Arguments we shouldn’t be having

So a few days ago Natalie Reed wrote this great post titled “God Does Not Love Trans People.” Then our friend Be Scofield posted a totally missing the point response. I’m going to start by quoting the paragraph from Natalie that Scofield quoted from, only quoting the entire thing rather than just part of it. And I’ve bolded the parts Scofield left out… which is most of it:

These considerations are in play here as well… saying “God loves trans people” has absolutely no more underlying justification, evidence or substance than does “God hates fags”. Neither party has any evidence on which to base this, and both are just extrapolations based on assuming God’s will ought reflect their own. We cannot possibly know how God feels about anyone (entertaining briefly the possibility that He even exists). When you introduce “God loves trans people” into the dialogue, you have nothing backing you up with which to cause a transphobic religious believer to accept your message or reconsider their position, but you have just validated, supported and helped normalize his belief in God- a God that he probably thinks hates us very, very much. Congrats! You spur on religious belief which, more often than not, maintains a climate of bigotry towards LGBTQ individuals. You insulate and protect them. You assent to the foundations of their hate, which they claim as justification. Asserting there is a God, and supporting the human tendency towards religious faith (whatever its form), does nothing but bolster the underlying principles on which the Westboro Baptist Church is based. If we wish to fight these organizations, we can’t do so simply pitting our own intuitive, faith-based assumption of God against theirs. We need to attack the foundation: the idea that faith is a good, or at least harmless, thing, and that God’s will is what matters and takes precedence over secular considerations and ethics like “hey, maybe it’s kinda uncool to go around hating the fuck out of people just because they happen to have a non-normative gender or sexuality. Maybe instead of worrying so much about the unknowable divine, we might try to make things in this world not so shitty for queer folk”.

Scofield, disappointingly and somewhat predictably, interpreted that the following way: “There is no meaningful difference between Jerry Falwell and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Reed’s analysis.” Holy fucking reading comprehension fail Batman! (Seriously, my brain right now is just going WTFWTFWTFWTFWTFWTF.)

No. The point is that by putting so much stock in a claim for which there is no evidence (“God loves trans people”), you legitimize the idea that such unsupported claims have a place in the discussion. You legitimize the idea that who God does or does not love should influence how we treat our fellow human beings. That’s the problem.

This applies to a lot more issues than just trans rights or LGBTQ rights. It applies to any issue where some liberal folks feel the need to cite religion to back up their positions. Newsflash! The question of whether to teach real science or pseudoscience in our public schools shouldn’t depend on the interpretation of a book produced by an ancient and scientifically ignorant culture! The question of how to best reform our health care system shouldn’t be decided by what Jesus would have wanted! We need a reality-based approach here, people!

"Atomsk - Yes, I think the way I feel about it is normal. I think ..."

Let’s talk about violent pornography
"The Scientific Method works by testing a hypothesis for implications, contradictions, and ridiculous/false results. You ..."

Pulling some devastating punches: a review ..."
"A bit OT: Found this article and it is imo closely related to the issue ..."

Let’s talk about violent pornography
"Just one thing for now, because it takes quite a bit of time to think ..."

Let’s talk about violent pornography

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment