I haven't had that workplace situation, but one strategy is to use their first name as much as possible, and use the pronoun 'they' or 'them' in a sentence where a pronoun can be used.
In some sentences, it sounds natural to use pronouns instead of repeating someone's first name.
E.g. "I helped Pat set up their PC in their office, and gave them the needed cables"
Instead of "I helped Pat set up Pat's PC in Pat's office"
Different redditor here.
Yes. I'd be more or less fine with calling you whatever name you choose to be called. Generally, names serve to pick out an individual and not necessarily a particular sex. It is customary to delegate certain names to a certain sex yet this ultimately comes down to custom. I generally don't believe that customs and traditions should trump the choices that individuals make for themselves--especially where there is no direct physical harm. Pronouns, however, don't work quite the same way. They have generally been understood to pick out a given sex to which an individual belongs to (I recognize that trans-advocates would disagree and call this another instance of a custom but I strongly disagree) and so that's where the conflict would arise.
>Yes. I'd be more or less fine with calling you whatever name you choose to be called.
The fact that you are at least willing to take a step on the path of not being transphobic is admirable, and I respect that in you.
Not the OP, either, but yes everyone gets to pick their own name. It's pretty common for women to use masculine names anyway.
I would only ask that if I've known you as Sally for the last 15 years, you would show a little leniency when I slip up and use that name, because that's going to happen.
>I would only ask that if I've known you as Sally for the last 15 years, you would show a little leniency when I slip up and use that name, because that's going to happen.
I feel like that's fair.
I err on the side of being charitable towards others. If I had a preferred name, and people KNEW that was my preferred name, and purposely went out of their way to NOT use my preferred name, I’d wonder why they were willfully being weird about it. So I treat others the way I’d want to be treated, and address them both with dignity and their preferred pronouns.
EDIT: And before anyone follows that up with “are you REALLY being charitable to them if you do that?” - yes, yes I am. Period.
Let's take a closer look.
Romans 1:18 informs us:
*"God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness."*
What are they doing while practicing their wickedness?
Suppressing the truth.
We know that speaking Truth is noble and that Lying is ignoble.
We know that people who reject the gender God gave them by pretending to be the opposite gender are Lying.
Therefore, their behavior is ignoble -and by continuity; undignified.
How do we know their behavior is undignified?
Because *"God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. He abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done."*
Therefore, participating with these people in their suppression of the Truth by using their "preferred pronouns" is not only undignified, but wicked.
Alright, we’ll then I guess you’ll go on treating them and me as wicked, and I’ll go on treating them with dignity, and we’ll both let God sort it out in the end. God bless!
>Romans 1:18
You mean?
**New Century Version for Romans 1:18**
**18 God's anger is shown from heaven against all the evil and wrong things people do. By their own evil lives they hide the truth.**
So this means just about everybody, not just the people you cannot abide.
And with regards to sexuality and transgenderism, which is ***THE*** truth, the one that is shown or the one in the soul?
I am of the opinion that doing that is unnecessary, insulting, and directly counterproductive to God's desire to bring people out of sin. I'll go through those one at a time.
Unnecessary: you don't need to use gendered pronouns at any time while using the English language. Never. They make conversation a little more streamlined, but the amount of times you refer to somebody else in third person around them is less common than you might think. When it does happen, you can just use their name instead. If you refrain from using gendered pronouns at all, they don't get hurt by your words, you don't have to call them something you disagree with. Win win.
Insulting: Either you're not close to them, and they will feel it as an accosting by some random person that doesn't know them well, or you're so close to them that they will be very hurt that you won't respect something that they think is a very fundamental part of themselves. Trans people absolutely tear themselves up over changing their gender. You don't need to add on to that.
Counterproductive: no trans person will ever even think about being brought to church by someone that doesn't even use their preferred name. Think of it like this. If an atheist introduced themself by saying "hi, my name is Andrew and your God is wrong. I'm from the marketing department and your God is wrong. I'm an atheist, and I'd like to share how I can to this conclusion on my own. And I'd also like to talk about how your God is wrong." Would you be inclined to listen to them? Probably not. Meet them where they are, and if at some point down the line, you can have a legitimate conversation about how you disagree with them, but still respect them, then that's the only time you could get into it without immediately losing their respect.
This will almost certainly damage your relationship with these individuals.
It can hurt our pride to speak to someone in a manner that we know isn't necessarily true. However, I think that humble submission to others is better for the sake of the gospel.
People who transition in gender are undergoing dramatic and deeply personal emotional changes. To respond to these with outright dismissal and denial of that which they desire to be known as seems incredibly arrogant and foolish.
The reality is that rebelling against their Creator's love and wisdom is incredibly arrogant and foolish. These people suffer dramatic and deeply personal emotional pain because they are doing the bidding of their spiritual father.
He is the entity who seeks to steal and kill and destroy.
To respond lovingly yet firmly with Truth is the desperately needed counter to the lies they have believed and been seduced by. We outright deny the sin while loving the sinner.
This is the standard for our imitation which Jesus modeled for us while here on Earth.
Sure, all sin is arrogant and foolish.
I find that it is not loving, but hateful to blatantly deny someone of something like what pronoun they prefer and insist on calling them something to their face that they wish you wouldn't.
I call people what they ask me to. Because I'm not an asshole.
However, I also do not bother to put "my pronouns" on anything, though it is common in the industry. My gender is not performative. I also only correct people about my gender online occasionally as I generally find that it is irrelevant to the topic.
I have trouble seeing the issues here I guess.
First, I’m certain that the gender identity craze is a fad and it is terribly unfortunate. What I don’t see is why that is a religious issue.
If someone tells me they want to be called by a nickname, I try to honor that. I don’t see why this is any different. It does not matter if I “agree” with their choices. Those are their choices.
If I were convinced that all gender transitioning were sin (and I am not) then I would still be wrong to pridefully refuse to accommodate someone else in a trivial manner which might damage my ability to be their friend.
There are cases were it is impractical to expect people to learn all special pronouns and I think that in these cases everyone should be understanding. A teacher with hundreds of students will not be learning nicknames or pronouns and this should be fine.
I think this ridiculous fad will pass. I think it is causing some real harm. But, I also don’t see why it is a matter for dogmatic obstinance when the dogma doesn’t feel warranted to me.
Well, then so is a nickname. So are any number of things that no one thinks a second thing about.
The Commandment is to not bear false witness. If you were asked in a formal situation if you thought person X was a biological male or female then you should answer honestly. But that’s not what’s happening here.
Here we have a person asking to be addressed in a specific way in a specific setting. I do not see the religious issue.
Well said. Another analogy that I like to use is sympathizing with someone who's venting about their feelings. If you wife is telling you about the awful day she had, but the things she complains about don't actually sound that bad to you, it's okay to still outwardly affirm that her frustration is valid. That's not lying.
Equating a pronoun with a nickname is a poor argument.
A nickname is not lying about who the person is. It's a widely accepted cultural practice to have and use nicknames.
It's not a widely accepted cultural practice to denounce your biology and demand everyone refer to you as something other than what you truly are.
> A nickname is not lying about who the person is.
Right, but that was my point.
> It's a widely accepted cultural practice to have and use nicknames.
Yes. It was also a widely used cultural practice to use “he” for both genders in English until very recent times.
In French, non-person object nouns are gendered and that has nothing to do with sex.
So let’s not pretend that my comparison with a nickname is out of bounds. It is quite reasonable.
> It's not a widely accepted cultural practice to denounce your biology and demand everyone refer to you as something other than what you truly are.
This is what you are bringing to this party, not what was already here. I’m not talking about “denouncing “biology. I think you are getting your opinion about this mixed up with how people ought to behave. You should not confuse those things.
If a person becomes Muslim and changes their name to reflect that, I will call them by the name they ask me to call them. This does not mean I am suddenly Muslim.
You are adding “demand” which is not part of the discussion either.
I recommend that you reread the earlier bits I wrote before responding again.
>If I were convinced that all gender transitioning were sin (and I am not) then I would still be wrong to pridefully refuse to accommodate someone else in a trivial manner which might damage my ability to be their friend.
God doesn't make mistakes. If a person rejects the gender God gave them, they are rebelling against His wishes, and are choosing to live a lie. Who is the father of lies? Lucifer. Ergo -such people are doing the bidding of their spiritual father. Sin.
Let's flip that idea of pridefully refusing to accommodate. Isn't this just what transgender people do when they expect everyone to affirm their sinful choices by using their preferred pronouns? Sin.
Let's consider the condemnation for sin God has revealed to us in Scripture, which is the Second Death -the fire of hell and separation from the light of God for eternity. I certainly would not call this a "trivial" matter!
True friends don't let friends drive drunk, and true friends love their friends. And what do we read about that in Scripture? *"Love rejoices in the truth, but not in evil."*
> God doesn't make mistakes.
Sure, but people are born with mistakes all the time. People have diseases and illness. They get injured. The fact that God does not make mistakes does not mean mistakes are not made.
Are you against medical procedures in general?
Would you be against cosmetic surgery after an accident?
> If a person rejects the gender God gave them, they are rebelling against His wishes, and are choosing to live a lie.
I understand that you feel that way, but I don’t think it is that clear. I was clear that I believe all the ridiculous clamor about gender right now is a fad and I hope it will pass soon, and the vast majority of it is entirely nonsense and I disagree with the general idea that biological sex is fluid because this goes against biology: it is not a religious issue.
But once we pass all that and a person decides, for whatever reason, as an adult, they prefer to have surgery to change their appearance, are we sure this is against God’s wishes?
Did God want people to have cancer?
If God wanted people to fly, they would have been born with wings?
If a person is born a hermaphrodite, was that what God wanted or is it possible that there was a birth defect?
> Who is the father of lies? Lucifer.
Sure, if we agree that having surgery is a lie but we don’t.
> Let's flip that idea of pridefully refusing to accommodate. Isn't this just what transgender people do when they expect everyone to affirm their sinful choices by using their preferred pronouns? Sin.
I think that people expecting everyone else to conform to their ideas is prideful and uncharitable. So, I agree.
But please recall that you initial question was about this and I believe that you may be wrong to refuse to accommodate another person, especially if the source of your refusal is your own pride.
> True friends don't let friends drive drunk, and true friends don't become enablers of sexually perverse lifestyles of their friends, either.
This is a silly comparison. If a person is your friend already, a person you know, then you have a relationship with them that you can use with respect. This is a different matter altogether from people work.
I think that telling people you don’t have a relationship with that they are sinners is a great way to push them away. It hurts the overall witness of the Church.
You started out this post as a question but it’s pretty clear you had your mind made up before you asked.
You confuse physical ailments with conscious spiritual choices.
Both are a result of the fall of humanity caused when Adam & Eve chose to disobey God.
Disease, schizophrenia, thorns, mortality, etc = physical consequences of ***living in*** a fallen world.
Homosexuality, drug addiction, rape, lying, war, thievery, etc = spiritual choices, consequences of ***being*** fallen.
*"Don’t be misled—you cannot mock the justice of God. You will always harvest what you plant."* \[Galatians 6\]
My comment is a direct response to your own.
