachings I sent
*1* Corinthians 14:34-35
This is to the Church of Corinth, which was having significant issues with women being disruptive during services so they are instructed to ask questions at home afterward instead of during the service. This is again not really comparable to the verses listed above
Matthew 5:28
This verse is telling men to not commit the sin of lust. This has literally nothing to do with the topic, at all.
2. Non-muslims can be killed indiscriminately
Luke 19:27
I find it so interesting that you are using this verse for this and it shows your lack of understanding or actual reading of the Bible.
The full passage is 19:11-27, which is The Parable of the Ten Minas. It is a parable. It isn't a commandment whatsoever. This leads me to believe you either heard this from someone and never looked into it yourself, or just googled "Bible verses that talk about killing non believers" (or used AI) without any further research
3. Those who leave Islam must be killed
You only provided one Old Covenant verse, which we are not bound to anymore, so that cannot be used as a comparison for the Quran
4. Marrying 6 year olds
And as you have admitted, there is no Christian Scripture which permits pedophilia
You don't have to be concerned that Muslims will try to reduce the age of consent in the countries they immigrate to, but we can know that they always do when they have political power. Whether that concerns you or not is your prerogative.
A Christian upholding all New Covenant commandments would result in a good healthy and respectable society. Islam does not as we can see by the various Sharia countries. And of course, people who do disagree with Islamic rule in their countries can flee to western countries to get away from it. And those individuals are often very suspicious of and opposed to Muslims immigrating in high numbers and obtaining political power. It is also definitely true that the children, if immigrating young, do have a higher likelihood of embracing western culture, which is good
I would love for Muslims to assimilate here and I would love for Islam to slowly change away from being what it is now and become more tolerate and civilised. That would be amazing and I seriously hope that happens
I'll admit that I did just Google verses searching for proof of my point, though I didn't use AI.
Christians no longer follow all the old testament teachings. I understand that. My point is that we should allow Muslims the same privilege. The privilege of maintaining a text as holy without holding them accountable for every little horrible passage they contain because it's old and written during a time when misogyny and warfare were rampant.
I have Muslim friends. They didn't try to kill me for not being Muslim. They are normal about women. From this, I know that Muslims are capable of exercising discretion when it comes time to pick and choose which parts of the Quaran to actually listen to.
I also know that some Muslims don't exercise that discretion. Some are evil people who use their religion as an excuse to kill innocent people. This has been true of every major religion and ideology ever. Christians and Muslims and Jews are guilty of all the same crimes and capable of all the same acts of kindness.
Also I don't know what your problem with Hindu temples is Hindus are pretty chill.
Islamic doctrine doesn't allow for covenant theology, whereas it is built into Christianity. Islamic doctrine is considered unchangeable and complete for all times. I would allow for the 'privilege' of covenant theology for Islam but any Muslim would tell you it doesn't work like that
Sure, there are Muslims who are able to ignore aspects of their religion. At the same time, their religion *does* teach that
Im not really a fan of the whole cow urine and feces thing yk?
There are some particularly traditionalist Christians who would disagree with you and say that all parts of the Bible should be taken as law. There are some Muslims who say the whole Quaran should be taken as law. And there are moderates like you and my muslim friends, who roll their eyes at those strict traditionalists and continue about their day. Assert all you like that the truth of Christianity is more nuanced, but you won't be able to find a nuance that Islam does not also share.
Not sure what cow feces thing you're talking about but it doesn't sound important enough to deprive people of their freedom of religion.
Yes, but that isn't doctrinally Christian. Islam teaches that the entire Quran is directly God's word and all of it is unchangeable and must be abided to save for a couple abrogations which none of the verses I provided are part of
I'm not saying that there are no Muslims who pick and choose what to follow in the Quran. I'm saying that Islam doesn't allow for that in its doctrine
> The ancient Mahabharata epic relates that Shri, the Hindu goddess of fortune and prosperity, invisibly resides in the urine and dung of cows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchagavya
The difference in the doctrines of each religion, their allowance for not following its rules, is unimportant when the reality is the followers of both act the same.
The cow dung thing seems unimportant to me. If you eat cheese you're eating carefully spoiled cow milk, which seems weird and gross to outsiders of your culture.
Synagogues are fine.
