Talk:Transgenderism and religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled comments[edit]

I added a bunch of text that I'd been composing offline to replace the abysmal content at Transgender > Criticism > Religious Criticism. As I composed it I realized it would probably need to be moved elsewhere because it seemed like kind of a lot of content. Then this page was started so I copy and pasted my work here. I figured I needed more Hindu stuff and to tighted up the Islam a bit and it was basically done. I wasn't planning on spending much time at all on the responses of modern religious organizations because it seemed like there were a really really lot of them and it seemed like it might be mostly "noise" compared to bigger "conceptual" brush strokes.

I'd like to suggest most of the lede for this article should (1) focus on summarizing the content "in general" in a way that lives up to NPOV and (2) be put into a template so that the exact same text can appear here and in the transgender article as well. This way edits to the summary have to be consistent with a relatively big picture (the text must serve as a lede here) but also be a good summary of the controversies in the transgender article because otherwise that article will fill up with sloppy one-off edits with religiously justified transphobia.

I think the critical things to say in the lede are:

  • Many religious people have strong feelings that their religion must be "against this" because they feel so strongly. If their religion gives expression to their moral intuitions then it must support their emotional reactions.
  • In some cases they appear to have a doctrinal or organizational basis for this, but other times they really don't, and in some cases there are distinct grey areas.
  • Summarize basic issues and controversies for major world religions in a paragraph or three.

-SemiAnonymous 09:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. I think it's important that we include modern as well as historical views, since doctrine can change over time to adapt to shifts in society. They're obviously related, so this should be doable.
An NPOV summary is definitely what a lede should be. However, I don't think it should go in a template. Once this article is stable and there's a better section in the transgender article, sloppy one-off edits can be cleaned up or reverted because this article provides a better summary of the topic. Also, a section there might be shorter or longer or have slightly different wording.
That sounds like a good set of things to put in the lede. I like what you've done to start. Thanks again. --Alynna (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed: Ethiopian eunuch citation does not support his being transgender, but gay[edit]

This sentence:

  • It has been suggested, and disputed, that the first class of "eunuchs" were actually transgender people.

Uses this source:

This is problematic on several counts:

1. this is not a reliable source. 2. the source does not support the sentence, as the author does not mention the possibility of the man being transgender, but the focus is on the eunuch being gay. 3. we do not know the reason for his being a eunuch, and so he may have been intersex or castrated, and while this may be reason to include him as one of the sexual minorities covered by LGBT(etc), it does not necessarily make him transgender.

It is significant that such a person was the first amongst the gentiles to be brought in to the new dispensation, but this says nothing specific about transgender beyond the inclusion of one outside the heterosexual/binary-sex axis. I am therefore placing a tag next to this citation to highlight the problem and give involved editors the opportunity to find a more appropriate source, or to rephrase the sentence accordingly. If you look at the edit I made about this here: Christianity and homosexuality#Views favorable to homosexuality, you will find a sentence relating to this matter, with a reliable source, and if I don't hear more on this, I will replace the sentence here with something similar to the one made there. Mish (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed - unreliable source - YouTube home video[edit]

This whole paragraph has to go, under Mormonism:

  • As a practical matter, the Mormon church will deny access to their temples to visibly gender variant people (though determined on a case by case basis as with all people) and will excommunicate any person who undergoes sexual reassignment surgery.[29] It has been suggested that these doctrines and practices grew out of the inherently patriarchal conception of Priesthood as being given only to men. The prospect of someone becoming visibly male to gain access to Priesthood is a bit tricky, and if a visibly male person who has already acquired Prisethood indicates that they plan to transition it would (in light of the 1995 proclamation) require as a matter of taking their gender identity as truly eternal that their Priesthood be stripped from them due to having been given in error - which is a very tricky issue indeed.[30]

The two citations are to a YouTube video of one individual giving their views on the matter in a home-video posted to YouTube. While YouTube can be a reliable source in some instances, this is not the case here, and unless the material can be substantiated with reliable sourcing, it cannot remain. Mish (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed - Mormonism - irrelevant material, as this is not about views on transgender people[edit]

This paragraph is about Mormonism, not about LDS church views on transgender people:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes in its canon the Old and New Testaments as well as the Book of Mormon. The leadership of the LDS Church has the power to make pronouncements that carry the weight of God's voice in a manner reminiscent of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility except that new prophecy can change old doctrine.

