The Anti Christian Bias of Ignorant and Hypocritical Kelsie the Transgender Supporter
I was on Twitter today and tweeted a link by a secular feminist to an article with a critique of transgenderism.
Here is a link to that critique:
- (Link): What Makes A Woman? by E. Burkett (on the New York Times)
- (another, from May 2016, on another site:(Link): Caitlyn Jenner’s Nude SI Cover is an Offense to Women Everywhere )
I do not usually cover transgender topics on Twitter or here on my blog that much, but I thought this was a very good critique. I will place in a few excerpts from it below.
Today, when I was on Twitter, some lady named Kelsie started tweeting me. Her Twitter handle is
She tweeted some link about gender on Huffington Post at me, and I only glanced at the headline.
Kelsie assumes I am 100% Christian. She does not like Christians.
There are some Non-Christian critics of transgenderism, but Kelsie automatically assumes that any critic of Trans is a Christian. She just assumes this.
The editorial I linked to that she was so offended by was written apparently by a secular, left wing feminist, NOT by a right wing Christian.
Kelsie needs to get the log out of her own eye instead of trying to remove the speck from the eyes of Christians. Kelsie has her own set of prejudices going on.
I even mentioned to Kelsie a time or two that the link I provided that she was so upset about was NOT WRITTEN BY A CHRISTIAN. This very salient point kept eluding her.
(Edit. I do not think Kelsie even bothered to read the editorial.)
The editorial I referenced in my Tweet was written by what appears to be a secular, left wing feminist. But Kelsie kept acting like it was written by a Christian.
I explained to Kelsie that I am partially Agnostic, partially Christian. She never did seem to grasp this concept. It’s not a terribly hard concept to grasp.
At one point Kelsie told me she was calling me out on my “Christian bigotry” and told me that I was “trolling” and sent me a screen cap of my Twitter (or blog?) page where it even says on the page, “I am somewhere between Christian and Agnostic.”
Uh yeah. That is what I have told you ten times over: I am partly a Christian, partly an Agnostic. I’m probably only minimally Christian currently.
I do not hide any of this on Twitter or on my blog, and it’s right out there in the open. So she was exposing nothing.
So why is this idiot sending me screen caps of my own web site, telling me what I already know, and what I had been telling her repeatedly?
Her use of the word “trolling” was incorrect. She told me that I was “trolling.”
I am quite genuine in my disagreement with Trans (Transgenderism).
I did not provide a link to a critique of Trans on Twitter to rile people up or get an emotional reaction on purpose, which is what trolls do.
I provided a link to the critique of Trans thinking that other like-minded people may find the editorial interesting or thought-provoking.
At one stage Kelsie Tweeted at me:
- ‘But your name on your blog is Christian Pundit. You cannot write as a Christian Pundit if you aren’t a Christian.’
Oh yes, I can. I can most certainly write under any name I choose. I am part Christian, part Agnostic. I can write from either perspective.
Such stupidity on her part.
I’m half Christian, half Agnostic, or maybe 80% Agnostic and 20% Christian. I’d have to invest more time thinking about it to give you a better break down.
I also pointed out to the blockhead (I refer to Kelsie) that my blog and blog title were created before my lapse of faith.
My slide partially out of the Christian faith probably started to take place around 2012 or 2013, I don’t recall exactly.
This blog was created around 2009, or 2011, I think, some where in that time frame. I did not know back in 2011 (or whenever I began the blog) that I would one day slip into quasi- Agnosticism.
Kelsie is fairly ignorant of the Bible.
She referred to the Bible as a “moldy document” that was written “300 years” within the time of Christ.
She goes out of her way to be insulting to me, to insult Christian beliefs, even though I’m not fully a Christian, and although the original tweet of mine she was replying to, did not mention the Bible or anything about Christianity.
Kelsie, you have a serious chip on your shoulder against Christians and/or Christianity.
You come into a conversation already assuming the person you are conversing with is fully Christian and that also, if they are a Christian, they deserve to be treated like shit and at that just for disagreeing with you on some topic.
That was your starting point. Your starting point.
You picked a fight with someone who is not even totally Christian, who did not even mention Jesus or the Bible in the tweet that set you off.
Some of my reasons for disagreeing with Transgenderism are not all due to religious reasons but to some of the very (secular / Non Christian) reasons in the (Link): “What Makes A Woman” editorial I linked to.
