Trump cheats at golf - the ONE and ONLY politics thread

What your argument here boils down to is that you refuse to believe the very scientific research - all of which is part of a growing body that helps us understand that transgender people are the way they are as a function of either genetics or neurological development - you cited because it conflicts with your understanding of Christianity.

I asked about your personal experiences because in having these conversations with many people in recent weeks and months I've seen that most with your viewpoint have not had any interpersonal interaction with someone they knew to be trans and that for those who have had that experience it is often - although not always - a turning point in their understanding of the issue.

You can discount the harm that telling a trans person they're "confused" does to people all you like, but doing so in Jesus name is not grace. Just as it is not grace to tell someone who is homosexual that how God made them - in his image - means they cannot ever be themselves. There is no loving way to do that.

Just yesterday morning - not long after posing those questions to you - my pastor asked me to sit with a newcomer, returning to church for the first time in 20 years, who had been left broken and in deep pain from the kinds of teachings you espouse. Helping people like that on their journey to Christ is at once heartbreaking and uplifting. I hope that someday you'll be able to experience that kind of grace.

 

This is a pretty important line.

The 7th episode of Horace and Pete, one of the best, involved trans issues -- did Horace fuck a trans woman? -- which of course the AV Club went into depth about. The writer, Vikram Murthi, hammered the shit out of Louis C.K. by saying he had zero right to write this episode on trans issues.

Let’s get this out of the way: It’s problematic for a cisgender writer/director to examine transphobia, especially without explicit participation of any trans performers or writers, even with the best of intentions; no matter which way you slice it, it’s an attempt to tackle a pervasive, deeply-ingrained issue from an outsider’s perspective.

Horace And Pete clumsily examines prejudice and acceptance

As you might expect it generated a lot of response, mostly negative; I think Vikram's review was a piece of shit. Not badly written but badly espoused because I don't believe you need "explicit participation" as Vikram said -- or "personal experience" as Alma said -- in order to speak to such a polarizing issue.

Anyway, back to Alma's War and Peace response ...

Here's that episode of Horace and Pete: HORACE_AND_PETE_01x07_1080 (1).mp4

 

Heartbreaking story. Saslow is an amazing story teller but his work always leaves me sad.

 

Folks in Chicago might say no:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/us/murder-rates-cities-fbi.html?_r=0

 

That's a good point. It's gotta be pretty brutal to do so many depressing stories. I'd think that takes a toll on someone after a while.

 

Are they wearing warmup suits? Or priest gear?

Also, their eyes are open - their hearts aren't really in it.

 

The first woman the Times introduced us to in their Trump hit piece -- the one asked to put on a swimsuit -- just blew up their whole story.

 

Wonder what he paid her.

 

The Times can simply release the transcripts/audio of the 50 interviews they did.

 

Trump supporters and Bernie Bros. are the worst.

 

If I recall, her quotes in the story seemed pretty mundane, in my impression. The Times seemed to add the ominous gloss.