Dennis Prager wrote an article on TownHall.com prescribing his god’s judgment upon the transgendered. Well… most of them, assuming you’re able to follow his bizarre logic. Exodus of course is promoting the story without question. For an organization with the motto “question homosexuality” they sure don’t question much or produce original thoughts themselves. Let’s take a quick tour of Prager’s assertions:
T is more “troubling” than GL or B
Ok now that’s just insulting.
“Transgendered is not the same as transsexual”
Wow, someone has a modern dictionary.
“In theory, Judeo-Christian values have no problem with a transsexual — someone who has undergone a sex change — if that person then behaves in ways associated with his or her new sex.”
We’ll call this Assertion A. Apparently sex change operations fool this guy’s god.
“transgendered individual is a person of one sex who dresses (or otherwise behaves) as a member of the other sex “
Big ole SIN, he says. I hope all the trannies reading TownHall.com are paying attention.
“What, after all, do the transgendered, who are usually heterosexual men, have to do with gays and lesbians?”
Well… No not really. There are M->F who like M and M->F who like F and F->M who like M and F->M who like F. So no, the world is not as cut and dry as Prager’s little dominionist construction of it is.
“The change on application forms, for example, from “Sex: M or F” to “Gender: M or F” has gone unnoticed. But it is a huge change. In the sexual activists’ world, “sex” is fixed and objective; “gender” is fluid and subjective.”
Dennis is unclear on this one. He doesn’t say that changing “sex” to “gender” is a sin. It’s probably considered more of a sneaky trick.
“Democrats in California passed a law that forbids employers from firing a man who cross-dresses at work.”
This is also probably classified as a sneaky trick.
“What God has created distinct, man shall not tamper with.”
We’ll call this Assertion B. Of course he doesn’t bother to explain what tampering is. Notice when he brandished LGBT earlier he left out the I. Oversimplified dominionist world-view strikes again.
“the Torah bans men from wearing women’s clothing”
Even though they don’t believe in Jesus, I’m thinking this one still counts as sin.
“However, when a man does this in public, he has publicly blurred the man-woman distinction, and society has the right — and the duty, if it cares about Judeo-Christian values or simply cares about not confusing children as to sexual identity — to say this violates a norm that society does not wish violated.”
So about this M->F appearing in public… Is she pre-op or post-op? Because under Assertion A it’s only a sin if she’s pre-op. But under Assertion B it’s a sin if she’s post-op. Well not the appearing in public part, the “op” part that’s the sin. So in order to repent the sin of having a sex-change operation would she need to have reverse surgery to return to the male sex? It appears the only sin was the operation itself since Assertion A made it sound like once you’ve had the operation god issues you a new drivers license.
It looks like your best hope is to have the surgery, repent for the surgery but live in your new gender anyways. If you die before the surgery is complete, (like just hormones or breast augmentation) it’s sort of a gray area if you’ll get into heaven or not.
What can be learned from this train wreck of logic?
1) God’s absolute truth, as handed down to us through Dennis Prager and TownHall.com is clear, concise and easy to follow.
2) Dominionists live in their own idealized magical happy land. (Somehow achieving this WITHOUT the aid of drugs.)
3) Sex change operations fool god.
4) My brain hurts from writing this.