What is a Woman?

[Gondwanaland]

It is a broader field than just gender dysphoria, as is (merely) outlined here. And yes, any kind of dysphoria carries an increased risk of suicide. Where else does the patient go when the interventions, whether surgical or chemical, fail to reverse the underlying distress?

Can't forget species dysphoria too (aka otherkin).

But quite true, the suicide risk is quite expected when someone has extreme dysphoria like that, and as we see, even surgery and horomones for gender dysphoria to 'change' them doesn't tend to decrease the suicide risk. We - and psychologists/psychiatrists in particular - need to do better and actually work on ways to treat them, not to further their disease by going along with it.

[Machinist]

I don't know much about the Bible. Is wearing women's clothes biblically a sin? Asking for a friend.

[Machinist]

I guess it all depends on the mindset that putting on those clothes gets you into. If I put on a dress right now, I probably wouldn't feel like a woman. I'd probably feel silly. Feeling silly probably isn't a sin. But if I started feeling woman like, then that would go against what I was made to be. You know, the whole A=A thing. You have to follow the logic.

[tabibito]

I don't know much about the Bible. Is wearing women's clothes biblically a sin? Asking for a friend.

Deuteronomy 22:5

[Machinist]

Deuteronomy 22:5

Yeah I saw that. But I thought there were only 10 commandments that applied. I don't understand the hierarchy of scriptural authority here. From my understanding, any biblical support would be something that Paul said about the effeminate ones. But I often see where people reach back into the OT for support on something.

Like why would you present that as evidence if you were trying to make a case?

[tabibito]

I guess it all depends on the mindset that putting on those clothes gets you into. If I put on a dress right now, I probably wouldn't feel like a woman. I'd probably feel silly. Feeling silly probably isn't a sin. But if I started feeling woman like, then that would go against what I was made to be. You know, the whole A=A thing. You have to follow the logic.

The law itself doesn't have an exceptions clause, but it is obsolete anyway. It might easily have been a prohibition on "appropriation."

[Machinist]

The law itself doesn't have an exceptions clause, but it is obsolete anyway. It might easily have been a prohibition on "appropriation."

I don't fully comprehend what you said here. But it's interesting.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The dietary laws were done away with when God told Peter to go to the gentile Cornelius, in Acts 10. So for ox to bring up pork is disingenuous on his part.

Mountain Man specifically referred to Deuteronomy 22.5. There are other injunctions in those opening verses. Do those apply? If not, nor does the injunction at verse 5.

And for HA to bring up anything from scripture is just stupid, because she has no way of really understanding it without the Holy Spirit.

These are ancient texts and are no different from any other ancient texts.

[tabibito]

Yeah I saw that. But I thought there were only 10 commandments that applied.

They don't apply as such. The New Covenant has similar provisions, but not all of them are precisely the same. (e.g. the definitions of adultery and of murder)

I don't understand the hierarchy of scriptural authority here. From my understanding, any biblical support would be something that Paul said about the effeminate ones. But I often see where people reach back into the OT for support on something.

Malakos (effeminate) has very little, if anything, to do with sexual proclivity, which perhaps could be included under the sub-definition, "self indulgent/lacking self control," of the first century definition of the word.

Like why would you present that as evidence if you were trying to make a case?

Fraud, deceiving one's self or others, would be a stronger basis for a case.

[Mountain Man]

Actually, he said:

Source: john 8:10-11

Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”

© Copyright Original Source

I believe that the first part of the statement is the main part of what He did. Once that was done, once she knew she was not condemned, then it was possible for her to hear and want to fulfill the second part of what He said to her.

You need to consider the whole passage to understand Jesus' response. The men brought the woman before him and claimed that she deserved to be stoned according to the Law of Moses because she had supposedly been caught in the act of adultery. The first question you should be asking is, if she was caught in the act, then where was the man? Because according to the Law, they should both be punished. In other words, the men weren't being entirely truthful (the Bible even says it was a set-up to trap Jesus), which is why Jesus challenged them by saying, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." In other words, Jesus called their bluff, and they knew it, which is why all the men slunk away in disgrace. And then Jesus said, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" He wasn't saying this to wink at adultery but to highlight the hypocrisy of those who had tried to condemn her. And then he concluded, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on, sin no more," which, as I conisder it, could be read as a warning.

Are you comfortable in church?

Comfortable with my sin? No.

Good. Think about that.

And what, precisely, am I supposed to think about? Remember, I'm not the one saying that we should accept a new reality where the term "woman" is divorced from its biological meaning.

[Mountain Man]

MM forgot all those other injunctions in his selected verse 5 from Deuteronomy 22.

Does he keep all these as well? Let us hope he never wears a woollen pullover with linen pants!

You shall not watch your neighbor’s ox or sheep straying away and ignore them; you shall take them back to their owner. ² If the owner does not reside near you or you do not know who the owner is, you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall remain with you until the owner claims it; then you shall return it. ³ You shall do the same with a neighbor’s donkey; you shall do the same with a neighbor’s garment; and you shall do the same with anything else that your neighbor loses and you find. You may not withhold your help.

⁴ You shall not see your neighbor’s donkey or ox fallen on the road and ignore it; you shall help to lift it up.

⁵ A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does such things is abhorrent to the Lord your God.

⁶ If you come on a bird’s nest, in any tree or on the ground, with fledglings or eggs, with the mother sitting on the fledglings or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young. ⁷ Let the mother go, taking only the young for yourself, in order that it may go well with you and you may live long.

⁸ When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof; otherwise you might have bloodguilt on your house, if anyone should fall from it.

⁹ You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seed, or the whole yield will have to be forfeited, both the crop that you have sown and the yield of the vineyard itself.

¹⁰ You shall not plough with an ox and a donkey yoked together.

¹¹ You shall not wear clothes made of wool and linen woven together.

¹² You shall make tassels on the four corners of the cloak with which you cover yourself.

I've highlighted a key phrase that sets verse five apart from the others you quoted. Why do you suppose the behavior of cross dressing is uniquely condemned in this passage?

[Machinist]

I've highlighted a key phrase that sets verse five apart from the others you quoted. Why do you suppose the behavior of cross dressing is uniquely condemned in this passage?

Why why? Why why why?

[tabibito]

I've highlighted a key phrase that sets verse five apart from the others you quoted. Why do you suppose the behavior of cross dressing is uniquely condemned in this passage?

Flatly, it isn't. The reason for the prohibition may be unique (among these prohibitions), but the prohibition is by no means singular.

[Mountain Man]

I tell you this, a biologically male trans person that has found Christ and walks in His love even if still wearing women's clothes will see God before the most religious person that has rested on their own perfection according to the law of the old testament.

I wonder, would you say the same thing about a liar, a thief, a drunkard, an adulterer, a murder? That if they "find Christ and walk in his love" yet continue in their sin without conviction or repentance, that they will see God? That is very close to blasphemy, because the Bible tells us quite plainly that if there is no outward change in one's life, then there has been no inward change.

[mossrose]

I wonder, would you say the same thing about a liar, a thief, a drunkard, an adulterer, a murder? That if they "find Christ and walk in his love" yet continue in their sin without conviction or repentance, that they will see God? That is very close to blasphemy, because the Bible tells us quite plainly that if there is no outward change in one's life, then there has been no inward change.

Yes! "And such WERE some of you"! Not "such ARE some of you".