One link doesn't work, and the other is all about LDS policy on prophecy, not transgender people. Mish (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed - Mormonism views on homosexuality and marriage not about trans people[edit]

This section clearly states it is not directly about the article topic, and is WP:OR, as it is using the source quoted to give a meaning that is not in the source as per WP:SYNTH:

  • On September 23, 1995 the President of the church, Gordon B. Hinckley stated in such a proclamation mostly aimed at gay marriage that "All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." This doesn't directly address the issue where someone agrees that their gender is eternal and unchanging but that it's based on their soul and does not match their body (indeed that that is why they need to change their body) but the same proclamation also noted "We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife" which focuses on procreative ability rather than gender identity as central to the Mormon notion of gender.

I have marked it accordingly. Mish (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This article compromises various policies[edit]

The title suggests an inbuilt problematic relating to policy on NPOV - it is about one group of people's views about another group of people. It does not allow for the religious views of transgender people. The article Religion and homosexuality has its own problems (placing religion before the subject of the article, which should be the focus as 'Homosexuality and religion'), in order to avoid these, and to avoid the current imbalance, I am suggesting this article be renamed a more neutral 'Transgenderism and religion', with the subject of the article (transgenderism) coming first. Mish (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Page has now been successfully moved. Mish (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Mormon section[edit]

As all the Mormon info is tagged as dubious because of the sources being irrelevant or unreliable, the section is now going. Mish (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge template[edit]

Somebody placed a template to merge LGBT matters and religion into this article. I have placed a template to merge this article into LGBT matters and religion, as the topic would be better served by one article giving coverage of all aspects of LGBT matters and religion than two - one for homosexuality and one for transgenderism. Mish (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather than have this discussion in three places, let's use the one at Talk:Religion and homosexuality#Merge_template. --Alynna (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
OK.Mish (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed templates, as nobody seems to be discussing and there is no interest in either merge. Mish (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Christians[edit]

So do Christians (Mainly Roman Catholics and Protestants) forbid become another gender? Also, I want to know about their views on people who get all their gender removed. 75.27.38.167 (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Christians[edit]

So do Christians (Mainly Roman Catholics and Protestants) forbid becoming another gender? Also, I want to know about their views on people who get all their gender removed. 75.27.38.167 (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Being transsexual does not involve sexual acts.[edit]

This article is riddled with misconceptions. Blending sexual attraction/activity with thoughts of gender. I'd rather not edit the article myself. For those responsible for editing this page:

They should be aware that being homosexual or heterosexual are terms that refers to who a person is attracted to. That it also involves an acceptance of sexual activity with same/different gender, typically.

A trans gender person can be either Bi/Homo/Hetro - sexual, same as a "normal" person. Trans gender is an umbrella term that involves everything from cross-dressers to transsexuals and everything in between, who they attract to and have sex with is wholly unrelated to their perceived gender.

examples: Female cross-dresser is NOT lesbian because she dresses like a male. You can not tell what gender she is attracted to without asking her. A biological born male, that feels like a women (transsexual(male to female)) - would upon having sex with a female be viewed as a heterosexual act. But if the transsexual undergoes surgery, and repeats it, it will be viewed as a homosexual act.

Transgenderism and Homosexuality are two separate thoughts in an individual that are unrelated.

Transgenderism is an umbrella term and can not be used alone as defining anything other than the groups it involves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.40.129.53 (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct in stating that transgenderism and sexual orientation are two separate issues but you must understand that in adding religion into the mix, there is actually some crossover in this article. You see, for those of a fundamentalist religious perspective, people are supposed to get married and make babies to (in their eyes) fulfill " 'God's' plan for humanity" (Be fruitful and multiply). In transgendered people, they will not (pre-op) or cannot (post-op) biologically create babies exclusively in a marriage due to the present limitations of science to make FtM or MtF people fertile post-operation. This is their same argument with homosexuality, that two men or two women cannot create babies without outside intervention. Thus violating the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage. 99.114.188.200 (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)