Transgendered people and theology

[SierraLea]

I've been reading Wandering Son and it speaks a lot about transgendered people, something I've been wondering about since I learned about it in my Abnormal Psychology class in college. How do different religions view these individuals?

[Lynna]

You mean religions other than Christianity?

[SierraLea]

I mean religions besides Catholicism. I can find out what their take is myself, but I wanted to get a bigger picture.

[Xeno]

If you're wanting the views of other Christian groups, then the term you want to use is "denomination" and not religion, since Catholics are the same religion as Protestants - Christian.

As far as the question you're asking, having my heavy oneness Pentecostal background, I can tell you that they generally do not accept trans people due to the belief that they are rejection the nature that god gave them. If a post-op transsexual were to begin attending services they may let them in, but they wouldn't allow them to have any roles doing anything important. They would concede that god could forgive the person's "sins" but they would not condone the person having relationships with anyone.

[Lynna]

I mean religions besides Catholicism. I can find out what their take is myself, but I wanted to get a bigger picture.

... Yeah, you don't want to call other denominations other religions unless you want to offend someone.
I'm non-denominational. Honestly, I think the various reaction would differ from person to person in my church, though the majority of them would probably respond as being slightly uncomfortable and if the transgendered person was a christian, they may not be as accepting, though probably not as harsh as what Xeno described.
Personally, I don't particularly care. I believe in loving people where they're at without judging them, and unless I feel like I'm in a position where I can talk to them about it, it's probably none of my business and hopefully they're already talking about it with God.

[Vega]

Xeno is right. When I was a christian I was bounced between very conservative churches and quite laid back one and in that time I saw that there were transgendered people present at services and overall they were received decently. At least decent for religious people. But still none were allowed to take any integral roles in the church.

[SierraLea]

Thanks. Your responses actually make a lot of sense.

[Xeno]

I want to go ahead and make it clear that I don't agree with the oneness pentecostal opinion here. I personally find it to be appalling and think everyone should be treated as equals, but was sharing it because it was requested.

[Jingo Jaden]

Eh, historically speaking the issue never really had any prevalent historical mentions in ancient Judea. The single largest 'equivalent' I can think of is perhaps some of the references to Alexander the great, who was well known for his eccentric lifestyle both prior and after reaching Babylon. I mean strictly judicially in ancient Judea just about any non standard sexual aspects stood strongly supressed, sometimes on pain of death. Though strictly judicially speaking it was conquered several times, and the Romans/Babylonians enacted codes of law that was generally lenient, but the compromise was always granting some provinicial power to Mohelms and other clergy, which were fond of extremely strict laws of clothing and could very easily condem someone to death, with a court, for asthetic/behavioral reasons, which if such a situation arose, would probably be dealt with swiftly. Though again, the road to Babylon was quite open for some time, and Ancient Babylon had no scrouples when it came to hedonistic tendencies of all stripes, meaning that was the place to flee if one had unorthordox sexuality-related tendencies that was dissuaded at home, and it is almost certain that nobles of many nations must have taken upon that road so I would not be suprised if there was some anicent history that could give spesific examples, but strictly speaking, I very much doubt the practice would have survived in ancient Judea. In modern Israel today it is pretty much the most open place in the middle east for gay rights, and as far as theologically the judean religion goes in modern interpretations, I'd say it depends very much on which denomination one goes to. Orthordox jews would probably despise it, and others would be far more open to the idea of personal interpretation.

As far as Christianity goes it is sadly even less illuminated. There are no core 'scriptual' matters on the question and the closest that is hinted on is homosexual relations, which is a no-no in both ancient and modern interpretations of the bible. It speaks absolutely nothing about a man feeling as if he was a woman or the other way around. So cis/pan/MtF/FtM topics are absolutely without any references from Christ or the apostles, though as far as Catholisism goes I would not be suprised to see older texts detailing their thoughts on the matter. Probably negative as in all matters lacking direct interpretations, they generally attempt to reflect on what is natural and I doubt they would have considered people who considered themselves transgendered as such. I am not the most versed on Orthordox history, but I've yet to see any Patriarch tackle the matter though several was quite against once again, homosexual or lesbian relations. Going into more modern trends, I would say that puritans would probably despise the idea if it was presented, and have in mind the terms for such was yet to be developed but they were in the early day opposed to fun, so it is highly unlikely that they would accept such paticulars. Modern protestants really depend more upon the spesific church and location rather than sect, meaning that some would be open and some would not. I would say that probably methodists is likely the most unifiedly open on the matter as an individual aspect, rather than one which relates to sin.