The rest are not compatible with western culture
I'm assuming you're referring to Islam. Is there anything which you object to in the Quaran which one could not find an equivalent of in the Bible? Or which progressive Muslims do not ignore?
I think it's unfair to deny to certain people their freedom of religion because of outdated parts of their religion which they ignore, when there are plenty of old-testament elements of Christianity which we ignore as well.
Sahih al-Bukhari 2658
Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind."
Sahih al-Bukhari 29
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said: "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful." It was asked, "Do they disbelieve in Allah?" (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, "They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, 'I have never received any good from you."
Sahih al-Bukhari 5134
Narrated `Aisha: that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Quran 4:34
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
Sahih Muslim 2167
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:
Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the narrowest part of it.
Quran 4:89
They wish you would disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so you may all be alike. So do not take them as allies unless they emigrate in the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take any of them as allies or helpers
Quran 9:29
Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, nor comply with what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth from among those who were given the Scripture, until they pay the tax, willingly submitting, fully humbled
Quran 2:65
You are already aware of those of you who broke the Sabbath [Jews]. We said to them, “Be disgraced apes!”
Quran 5:60
Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Shall I inform you of those who deserve a worse punishment from Allah ˹than the rebellious˺? It is those who earned Allah’s condemnation and displeasure [Jews]—some being reduced to apes and pigs and worshippers of false gods. These are far worse in rank and farther astray from the Right Way.”
Sahih Muslim 2922
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:
The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
Quran 23:5-6
those who guard their chastity except with their wives or those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession, for then they are free from blame
Quran 65:4
As for your women past the age of menstruation, in case you do not know, their waiting period is three months, and those who have not menstruated as well. As for those who are pregnant, their waiting period ends with delivery. And whoever is mindful of Allah, He will make their matters easy for them.
Quran 2:223
Your wives are like farmland for you, so approach them as you please. And send forth something good for yourselves. Be mindful of Allah, and know that you will meet Him. And give good news to the believers.
Sahih al-Bukhari 3237
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning."
Quran 5:51
O believers! Take neither Jews nor Christians as allies—they are allies of each other. Whoever does so will be counted as one of them. Surely Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.
Quran 98:6
Indeed, those who disbelieve from the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the Fire of Hell, to stay there forever. They are the worst of ˹all˺ beings
Sahih al-Bukhari 6878
Narrated `Abdullah:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
Sahih al-Bukhari 6922
Narrated `Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn `Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
Feel free to give these a read
Alright, so there are a few common threads between these. I'll try to list them all.
As you demonstrated, the Quaran says:
1. Women need to shut up and listen to men, and belong to their husbands
2. Non-muslims can be killed indiscriminately
3. Those who leave Islam must he killed
4. Marrying a 6 year old is fine
My goal is now to find passages in the Bible which state the same or similar things. If I am successful then I can prove that Christianity's holy book also has flaws or passages which haven't aged well. Then I will make a case for why we should trust Muslims to cherrypick which parts of their holy book they follow as well as Christians do. This combined should decouple Muslim people's behaviour from the worst parts of the Quaran.
1. Women need to shut up and listen to men, and belong to their husbands
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, you shall bring both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help in the town and the man because he violated his neighbour’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
Corinthians 7:4–5
The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
Corinthians 14:34-35
The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
Matthew 5:28
Everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart
Alright so the bible has verses which say women can't occupy positions of authority over men and verses that say they should be stoned to death for adultery.
2. Non-muslims can be killed indiscriminately
Chronicles 15:12-13
And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.
Luke 19:27
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.
The bible also contains verses which say to treat your enemy with kindness. Old books which are collections of writings by many witnesses tend to be contradictory. The Quaran has similar contradictions.
3. Those who leave Islam must he killed
Deuteronomy 13:6-9
If thy brother, [...] entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him [...]: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God,
Finally,
4. Marrying a 6 year old is fine
The bible admittedly doesn't have a clear verse about this, but the practice among ancient jews was that the minimum age for marriage for girls was puberty, or 12. It should be noted that many of Mohammed's wives were political marriages. He was a political figure and a warlord after all.
Regardless I'm not worried that Muslims are going to come to the west and start trying to reduce the age of consent. Generally, protecting child marriage is a conservative thing .