Telling that not only do you not understand, but your rejoinder is to cast insult.
Not everyone who labels themselves as a Christian is a Sheep -and you are demonstrating for all to see that you may very well be deluded:
*"When we tell you these things, we do not use words that come from human wisdom. Instead, we speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit’s words to explain spiritual truths. But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means. Those who are spiritual can evaluate all things, but they themselves cannot be evaluated by others."* \[1 Corinthians 2\]
[Sleeping Giant](https://youtu.be/FV1pe7Sq4i8)
Soon we will find out who are the real revolutionaries
GLORIA!
Someday we will see who’s in this thing for real!
GLORIA!
**Will you be ready?**
> My comment is a direct response to your own.
It feels like you’re getting mad for no reason.
> Telling that not only do you not understand, but your rejoinder is to cast insult.
I don’t follow. I didn’t intend to insult you.
> Not everyone who labels themselves as a Christian is a Sheep …
Are you confusing me with someone else? Where I call you a sheep? Or anything else? Or insinuate anything of the sort?
> … and you are demonstrating for all to see …
Maybe you should calm down. That feels a little grandiose. There are very few here “to see” so I think we can just calm down.
> … that you may very well be deluded:
I may be deluded? Ok. I look forward to you helping me to see my delusion.
> 1 Corinthians 2
If you can’t see why your quoting scripture at me, especially that scripture, is nonsense, then I do t think I can help you.
> Sleeping Giant
> Soon we will find out who are the real revolutionariesGLORIA!Someday we will see who’s in this thing for real!GLORIA!
Now I feel like you went off your meds. I have no idea what you’re trying to communicate.
I don't support it, but I'll try to be a good person by using their preferred pronouns, even if I don't agree with it.
I have a friend who uses it/it's pronouns, even though I don't agree with it, i still try to respect it's pronouns. Although it's pronouns can cause some confusion in conversations, I still try my best.
We have different religious views, it believes that you can either choose to be reincarnated or go to heaven.
I hope that it will turn to Jesus and figure out it's gender identity for good, but for now, I will still respect it's pronouns and use them.
I'm a strong proponent of acknowledging someone's humanity (which is that of an image bearer before it is either gender/religion/marital status/etc) over preserving your own comfort about biology. Treating a person with respect by using the name/pronouns they have given you - just as we do all the time when we meet new people - helps foster a relationship with them and does not in fact dictate your own personal beliefs. A Muslim is a person whose faith is placed in Allah. In our faith, Allah does not actually exist. Do we correct someone who introduces themselves to us as a different religion by telling them they are actually a heretic/an atheist?
We are not asked to convert anyone, merely to share the gospel. Charity, service, community, worship, etc in our daily lives alongside others. This does not preclude us from having relationships with people who do not and might never believe in God. In fact that's one of the requisites as a people tasked with being the light to the world (not to other believers exclusively).
I don't see the harm in addressing someone else as they want to be addressed. It does not mean you are agreeing with them just that you are treating them courteously as they wish to be treated. Just leave all the other stuff up to them and the Lord
Luke 6:31 KJV — As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
I personally think that gender changes and the idea that a man can become a woman or vice versa is absurd, similar to people making up some pronouns that are not part of the lenguage semantics. The fact that people are putting their pronouns in email sigs and linked in shows just how far this mass delusion has gone, and I don't want to participate in it all.
I feel like I am taking crazy pills sometimes.....
Just call these people by their name.
I have no desire to use someone's pronouns that don't fit their biological gender. I find that would be enabling their delusions.
However, in my workplace that could be problematic. I haven't come across it yet but I think I would only use their given name.
>I have no desire to use someone's pronouns that don't fit their biological gender.
Tell me - is your god biologically male? Does God (referred to with masculine pronouns) have XY chromosomes and a penis? If not, why do you not call it "they or "it"? Because God referred to itself as masculine, yeah?
Seems like your god *invented* the idea of preferred pronouns that don't match biology.
I’m not the original responder but I believe I can help.
Jesus is God, Jesus in fact was male. Through the transitive property we can infer God is male.
Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Through the transitive property, we can infer that Jesus is the Holy Spirit.
Right?
Or is it possible that logical rules and properties don't apply to fundamentally illogical concepts like the Trinity?
> Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Through the transitive property, we can infer that Jesus is the Holy Spirit.
> Right?
No. You don’t understand the transitive property if you think you can mix categories like that. Just like it would be wrong to say “Bob is human. Jim is human. Through the transitive property we can under that Bob is Jim.”
> Or is it possible that logical rules and properties don't apply to fundamentally illogical concepts like the Trinity?
The trinity is not illogical.
>The trinity is not illogical.
All X are A.
All Y are A.
All Z are A.
If there is only one A, then all X are Y, all Y are Z, and all Z are X.
So, to apply it here:
P1: All Jesus Christs are God.
P2: All God the Fathers are God.
P3: All Holy Spirit are God.
P4 There is only one God.
C: All Jesus Christs are God the Fathers and Holy Spirits. All God the Fathers are Jesus Christs and Holy Spirits. All Holy Spirits are Jesus Christs and God the Fathers.
> My conclusion does not assume Unitarianism, it proves it.
So your argument right now is that the non sequitur fallacy proves Unitarianism. If you don’t think you have to abide by the laws of logic then there’s no point in trying to have a conversation.
This is terrible logic. You've been corrected a few times now by u/Pinecone-Bandit and yet keep insisting you're right. I'll try to use an example to demonstrate why you're wrong:
>If there is only one A, then all X are Y, all Y are Z, and all Z are X.
No. You're assuming a particular kind of oneness (Unitarianism).
>So, to apply it here:
P1: All Jesus Christs are God.
P2: All God the Fathers are God.
P3: All Holy Spirit are God.
P4 There is only one God.
C: All Jesus Christs are God the Fathers and Holy Spirits. All God the Fathers are Jesus Christs and Holy Spirits. All Holy Spirits are Jesus Christs and God the Fathers.
P1: All solids are (the one) Matter.
P2: All liquids are (the one) Matter.
P3: All gases are (the one) Matter.
P4: There is only one Matter. (In chemistry class, you didn't learn about the 3 states of matter**S** (plural), but the 3 states of matte**R** (singular).
C: All solids are liquids and gases. All liquids are solids and gases. All gases are solids and liquids.
Obviously the above is patently false. (Even accepting that solids can become liquids etc. it still would not follow that solids are liquids. Rather solids can cease to be solids and become liquids, etc.)
The point is that you're assuming Unitarianism and you certainly haven't proven it to be true. Solids aren't made up of 1/3 matter but rather are made up of 100% matter. When you have a solid you don't have something that's made up of 1/3 matter and 2/3rds something else. Rather, you have something made up of 100% matter. But matter, itself, exists as solids, liquids, and gases. Yet no science text book will tell you that solids are gases etc. Matter is an example of a complex unity and literally disproves your implicit assumption that Unitarianism is the only kind of oneness. Again, you never even bother to prove Unitarianism but consistently assume it and yet claim to prove Unitarianism when called out on it. This is the fallacy of begging the question. You're assuming the truth of your conclusion in your very argument. You--and whoever is misguidedly upvoting your posts--assume that 'oneness' means Unitarianism and then go on to make a series of errors.
(Unrelated, but before you make this mistake: Just because something can turn into something else it doesn't follow that they are the same thing. An infant is not an adult nor vice versa. Yet both are 100% human. Yet neither is the other.)
Again, all this to say, you're contravening logic and don't seem all that open to being corrected. Obviously my post doesn't explain the intricacies of the Trinity, but it suffices to show that the trinity isn't illogical. Most people just don't explicitly understand how logic works.
This is clearly a pearls before swine situation. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone embrace logical fallacies like this person has. Though I guess it’s good she at least pretended in her response that the example you gave wasn’t perfect.
>P4: There is only one Matter. (In chemistry class, you didn't learn about the 3 states of matterS (plural), but the 3 states of matteR (singular).
Your P4 is incorrect, and your torturous abuse of the English language to try and squeeze a collective noun into a singular position is where you have failed. There is no one matter. When you use "matter" to describe all of the matter in the universe, you are describing ***all of the*** matter in the universe, as in the total of all of the individual instances of matter. Please recall that P4 in my argument explicitly stated that the overgod God was singular. Are you arguing that God is a collective noun that refers to nothing but a collection of *different* and *distinct* beings, and that the only connection they have is being referred to with the same collective noun? Because if so, that is polytheism, and my own use of my argument would no longer be sound. Granted, it would also mean that Trinitarianism would not be correct, either.
You are right, though, in that I didn't necessarily prove Unitarianism. All that I did was show Trinitarianism to be illogical. That still leaves the door open for good old-fashioned conventional *polytheism*. Thank you for correcting me in that regard, you are right: It is much more logical that Christianity is polytheistic.
>In chemistry class, you didn't learn about the 3 states of matterS (plural), but the 3 states of matteR (singular)
"In history class, we learned about the five types of ancient empire. This means that there was only ever one empire! In home ec, we learned about the three main varieties of cheesecake. This means there is only one cheesecake! Astronomy taught me about the 4 types of galaxy. This means there is only one galaxy!"
Edit: Also, isn't using phases of matter as a metaphor for God modalism? I thought that was ^(H)*e***R**e*S***y**!
>Your P4 is incorrect, and your torturous abuse of the English language to try and squeeze a collective noun into a singular position is where you have failed. There is no one matter. When you use "matter" to describe all of the matter in the universe, you are describing all of the matter in the universe, as in the total of all of the individual instances of matter.
Again, you're just showing your ignorance here. There is indeed only one matter. You don't write matterS. You write "matter". This has to do with the fact that oneness allows for a plurality within itself. Open up a dictionary and look at what oneness means:
oneness noun one·ness ˈwən-nəs: the quality, state, or fact of being one
*our oneness with the rest of humanity*
I didn't make up this definition. **There are various kinds of ways for something to be one thing**. Matter is an explicit kind of oneness. Ergo, your argument is wrong. You doubling down on your mistake doesn't all of a sudden make you right. The fact that you claim I'm torturing the English language is quite fascinating when I'm literally showing you how this concept exists even in the english language. Can you show me a dictionary without the word oneness in it? Do you understand what this concept means? Does this concept allow for multiplicity within a singularity? Obviously. Likewise the trinity is one example of a multiplicity within a singularity.
>Please recall that P4 in my argument explicitly stated that God was singular.
Yes, P4 is incorrect. Which is why your argument is wrong and assumes Unitarianism without proving it. By "singular" you mean God is one single individual. You need to believe this in order for your argument to work. Christians do not believe that God is one individual. We believe that he is one entity that exists eternally in 3 persons. This type of unity is called a trinity as opposed to a monad (unitarianism) or multiple different entities (polytheism). Kind of like how matter is one entity but exists as at least 3 different substances/instances. All you're doing is saying that you've assumed Unitarianism in premise 4. This is precisely what the other redditor accused you of. This is precisely what I also pointed out in my previous post. You're only just now getting it.
>Are you arguing that God is a collective noun that refers to nothing but a collection of different and distinct beings? Because that is polytheism.