Then you have hinduism, and most eastern religions are far more intertvining with one another than the far more scriptually strict western counterparts. The basic tenant of Hindu phillosophy is whatever deeds you do in life will have karmatic effects on the one which follows, and this is embraced in pretty much every path of life. Great warlords are revered for their dedication in spite of the carnage left behind, as great phillosophers are revered for their wisdom in ways that indirectly ties up with the religion. I fail to get the spesific quote, but it went something like 'whichever path you take, I deem it worthy' from one of the more universally accepted Hindu phillosophers. So as far as transgendered aspects go, I would say that it depends upon how you interpret the merits of it yourself. There are certain deities who are considered less than orthordox on sexual matters, though when that has been said, there are several sects of hinduism who are also against sexual unorthordoxy of just about any kind, strictly, and with a de-jure guess I suspect that extends to how one definies oneself sexually as well, and certain gods in said religion are a lot more rigid and strict than others.

As far as Buddhism goes, again it would depend upon sect. Some are extremely sexually rigid or entirely celibate, some are not and would be very accepting over the premise. The original Buddah never really touched directly on the subject, but the sexual advice he gave was..... extremely generic and simple as far as the wheel of life is concerned. Though in a generic sense, it is eastern religions tie themselves togheter indirectly. Meaning that most of the time one does not claim a monppoly over other deities. Same with ancient European polytheism, though that was generally extremely rigid and strict compared to some of the lesser theme park versions of heir original selves adapted by people today. Some indirectly unified with an 'Allfather' once Charlemagne started turning the tide, but strict transgenderism was, as it was through most of religious history, extremely losely defined as far as scripture goes, as it was not an actual term until much later. Some Gods were physically of more than one gender and that probably would have provoked some followers to adopt some kind of ritualistic compromise, but for the most part the 'canon' elements are very much up for it.

I'd say Islam is probably the one religion most inherently hostile to the idea, but it's a bit harder to define than that. The Islamic theocracy of Islam for example openly executes gay people, but provides free sex changes to those that desire it to fit a very arbitary narrative. It is also far more sexually defined than most religions, even though the veil on a large scale is a relatively modern introduction. Though for cultural reasons probably more than directly scriptual reasons it is discouraged to say the least. That's not to say that certain types of sexual unorthordox attempts are made at a regular basis, I mean you just have to look to Saudi Arabia on that front, but is is heavily repressed that there is not really a represented historical path that gives any insight to debated clerical interpretations. So for cultural and political reasons, though the scripture itself seems rather strict and rigid on the basic matter, it is very hard for me to see it as open to the subject on a variety of fields.

[Peanut]

This is a more difficult question to give an all encompassing answer too. The simple truth of the matter is that you really need to ask the question to the church and not the denomination. To explain this let me use the United Methodist Church as an example. In America, the UMC is rather liberal when it comes to gay rights. There are plenty of Churches and clergy who have no problem with it and are major supporters of their case. You would think then that they as a denomination are for gay rights. This is where you would be wrong. The denomination itself is actually opposed to gay rights at a denominational level. This is because the UMC in America and Europe has shrunk over the years while the UMC in areas like Africa and Latin America has grown. These areas are significantly more conservative and when the issue has been put up to vote, they have struck it down. You might then think that all of the churches in the UMC in America are more accepting however this too is wrong. Some are very liberal and would be even willing to have a transgender individual as their pastor others are more conservative and would probably glare them out the door. This is not limited to just the UMC. With any large denomination, you are going to have variations in what each individual church believes and practices compared to the rest. Generally its pretty minor but occasionally it can be rather large to the point where you have to wonder how said church can even call itself a part of that denomination. The churches I have worked in have varied in how they would react though consistently would not allow a transgender individual at the highest level of leadership. One would likely push them to change entirely the other would likely be ok with them and even let them take on certain responsibilities that other members of the church have access to as well so it depends.

