How long until the trans craze wears off?

submitted by JoeyJoeJoe from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Are you really comparing belief in Christ to men who use estrogen recreationally and behave promiscuously? Don't you think that's insulting?

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Show me where I made that comparison please. Because I don't believe I did.

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

This, though maybe I read too much into it:

Will remain on the fringes as fundraising fodder. Much like how evangelical stuff is not used as a mainstream Republican platform now

[–]Objecting_Sphere 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think that line was meaning to say that Republican pandering to evangelicals was fundraising fodder, not saying that evangelicals themselves are fundraising fodder. Evangelicals mean what they say, but for a while, politicians were pandering to them with false piety to get their donations. Similarly, cynical Democrat politicians have been pandering to the young college radicals with the trans stuff. At least, I hope they don't actually believe it...

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes the similarities are in how both groups are exploited for political reasons. If you read current LGBTQIA+ fundraising materials it is eerily similar to a lot of christian fundamentalist fundraising material.

"They are coming to take away your rights and kill you. Vote for me I'll stop it." Type things.

There's a lot of emotional hysteria in both circles and it is easily harnessed to power a political machine.

It should be noted as well that the kind of evangelical voter I would be referring to is better described as a "dominionist" or simply someone who believes that Christian morality should be enforced legally (though few agree on exactly what that morality entails). Likewise they are a small minority of church goers and often make themselves pariahs in their circles for similar reasons as to how the woke left currently operate, namely that you get individuals making extreme histeronic displays in an attempt to guilt everyone to side with them. You can find the comparison insulting if you wish but I will still make it, as I believe the underlying psychological motivations and drives to be similar. I also don't think that the LGBTQIA+ movement is being driven by actual trans people so much as a bunch of rank and file "allies" that are exactly the kind of middle class stay at home mom types that would be the annoying church ladies in the past, they've simply stopped going to church because it's not socially required of them anymore and have replaced the social experience of it with various forms of activist movements.

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's a pretty cogent analysis. It's not completely unfair. I would suggest, though, that a committed dominionist or Christian nationalist errs by following too many rules, whereas a committed leftist follows far too many. The former error is the preferable one.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Follows too few rules you meant to say?

I think the issue is in both groups they actually don't have set " rules" so much as they have a constantly shifting sense of social obligations and new rules through the outrage mechanism and various panics.

The dominionist have the benefit of the Bible as a basis for their ideology and that gives them a bit more stability than otherwise but I don't think it's a major boon. As the interpretation of the bible is very much left to the individual whims of each participant and their leaders. Eventually the most intolerant form of interpretation will become the mainstream form discussed simply because tolerant ideals are going to he eclipsed by intolerant ideals. At least in the mainstream discourse.

Consider now for Halloween, hot topic for evangelicals. You'll get the normies in the church. Want to put up some light decorations just cause, want to pass out candy to the neighborhood kids for fun and for making a good community impression.

Do this and invariably someone will get triggered and go on a long tirade about the satanic origins of Halloween and will continually press the issue until they are either accommodated or are given the ultimatum of shut up or leave.

Invariably this leads to the "harvest party" or "Jesus day" obviously stand in for Halloween but without their problematic elements. This will be enough for some, especially the "we need to reach the kids" types since they still get to do so. But it does invariably lead to a whole bunch of rules, oftentimes totally contradictory about what is and is not OK. And good luck getting any kind of coherent biblical answer if you ask because for some reason the Bible doesn't say anything about it eh? Funny that. Of course everyone has their own opinion about what it "would say" if it did say it, and that's just as good for them.

So you get what is essentially a "politically correct" Halloween party. Wanna go as a witch, nope satanic. Wanna go as Jesus? Nope sacrilegious. Wanna go as the minions, nope too worldly. Wanna go as a monkey? Might be seen as promoting evolution and trigger someone best not too. What's the best thing to do? Well find an excuse not to go at all, because it's not fun. No rules but everyone knows the one rule, obey all rules.

It's basically the same shit that happened in universities with the whole "culture not a costume" and woke Halloween stuff. Activist types see everything as a battle for equality, evangelical types see everything as a battle for the soul. In both cases it becomes an all encompassing pathological obsession which is easily manipulatable by those with less transparent intentions. As well as a way for narcissists to play the "I don't want this but the cause demands it" game when indeed they do want it and are just trying to shield themselves from criticism.