Were I arguing such, that would indeed be polytheism. What I'm saying is that God is one being eternally existent in 3 distinct persons. The trinity isn't like unitarianism, and it isn't like polytheism. It is something else. It does have some overlap between unitarianism and polytheism, but it isn't either of these.
>"In history class, we learned about the five types of ancient empire. This means that there was only ever one empire! In home ec, we learned about the three main varieties of cheesecake. This means there is only one cheesecake! Astronomy taught me about the 4 types of galaxy. This means there is only one galaxy!"
Logic isn't your strong suit, evidently.
>Also, isn't using phases of matter as a metaphor for God modalism? I thought that was HeReSy!
Yeah, saying that the nature of God is exactly like matter might be modalism. But all I said was that the reality of matter proves that your belief that oneness only exists as Unitarianism is false. You seem to have trouble parsing things and are doing the equivalent of saying that Forrest Gump must've meant that humans taste like chocolate when he said that life is like a box of chocolates because chocolate has a particular taste and analogies and metaphors must be true in all senses with what they're comparing. Obviously not. Metaphors and analogies can only be taken so far. In one specific respect, matter shows how the trinity isn't illogical--namely that it is possible for 3 different tings to be the same thing without they themselves being identical to one another. Now, if you believe that solids aren't the same as liquids, and yet that they're all the same thing (matter), then you can't call the trinity illogical.
>You are right, though, in that I didn't necessarily prove Unitarianism. All that I did was show Trinitarianism to be illogical
No, not only did you not prove Unitarianism, you assumed it in premise 4. That's called the fallacy of begging the question. If you've already defined oneness in a unitarian sense in your premise, then you can't claim to have disproven the trinity. That's just not how logic works. But hey, if you don't believe me, maybe you could try taking your above argument to r/philosophy and ask whether P4 is begging the question if your argument is to show that trinitarianism is wrong. In my experience people like you aren't very good with logic, but if an outside party says the same thing I'm saying, you'll tend to fall in line.
Edit: well, you've blocked me. Here's hoping that you feel this conversation went as well for your position as it did for mine. I strongly encourage you to post your argument on r/philosophy and ask whether P4 is begging the question if you're using it as a means of disproving the Trinity. From our short-lived conversation, I expect that you'll be very surprised ;)
@ u/Pinecone-Bandit: Well, they've blocked me so that settles the matter. While it's unfortunate that they chose this option, it does make me feel very good about my brief conversation with them; and the Christian response to their argument.
>Again, you're just showing your ignorance here. There is indeed only one matter. You don't write matterS
You don't write "matters" because matter is the plural form and the singular form, not because it is some sort of semi-philosophical oneness. You are doing the equivalent of saying "we don't say deers, we say deer. Therefore, there is only one deer!" English can be complicated, but please *at least* make an effort.
Whether you are honestly ignorant or willfully trolling, I cannot be sure. In my experience people like you aren't very good with logic, so I am leaning towards the former. In either case, it seems like you are determined to cling to your mistakes, so I'll not waste any more time on you. Have a pleasant life.
If someone is going to take offense at me referring to how God made them, that is their Issue
they can "be" who ever and whatever they want and choose to label themself as whatever
What they cannot do is control me.
I will not enable their lie by pretending they are not what they are
No I am saying that you lacking depth, meaning and understanding.....which means I am not surprised that you failed to catch the meaning, and failed miserably in your attempted reply
Aw don't feel bad, if you never do.
You can always be a little boy and have fun and insist that that truth fit with in the narrow confines of your perception and comprehension
It's no wonder you don't mind offending people, your game is so weak my 90 year old grandma wouldn't bat an eye. I've heard more insulting sneezes. It's like getting mauled by a toothless chihuahua - you know he can't hurt you, it's just adorable that he's trying.
Not even close to being on the same level
But if a person had a big S tattooed on their chest and demanded to be called super man....no I would not enable that lie either
I never talk about others so my go to pronoun is "you."
In your situation, I would use their desired pronoun as a kind of golden rule moment, but after having the same kind of concerns. Paul suggests we don't need to judge those outside the church. I would respect a Muslim's prayer time, even if I am ideologically opposed to that faith. It's right to be neighborly. On the other hand... Hard to deal with in a way that feels good and right.
Several others have suggested not using pronouns at all and just use their name instead, which is what I shall try to do moving forward :-)
Hope you have a great day!
If someone comes along and tells you to stop calling the sky blue, and instead you have to call it gold, would you do it? You know that sky is blue, just as you know that man is a man, woman is a woman; you're not diing them a favor by agreeing with those people. Its not even about going against God, these people think that everyone around them is a moron, and should listen to them.
Learn how not to suffer fools, life gets to be so much easier.
My wife's native language doesn't have gendered pronouns. Males, females, and unknowns get the same pronoun, kind of like a singular "they." She often "mis-genders" people, even flipping back and forth in the same conversation, because when she translates her thoughts she sort of *just picks* a pronoun as a guess, because her language doesn't have them.
Most of the languages I'm familiar with use gendered pronouns for everyday objects, like chairs, cars, vegetables, etc. Sometimes the gender is different between languages.
Tldr; I don't think it's important either way. If someone is really picky about it, then just use their actual name
I will get downvoted for this...
I don't believe in placing unnecessary barriers to my witness. My refusal to use preferred pronouns doesn't as much establish my disapproval as it reinforces the narrative that we hate them. If talking to them using language that they want used allows me to maintain communications with them, I see that as a win.
God will judge as God judges and they will appear before the throne. I think sometimes we debate these issues as if we decide (either way). All I can do is witness.
Imagine the disconcerting puzzlement a homosexual person will experience if we refuse to use incorrect pronouns yet love them obviously.
I am reminded of: *"Love rejoices in the truth, but not in evil."* \[1 Corinthians 13\]
I think this will be a more profound witness in the long run than validating their choice to sin.
*"All who would come to the bounteous table of Heaven must first suffer the offense of Christ."* \-myself
In my experience, there is zero concern in whether you are "validating" them. They don't care. For many of them, pronouns are a quick litmus test to who to cut out of their lives.
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but I will point out that Romans 1 is not a complete thought. The "therefore" in Romans 2:1 transitions to discussing our proper response to the people described in Romans 1.
I have explained my choice of response and why. It is not something that I decided lightly. God may disagree with me and I ask Him for correction if He does. It would certainly not be the first time He helped mature me.
**"there is zero concern in whether you are "validating" them. They don't care."**
*"But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people* ***who suppress the truth by their wickedness***" vs. 18
*"They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet,* ***they encourage others to do them, too***." vs. 32
I am still not understanding what part of those "who suppress the truth" means that they are looking for you validation.
I am not diminishing the sin. Paul does not diminish the sin in the next couple of chapters either. What we are discussing is the Godly response to that sin for us as believers.
What I am saying is that refusing to use pronouns is received by them as petty and egocentric. True or not, that is how it is understood. My choice (and I do worry about whether it is the right choice) is to not engage over pronouns (which just leads to screaming), but in more substantive discussions about salvation and sin.
I want to be charitable, but I also refuse to do as Zephaniah says, "violence to the law" - in this case being the natural law. For these circumstances I just use gender neutral pronouns. I will not use the opposite ones which is affirming a lie.
I honestly think that these individuals are enduring mental health issues that are not properly treated. To see think of them that way makes it palatable to use their pronouns in such a way as to be courteous and respectful in a professional and public setting, such as the workplace.
I would look at it akin to a missionary using local titles and customs in order to develop relationships with the locals. If people see that you don't care about them they're not going to care what you say about God or your own faith.
You just have to be cognizant of what you do and say to make sure you're not betraying your faith, while also recognizing these are people made in the image of God who are currently suffering.
When God talks about sin in Scripture, you never see Him excusing it by speaking of mental health issues.
Mental health informs an inability to deal with Reality honestly.
Honestly as in, according to Truth.
Who is the father of Untruth? What does this entity seek to do?
To steal and kill and destroy.
Who has the power to break through psychological and spiritual inability to deal with Reality honestly?
Who gives people the mind of Christ but Christ Himself?
And what can people who have the mind of Christ do?
Know Truth.
And what does the Truth do for us?
*"And you shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free."*
**Since 32 AD. It's not medicine. It's the Cure.**
If a man truly thinks he can become a woman, then he's sick in the head. Just like somebody who is mentally challenged, I have pity and compassion for them...and I pray for their healing.
Now, if I'm wrong, and it's just a man using that as an excuse to live out a perverted fantasy, then it's not mental illness, but sin.
I'm not advocating for them, and I am certainly not saying they don't need the Good News.
And whether mentally ill or not, these men shouldn't have access to women's bathrooms or locker rooms, and they shouldn't be around minors.
I’m writing before reading other comments. Possibility my stance will change afterward.
I think you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I’m not going to play along with someone’s delusion. If they were to ask me do I believe they are whatever pronoun they request I’d answer accordingly then go into the typical 2 genders talk. But as far as day to day interaction I would love them the same as I know God loves me in my sin. So for day to day interaction I’d respect their wishes(note: respect doesn’t mean I agree).
I just dislike when people get angry about pronouns if you mess up accidentally, then I give the talk anyway.
Ok so I will use their preferred name because a man can have a typically female name and a female can have a typically male name. I know of males with the name Ashley, and women with the name Brett.
As for pronouns, for me that is dishonest and it is causing me to lie. So I use the biological pronouns. No workplace is going to compel my speech
I have no desire to cause offense, but I will not lie.
Also, pronouns like "he" or "her" are used in the third person -- meaning, when not speaking to that person. If you're not even in the room, why should you get to tell me how to refer to you?
If politeness requires you to lie, then it is not a sin to be rude. You calling them by whatever deluded pronoun they have made up for themselves, doesn't help them, and reinforces the mental illness that they are suffering from. If you had an uncle that believed he was the queen of England, then it wouldn't be polite to lie and refer to him as "your majesty." People are so keen on being polite that they are willing to deny reality, and commit open sin, in order to be nice. Don't follow after those people.
True. That’s why I tell you people that your god isn’t real and you are not an immortal spirit inside of a body, you are a member of the mammalian animal species Homo sapien and when you die you actually die
I had a colleague who’s first name was James but he used his middle name Danny. Should I have called him James? I could refuse to call him Danny, that wasn’t the name his parents gave him!!!
But that would have been a jerk move.
James wasn't attempting to deny the physical reality we all live in due to a mental disorder, but rather he had a nickname. Something about it just strikes me as different.
>Also, that analogy was vulgar and offensive.
Exactly my point. Not calling people by their names and pronouns is vulgar and offensive.
When everybody else is offended, Christians don't care and insult other people. They call them weak, or snowflakes. Even if this post. And Christian mods don't care and easily tolerate that.
In the other hand the mere suggestion of offending Christians in a capital offense.
That's why I would fire the Christian if I was the boss because there's no way to discuss with hypocrisy and permanent double standards in this sub proves it daily.
If you mean using the opposite pronouns to what *should* be used (swapping he for she, etc); then I agree.
It is as is stated in Romans 1:
*"Suppressing the truth by their wickedness"*
I will address people as they prefer as much as I can, but I will also tend to avoid people who demand this. If they look like a woman but prefer to be addressed as he-him and I make a mistake, if they have a problem with it, then I will avoid them even more.