[Nate]

You also have to remember that even outside of Christianity, or even religious people in general, trans-rights is still a pretty new topic of discussion in the world all things considered. There are a lot of lies and disinformation about it, and people are still fairly uncomfortable about it due to these things. For example, trans-people are viewed as perverts or sexual predators, that they're just creepy guys who want to get into the women's locker room to prey on women. Or that they're gay guys who are trying to trick straight men into a relationship with them. These are completely false stereotypes of trans-people (mostly trans-women though, there's probably a lot of reasons for that that aren't worth going into), but they are prevalent because most people just don't understand the concept of gender dysphoria.

And admittedly, it's a difficult concept to understand. This is why discrimination and discomfort around these people is common even outside of religious folks. People don't understand it because it's something difficult to grasp unless you've personally experienced it. The major difference of course being that while both religious and non-religious people are basing their views on a gut feeling--"It just makes me uncomfortable"--religious people are more likely to try and use the Bible as support to justify that it's okay to feel uncomfortable (or even openly hostile) towards trans-people.

Since Xeno seems to be the only one who really actually more or less answered the question, I'll go into more detail. Christian denominations who think trans-people are living a sinful lifestyle base it on one or more of three things. The first is that they believe that how you are when you're born is how you're supposed to be. "God doesn't make mistakes" in other words, and if you were born with a penis then obviously you must be a man, and if you think otherwise then you're claiming God "made a mistake" in your birth and that's obviously impossible.

To me, this argument fails completely because it is only applied to this one specific instance. These Christians would probably not believe, for example, that it would be saying "God made a mistake" to give a person born without a fully functional arm a prosthetic limb. They probably would not be saying that the person should remain with a non-functional arm because "that's how they were born."

This also gets murky when you take into account children who are born intersexed as well.

The second is that trans-people are viewed as being gays/lesbians, and thus they're already being sinful anyway. Now ignoring views on homosexuality, the problem with this view is it only makes sense in a particular way. I understand what they're saying, sort of. For example, a MtF individual who is attracted to men would be viewed as "gay" because she was born male, and likes men. To these Christians their gender identity doesn't matter, only what they were born as, and so she is viewed as a man regardless of anything else. The problem comes in when you take into account a friend of mine who is MtF, and identifies as lesbian. If they view her as born male, and thus a man, wouldn't it not be considered homosexuality since they would view "him" as attracted to women? The only way to condemn it as homosexuality would be for them to admit they view her as a woman, which they don't want to do since it would (in their minds) reinforce her "wrong" behavior.

The final reason has to do with Old Testament Law, and Deuteronomy 22:5, which says (ESV) A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. This actually is probably the biggest claim against trans-individuals, though it requires point number one as an addendum. They believe that this is pretty clear and a claim against trans-people. However this ignores a couple of things. One, it ignores the fact that you can cross-dress without being trans. Second, to a trans-individual, dressing as the sex they were born as is considered cross-dressing to them. A MtF individual who dresses like a man feels that she is cross-dressing because she identifies as a woman. This is why anyone who uses this line of reasoning has to believe that "how you were born is how you should always be" from earlier, because otherwise this verse would support trans-individuals (and I already said I don't buy that argument).

This also ignores the historical and cultural context of that commandment, but that's outside the scope of this topic.

Anyway that's pretty much the three big reasons why some Christians view trans-people as being sinful.

[KnightOfFive]

It depresses me that no one on this site has had the inclination to posit a counterargument. This situation leaves me with no choice but to get involved. *sigh*

Your argument Nate makes a couple of key assumptions that I would like to point out. Firstly, you make the assumption that gender is a state of mind. It is not, it is a biological reality, your gender is determined by whether your last chromosomal pair is XX-Female or XY-Male. When God created humanity, He clearly delineated that they were sorted into "male" and "female" and I quote from the NIV "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them" This distinction is not a one-off comment either it is reinforced throughout the Bible in various verses dealing with the differences between the roles given to women and men. Case in point the men of Israel were to be circumcised as a sign of the covenant, clearly recognizing the *ahem* pieces men are supposed to have. The identification of children's gender was done at birth as prescribed in Leviticus, in Ancient Israel. Men are also relegated to the preaching of the gospel. Never in the Bible is is gender identified a anything else but the biological reality. And thus when the Bible makes the statement against a man taking the cloak of a woman or vice versa, it is a reinforcement of the fact that the Lord does not allow you to swap your gender identity for whatever reason.

Second you assume a stagnant model of the human mind. That people's actions, upbringings, and general cultural environment have no bearing on how their minds develop. Society has changed largely for the worst of late, every kind of carnal vice is pushed on people not only in the media but in public schools. Young minds are very impressionable an easy to confuse. I know a woman who after being accused of being gay spent a month paranoid that she was because she acknowledged she could recognize girls as pretty and felt hopeless because society told her there was no way out. And what of the little boy in California who had a sex change operation to be like his "mommies"? What of the little boy of a Christian home I've met whowent through bullying at school and didn't fit in with his peers and started wanting to be girl before his father through numerous discussions and explanations convinced him of the value of being a man to the point where now he acts much like any little boy?

People who wish to change their gender have a problem. It is our duty as Christians to help them understand their self-worth as they are rather than let them scar their bodies to accompany an act the Bible singles out as abominable.

[Xeno]

I think I had a little bit of vomit enter my throat while reading the latter parts of your post there Knight. Also, you seem to be confusing "gender" with "sex":

What is the difference between sex and gender?
Sex = male and female

Gender = masculine and feminine

So in essence:

Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs.

Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine.

So while your sex as male or female is a biological fact that is the same in any culture, what that sex means in terms of your gender role as a 'man' or a 'woman' in society can be quite different cross culturally. These 'gender roles' have an impact on the health of the individual.

In sociological terms 'gender role' refers to the characteristics and behaviours that different cultures attribute to the sexes. What it means to be a 'real man' in any culture requires male sex plus what our various cultures define as masculine characteristics and behaviours, likewise a 'real woman' needs female sex and feminine characteristics. To summarise:

'man' = male sex+ masculine social role

(a 'real man', 'masculine' or 'manly')

'woman' = female sex + feminine social role

(a 'real woman', 'feminine' or 'womanly')

Content by Ann-Maree Nobelius, 23 June 2004

You also state that people's "actions, upbringings, and general cultural environment have no bearing on how their minds develop" and then proceeded to give several examples of exactly how actions, upbringings, and cultural environments may possibly impact people. The thing is, most trans people would say that they were born the way they are, thus no external factors were a catalyst in what happened, they just always felt they were one gender born in a body with the wrong bits.

And what of the little boy in California who had a sex change operation to be like his "mommies"?

Please source this. And if this is supposed to additionally be a jab at homosexual couples, nice try, but you failed.

People who wish to change their gender have a problem. It is our duty as Christians to help them understand their self-worth as they are rather than let them scar their bodies to accompany an act the Bible singles out as abominable.

Except that it doesn't. It doesn't speak about transgendered people because this wasn't really a thing back then. People kept their mouths shut and went with the flow of everything. We live in an age now where it's more acceptable to be who you feel that you are, and if that's a bad thing well then I guess I was a century or two too early.

And thus when the Bible makes the statement against a man taking the cloak of a woman or vice versa, it is a reinforcement of the fact that the Lord does not allow you to swap your gender identity for whatever reason.

No it isn't. That verse, which you're pulling from Deuteronomy, has to do with men masquerading themselves as women as an attempt to get out of the civil duties required of them by jewish law, and oppositely women masquerading as men to take upon themselves the duties required of them (and thusly get out of those required of women). It's ultimately a jewish ceremonial law though, and has nothing to do with anyone who isn't a jew. If you really wan't to press the issue though, I hope you don't wear mixed fibers or mow your yard on sunday or I'll have to stone you to death.

[K. Ayato]

Right on, Xeno.

On a different note, I think Sierra's questions have been answered.

[KnightOfFive]

I think I had a little bit of vomit enter my throat while reading the latter parts of your post there Knight. Also, you seem to be confusing "gender" with "sex":

What is the difference between sex and gender?
Sex = male and female

Gender = masculine and feminine

So in essence:

Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs.

Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine.

So while your sex as male or female is a biological fact that is the same in any culture, what that sex means in terms of your gender role as a 'man' or a 'woman' in society can be quite different cross culturally. These 'gender roles' have an impact on the health of the individual.

In sociological terms 'gender role' refers to the characteristics and behaviours that different cultures attribute to the sexes. What it means to be a 'real man' in any culture requires male sex plus what our various cultures define as masculine characteristics and behaviours, likewise a 'real woman' needs female sex and feminine characteristics. To summarise:

'man' = male sex+ masculine social role

(a 'real man', 'masculine' or 'manly')

'woman' = female sex + feminine social role

(a 'real woman', 'feminine' or 'womanly')

Content by Ann-Maree Nobelius, 23 June 2004

Ah how wonderfully eloquently irrelevant of you. Your little citation makes two serious mistakes: first, it conflates being a "real man" i.e. meeting the ideals of masculinity with simply being considered a man in the standard parlance of being a man or a woman. Secondly, you are imposing on the Bible a very new, very subjective definition of "man" and "woman". If you had asked around two hundred years ago (much less 3400+ years ago) whether a woman thinking of herself as a man made her a man, just about anyone would have looked at you like you had three heads. If a man thinks himself to be an elephant, does that make him an elephant?

You also state that people's "actions, upbringings, and general cultural environment have no bearing on how their minds develop" and then proceeded to give several examples of exactly how actions, upbringings, and cultural environments may possibly impact people. The thing is, most trans people would say that they were born the way they are, thus no external factors were a catalyst in what happened, they just always felt they were one gender born in a body with the wrong bits.

As I said, above thinking does not make reality but let me address you here as well. How is it that you can determine that these factors were of no influence in this process? Really? You believe that a thought as complex as "I am a man in a woman's body" is genetically encoded? The very thought is ludicrous; you might as well assert that a person is born a murderer, or a thief. And if you do believe that, then you are revoking people's ability to make moral decisions. Furthermore, those of the transgender lifestyle certainly have a vested interest in claiming that it is natural. Not only does it allow them to guilt society into accepting their deviant behavior by claiming they were "always that way", but it allows them to cope with any guilt over their choices by claiming that they had no choice. Furthermore, they are surrounded my members of the LGBT lobby who have a vested interest in reinforcing that mentality.

And what of the little boy in California who had a sex change operation to be like his "mommies"?

Please source this. And if this is supposed to additionally be a jab at homosexual couples, nice try, but you failed.

I am crushed by your disapproval. For the record it is a commentary on how corruption breeds corruption, not that I expect you to get that. Here is my citation. http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/06/01/another_outrage_in_california

People who wish to change their gender have a problem. It is our duty as Christians to help them understand their self-worth as they are rather than let them scar their bodies to accompany an act the Bible singles out as abominable.

Except that it doesn't. It doesn't speak about transgendered people because this wasn't really a thing back then. People kept their mouths shut and went with the flow of everything. We live in an age now where it's more acceptable to be who you feel that you are, and if that's a bad thing well then I guess I was a century or two too early.

It wasn't a "thing" back then? Really? What you are suggesting here is that it was around back then, but the supposedly transgendered people were magically able to hide it, completely without ever being caught. So a man can hide his supposedly insatiable desire to be a woman so completely that no one ever notices. Then why is it that Homosexuality is also singled out in the Bible? Wouldn't they be able to hide something a subtle as simple homosexual attraction? Don't mock my intelligence.

And thus when the Bible makes the statement against a man taking the cloak of a woman or vice versa, it is a reinforcement of the fact that the Lord does not allow you to swap your gender identity for whatever reason.

No it isn't. That verse, which you're pulling from Deuteronomy, has to do with men masquerading themselves as women as an attempt to get out of the civil duties required of them by jewish law, and oppositely women masquerading as men to take upon themselves the duties required of them (and thusly get out of those required of women). It's ultimately a jewish ceremonial law though, and has nothing to do with anyone who isn't a jew. If you really wan't to press the issue though, I hope you don't wear mixed fibers or mow your yard on sunday or I'll have to stone you to death.

No it isn't. Verses dealing with warfare refer to it as such, verses dealing with cowardice refer to it as such. There is an easy methodology to distinguish between moral laws in the Old Testament and covenant regulations. Case in point, cross-dressing in that verse is called "an abomination before the Lord" to put it in laymen's terms, the Lord finds it revolting, disgusting, reprehensible, i.e. bad/evil. At this point your argument just falls apart. This indication is notably absent from verses such as the prohibition of wearing mixed fabric, which simply states the rule and is done with it. Nice try.

[Nate]

Please source this. And if this is supposed to additionally be a jab at homosexual couples, nice try, but you failed

He actually is referencing a real thing here, I remember reading about it in the Freeper thread in D&D. A lesbian couple adopted a six year old who says she is transgender. They haven't actually done surgery yet (he's wrong about that), but I do believe they have her on hormones.

Which makes sense. And if she grows up and realizes hey, I'm not really trans after all, they just stop the hormone treatment and the kid goes through puberty as normal. I can't get you a link, but rest assured I remember Freepers saying the same ignorant things about it.

People who wish to change their gender have a problem.

Yes, they do, the problem of people not understanding them and accusing them or doing wrong. They're also not changing their gender either, they're identifying as a gender that does not match their physical sex. As someone once explained it, "Sex is what's between your legs, gender is what's between your ears."

Further, I'd like you to explain David Reimer to me. David Reimer was born as a boy. A botched circumcision accidentally destroyed his penis. So, the doctor's suggestion was to perform a sex reassignment surgery and raise him as a girl. He was raised from a girl since an infant, and could never have known he was born a boy.

But, when he became older, he failed to identify as a girl. When he turned 15, he identified as male, and received surgery to change him back into a guy. This indicates heavily that gender is something you are born with, because if it was a product of environment, David should never have identified as a male since he was physically altered to appear female shortly after birth, and raised as a girl.

Then you also have the question about intersex people, that is, people born with male AND female genitalia. How do you identify whether they are male or female? They have both parts, so you can't just point to what's between their legs. I have a friend of mine who was born intersex. He was raised as a boy, and he didn't find out about the circumstances of his birth until his parents told him when he turned 18. He then admitted that he had felt weird thinking he was a boy, that being a boy just didn't feel right, and now he understood why. So, now she is living as a woman. And a very attractive woman, let me tell you!

EDIT:

There is an easy methodology to distinguish between moral laws in the Old Testament and covenant regulations. Case in point, cross-dressing in that verse is called "an abomination before the Lord" to put it in laymen's terms, the Lord finds it revolting, disgusting, reprehensible, i.e. bad/evil.

Ha ha! Okay, by this logic...

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you - Leviticus 10:11

Hey, it says abomination, so by your logic eating shellfish is objectively bad/evil. Hope you've never had clam strips or shrimp in your life!

[Xeno]

Ah how wonderfully eloquently irrelevant of you. Your little citation makes two serious mistakes: first, it conflates being a "real man" i.e. meeting the ideals of masculinity with simply being considered a man in the standard parlance of being a man or a woman. Secondly, you are imposing on the Bible a very new, very subjective definition of "man" and "woman". If you had asked around two hundred years ago (much less 3400+ years ago) whether a woman thinking of herself as a man made her a man, just about anyone would have looked at you like you had three heads. If a man thinks himself to be an elephant, does that make him an elephant?