If we can trust Christians in the west not to try to apply everything in the Bible literally why can't we trust Muslims to do the same? One argument is that muslim-led countries are more backwards than the west. Fewer rights for women or queer people is a common theme. I think it's worth asking though what happens to the convictions of actual immigrants. In my experience, while first generation Muslim immigrants can be just as backwards as you fear, they can also be people who are immigrating in order to flee that kind of society. More optimistically, their children, the second generation, tend to be a lot more liberal than their parents. Many leave Islam or remain only in name. Many stop wearing hijabs and start eating pork. We worry about the corrupting influence of Islam on the west, but we should also remember the corrupting influence on the west of the Islamic people who come here.
There have been waves of immigration to the west over the course of history. The catholics, the Irish, the Germans and the jews, the Japanese and the Chinese, and now the Muslims. Every time the people living here worry that the new group won't assimilate, but a generation down the line the new group is standing with the old, worrying that the next wave won't assimilate. I see no reason why Muslims will be any different.
Great let's go through those verses. And I'll preface this by saying that we are not bound by the Old Covenant so using old covenant verses to say anything about Christianity is misguided. I'll focus on the verses which are applicable the covenant we are bound to
1. Women have to shut up and listen to their husbands
*1* Corinthians 7:4-5
This verse actually shows the equality of marriage in Christianity. The wife is her husband's and the husband is his wife's. This isn't related to the claim, and not comparable to the Islamic teachings I sent
*1* Corinthians 14:34-35
This is to the Church of Corinth, which was having significant issues with women being disruptive during services so they are instructed to ask questions at home afterward instead of during the service. This is again not really comparable to the verses listed above
Matthew 5:28
This verse is telling men to not commit the sin of lust. This has literally nothing to do with the topic, at all.
2. Non-muslims can be killed indiscriminately
Luke 19:27
I find it so interesting that you are using this verse for this and it shows your lack of understanding or actual reading of the Bible.
The full passage is 19:11-27, which is The Parable of the Ten Minas. It is a parable. It isn't a commandment whatsoever. This leads me to believe you either heard this from someone and never looked into it yourself, or just googled "Bible verses that talk about killing non believers" (or used AI) without any further research
3. Those who leave Islam must be killed
You only provided one Old Covenant verse, which we are not bound to anymore, so that cannot be used as a comparison for the Quran
4. Marrying 6 year olds
And as you have admitted, there is no Christian Scripture which permits pedophilia
You don't have to be concerned that Muslims will try to reduce the age of consent in the countries they immigrate to, but we can know that they always do when they have political power. Whether that concerns you or not is your prerogative.
A Christian upholding all New Covenant commandments would result in a good healthy and respectable society. Islam does not as we can see by the various Sharia countries. And of course, people who do disagree with Islamic rule in their countries can flee to western countries to get away from it. And those individuals are often very suspicious of and opposed to Muslims immigrating in high numbers and obtaining political power. It is also definitely true that the children, if immigrating young, do have a higher likelihood of embracing western culture, which is good
I would love for Muslims to assimilate here and I would love for Islam to slowly change away from being what it is now and become more tolerate and civilised. That would be amazing and I seriously hope that happens
I'll admit that I did just Google verses searching for proof of my point, though I didn't use AI.
Christians no longer follow all the old testament teachings. I understand that. My point is that we should allow Muslims the same privilege. The privilege of maintaining a text as holy without holding them accountable for every little horrible passage they contain because it's old and written during a time when misogyny and warfare were rampant.
I have Muslim friends. They didn't try to kill me for not being Muslim. They are normal about women. From this, I know that Muslims are capable of exercising discretion when it comes time to pick and choose which parts of the Quaran to actually listen to.
I also know that some Muslims don't exercise that discretion. Some are evil people who use their religion as an excuse to kill innocent people. This has been true of every major religion and ideology ever. Christians and Muslims and Jews are guilty of all the same crimes and capable of all the same acts of kindness.
Also I don't know what your problem with Hindu temples is Hindus are pretty chill.
Islamic doctrine doesn't allow for covenant theology, whereas it is built into Christianity. Islamic doctrine is considered unchangeable and complete for all times. I would allow for the 'privilege' of covenant theology for Islam but any Muslim would tell you it doesn't work like that
Sure, there are Muslims who are able to ignore aspects of their religion. At the same time, their religion *does* teach that
Im not really a fan of the whole cow urine and feces thing yk?
There are some particularly traditionalist Christians who would disagree with you and say that all parts of the Bible should be taken as law. There are some Muslims who say the whole Quaran should be taken as law. And there are moderates like you and my muslim friends, who roll their eyes at those strict traditionalists and continue about their day. Assert all you like that the truth of Christianity is more nuanced, but you won't be able to find a nuance that Islam does not also share.
Not sure what cow feces thing you're talking about but it doesn't sound important enough to deprive people of their freedom of religion.
Synagogues are fine.
The rest are not compatible with western culture
I'm assuming you're referring to Islam. Is there anything which you object to in the Quaran which one could not find an equivalent of in the Bible? Or which progressive Muslims do not ignore?
I think it's unfair to deny to certain people their freedom of religion because of outdated parts of their religion which they ignore, when there are plenty of old-testament elements of Christianity which we ignore as well.
Sahih al-Bukhari 2658
Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind."
Sahih al-Bukhari 29
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said: "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful." It was asked, "Do they disbelieve in Allah?" (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, "They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, 'I have never received any good from you."
Sahih al-Bukhari 5134
Narrated `Aisha: that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Quran 4:34
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
Sahih Muslim 2167
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:
Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the narrowest part of it.
Quran 4:89
They wish you would disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so you may all be alike. So do not take them as allies unless they emigrate in the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take any of them as allies or helpers
Quran 9:29
Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, nor comply with what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth from among those who were given the Scripture, until they pay the tax, willingly submitting, fully humbled
Quran 2:65
You are already aware of those of you who broke the Sabbath [Jews]. We said to them, “Be disgraced apes!”
Quran 5:60
Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Shall I inform you of those who deserve a worse punishment from Allah ˹than the rebellious˺? It is those who earned Allah’s condemnation and displeasure [Jews]—some being reduced to apes and pigs and worshippers of false gods. These are far worse in rank and farther astray from the Right Way.”
Sahih Muslim 2922
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:
The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
Quran 23:5-6
those who guard their chastity except with their wives or those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession, for then they are free from blame
Quran 65:4
As for your women past the age of menstruation, in case you do not know, their waiting period is three months, and those who have not menstruated as well. As for those who are pregnant, their waiting period ends with delivery. And whoever is mindful of Allah, He will make their matters easy for them.
Quran 2:223
Your wives are like farmland for you, so approach them as you please. And send forth something good for yourselves. Be mindful of Allah, and know that you will meet Him. And give good news to the believers.
Sahih al-Bukhari 3237
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning."
Quran 5:51
O believers! Take neither Jews nor Christians as allies—they are allies of each other. Whoever does so will be counted as one of them. Surely Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.
Quran 98:6
Indeed, those who disbelieve from the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the Fire of Hell, to stay there forever. They are the worst of ˹all˺ beings
Sahih al-Bukhari 6878
Narrated `Abdullah:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
Sahih al-Bukhari 6922
Narrated `Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn `Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
Feel free to give these a read
Alright, so there are a few common threads between these. I'll try to list them all.
As you demonstrated, the Quaran says:
1. Women need to shut up and listen to men, and belong to their husbands
2. Non-muslims can be killed indiscriminately
3. Those who leave Islam must he killed
4. Marrying a 6 year old is fine
My goal is now to find passages in the Bible which state the same or similar things. If I am successful then I can prove that Christianity's holy book also has flaws or passages which haven't aged well. Then I will make a case for why we should trust Muslims to cherrypick which parts of their holy book they follow as well as Christians do. This combined should decouple Muslim people's behaviour from the worst parts of the Quaran.
1. Women need to shut up and listen to men, and belong to their husbands
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, you shall bring both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help in the town and the man because he violated his neighbour’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
Corinthians 7:4–5
The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
Corinthians 14:34-35
The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
Matthew 5:28
Everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart
Alright so the bible has verses which say women can't occupy positions of authority over men and verses that say they should be stoned to death for adultery.
2. Non-muslims can be killed indiscriminately
Chronicles 15:12-13
And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.
Luke 19:27
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.
The bible also contains verses which say to treat your enemy with kindness. Old books which are collections of writings by many witnesses tend to be contradictory. The Quaran has similar contradictions.
3. Those who leave Islam must he killed
Deuteronomy 13:6-9
If thy brother, [...] entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him [...]: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God,
Finally,
4. Marrying a 6 year old is fine
The bible admittedly doesn't have a clear verse about this, but the practice among ancient jews was that the minimum age for marriage for girls was puberty, or 12. It should be noted that many of Mohammed's wives were political marriages. He was a political figure and a warlord after all.