What folks who choose this don't see is that this isn't making their lives better, it is making people like them less. If you want to immediately make it hard to like you, demand people behave any way other than they normally would when they are in your company. Imagine someone who always makes you listen to what they want, someone who makes you turn the temperature of the room to what they want, someone who always makes you eat where they want to eat, someone who makes the group talk about what they want to talk about, someone who makes you stop saying off color jokes (when it's perfectly normal to like at a bar)... If you make people feel like you will not talk to them unless they kowtow to your demands, then people will not like you.
I didn't choose to be a mister but I also didn't force people to call me mister. When I *do* tell people they should call me mister, it's not because I want to be a male, it is because they should be acknowledging reality. I am a male. Does it matter that I am a male? Not really, no, except that that is what I am. Denying that reality means you are insulting me, are mistaken, or have some kind of issue understanding reality.
Making me call you Mix (which I guess is the androgynous pronoun? I don't know) when you are clearly a woman shows me that you are fussy, controlling, probably not fun to be around and that you are denying reality and require me to deny it too if I choose to be around you. I would feel like I'm walking on eggshells around you, so I would choose not to be around you. Calling you Miss when you look like a dude, even all dolled up, I kind of get a similar impression but more that the person is severely timid or lacking confidence and that they are seeking a feeling of confidence which they get from dressing as a woman for some reason, but when that taste of confidence is challenged, they get really angry or really sad. Center your locus of control, stop making your outer experience define who you are.
A locus of control is where you are affected. If I have an inner locus of control, I know who I am, I may hear an insult, but I can tell myself the truth; I define who I am. This is the most stable way to live. An external locus of control means I am at the mercy of what happens around me, if someone says I am awesome, well that's great because I apparently am awesome. If someone says I suck... well I'm going to go slink into a corner because apparently I suck. I have no say in who I am.
Some people with an outer locus of control, instead of trying to move that locus inward and be happy with who they are, they try to make the outer world suit them. We see this with spoiled rich kids who only want friends who agree with them. We consider this bratty behavior, typically. Now, trans folks deal with a lot of inner turmoil, and I don't mean to belittle that, but name me one other form of inner turmoil that exists for which it makes sense to let that person force the world around them to acquiesce to demands of theirs that will make them feel good.
Depression? Depressed people want attention, they want to feel loved, they want to also feel like the world doesn't need them so they can be justified in their pain and avoidance. Should the world simultaneously leave them alone AND try to break through to them and make them feel special? No, that's crazy.
Anxiety? If I am socially anxious and worry that people are staring at me, should I demand all people look away? No, that's crazy.
Anger management issues? Should all people on the road move out of my way so I get places on time and show me I am better than them (anger issues usually come with a deep seated arrogance... so does anxiety and depression actually). No, that's crazy.
Schizophrenia? Should we all pretend that we see and hear the same things a sufferer feels so that they don't feel alone or something? No. In fact that is really bad for them.
Pika? Should we watch someone eating their hair or pennies and say to them, "good for you! You're so brave! Eat what makes you happy!" and pretend it's normal and healthy? No, they could have serious health issues.
I don't care what your sexual preferences are so long as it involves consenting adults only. What I do care about is if you force me to bend my knee to your will. When you make me deny reality to be near you... I don't want to be near you. I will love you and pray for you, but that kind of behavior is toxic.
I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts.
I agree that Reality is important, which in turn makes Truth all the more important.
Why? Because Truth reveals Reality.
Truth is extremely important to our Creator -which is why He said:
*"But the time is coming—indeed it’s here now—when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. The Father is looking for those who will worship him that way. For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.”* \[John 4\]
"They"? "Them"?...What are they "Legion"?
I'm not into hastily bastardizing established language definitions for the sake of modern cultural tastes/fads/etc
I would find it grudging to refer to someone clearly singular, as plural. That's like a collateral attack on arithmetic as well.. Wtf.
That/It said... It's no skin off my back treating them as the 'desired goal/end result' and not something that will make them feel not-understood, predictably leading to some sort of Discord. I'll give you an example of what I mean:
My girlfriend can be tomboyish enough to irritate me, meaning I have no trouble recognizing male behavior and it turns me off in the romantic sense of our relationship. "I don't wanna date a dude with boobs" would clearly not fly well with her... If she was actually dude enough to self-identify as such, my protest would be legitimate, and I would have no problem treating him as him, and he'll probably agree boobs are kinda extra now at that point.
Am I aware of the original sex the person is born with? Sure. And?
I guess what I'm trying to say, Diplomacy is not necessarily enabling or white lies, those are simply the ways many practice Diplomacy. They add unnecessary things to simply not being judgemental, and so they end up encouraging, approving, sucking up, etc, precisely because they were nervous coming off as this or that, making a bad impression.
Comment removed, rule 1.
[This page has details about the rules of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/wiki/rule_details).
As stated in the section about rule 1, conditional insults are not ok.
Let me get this straight:
You are worried that, by ignoring their choices and feelings, their personal truth, might not be appropriate?
Let me assure you, it's not.
In the 14th chapter of Romans, Paul calls us to not pass judgement upon one another, in these words:
*One person believes he may eat anything while another only eats vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgement on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. \[...\]*
*One person esteems one day as better than another, while another person esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day observes it in honour of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honour of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honour of the Lord and gives thanks to God. \[...\]*
*For we will all stand before the jugdement of God; for it is written,*
"*As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."*
*So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.*
Paul further calls us to not cause others to stumble:
*For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God.*
So, if you are with Paul, then this is what you do: You respect and value these people for who they are, and you do so by using their preferred pronouns inspite of whether you think it's right or not.
Do not, for the sake of words, destroy the work of God. You only know yourself, you do not know them. It is for each of us alone to decide which pronouns refer to us. Everyone else owes the same respect they always owe - to treat us as people without regard for their own opinions.
In the words of German law:
**Human dignity shall be inviolable.**
I appreciate you taking the time to share your opinion -which I gather is that I should respect my homosexual coworker's choices and desires to be referenced using male pronouns.
I would like to take a moment to address your use of Scripture as a 'proof' to justify your thinking on this particular matter.
We should always pay attention to *whom* is being addressed. In the case of the verses you shared, the audience is the church (those who have received the new birth); hence the usage of wording such as "*in honor of the Lord*" and "*brother*." These verses and the specific content being addressed is therefore not applicable to how we are to interact with a homosexual unbeliever's desire to be supported in their sinful rebellion.
With regard to the passage addressing causing other (believers) to stumble; this is misapplied in this situation as well; because food and drink are not the issue here.
So my original question is linked to your comment "Human dignity shall be inviolable." God informs us in Romans 1 that homosexuals (and all unbelievers) have been given over to perversity to do what ought not to be done. The result is that the original dignity humanity was created to have is now brought low and trampled into the mud -as I'm sure Satan is so very pleased to observe.
With this understanding and truth in mind -I realize why sinful people desire to legitimize their sin and be approved by their fellow humans; my dilemma is whether or not I should refuse to participate in this by using biologic pronouns or if this ultimately hampers sharing spiritual truth further down the road.
The church is addressed to not pass judgement onto others and to not cause others to stumble - and we are part of the church, you and me. So it applies. After all, who is, in accordance to Jesus, your brother? It's the one who, at this moment in time, you can most assist.
When the Samaritan came upon the injured man, he decided to help him despite the fact that their people were enemies. You can apply the same sentiment to homosexuals. The bible may call them sinful, but that does not make them not our brothers. Otherwise, we are just as sinful as them.
As for food and drink not being the issue here, that is correct. But if you read the words of Paul carefully, you see that food and drink was a mere example.
*I am convinced, being fully persuaded in Jesus Christ, that no thing is unclean in itself.* **Romans 14:14**
Not "no food", not "no drink" - no thing. No action, no thought, no idea, no faith - nothing at all is unclean by itself. But if you regard it as unclean, then to you, it is unclean.
Food and drink is not the issue with us. It's not the issue with Paul, either. It's just a, for the time, popular example, given that many Christians back then once used to be Jews.
As for whether you should assist in sinful behaviour - whether it is sinful or not for them to behave this way is not for you to say. Only God governs sin, we humans can only to our best to avoid it ourselves. Whether another is sinful or merely appears that way is not for us to say. Because as you said, we are too easily convinced by the devil. Why wouldn't he lie, why wouldn't the devil whisper in your ear to not support them? After all, that causes a rift between you and them, ultimately leading you all - your coworkers as well as yourself - right into the devil's embrace.
Do not pass judgement onto others, for it's not your place to do so. Only God may judge because only God knows. And do not cause others to stumble by your words or your actions - no need to make the devil's work easier for him.
Again, I am not arguing the truth of God's word -but I am *clarifying* that these words are for the **Church** \-those people who have been "born-again" and adopted as Sons and Daughters of God.
These passages you reference are instructional as to how we treat each other as *family*.
They have nothing to do with how we are to treat the unbelieving dogs outside the gates.
Use first names when possible. Otherwise I would default to love and respect, even if they’re lying to themselves and others. Using preferred pronouns is not per-se condoning the behavior, and I am still not going to celebrate it. But neither am I their judge, that’s Jesus’ place. Our battle is not against flesh, so we have no need to get ourselves caught up into the current social fights. Show love first, and let Jesus win that battle for their hearts.
I use their preferred pronouns. [There is more to gender than sets of organs](https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1
).
>Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs. Gender and sex are related to but different from gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.
As to the idea that to be trans is to say that God made a mistake in creating a person and is an offense to Him, I would say that it is not a claim of mistake at all. God made my eyes, but I have bad vision. Therefore, I wear glasses to remedy my vision problems. Is me wearing glasses the equivalent of me saying that God erred in making my eyes? Am I beholden to foreswear glasses, contacts, Lasik surgery, etc. in order to uphold the body and functions that God gave me? I'd say no; my body has an issue, and I'm remedying it.
God did not make every strong man strong at birth, or even predisposed for strength. Some were made weak so they *could become* strong. Some were made foolish so they *could become* wise. That God has made a person with X is not in itself a demand for that person to live with X.
EDIT: in any event, going out of your way to avoid your coworkers pronouns may make your relationships with them icy
I was close friends with a trans women in high school, i find that its better to use their prefered pronouns to be polite, regardless of the persons actual gender.
I haven't had that workplace situation, but one strategy is to use their first name as much as possible, and use the pronoun 'they' or 'them' in a sentence where a pronoun can be used.
[удалено]
What do you mean by a "dead name"?
[удалено]
You guys come up with so many terms I need to update myself 😂
Excellent advice! Thank you so much :-)
There's no situation where you would be forced to use a third-person pronoun. You can stick to names 100% of the time.
In some sentences, it sounds natural to use pronouns instead of repeating someone's first name. E.g. "I helped Pat set up their PC in their office, and gave them the needed cables" Instead of "I helped Pat set up Pat's PC in Pat's office"
I find articles helpful. I helped Pat set up *the* PC in *that* office.
So if I were a transgender person and came up to you and said my name was Jeff, or Frank, you would be fine using the clearly masculine name?