That’s right, a person doesn’t have to object to Trans on religious grounds. There are other reasons to take issue with Trans that have nothing to do with the Bible.
You, Kelsie, need to spend more time examining your own prejudices against Christians than thinking you are acting as a warrior defending Trans.
The original tweet I sent out that Keslie replied to contained the heading of the editorial, “‘What Makes A Woman’ A critique of Transgenderism” – with a link to the NY Times web page.
And that was all the Tweet said.
My original Tweet said nothing about the Bible or the Christian faith. Kelsie went out of her way to inject Christianity and the Bible into the conversation. That was all her, not me.
Anyway, in one of her tweets, Kelsie said that the Bible was written “300 years” within the time of Christ.
The Old Testament of the Bible was written before Jesus (which should be obvious).
If Kelsie meant the New Testament, no.
Conservative, reputable scholars place most of the New Testament as having been written within 100 years of the time of Christ, not 300.
Liberal scholars love to add centuries on to the dates because they dislike the Bible and will try anything to disprove it.
There have been New Testament fragments found that date very early.
One partial New Testament mss (manuscript), a torn fragment, one of the earliest that was found, dates to around 90 or 100 A.D.
You can read more about those topics here:
- (Link): Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?
- (Link): What early manuscripts of the Bible exist today?
- (Link): Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts
- For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest “manuscript” of the New Testament.
- This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars.
- We now have early and very early evidence for the text of the New Testament.
I told Kelsie that if she is going to criticize Christianity, she should educate herself and get her facts right.
By the way, my partial rejection of the Christian faith is based somewhat on emotional reasons, not intellectual ones.
I don’t tolerate the usual arguments by skeptics, ones that seek to argue against the Bible (ie, intellectual reasons).
I spent years reading and studying apologetics, especially pertaining to the formation of the Bible, the textual transmission of the Bible, the formation of the canon, and so forth.
Granted, it’s been a few years, so I am a bit rusty on some things, but I remember enough to know that the biblical text as we have it is solid.
If you do not want to believe in the claims the Bible makes (that Jesus walked on water and so forth), fine, but don’t make the usual stupid atheist arguments about how the Bible cannot be trusted because of scribal errors and so on.
Those are bogus critiques so far as I am concerned.
I did tell Kelsie some of that, by the way.
She was arguing with me to “prove” the Bible to her, to prove it is true.
Why is she operating under the assumption that I care if she believes the Bible is “true” or not?
I’m not totally sure what she meant by that, but I told her I don’t care if she doesn’t agree with the claims in the Bible.
I do not care to “prove” the Bible to her.
I am partially agnostic. I am not an on-fire, full tilt evangelical who cares about her soul and getting her saved, so no, I don’t care if she rejects the Bible or not.
If you have followed this blog for any time, you know I am having issues and doubts about the Christian faith – hence, why I’m a bit of an agnostic now.
I am even angry at, or upset with, 99% of Christians. I will not discuss that in this blog post because I have discussed it in depth in older posts.
You have this weenie “LGBT” advocate tweeting at me, of all people, to “prove” the Bible to her? She is so barking up the wrong tree there.
I don’t give a rat’s ass if she believes it or not.
But when you make a factual mistake, as she did – such as tweeting that the Bible was written within 300 years of Christ, and that date is off – I will point that out.
I also found it very hypocritical that Kelsie was defending Transgender women (biological men who put some lip stick on and want to be considered full women), yet she obviously harbors an anti-Christian bias.
Bruce Jenner, who transitioned into “Caitlyn Jenner” has said in interviews that he/she is a Christian. So, Jenner is both a transgneder and a Christian.
But you have someone like Kelsie defending transgenders on the one hand, yet slamming Christians on the other.
Meaning, Kelsie will simultaneously defend Caitlyn Jenner (over the gender aspect) but condemn Caitlyn (over her Christian faith).
While I do not agree with transgenderism and feel it makes a mockery of women who were born women, I never- the- less do not agree with how some Christians have been holding double standards about this situation.
I blogged on that before here:
- (Link): SBC President Floyd: God Forgives Child Molesting (i.e., Josh Duggar) But Not Transgenderism (Bruce / Caitlyn Jenner)
I did not, and do not, agree with Floyd defending Duggar for molesting kids, but on the other hand, going after Jenner for being Trans.
That does not mean I am on board with Transgenderism, but I think Christians should be consistent on their views (do not hold one set of standards for child molesters and another for Transgenders).