Regardless I'm not worried that Muslims are going to come to the west and start trying to reduce the age of consent. Generally, protecting child marriage is a conservative thing .
If we can trust Christians in the west not to try to apply everything in the Bible literally why can't we trust Muslims to do the same? One argument is that muslim-led countries are more backwards than the west. Fewer rights for women or queer people is a common theme. I think it's worth asking though what happens to the convictions of actual immigrants. In my experience, while first generation Muslim immigrants can be just as backwards as you fear, they can also be people who are immigrating in order to flee that kind of society. More optimistically, their children, the second generation, tend to be a lot more liberal than their parents. Many leave Islam or remain only in name. Many stop wearing hijabs and start eating pork. We worry about the corrupting influence of Islam on the west, but we should also remember the corrupting influence on the west of the Islamic people who come here.
There have been waves of immigration to the west over the course of history. The catholics, the Irish, the Germans and the jews, the Japanese and the Chinese, and now the Muslims. Every time the people living here worry that the new group won't assimilate, but a generation down the line the new group is standing with the old, worrying that the next wave won't assimilate. I see no reason why Muslims will be any different.
Great let's go through those verses. And I'll preface this by saying that we are not bound by the Old Covenant so using old covenant verses to say anything about Christianity is misguided. I'll focus on the verses which are applicable the covenant we are bound to
1. Women have to shut up and listen to their husbands
*1* Corinthians 7:4-5
This verse actually shows the equality of marriage in Christianity. The wife is her husband's and the husband is his wife's. This isn't related to the claim, and not comparable to the Islamic teachings I sent
*1* Corinthians 14:34-35
This is to the Church of Corinth, which was having significant issues with women being disruptive during services so they are instructed to ask questions at home afterward instead of during the service. This is again not really comparable to the verses listed above
Matthew 5:28
This verse is telling men to not commit the sin of lust. This has literally nothing to do with the topic, at all.
2. Non-muslims can be killed indiscriminately
Luke 19:27
I find it so interesting that you are using this verse for this and it shows your lack of understanding or actual reading of the Bible.
The full passage is 19:11-27, which is The Parable of the Ten Minas. It is a parable. It isn't a commandment whatsoever. This leads me to believe you either heard this from someone and never looked into it yourself, or just googled "Bible verses that talk about killing non believers" (or used AI) without any further research
3. Those who leave Islam must be killed
You only provided one Old Covenant verse, which we are not bound to anymore, so that cannot be used as a comparison for the Quran
4. Marrying 6 year olds
And as you have admitted, there is no Christian Scripture which permits pedophilia
You don't have to be concerned that Muslims will try to reduce the age of consent in the countries they immigrate to, but we can know that they always do when they have political power. Whether that concerns you or not is your prerogative.
A Christian upholding all New Covenant commandments would result in a good healthy and respectable society. Islam does not as we can see by the various Sharia countries. And of course, people who do disagree with Islamic rule in their countries can flee to western countries to get away from it. And those individuals are often very suspicious of and opposed to Muslims immigrating in high numbers and obtaining political power. It is also definitely true that the children, if immigrating young, do have a higher likelihood of embracing western culture, which is good
I would love for Muslims to assimilate here and I would love for Islam to slowly change away from being what it is now and become more tolerate and civilised. That would be amazing and I seriously hope that happens
I'll admit that I did just Google verses searching for proof of my point, though I didn't use AI.
Christians no longer follow all the old testament teachings. I understand that. My point is that we should allow Muslims the same privilege. The privilege of maintaining a text as holy without holding them accountable for every little horrible passage they contain because it's old and written during a time when misogyny and warfare were rampant.
I have Muslim friends. They didn't try to kill me for not being Muslim. They are normal about women. From this, I know that Muslims are capable of exercising discretion when it comes time to pick and choose which parts of the Quaran to actually listen to.
I also know that some Muslims don't exercise that discretion. Some are evil people who use their religion as an excuse to kill innocent people. This has been true of every major religion and ideology ever. Christians and Muslims and Jews are guilty of all the same crimes and capable of all the same acts of kindness.
Also I don't know what your problem with Hindu temples is Hindus are pretty chill.