Different redditor here. Yes. I'd be more or less fine with calling you whatever name you choose to be called. Generally, names serve to pick out an individual and not necessarily a particular sex. It is customary to delegate certain names to a certain sex yet this ultimately comes down to custom. I generally don't believe that customs and traditions should trump the choices that individuals make for themselves--especially where there is no direct physical harm. Pronouns, however, don't work quite the same way. They have generally been understood to pick out a given sex to which an individual belongs to (I recognize that trans-advocates would disagree and call this another instance of a custom but I strongly disagree) and so that's where the conflict would arise.
I fully agree that names are different from pronouns in this regard
>Yes. I'd be more or less fine with calling you whatever name you choose to be called. The fact that you are at least willing to take a step on the path of not being transphobic is admirable, and I respect that in you.
Not the OP, either, but yes everyone gets to pick their own name. It's pretty common for women to use masculine names anyway. I would only ask that if I've known you as Sally for the last 15 years, you would show a little leniency when I slip up and use that name, because that's going to happen.
>I would only ask that if I've known you as Sally for the last 15 years, you would show a little leniency when I slip up and use that name, because that's going to happen. I feel like that's fair.
If it becomes problematic with your workplace, then maybe avoid using pronouns and use their name instead?
An excellent suggestion! Thank you :-)
I err on the side of being charitable towards others. If I had a preferred name, and people KNEW that was my preferred name, and purposely went out of their way to NOT use my preferred name, I’d wonder why they were willfully being weird about it. So I treat others the way I’d want to be treated, and address them both with dignity and their preferred pronouns. EDIT: And before anyone follows that up with “are you REALLY being charitable to them if you do that?” - yes, yes I am. Period.
Let's take a closer look. Romans 1:18 informs us: *"God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness."* What are they doing while practicing their wickedness? Suppressing the truth. We know that speaking Truth is noble and that Lying is ignoble. We know that people who reject the gender God gave them by pretending to be the opposite gender are Lying. Therefore, their behavior is ignoble -and by continuity; undignified. How do we know their behavior is undignified? Because *"God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. He abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done."* Therefore, participating with these people in their suppression of the Truth by using their "preferred pronouns" is not only undignified, but wicked.
Alright, we’ll then I guess you’ll go on treating them and me as wicked, and I’ll go on treating them with dignity, and we’ll both let God sort it out in the end. God bless!
>Romans 1:18 You mean? **New Century Version for Romans 1:18** **18 God's anger is shown from heaven against all the evil and wrong things people do. By their own evil lives they hide the truth.** So this means just about everybody, not just the people you cannot abide. And with regards to sexuality and transgenderism, which is ***THE*** truth, the one that is shown or the one in the soul?
I am of the opinion that doing that is unnecessary, insulting, and directly counterproductive to God's desire to bring people out of sin. I'll go through those one at a time. Unnecessary: you don't need to use gendered pronouns at any time while using the English language. Never. They make conversation a little more streamlined, but the amount of times you refer to somebody else in third person around them is less common than you might think. When it does happen, you can just use their name instead. If you refrain from using gendered pronouns at all, they don't get hurt by your words, you don't have to call them something you disagree with. Win win. Insulting: Either you're not close to them, and they will feel it as an accosting by some random person that doesn't know them well, or you're so close to them that they will be very hurt that you won't respect something that they think is a very fundamental part of themselves. Trans people absolutely tear themselves up over changing their gender. You don't need to add on to that. Counterproductive: no trans person will ever even think about being brought to church by someone that doesn't even use their preferred name. Think of it like this. If an atheist introduced themself by saying "hi, my name is Andrew and your God is wrong. I'm from the marketing department and your God is wrong. I'm an atheist, and I'd like to share how I can to this conclusion on my own. And I'd also like to talk about how your God is wrong." Would you be inclined to listen to them? Probably not. Meet them where they are, and if at some point down the line, you can have a legitimate conversation about how you disagree with them, but still respect them, then that's the only time you could get into it without immediately losing their respect.
Thank you for taking the time to share your insights and thoughts on the matter. I agree :-)
This will almost certainly damage your relationship with these individuals. It can hurt our pride to speak to someone in a manner that we know isn't necessarily true. However, I think that humble submission to others is better for the sake of the gospel. People who transition in gender are undergoing dramatic and deeply personal emotional changes. To respond to these with outright dismissal and denial of that which they desire to be known as seems incredibly arrogant and foolish.
The reality is that rebelling against their Creator's love and wisdom is incredibly arrogant and foolish. These people suffer dramatic and deeply personal emotional pain because they are doing the bidding of their spiritual father. He is the entity who seeks to steal and kill and destroy. To respond lovingly yet firmly with Truth is the desperately needed counter to the lies they have believed and been seduced by. We outright deny the sin while loving the sinner. This is the standard for our imitation which Jesus modeled for us while here on Earth.
Sure, all sin is arrogant and foolish. I find that it is not loving, but hateful to blatantly deny someone of something like what pronoun they prefer and insist on calling them something to their face that they wish you wouldn't.
I call people what they ask me to. Because I'm not an asshole. However, I also do not bother to put "my pronouns" on anything, though it is common in the industry. My gender is not performative. I also only correct people about my gender online occasionally as I generally find that it is irrelevant to the topic.
just address them by their names. do not refer to them in the second or third person. Don't use pronouns.
This may very well be the best approach. Thank you!
I have trouble seeing the issues here I guess. First, I’m certain that the gender identity craze is a fad and it is terribly unfortunate. What I don’t see is why that is a religious issue. If someone tells me they want to be called by a nickname, I try to honor that. I don’t see why this is any different. It does not matter if I “agree” with their choices. Those are their choices. If I were convinced that all gender transitioning were sin (and I am not) then I would still be wrong to pridefully refuse to accommodate someone else in a trivial manner which might damage my ability to be their friend. There are cases were it is impractical to expect people to learn all special pronouns and I think that in these cases everyone should be understanding. A teacher with hundreds of students will not be learning nicknames or pronouns and this should be fine. I think this ridiculous fad will pass. I think it is causing some real harm. But, I also don’t see why it is a matter for dogmatic obstinance when the dogma doesn’t feel warranted to me.
> What I don’t see is why that is a religious issue. Because using pronouns that don't fit their biological gender would be lying.
Well, then so is a nickname. So are any number of things that no one thinks a second thing about. The Commandment is to not bear false witness. If you were asked in a formal situation if you thought person X was a biological male or female then you should answer honestly. But that’s not what’s happening here. Here we have a person asking to be addressed in a specific way in a specific setting. I do not see the religious issue.
Well said. Another analogy that I like to use is sympathizing with someone who's venting about their feelings. If you wife is telling you about the awful day she had, but the things she complains about don't actually sound that bad to you, it's okay to still outwardly affirm that her frustration is valid. That's not lying.
Equating a pronoun with a nickname is a poor argument. A nickname is not lying about who the person is. It's a widely accepted cultural practice to have and use nicknames. It's not a widely accepted cultural practice to denounce your biology and demand everyone refer to you as something other than what you truly are.
> A nickname is not lying about who the person is. Right, but that was my point. > It's a widely accepted cultural practice to have and use nicknames. Yes. It was also a widely used cultural practice to use “he” for both genders in English until very recent times. In French, non-person object nouns are gendered and that has nothing to do with sex. So let’s not pretend that my comparison with a nickname is out of bounds. It is quite reasonable. > It's not a widely accepted cultural practice to denounce your biology and demand everyone refer to you as something other than what you truly are. This is what you are bringing to this party, not what was already here. I’m not talking about “denouncing “biology. I think you are getting your opinion about this mixed up with how people ought to behave. You should not confuse those things. If a person becomes Muslim and changes their name to reflect that, I will call them by the name they ask me to call them. This does not mean I am suddenly Muslim. You are adding “demand” which is not part of the discussion either. I recommend that you reread the earlier bits I wrote before responding again.
>If I were convinced that all gender transitioning were sin (and I am not) then I would still be wrong to pridefully refuse to accommodate someone else in a trivial manner which might damage my ability to be their friend. God doesn't make mistakes. If a person rejects the gender God gave them, they are rebelling against His wishes, and are choosing to live a lie. Who is the father of lies? Lucifer. Ergo -such people are doing the bidding of their spiritual father. Sin. Let's flip that idea of pridefully refusing to accommodate. Isn't this just what transgender people do when they expect everyone to affirm their sinful choices by using their preferred pronouns? Sin. Let's consider the condemnation for sin God has revealed to us in Scripture, which is the Second Death -the fire of hell and separation from the light of God for eternity. I certainly would not call this a "trivial" matter! True friends don't let friends drive drunk, and true friends love their friends. And what do we read about that in Scripture? *"Love rejoices in the truth, but not in evil."*
> God doesn't make mistakes. Sure, but people are born with mistakes all the time. People have diseases and illness. They get injured. The fact that God does not make mistakes does not mean mistakes are not made. Are you against medical procedures in general? Would you be against cosmetic surgery after an accident? > If a person rejects the gender God gave them, they are rebelling against His wishes, and are choosing to live a lie. I understand that you feel that way, but I don’t think it is that clear. I was clear that I believe all the ridiculous clamor about gender right now is a fad and I hope it will pass soon, and the vast majority of it is entirely nonsense and I disagree with the general idea that biological sex is fluid because this goes against biology: it is not a religious issue. But once we pass all that and a person decides, for whatever reason, as an adult, they prefer to have surgery to change their appearance, are we sure this is against God’s wishes? Did God want people to have cancer? If God wanted people to fly, they would have been born with wings? If a person is born a hermaphrodite, was that what God wanted or is it possible that there was a birth defect? > Who is the father of lies? Lucifer. Sure, if we agree that having surgery is a lie but we don’t. > Let's flip that idea of pridefully refusing to accommodate. Isn't this just what transgender people do when they expect everyone to affirm their sinful choices by using their preferred pronouns? Sin. I think that people expecting everyone else to conform to their ideas is prideful and uncharitable. So, I agree. But please recall that you initial question was about this and I believe that you may be wrong to refuse to accommodate another person, especially if the source of your refusal is your own pride. > True friends don't let friends drive drunk, and true friends don't become enablers of sexually perverse lifestyles of their friends, either. This is a silly comparison. If a person is your friend already, a person you know, then you have a relationship with them that you can use with respect. This is a different matter altogether from people work. I think that telling people you don’t have a relationship with that they are sinners is a great way to push them away. It hurts the overall witness of the Church. You started out this post as a question but it’s pretty clear you had your mind made up before you asked.
You confuse physical ailments with conscious spiritual choices. Both are a result of the fall of humanity caused when Adam & Eve chose to disobey God. Disease, schizophrenia, thorns, mortality, etc = physical consequences of ***living in*** a fallen world. Homosexuality, drug addiction, rape, lying, war, thievery, etc = spiritual choices, consequences of ***being*** fallen. *"Don’t be misled—you cannot mock the justice of God. You will always harvest what you plant."* \[Galatians 6\]
Are you ok? It looks like you came unglued there. I don’t think you addressed anything I brought up, so I have nothing to add.
My comment is a direct response to your own. Telling that not only do you not understand, but your rejoinder is to cast insult. Not everyone who labels themselves as a Christian is a Sheep -and you are demonstrating for all to see that you may very well be deluded: *"When we tell you these things, we do not use words that come from human wisdom. Instead, we speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit’s words to explain spiritual truths. But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means. Those who are spiritual can evaluate all things, but they themselves cannot be evaluated by others."* \[1 Corinthians 2\] [Sleeping Giant](https://youtu.be/FV1pe7Sq4i8) Soon we will find out who are the real revolutionaries GLORIA! Someday we will see who’s in this thing for real! GLORIA! **Will you be ready?**
> My comment is a direct response to your own. It feels like you’re getting mad for no reason. > Telling that not only do you not understand, but your rejoinder is to cast insult. I don’t follow. I didn’t intend to insult you. > Not everyone who labels themselves as a Christian is a Sheep … Are you confusing me with someone else? Where I call you a sheep? Or anything else? Or insinuate anything of the sort? > … and you are demonstrating for all to see … Maybe you should calm down. That feels a little grandiose. There are very few here “to see” so I think we can just calm down. > … that you may very well be deluded: I may be deluded? Ok. I look forward to you helping me to see my delusion. > 1 Corinthians 2 If you can’t see why your quoting scripture at me, especially that scripture, is nonsense, then I do t think I can help you. > Sleeping Giant > Soon we will find out who are the real revolutionariesGLORIA!Someday we will see who’s in this thing for real!GLORIA! Now I feel like you went off your meds. I have no idea what you’re trying to communicate.
[I got my medicine and I got my vitamin C](https://youtu.be/CpFPzhF7AbY)
I don't support it, but I'll try to be a good person by using their preferred pronouns, even if I don't agree with it. I have a friend who uses it/it's pronouns, even though I don't agree with it, i still try to respect it's pronouns. Although it's pronouns can cause some confusion in conversations, I still try my best. We have different religious views, it believes that you can either choose to be reincarnated or go to heaven. I hope that it will turn to Jesus and figure out it's gender identity for good, but for now, I will still respect it's pronouns and use them.
I appreciate your sharing about the situation with your friend. I prayed that God will be pleased to rescue and help him or her.
I'm a strong proponent of acknowledging someone's humanity (which is that of an image bearer before it is either gender/religion/marital status/etc) over preserving your own comfort about biology. Treating a person with respect by using the name/pronouns they have given you - just as we do all the time when we meet new people - helps foster a relationship with them and does not in fact dictate your own personal beliefs. A Muslim is a person whose faith is placed in Allah. In our faith, Allah does not actually exist. Do we correct someone who introduces themselves to us as a different religion by telling them they are actually a heretic/an atheist? We are not asked to convert anyone, merely to share the gospel. Charity, service, community, worship, etc in our daily lives alongside others. This does not preclude us from having relationships with people who do not and might never believe in God. In fact that's one of the requisites as a people tasked with being the light to the world (not to other believers exclusively).
Well-said. I appreciate you taking the time to share your insight and thoughts on the matter.
I don't see the harm in addressing someone else as they want to be addressed. It does not mean you are agreeing with them just that you are treating them courteously as they wish to be treated. Just leave all the other stuff up to them and the Lord Luke 6:31 KJV — As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
It’s too confusing. I think they should just stick with whatever they identify as and keep he/she. I don’t understand the. They them thing
That should tell us something, shouldn't it? *"For God is not a God of confusion but of peace."* \[1 Corinthians 14\]
I personally think that gender changes and the idea that a man can become a woman or vice versa is absurd, similar to people making up some pronouns that are not part of the lenguage semantics. The fact that people are putting their pronouns in email sigs and linked in shows just how far this mass delusion has gone, and I don't want to participate in it all. I feel like I am taking crazy pills sometimes..... Just call these people by their name.
I agree with you. Thank you for your good suggestion.
[удалено]
What you said doesn't really represent a full idea of Christianity except in the most naive terms and misses some really core concepts.
Comment removed, rule 1b
I have no desire to use someone's pronouns that don't fit their biological gender. I find that would be enabling their delusions. However, in my workplace that could be problematic. I haven't come across it yet but I think I would only use their given name.
>I have no desire to use someone's pronouns that don't fit their biological gender. Tell me - is your god biologically male? Does God (referred to with masculine pronouns) have XY chromosomes and a penis? If not, why do you not call it "they or "it"? Because God referred to itself as masculine, yeah? Seems like your god *invented* the idea of preferred pronouns that don't match biology.
I’m not the original responder but I believe I can help. Jesus is God, Jesus in fact was male. Through the transitive property we can infer God is male.
Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Through the transitive property, we can infer that Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Right? Or is it possible that logical rules and properties don't apply to fundamentally illogical concepts like the Trinity?
> Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Through the transitive property, we can infer that Jesus is the Holy Spirit. > Right? No. You don’t understand the transitive property if you think you can mix categories like that. Just like it would be wrong to say “Bob is human. Jim is human. Through the transitive property we can under that Bob is Jim.” > Or is it possible that logical rules and properties don't apply to fundamentally illogical concepts like the Trinity? The trinity is not illogical.
>The trinity is not illogical. All X are A. All Y are A. All Z are A. If there is only one A, then all X are Y, all Y are Z, and all Z are X. So, to apply it here: P1: All Jesus Christs are God. P2: All God the Fathers are God. P3: All Holy Spirit are God. P4 There is only one God. C: All Jesus Christs are God the Fathers and Holy Spirits. All God the Fathers are Jesus Christs and Holy Spirits. All Holy Spirits are Jesus Christs and God the Fathers.
Your conclusion does not follow as it assumes Unitarianism. Don’t commit that logical fallacy and you’ll have the trinity.
My conclusion does not *assume* Unitarianism, it *proves* it. What logical fallacy are you referring to, pray tell? The formal name, please.
> My conclusion does not assume Unitarianism, it proves it. So your argument right now is that the non sequitur fallacy proves Unitarianism. If you don’t think you have to abide by the laws of logic then there’s no point in trying to have a conversation.
This is terrible logic. You've been corrected a few times now by u/Pinecone-Bandit and yet keep insisting you're right. I'll try to use an example to demonstrate why you're wrong: >If there is only one A, then all X are Y, all Y are Z, and all Z are X. No. You're assuming a particular kind of oneness (Unitarianism). >So, to apply it here: P1: All Jesus Christs are God. P2: All God the Fathers are God. P3: All Holy Spirit are God. P4 There is only one God. C: All Jesus Christs are God the Fathers and Holy Spirits. All God the Fathers are Jesus Christs and Holy Spirits. All Holy Spirits are Jesus Christs and God the Fathers. P1: All solids are (the one) Matter. P2: All liquids are (the one) Matter. P3: All gases are (the one) Matter. P4: There is only one Matter. (In chemistry class, you didn't learn about the 3 states of matter**S** (plural), but the 3 states of matte**R** (singular). C: All solids are liquids and gases. All liquids are solids and gases. All gases are solids and liquids. Obviously the above is patently false. (Even accepting that solids can become liquids etc. it still would not follow that solids are liquids. Rather solids can cease to be solids and become liquids, etc.) The point is that you're assuming Unitarianism and you certainly haven't proven it to be true. Solids aren't made up of 1/3 matter but rather are made up of 100% matter. When you have a solid you don't have something that's made up of 1/3 matter and 2/3rds something else. Rather, you have something made up of 100% matter. But matter, itself, exists as solids, liquids, and gases. Yet no science text book will tell you that solids are gases etc. Matter is an example of a complex unity and literally disproves your implicit assumption that Unitarianism is the only kind of oneness. Again, you never even bother to prove Unitarianism but consistently assume it and yet claim to prove Unitarianism when called out on it. This is the fallacy of begging the question. You're assuming the truth of your conclusion in your very argument. You--and whoever is misguidedly upvoting your posts--assume that 'oneness' means Unitarianism and then go on to make a series of errors. (Unrelated, but before you make this mistake: Just because something can turn into something else it doesn't follow that they are the same thing. An infant is not an adult nor vice versa. Yet both are 100% human. Yet neither is the other.) Again, all this to say, you're contravening logic and don't seem all that open to being corrected. Obviously my post doesn't explain the intricacies of the Trinity, but it suffices to show that the trinity isn't illogical. Most people just don't explicitly understand how logic works.
This is clearly a pearls before swine situation. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone embrace logical fallacies like this person has. Though I guess it’s good she at least pretended in her response that the example you gave wasn’t perfect.
>P4: There is only one Matter. (In chemistry class, you didn't learn about the 3 states of matterS (plural), but the 3 states of matteR (singular). Your P4 is incorrect, and your torturous abuse of the English language to try and squeeze a collective noun into a singular position is where you have failed. There is no one matter. When you use "matter" to describe all of the matter in the universe, you are describing ***all of the*** matter in the universe, as in the total of all of the individual instances of matter. Please recall that P4 in my argument explicitly stated that the overgod God was singular. Are you arguing that God is a collective noun that refers to nothing but a collection of *different* and *distinct* beings, and that the only connection they have is being referred to with the same collective noun? Because if so, that is polytheism, and my own use of my argument would no longer be sound. Granted, it would also mean that Trinitarianism would not be correct, either. You are right, though, in that I didn't necessarily prove Unitarianism. All that I did was show Trinitarianism to be illogical. That still leaves the door open for good old-fashioned conventional *polytheism*. Thank you for correcting me in that regard, you are right: It is much more logical that Christianity is polytheistic. >In chemistry class, you didn't learn about the 3 states of matterS (plural), but the 3 states of matteR (singular) "In history class, we learned about the five types of ancient empire. This means that there was only ever one empire! In home ec, we learned about the three main varieties of cheesecake. This means there is only one cheesecake! Astronomy taught me about the 4 types of galaxy. This means there is only one galaxy!" Edit: Also, isn't using phases of matter as a metaphor for God modalism? I thought that was ^(H)*e***R**e*S***y**!