Here are excerpts by an editorial by a secular, left wing feminist who I agree with on this topic:
(Link): What Makes A Woman by Elinor Burkett
Really, if this editorial by Ms Burkett ticks you off, you need to be tweeting or e-mailing her, not me.
- Do women and men have different brains?
- Back when Lawrence H. Summers was president of Harvard and suggested that they did, the reaction was swift and merciless. Pundits branded him sexist. Faculty members deemed him a troglodyte. Alumni withheld donations.
- But when Bruce Jenner said much the same thing in an April interview with Diane Sawyer, he was lionized for his bravery, even for his progressivism.
- “My brain is much more female than it is male,” he told her, explaining how he knew that he was transgender.
- This was the prelude to a new photo spread and interview in Vanity Fair that offered us a glimpse into Caitlyn Jenner’s idea of a woman: a cleavage-boosting corset, sultry poses, thick mascara and the prospect of regular “girls’ nights” of banter about hair and makeup. Ms. Jenner was greeted with even more thunderous applause.
- ESPN announced it would give Ms. Jenner an award for courage. President Obama also praised her. Not to be outdone, Chelsea Manning hopped on Ms. Jenner’s gender train on Twitter, gushing, “I am so much more aware of my emotions; much more sensitive emotionally (and physically).”
A part of me winced.
I have fought for many of my 68 years against efforts to put women — our brains, our hearts, our bodies, even our moods — into tidy boxes, to reduce us to hoary stereotypes.
Suddenly, I find that many of the people I think of as being on my side — people who proudly call themselves progressive and fervently support the human need for self-determination — are buying into the notion that minor differences in male and female brains lead to major forks in the road and that some sort of gendered destiny is encoded in us.
That’s the kind of nonsense that was used to repress women for centuries. But the desire to support people like Ms. Jenner and their journey toward their truest selves has strangely and unwittingly brought it back.
People who haven’t lived their whole lives as women, whether Ms. Jenner or Mr. Summers, shouldn’t get to define us.
That’s something men have been doing for much too long.
And as much as I recognize and endorse the right of men to throw off the mantle of maleness, they cannot stake their claim to dignity as transgender people by trampling on mine as a woman.
Their truth is not my truth. Their female identities are not my female identity.
They haven’t traveled through the world as women and been shaped by all that this entails.
They haven’t suffered through business meetings with men talking to their breasts or woken up after sex terrified they’d forgotten to take their birth control pills the day before.
They haven’t had to cope with the onset of their periods in the middle of a crowded subway, the humiliation of discovering that their male work partners’ checks were far larger than theirs, or the fear of being too weak to ward off rapists.
- …THE drip, drip, drip of Ms. Jenner’s experience included a hefty dose of male privilege few women could possibly imagine. While young “Bruiser,” as Bruce Jenner was called as a child, was being cheered on toward a university athletic scholarship, few female athletes could dare hope for such largess since universities offered little funding for women’s sports.
- When Mr. Jenner looked for a job to support himself during his training for the 1976 Olympics, he didn’t have to turn to the meager “Help Wanted – Female” ads in the newspapers, and he could get by on the $9,000 he earned annually, unlike young women whose median pay was little more than half that of men. Tall and strong, he never had to figure out how to walk streets safely at night.
Those are realities that shape women’s brains.
By defining womanhood the way he did to Ms. Sawyer, Mr. Jenner and the many advocates for transgender rights who take a similar tack ignore those realities.
In the process, they undermine almost a century of hard-fought arguments that the very definition of female is a social construct that has subordinated us. And they undercut our efforts to change the circumstances we grew up with.
- The “I was born in the wrong body” rhetoric favored by other trans people doesn’t work any better and is just as offensive, reducing us to our collective breasts and vaginas.
I probably disagree with left wing secular feminists about 95% or more of the time, but on this particular topic, I agree with this one.
I do not have personal animosity against Bruce / Caitlyn Jenner (though I was not cool with the fact that Jenner admitted in an interview he had pressured his wife to get one of their daughters aborted – imagine how that daughter feels learning that).
I might be more likely to consider Caitlyn a “true blue” woman if she has to endure things I have my whole life, like, being afraid to walk home alone at night and being raped; or getting menstrual blood all over her sheets and pants a few days a month; getting back-aches and horrid stomach cramps from a monthly period; being ignored in meetings by men, etc etc etc.