Oh yes, I forgot, we have to trap our minds in ancient culture mode forever because some book that a bunch of people believe was written then. Society progresses, we learn more about the human psyche and how it works and it's underpinnings. Guess we should just discard all of that because no one was smart enough to get any of it when the bible was written.

As I said, above thinking does not make reality but let me address you here as well. How is it that you can determine that these factors were of no influence in this process? Really? You believe that a thought as complex as "I am a man in a woman's body" is genetically encoded? The very thought is ludicrous; you might as well assert that a person is born a murderer, or a thief. And if you do believe that, then you are revoking people's ability to make moral decisions. Furthermore, those of the transgender lifestyle certainly have a vested interest in claiming that it is natural. Not only does it allow them to guilt society into accepting their deviant behavior by claiming they were "always that way", but it allows them to cope with any guilt over their choices by claiming that they had no choice. Furthermore, they are surrounded my members of the LGBT lobby who have a vested interest in reinforcing that mentality.

1. Gender identity is part of who you are. It cannot be "corrected" or changed. It's encoded in you. Same for sexual orientation.
2. The thought isn't ludicrous because it's backed by science. But I guess the bible trumps science when there is a verse that can be interpreted the right way.
3. lol @ your false equivalence argument with the murderers and thieves.
4. My belief that gender identify and sexual orientation are part of a person's genetic make up has nothing to do with that person's ability to make moral decisions. Writing someone off as a moral person because they don't fit nicely into your box of "this is what is right and wrong" is pretty terrible though.
5. The T in LGBT stands for Trans, so of course they're surrounded by members of the LGBT community, which is not a lobby but a community of people who are LGBT or supportive.

I am crushed by your disapproval. For the record it is a commentary on how corruption breeds corruption, not that I expect you to get that. Here is my citation. http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/06/01/another_outrage_in_california

thanks for the url, i'll try to read it but as an atheist ur rite about me not undestanding corruption since i'm an immoral satan worshiper.

It wasn't a "thing" back then? Really? What you are suggesting here is that it was around back then, but the supposedly transgendered people were magically able to hide it, completely without ever being caught. So a man can hide his supposedly insatiable desire to be a woman so completely that no one ever notices. Then why is it that Homosexuality is also singled out in the Bible? Wouldn't they be able to hide something a subtle as simple homosexual attraction? Don't mock my intelligence.

Transgenderism existed back then, yes, perhaps I worded my post in a way that made it too difficult for you to understand.

People were more likely to adhere to the status-quo of "if you have a penis then you dress like this and do these things; if you have a vagina then you dress like this and do these things" because if they didn't there was a good chance that someone was going to kill them. These people existed, they felt just the same as trans people do today, but far fewer were willing or able to express it due to the repercussions of said expression. Homosexuality gets an off handed mention in the bible because most religions like pissing on gay people for some reason.

No it isn't. Verses dealing with warfare refer to it as such, verses dealing with cowardice refer to it as such. There is an easy methodology to distinguish between moral laws in the Old Testament and covenant regulations. Case in point, cross-dressing in that verse is called "an abomination before the Lord" to put it in laymen's terms, the Lord finds it revolting, disgusting, reprehensible, i.e. bad/evil. At this point your argument just falls apart. This indication is notably absent from verses such as the prohibition of wearing mixed fabric, which simply states the rule and is done with it. Nice try.

The verse is located smack in the middle of a bunch of jewish ceremonial laws, thus it makes zero sense for it to one of those overarching commands that hits everyone. Also, the verse is about exactly what I mentioned; I've seen this verse abused to the extent of controlling the kinds of garments that people are allowed to wear, I know what it means. But good try yourself.

[mechana2015]

Knight of Five this was a thread to relate how different religions relate to transgender individuals. It was not a place for you to post a 'counterarguement'. If your denomination has what you have stated you should restate it as a response to the OP. Thread locked due to not maintaining civility, and pulling discussions which should have been PM's into open forum.