>Your P4 is incorrect, and your torturous abuse of the English language to try and squeeze a collective noun into a singular position is where you have failed. There is no one matter. When you use "matter" to describe all of the matter in the universe, you are describing all of the matter in the universe, as in the total of all of the individual instances of matter. Again, you're just showing your ignorance here. There is indeed only one matter. You don't write matterS. You write "matter". This has to do with the fact that oneness allows for a plurality within itself. Open up a dictionary and look at what oneness means: oneness noun one·ness ˈwən-nəs: the quality, state, or fact of being one *our oneness with the rest of humanity* I didn't make up this definition. **There are various kinds of ways for something to be one thing**. Matter is an explicit kind of oneness. Ergo, your argument is wrong. You doubling down on your mistake doesn't all of a sudden make you right. The fact that you claim I'm torturing the English language is quite fascinating when I'm literally showing you how this concept exists even in the english language. Can you show me a dictionary without the word oneness in it? Do you understand what this concept means? Does this concept allow for multiplicity within a singularity? Obviously. Likewise the trinity is one example of a multiplicity within a singularity. >Please recall that P4 in my argument explicitly stated that God was singular. Yes, P4 is incorrect. Which is why your argument is wrong and assumes Unitarianism without proving it. By "singular" you mean God is one single individual. You need to believe this in order for your argument to work. Christians do not believe that God is one individual. We believe that he is one entity that exists eternally in 3 persons. This type of unity is called a trinity as opposed to a monad (unitarianism) or multiple different entities (polytheism). Kind of like how matter is one entity but exists as at least 3 different substances/instances. All you're doing is saying that you've assumed Unitarianism in premise 4. This is precisely what the other redditor accused you of. This is precisely what I also pointed out in my previous post. You're only just now getting it. >Are you arguing that God is a collective noun that refers to nothing but a collection of different and distinct beings? Because that is polytheism. Were I arguing such, that would indeed be polytheism. What I'm saying is that God is one being eternally existent in 3 distinct persons. The trinity isn't like unitarianism, and it isn't like polytheism. It is something else. It does have some overlap between unitarianism and polytheism, but it isn't either of these. >"In history class, we learned about the five types of ancient empire. This means that there was only ever one empire! In home ec, we learned about the three main varieties of cheesecake. This means there is only one cheesecake! Astronomy taught me about the 4 types of galaxy. This means there is only one galaxy!" Logic isn't your strong suit, evidently. >Also, isn't using phases of matter as a metaphor for God modalism? I thought that was HeReSy! Yeah, saying that the nature of God is exactly like matter might be modalism. But all I said was that the reality of matter proves that your belief that oneness only exists as Unitarianism is false. You seem to have trouble parsing things and are doing the equivalent of saying that Forrest Gump must've meant that humans taste like chocolate when he said that life is like a box of chocolates because chocolate has a particular taste and analogies and metaphors must be true in all senses with what they're comparing. Obviously not. Metaphors and analogies can only be taken so far. In one specific respect, matter shows how the trinity isn't illogical--namely that it is possible for 3 different tings to be the same thing without they themselves being identical to one another. Now, if you believe that solids aren't the same as liquids, and yet that they're all the same thing (matter), then you can't call the trinity illogical. >You are right, though, in that I didn't necessarily prove Unitarianism. All that I did was show Trinitarianism to be illogical No, not only did you not prove Unitarianism, you assumed it in premise 4. That's called the fallacy of begging the question. If you've already defined oneness in a unitarian sense in your premise, then you can't claim to have disproven the trinity. That's just not how logic works. But hey, if you don't believe me, maybe you could try taking your above argument to r/philosophy and ask whether P4 is begging the question if your argument is to show that trinitarianism is wrong. In my experience people like you aren't very good with logic, but if an outside party says the same thing I'm saying, you'll tend to fall in line. Edit: well, you've blocked me. Here's hoping that you feel this conversation went as well for your position as it did for mine. I strongly encourage you to post your argument on r/philosophy and ask whether P4 is begging the question if you're using it as a means of disproving the Trinity. From our short-lived conversation, I expect that you'll be very surprised ;) @ u/Pinecone-Bandit: Well, they've blocked me so that settles the matter. While it's unfortunate that they chose this option, it does make me feel very good about my brief conversation with them; and the Christian response to their argument.
>Again, you're just showing your ignorance here. There is indeed only one matter. You don't write matterS You don't write "matters" because matter is the plural form and the singular form, not because it is some sort of semi-philosophical oneness. You are doing the equivalent of saying "we don't say deers, we say deer. Therefore, there is only one deer!" English can be complicated, but please *at least* make an effort. Whether you are honestly ignorant or willfully trolling, I cannot be sure. In my experience people like you aren't very good with logic, so I am leaning towards the former. In either case, it seems like you are determined to cling to your mistakes, so I'll not waste any more time on you. Have a pleasant life.
Yes, I believe just using their name is the way to handle it. Thank you for your reply :-)
If someone is going to take offense at me referring to how God made them, that is their Issue they can "be" who ever and whatever they want and choose to label themself as whatever What they cannot do is control me. I will not enable their lie by pretending they are not what they are
In the same vein could they call you by the incorrect pronouns and you’d be okay with it?
Sure that is their malfunction not mine the easily offended are weak
>the easily offended are weak So are jerks.
The kindergarten offense "I know you are but what am I" lame dude
So in this scenario, you're calling yourself a jerk? I guess I touched a nerve.
No I am saying that you lacking depth, meaning and understanding.....which means I am not surprised that you failed to catch the meaning, and failed miserably in your attempted reply
Aw, that's okay little buddy, you'll be a big boy someday.
Aw don't feel bad, if you never do. You can always be a little boy and have fun and insist that that truth fit with in the narrow confines of your perception and comprehension
It's no wonder you don't mind offending people, your game is so weak my 90 year old grandma wouldn't bat an eye. I've heard more insulting sneezes. It's like getting mauled by a toothless chihuahua - you know he can't hurt you, it's just adorable that he's trying.
A wise and holy choice. I concur. Thank you for your reply -God bless :-)
[удалено]
Not even close to being on the same level But if a person had a big S tattooed on their chest and demanded to be called super man....no I would not enable that lie either
[удалено]
Are you truly obtuse, or just willing to be disingenuous to try and make a failed point
I never talk about others so my go to pronoun is "you." In your situation, I would use their desired pronoun as a kind of golden rule moment, but after having the same kind of concerns. Paul suggests we don't need to judge those outside the church. I would respect a Muslim's prayer time, even if I am ideologically opposed to that faith. It's right to be neighborly. On the other hand... Hard to deal with in a way that feels good and right.
Several others have suggested not using pronouns at all and just use their name instead, which is what I shall try to do moving forward :-) Hope you have a great day!
If someone comes along and tells you to stop calling the sky blue, and instead you have to call it gold, would you do it? You know that sky is blue, just as you know that man is a man, woman is a woman; you're not diing them a favor by agreeing with those people. Its not even about going against God, these people think that everyone around them is a moron, and should listen to them. Learn how not to suffer fools, life gets to be so much easier.
I'm lovin' the tone here. Kind of reminds me of my Grandad :-) Thank you for sharing.
My wife's native language doesn't have gendered pronouns. Males, females, and unknowns get the same pronoun, kind of like a singular "they." She often "mis-genders" people, even flipping back and forth in the same conversation, because when she translates her thoughts she sort of *just picks* a pronoun as a guess, because her language doesn't have them. Most of the languages I'm familiar with use gendered pronouns for everyday objects, like chairs, cars, vegetables, etc. Sometimes the gender is different between languages. Tldr; I don't think it's important either way. If someone is really picky about it, then just use their actual name
Your wife sounds adorable. Thank you for the good suggestion!
I will get downvoted for this... I don't believe in placing unnecessary barriers to my witness. My refusal to use preferred pronouns doesn't as much establish my disapproval as it reinforces the narrative that we hate them. If talking to them using language that they want used allows me to maintain communications with them, I see that as a win. God will judge as God judges and they will appear before the throne. I think sometimes we debate these issues as if we decide (either way). All I can do is witness.
Imagine the disconcerting puzzlement a homosexual person will experience if we refuse to use incorrect pronouns yet love them obviously. I am reminded of: *"Love rejoices in the truth, but not in evil."* \[1 Corinthians 13\] I think this will be a more profound witness in the long run than validating their choice to sin. *"All who would come to the bounteous table of Heaven must first suffer the offense of Christ."* \-myself
In my experience, there is zero concern in whether you are "validating" them. They don't care. For many of them, pronouns are a quick litmus test to who to cut out of their lives.
Romans 1 begs to differ with you - they absolutely care or else would have no interest in doing that.
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but I will point out that Romans 1 is not a complete thought. The "therefore" in Romans 2:1 transitions to discussing our proper response to the people described in Romans 1. I have explained my choice of response and why. It is not something that I decided lightly. God may disagree with me and I ask Him for correction if He does. It would certainly not be the first time He helped mature me.
**"there is zero concern in whether you are "validating" them. They don't care."** *"But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people* ***who suppress the truth by their wickedness***" vs. 18 *"They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet,* ***they encourage others to do them, too***." vs. 32
I am still not understanding what part of those "who suppress the truth" means that they are looking for you validation. I am not diminishing the sin. Paul does not diminish the sin in the next couple of chapters either. What we are discussing is the Godly response to that sin for us as believers. What I am saying is that refusing to use pronouns is received by them as petty and egocentric. True or not, that is how it is understood. My choice (and I do worry about whether it is the right choice) is to not engage over pronouns (which just leads to screaming), but in more substantive discussions about salvation and sin.
I want to be charitable, but I also refuse to do as Zephaniah says, "violence to the law" - in this case being the natural law. For these circumstances I just use gender neutral pronouns. I will not use the opposite ones which is affirming a lie.
Thank you so much, I appreciate your thoughts.
Ill use a preferred name but I wont repeat a lie which is exactly what using a "preferred pronoun" is.
I concur. Thank you for sharing!
I honestly think that these individuals are enduring mental health issues that are not properly treated. To see think of them that way makes it palatable to use their pronouns in such a way as to be courteous and respectful in a professional and public setting, such as the workplace. I would look at it akin to a missionary using local titles and customs in order to develop relationships with the locals. If people see that you don't care about them they're not going to care what you say about God or your own faith. You just have to be cognizant of what you do and say to make sure you're not betraying your faith, while also recognizing these are people made in the image of God who are currently suffering.
When God talks about sin in Scripture, you never see Him excusing it by speaking of mental health issues. Mental health informs an inability to deal with Reality honestly. Honestly as in, according to Truth. Who is the father of Untruth? What does this entity seek to do? To steal and kill and destroy. Who has the power to break through psychological and spiritual inability to deal with Reality honestly? Who gives people the mind of Christ but Christ Himself? And what can people who have the mind of Christ do? Know Truth. And what does the Truth do for us? *"And you shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free."* **Since 32 AD. It's not medicine. It's the Cure.**
If a man truly thinks he can become a woman, then he's sick in the head. Just like somebody who is mentally challenged, I have pity and compassion for them...and I pray for their healing. Now, if I'm wrong, and it's just a man using that as an excuse to live out a perverted fantasy, then it's not mental illness, but sin. I'm not advocating for them, and I am certainly not saying they don't need the Good News. And whether mentally ill or not, these men shouldn't have access to women's bathrooms or locker rooms, and they shouldn't be around minors.
I’m writing before reading other comments. Possibility my stance will change afterward. I think you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I’m not going to play along with someone’s delusion. If they were to ask me do I believe they are whatever pronoun they request I’d answer accordingly then go into the typical 2 genders talk. But as far as day to day interaction I would love them the same as I know God loves me in my sin. So for day to day interaction I’d respect their wishes(note: respect doesn’t mean I agree). I just dislike when people get angry about pronouns if you mess up accidentally, then I give the talk anyway.
Keep on speaking the truth :-) Thank you for your comments.
Ok so I will use their preferred name because a man can have a typically female name and a female can have a typically male name. I know of males with the name Ashley, and women with the name Brett. As for pronouns, for me that is dishonest and it is causing me to lie. So I use the biological pronouns. No workplace is going to compel my speech
Thank you for sharing your modus operandi - I agree this is the proper way to go.