The fact that I do not fully embrace transgenderism does not make me a horrible person or a troll. I am actually more lenient on this issue than full Christians are.
As I told Kelsie in one of my last tweets before I blocked her (the back and forth with her got very tedious, she did not seem to ever understand what I was telling her), if she cannot win over a quasi-Agnostic such as myself, she is not going to win over the very conservative Southern Baptist Christians, such as SBC Pres Ronnie Floyd.
I am really really tired of neither Christians nor Non-Christians I come across online understanding the concept of someone being a Christian Agnostic.
I am partially Christian, partially Agnostic.
But your Non-Christians want to treat me as though I am 100% Christian, and the Christians want to act as though I was never a “real” Christian and am a 100% an Atheist.
Kelsie probably wants me to respect Caitlyn Jenner’s self identifying as being a woman, but Kelsie denies me identifying as a quasi-Agnostic, quasi-Christian.
The irony. Kelsie wants to keep telling me what or who I am:
- “You are a Christian! You are a Christian! You cannot blog about Christian stuff under the name Christian Pundit if you are not a Christian as you say! But you are a Christian!”
I think maybe Kelsie is embarassed or frustrated because she confused me as being a 100% Christian, but found out I’m only a bit of a Christian anymore, am somewhat Agnostic, so her usual talking points against Christians she encounters on Twitter don’t work on me.
For someone who claims to respect one type of people (Trans), she sure does harbor a lot of prejudices against an entire other group – Christians such as Caitlyn Jenner.
Edit. May 2016……
- By: D.C. McAllister | May 05, 2016
- I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. Caitlyn Jenner is reportedly posing nude for Sports Illustrated. A source told Us Weekly that Jenner will be featured on the cover of the magazine this summer, wearing “nothing but an American flag and her Olympic medal.” I’ll wait until you all grab a vomit bag….
- Okay, well, this should be expected given that we live in a materialistic celebrity culture that sexualizes women: being a woman is about dressing up, putting on make-up and baring your breasts. It’s selfies, sex videos and posing nude in magazines. Hurray for the empowerment of women!
- Jenner famously tweeted a while back that he’s figuring out how to become a woman by shopping and getting his nails done. Now he can add to the list flashing his fake breasts for the world to see—because that’s part of being a woman, right?
- There are so many things wrong with this picture, but let me focus on the portrait of womanhood that’s being displayed here. The transgender culture seems to think only in the most shallow and materialistic terms when it comes to being a woman. The hair, the make-up, the breasts, the clothing (even the sex change surgery falls short of the real thing). It’s all skin-deep, which betrays how they’re only pretending to be women, not really being one.
- …Being a woman is so much more, and it’s something, clearly, only real women can experience. It’s growing up as a girl, having a period, awkwardly developing breasts, being physically weaker than the guys and learning to live with that vulnerability, becoming a woman with the ability to create new life. It’s having a frame of reference from the time you’re born that is decidedly female, a journey that is unique to a woman. This can’t be artificially created.
—–Edit. Related Off Site Links:—-
- Dec 15, 2015
- Human brains do not fit neatly into ‘male’ and ‘female’ categories but share a mix of male and female features, a study led by an Israeli researcher from Tel Aviv University said.
- “It’s very, very rare to find someone who has only masculine or only feminine characteristics and it’s much more common to find people who have both masculine and feminine characteristics,” said Professor Daphna Joel from the Tel Aviv University School of Psychological Sciences and Sagol School of Neuroscience.
Professor Joel, who led the group of researchers, set out to study whether the differences between male and female brains added up to create two distinct brains, either male or female.
She concluded that while genitals in almost all humans come in two types, human brains do not and are not distinctly male or female.
Furthermore, the binary assumption that if you are a female or a male it implies certain behaviors, character traits and attitudes have no scientific basis, Professor Joel said.
The research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) was based on an analysis of magnetic resonance images (MRI) of more than 1,400 human brains. They showed that brains vary in their composition, regardless of their gender.
In the study, researchers defined a “male” zone and a “female” zone for each region of the brain based on data sets.
They found that many more individuals had brains with both “male” and “female” features than people with only “female” or only “male” brain features.
….”Our assumption as a society that our sex category whether we have male or female genitals has implications to what we would love, what we would like to do and what type of person we will be that also people come in two types, male nature and female nature, this has no scientific basis and people are very different from each other so I try to move from the language of the two sexes are similar or different, to language which means we are all different,” she said.
Related Posts, on this blog: