News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
The vast majority of Christians have spent your entire life moving more towards the middle. Yet, all you see is the ground that hasn't been covered yet. When you push them (not me) back and pretend that they should be judged by the actions of their ancestors instead of their own actions, you make it that much more challenging to have them stay in-bounds, or move back in if they have gone astray.
When you compare the Christian Religion that two-thirds of the US shares, to the secular Nazi Ideology, and claim they have blood on their hands, you push them towards radicalization.
When people that support your stance go out-of-bounds themselves, and aren't called on it they make it that much harder to show the way back in-bounds to the opposition that have strayed.
Huh, dang I guess you're right. I mean, it certainly would be pretty wild for you to say that if the majority of Christians that I've personally met and the ones controlling my government had been organizing and campaigning to take away the rights of the LGBTQ+ community, women, and any racial minority since before my parents ever met. It'd be downright dishonest of you if, instead of moving more towards the middle, christians have spent the last 40 years sprinting to the far right as fast as they possibly could, to the point where a comparison to the Nazis doesn't seem so far-fetched. Do you honestly think the women's rights, LGBTQ+ acceptance, or the civil rights movement was championed by the Christian majority and they weren't the primary opposition to those ideas?
It'd also be insane if the "secular Nazi ideology" was actually heavily Christian and the Catholic Church spent centuries laying the groundwork for Jewish Genocide, helped the Nazis seize power, and continued to protect them long after their atrocities were well known. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany
I guess if you are part of the oppressors, they're probably quite nice to you. Sorry if my words are what push you to finally be honest with yourself about what you believe. Didn't mean to radicalize you
You probably should have just stopped that first paragraph right there.
There was no reason to make crazy ass claims that only a fart-for-brains would believe, then spend the time smacking them down. If you really don't think the opinion of the average Christian has changed towards LGBT folks, then you haven't been paying attention. Please feel free to check any numbers anywhere and see that roughly half of US Christians are fine with homosexuality now. Compared to 30, 40, 50, 100 years ago, this is a huge shift.
If you wanted to claim that a lot of Christians joined the Nazis, that is one thing, but the ideology itself is incompatible with Christianity.
From the same wikipedia article that you linked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany#Nazi_attitudes_towards_Christianity
It is true that the Nazi regime was hostile to the Christian church - because they recognized the power the church held and knew they needed to be the one and only source of truth. Nazism needed to be above god (that's the "fundamentally incompatible" part of your argument, since the church argues nothing is above god), but never sought to eradicate the belief in Him. When 95% of the regime identifies as Christian, and uses Christian ideology to suppress and genocide members of every other religion, that is a fundamentally Christian ideology, even if they fought for power directly with the Vatican. With many Nazi leaders wanting to treat Nazism itself like a religion - complete with divine rule - I'd even go so far as to argue that Nazism is a particularly embarrassing Christian sect.
Look Ma, I can cherry pick wikipedia too!
Seems like Hitler had more of an issue with the political power of the church instead of their beliefs and even tried making his own Protestant sect.
But you seem to enjoy taking Nazis at their word (surely they wouldn't lie, would they?) so sure, they were totally a secular organization that definitely treated Jewish people nicely. They were even socialist!
And yet, when you ask about trans identity, they'll show what they really believe. given the chance, even those who are "fine with it" would rather see us eradicated to please their special guy than for us to live peacefully by their side. Since I know how the Nazi comparison tickles you so much: if you asked the 1930s German population what they thought of Jewish people, more than "roughly half" would've said they were "fine" with them.
The shift in Christian attitudes towards the LGBTQ+ community is the direct result of opposition to the church - which was considered to be "out of bounds" and "pushing Christians to be radicalized" at the time. The church changed their stance because they seek power and control over any principles they pretend to have. The shift happened in spite of religion, not because of it. I see you didn't even try to respond to how Christians were the main opposition to any and every single push for civil rights. If we sat back and placated them like you believe we should, only white landowning men would be able to vote or have rights.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_opposition
If Christians are so progressive, why is it always Christian groups that oppose progress? wait, I can answer this one for you: "Those groups don't represent 'real' Christianity". Surely there's nothing fundamental to the religion that makes oppression intrinsic.
I fully concede this point. I had only read the bit about Nazis being secular recently while looking up something and clearly did not do enough supporting research before repeating it.
No objection here.
You seem to be stuck on this idea that I think Christians are the real progressives or something. I have not in any way said or tried to imply any such thing. Just that the majority have been moving toward the middle nearly your entire lifetime.
You should definitely stick to things I actually said, not easy to win stances that I do not hold.
I have made it pretty clear from the beginning that we should stand up to bigoted hateful speech regardless where it comes from. Since you seem to have missed it: That includes Christians, but it also includes LGBT members, and anyone in-between or outside of them.
Pretending that a third of the world all believes the same thing because of certain groups among them is a problem. Treating them all like shit, for something other members of their faith believe, is a reflection on the person treating another human like shit not on their target.
Trans identity is a complex issue. One that affects more than just trans people. Surely it will shift in some way over time, though I would not want to even try to guess in what direction at this point. People go nucking futs when it comes to their kids, and in my opinion the Trans community lost some PR ground when it came out that schools were intentionally hiding students who were transitioning gender identities from their parents. Edit in Italics
If you want to make progress on trans issues, I would suggest that the LGBT community take a transitional stance and then move again in the future, rather than losing their minds because they cannot force the whole population to share their views all at once.
This is a tried and true tactic when it comes to gay rights. When Clinton passed, "Don't ask, don't tell" it was a highly controversial pro-gay stance. If he had tried to push the military to where we are today there is no telling how the US would have reacted, but it would not have been good.
My problem with your stance is that you seem very quick to jump at "bigoted hate speech from LGBTQ+ people" and to defend the so-called progress that religious people have made. You don't seem interested in calling out Christians for the documented facts that they are championing the call to eradicate minority populations they disagree with, or the legislation they are passing in increasing numbers to strip rights away from women, LGBTQ+, and racial minorities.
Firstly, while it may look like "both sides" are hateful and bigoted, it's extremely important to understand that both sides are not saying anything close to the same things. On one hand, you have a population of people who have been directly and consistently harmed for their fundamental identity that they cannot change by people who identify with certain beliefs and their - admittedly, but understandably, quite vitriolic - responses to that trauma. On the other hand, you have a population of people who have not been attacked or harmed directly falsely claiming that the other population is raping their children and destroying the country. This fear mongering is reinforced every single Sunday when they go to their church and get told these things directly by their leadership that claims they are the literal mouth of God. A belief system is much more mutable than intrinsic characteristics like gender identity, skin color, and sexuality - as demonstrated by the shift towards the LG and B parts of the LGBTQ+ community. The oppressed only cry out about injustices they've experienced and plead for equal treatment, which is then equivocated to the calls for the wholesale eradication of their population.
Secondly, you seemed more concerned with the optics of justice than justice itself. Who does trans identity affect other than the trans person? that's a genuine question because I cannot think of a single person except for the trans person's doctor who should ever be concerned with that.
This is just blatant propaganda that reveals your bias. I'll take the time out of my day to break it down for you. Starting with "gender transitions", I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply misspoke and meant "gender identity". How would a minor begin gender transition without their parents knowledge or consent? are they taking school busses to underground, unregulated doctors that prescribe hormone blockers? and that brings me to the next point: there are literally no children that are receiving any irreversible treatments to aid in their gender expression. In some cases, minors below 16 may be prescribed puberty blockers, which have been used to treat various conditions for nearly half a century, are completely reversible, and demonstrably lower suicide rates in trans youth. Once a trans kid has hit 16 and has spent literal years with doctors and therapists, they may be prescribed hormones that help their body develop in a more comfortable way for their gender identity. These treatments are also decades old and again have demonstrably proved to be the most effective way to ensure trans people live long and healthy lives.
Is "PR" (that's actually just more lies and deception from the Christian right that purposely warps perceptions to demonize and vilify the LGBTQ+ community) more important than the literal lives of children? That question will remain relevant as I move onto my final point: if a child is having questions about their gender expression and their parents are vehemently opposed to that, to the point where it would put the child in imminent danger, often times lethal, if the parents were to find out, is it still morally correct to tell the parents based only on the inherently Christian idea that your parents are the sole deciders in the welfare of their children? to give a less politically charged example, let's look at left-handedness. it was a hugely popular belief that left handed people were of the Devil and evil not too long ago. an extremely dogmatic religious couple who already verbally abuse and accost left handed people have a child who teachers discover is left handed. should the teachers be required to tell the parents about their child's left-handedness, which will almost certainly lead to verbal and statistically likely physical abuse of that child? it isn't like the teachers are secretly part of a left handed cabal set to destroy the world with their evil left handed demons.
this is literally a call to sit back and placate the Christian right. what's the transitional stance between "trans rights are human rights" and "we need to eradicate gender ideology from the public world"? should we only genocide half the trans community? that still wouldn't satisfy the right and there would be less people fighting for justice. "don't ask, don't tell" was implemented after years of riots and demonstrations drawing attention to the rampant assault in the US military. it is not like clinton just woke up one morning and decided that the gays have been quiet long enough so maybe we should give them some rights. the only tried and true tactic when it comes to gay rights is violence and standing up for ourselves and people like us in direct opposition to Christians.
Show me a Christian or conservative acting like a bigot in this post, community, or even instance and I will gladly call them out. I am sure a few are hiding somewhere around here but they are few and far between. I do understand that there are instances where it is more common from them, but I do not regularly visit those places.
This is my main issue right here. None of this conversation would be happening u/I_Fart_Glitter had just acknowledged that u/gravitas_deficiency had spit out some vitriolic bigotry instead of defending. Their opinions may be understandable to you, but a public News forum is the wrong place to be spewing that kind of bigotry. If they gravitas has unresolved issues they need to get off their chest, there are plenty of appropriate forums for it.
This may be true for many Christians, but there are millions of American Christians that believe quite the opposite and would never tolerate that in a church.
I live in BFE Texas and there are ten Affirming Churches in the area; five of them are within about 45 minutes of me. As a comparison there are only two Cowboy Churches in the same area. Every major City I checked had several Affirming Churches.
https://www.gaychurch.org/find_a_church/
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/25/1124101216/trans-religious-leaders-say-scripture-should-inspire-inclusive-congregations
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2023-07-06/one-in-five-united-methodist-congregations-in-the-us-have-left-the-denomination-over-lgbtq-conflicts
Belief is as fundamental to a person as sexuality or gender identity. Some people's beliefs, gender identity, and sexuality change several times through their lives, others stick with the one assumed at birth, and anywhere in between.
You are right, I meant transitioning gender identity, not "gender transition"
What? I am sure there are cultures and religions where something different would be the norm, but do any of them represent a significant chunk of the world's population? I did a bit of web-searching but can't seem to find anything remotely related to this. I am getting swamped with references to child welfare laws and related court cases.
This is the first time I have gotten this deep into trans topics in a loooong time, but off the top of my head, I see two middle grounds between those stances.
"If you want to live your life as a different sex than you were assigned at birth, that is fine but don't expect everyone else to agree with or support that choice."
"Let adults live their lives as the sex they choose, but kids need to wait until they are out of high school if their parents refuse to accept it."
I am sure there are other middle grounds between those stances even if both sides are offended by them.
How might it impact them? That brings me to your direct question.
Really? Is this just a setup to call me a bigot instead? Fine, I will express the opinions I have seen or heard from women who could probably be described as TERFs even if they don't see themselves as such, but only with a spoiler tag and a few caveats.
Trigger warning. These are not my personal feelings. If someone taking oppositional stances or undercutting your self-identity will hurt you, please do not click this.
Caveat: I am neither a woman nor trans, nor do I have daughters or sisters, nor have I ever had any close trans friends or family, only regular acquaintances, nor am I strongly opinionated about whether trans-women are actually women. I really do not have a leg to stand on when taking a stance around this issue.
Another caveat: These are areas where the belief of what a trans person actually is controls the perspective. If you think a trans-woman is a woman, full stop, then this doesn't make any sense at all. If you believe that a trans-woman is a man that prefers to live as a woman then it does, so in an effort to answer your question, I am going to frame it from that perspective.
A final caveat, from my admittedly limited perspective these particular issues only typically apply to trans-women and not usually trans-men. Though I am sure there are some exceptions to that.
First, the first woman X. I happened to have a conversation with a relatively young lady that went on a rant about Biden naming Rachel Levine as the first woman 4 star general of the Public Health Services Human Corps. She made quite the impassioned rant that it was undercutting women everywhere to call a "biological male" the first woman anything.
Second, women's sports. The Riley Gaines and Lia Thomas thing last year was hard to miss. The main point of women's sports seems to be related to fields where men absolutely dominate the standings. Though there are definitely some women's leagues for certain things where I can't see how it would matter. As I understand it, many men's leagues around the world have no rule against women, it is just exceptionally rare that a woman is selected for them. The NHL for example has had exactly one female player and it was for an exhibition game back in the 90s. Should leagues be based off of physical size like boxing? Or should there be a testosterone check? No idea, but some people assigned female at birth definitely think it affects them.
Third, the old bathroom example. Men are feared in our society. Every one of us is viewed as a potential rapist. Women feel exceptionally uncomfortable in certain situations where a man is present or might be. It isn't right, but it is the way things are. As long as bathrooms exist in their current form, some women, and some parents of young girls, are not going to be okay with people they see as men using the one for ladies.
Probably because they want to avoid the children getting abused at home, or worse
Hmm, I wonder what would happen in we'd apply this to past social issues...
"If you want to make progress on civil rights issues, I would suggest that the african-american community take a transitional stance and then move again in the future, rather than losing their minds because they cannot force the whole population to share their views all at once."
"If you want to make progress on suffrage issues, I would suggest that women take a transitional stance and then move again in the future, rather than losing their minds because they cannot force the whole population to share their views all at once."
Most abusers do not wait for some specific reason to start abusing. I would be interested to see data how many abused LGBT kids were never abused before they came out to their parents.
Edited in all of the above.
This might be splitting hairs a bit, but it basically is what happened.
Edits in italics: For US women's suffrage they gained the right to vote in a number of cities, territories, and states then eventually gained the right to vote nationally.
Also when slaves were freed, they certainly did not become equal members of society the next day. It has however gotten significantly better over time.
If you want to push in a certain direction, you take a few steps forward, show people that the world did not burn down, and then take a few more steps forward.
Are you claiming children haven't been abused because their parents found out they were LGBTQ?
Oh yeah, I remember when MLK said "While we wanted equal rights, me must acquiesce that we shouldn't get all the rights white people have in order to appease those against us."
Big fan of moderates, MLK was. Or so I heard.
Of course not, that would be nonsense.
I was just avoiding attributing anything like reason to the abusers. The choices of abuse victims are not typically the cause of abuse. The pieces of shit willing to abuse children don't need a particular reason to do it, and I am not interested in claiming something the victim did was the cause. Even if the abuse ramped up after coming out, it still sounds a bit like victim blaming any way I word it. Which in turn makes me wonder how many of them were already being abused.
Well then, there you have the reason schools keep it hidden.