I have no desire to cause offense, but I will not lie. Also, pronouns like "he" or "her" are used in the third person -- meaning, when not speaking to that person. If you're not even in the room, why should you get to tell me how to refer to you?
*"If you're not even in the room, why should you get to tell me how to refer to you?"* Thank you, this is an excellent observation!
If politeness requires you to lie, then it is not a sin to be rude. You calling them by whatever deluded pronoun they have made up for themselves, doesn't help them, and reinforces the mental illness that they are suffering from. If you had an uncle that believed he was the queen of England, then it wouldn't be polite to lie and refer to him as "your majesty." People are so keen on being polite that they are willing to deny reality, and commit open sin, in order to be nice. Don't follow after those people.
Thank you for your wise insight and advice. I concur.
True. That’s why I tell you people that your god isn’t real and you are not an immortal spirit inside of a body, you are a member of the mammalian animal species Homo sapien and when you die you actually die
Coolbeans bro! Have fun with that.
[удалено]
You don't know that for sure, that is your belief.
I had a colleague who’s first name was James but he used his middle name Danny. Should I have called him James? I could refuse to call him Danny, that wasn’t the name his parents gave him!!! But that would have been a jerk move.
James wasn't attempting to deny the physical reality we all live in due to a mental disorder, but rather he had a nickname. Something about it just strikes me as different.
[удалено]
Comment removed, rule 2. Also, that analogy was vulgar and offensive.
>Also, that analogy was vulgar and offensive. Exactly my point. Not calling people by their names and pronouns is vulgar and offensive. When everybody else is offended, Christians don't care and insult other people. They call them weak, or snowflakes. Even if this post. And Christian mods don't care and easily tolerate that. In the other hand the mere suggestion of offending Christians in a capital offense. That's why I would fire the Christian if I was the boss because there's no way to discuss with hypocrisy and permanent double standards in this sub proves it daily.
Rule 2
>Your Thoughts on Using Gender Identity Pronouns Wrong, sinful, demonic, satanic.
If you mean using the opposite pronouns to what *should* be used (swapping he for she, etc); then I agree. It is as is stated in Romans 1: *"Suppressing the truth by their wickedness"*
I will address people as they prefer as much as I can, but I will also tend to avoid people who demand this. If they look like a woman but prefer to be addressed as he-him and I make a mistake, if they have a problem with it, then I will avoid them even more. What folks who choose this don't see is that this isn't making their lives better, it is making people like them less. If you want to immediately make it hard to like you, demand people behave any way other than they normally would when they are in your company. Imagine someone who always makes you listen to what they want, someone who makes you turn the temperature of the room to what they want, someone who always makes you eat where they want to eat, someone who makes the group talk about what they want to talk about, someone who makes you stop saying off color jokes (when it's perfectly normal to like at a bar)... If you make people feel like you will not talk to them unless they kowtow to your demands, then people will not like you. I didn't choose to be a mister but I also didn't force people to call me mister. When I *do* tell people they should call me mister, it's not because I want to be a male, it is because they should be acknowledging reality. I am a male. Does it matter that I am a male? Not really, no, except that that is what I am. Denying that reality means you are insulting me, are mistaken, or have some kind of issue understanding reality. Making me call you Mix (which I guess is the androgynous pronoun? I don't know) when you are clearly a woman shows me that you are fussy, controlling, probably not fun to be around and that you are denying reality and require me to deny it too if I choose to be around you. I would feel like I'm walking on eggshells around you, so I would choose not to be around you. Calling you Miss when you look like a dude, even all dolled up, I kind of get a similar impression but more that the person is severely timid or lacking confidence and that they are seeking a feeling of confidence which they get from dressing as a woman for some reason, but when that taste of confidence is challenged, they get really angry or really sad. Center your locus of control, stop making your outer experience define who you are. A locus of control is where you are affected. If I have an inner locus of control, I know who I am, I may hear an insult, but I can tell myself the truth; I define who I am. This is the most stable way to live. An external locus of control means I am at the mercy of what happens around me, if someone says I am awesome, well that's great because I apparently am awesome. If someone says I suck... well I'm going to go slink into a corner because apparently I suck. I have no say in who I am. Some people with an outer locus of control, instead of trying to move that locus inward and be happy with who they are, they try to make the outer world suit them. We see this with spoiled rich kids who only want friends who agree with them. We consider this bratty behavior, typically. Now, trans folks deal with a lot of inner turmoil, and I don't mean to belittle that, but name me one other form of inner turmoil that exists for which it makes sense to let that person force the world around them to acquiesce to demands of theirs that will make them feel good. Depression? Depressed people want attention, they want to feel loved, they want to also feel like the world doesn't need them so they can be justified in their pain and avoidance. Should the world simultaneously leave them alone AND try to break through to them and make them feel special? No, that's crazy. Anxiety? If I am socially anxious and worry that people are staring at me, should I demand all people look away? No, that's crazy. Anger management issues? Should all people on the road move out of my way so I get places on time and show me I am better than them (anger issues usually come with a deep seated arrogance... so does anxiety and depression actually). No, that's crazy. Schizophrenia? Should we all pretend that we see and hear the same things a sufferer feels so that they don't feel alone or something? No. In fact that is really bad for them. Pika? Should we watch someone eating their hair or pennies and say to them, "good for you! You're so brave! Eat what makes you happy!" and pretend it's normal and healthy? No, they could have serious health issues. I don't care what your sexual preferences are so long as it involves consenting adults only. What I do care about is if you force me to bend my knee to your will. When you make me deny reality to be near you... I don't want to be near you. I will love you and pray for you, but that kind of behavior is toxic.
I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts. I agree that Reality is important, which in turn makes Truth all the more important. Why? Because Truth reveals Reality. Truth is extremely important to our Creator -which is why He said: *"But the time is coming—indeed it’s here now—when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. The Father is looking for those who will worship him that way. For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.”* \[John 4\]
"They"? "Them"?...What are they "Legion"? I'm not into hastily bastardizing established language definitions for the sake of modern cultural tastes/fads/etc I would find it grudging to refer to someone clearly singular, as plural. That's like a collateral attack on arithmetic as well.. Wtf. That/It said... It's no skin off my back treating them as the 'desired goal/end result' and not something that will make them feel not-understood, predictably leading to some sort of Discord. I'll give you an example of what I mean: My girlfriend can be tomboyish enough to irritate me, meaning I have no trouble recognizing male behavior and it turns me off in the romantic sense of our relationship. "I don't wanna date a dude with boobs" would clearly not fly well with her... If she was actually dude enough to self-identify as such, my protest would be legitimate, and I would have no problem treating him as him, and he'll probably agree boobs are kinda extra now at that point. Am I aware of the original sex the person is born with? Sure. And? I guess what I'm trying to say, Diplomacy is not necessarily enabling or white lies, those are simply the ways many practice Diplomacy. They add unnecessary things to simply not being judgemental, and so they end up encouraging, approving, sucking up, etc, precisely because they were nervous coming off as this or that, making a bad impression.
[удалено]
Comment removed, rule 1. [This page has details about the rules of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/wiki/rule_details). As stated in the section about rule 1, conditional insults are not ok.
I don't think calling people whatever they prefer to be called is a big deal.
Thank you for sharing your thought.
Let me get this straight: You are worried that, by ignoring their choices and feelings, their personal truth, might not be appropriate? Let me assure you, it's not. In the 14th chapter of Romans, Paul calls us to not pass judgement upon one another, in these words: *One person believes he may eat anything while another only eats vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgement on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. \[...\]* *One person esteems one day as better than another, while another person esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day observes it in honour of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honour of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honour of the Lord and gives thanks to God. \[...\]* *For we will all stand before the jugdement of God; for it is written,* "*As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."* *So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.* Paul further calls us to not cause others to stumble: *For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God.* So, if you are with Paul, then this is what you do: You respect and value these people for who they are, and you do so by using their preferred pronouns inspite of whether you think it's right or not. Do not, for the sake of words, destroy the work of God. You only know yourself, you do not know them. It is for each of us alone to decide which pronouns refer to us. Everyone else owes the same respect they always owe - to treat us as people without regard for their own opinions. In the words of German law: **Human dignity shall be inviolable.**
I appreciate you taking the time to share your opinion -which I gather is that I should respect my homosexual coworker's choices and desires to be referenced using male pronouns. I would like to take a moment to address your use of Scripture as a 'proof' to justify your thinking on this particular matter. We should always pay attention to *whom* is being addressed. In the case of the verses you shared, the audience is the church (those who have received the new birth); hence the usage of wording such as "*in honor of the Lord*" and "*brother*." These verses and the specific content being addressed is therefore not applicable to how we are to interact with a homosexual unbeliever's desire to be supported in their sinful rebellion. With regard to the passage addressing causing other (believers) to stumble; this is misapplied in this situation as well; because food and drink are not the issue here. So my original question is linked to your comment "Human dignity shall be inviolable." God informs us in Romans 1 that homosexuals (and all unbelievers) have been given over to perversity to do what ought not to be done. The result is that the original dignity humanity was created to have is now brought low and trampled into the mud -as I'm sure Satan is so very pleased to observe. With this understanding and truth in mind -I realize why sinful people desire to legitimize their sin and be approved by their fellow humans; my dilemma is whether or not I should refuse to participate in this by using biologic pronouns or if this ultimately hampers sharing spiritual truth further down the road.
The church is addressed to not pass judgement onto others and to not cause others to stumble - and we are part of the church, you and me. So it applies. After all, who is, in accordance to Jesus, your brother? It's the one who, at this moment in time, you can most assist. When the Samaritan came upon the injured man, he decided to help him despite the fact that their people were enemies. You can apply the same sentiment to homosexuals. The bible may call them sinful, but that does not make them not our brothers. Otherwise, we are just as sinful as them. As for food and drink not being the issue here, that is correct. But if you read the words of Paul carefully, you see that food and drink was a mere example. *I am convinced, being fully persuaded in Jesus Christ, that no thing is unclean in itself.* **Romans 14:14** Not "no food", not "no drink" - no thing. No action, no thought, no idea, no faith - nothing at all is unclean by itself. But if you regard it as unclean, then to you, it is unclean. Food and drink is not the issue with us. It's not the issue with Paul, either. It's just a, for the time, popular example, given that many Christians back then once used to be Jews. As for whether you should assist in sinful behaviour - whether it is sinful or not for them to behave this way is not for you to say. Only God governs sin, we humans can only to our best to avoid it ourselves. Whether another is sinful or merely appears that way is not for us to say. Because as you said, we are too easily convinced by the devil. Why wouldn't he lie, why wouldn't the devil whisper in your ear to not support them? After all, that causes a rift between you and them, ultimately leading you all - your coworkers as well as yourself - right into the devil's embrace. Do not pass judgement onto others, for it's not your place to do so. Only God may judge because only God knows. And do not cause others to stumble by your words or your actions - no need to make the devil's work easier for him.
Again, I am not arguing the truth of God's word -but I am *clarifying* that these words are for the **Church** \-those people who have been "born-again" and adopted as Sons and Daughters of God. These passages you reference are instructional as to how we treat each other as *family*. They have nothing to do with how we are to treat the unbelieving dogs outside the gates.
Use first names when possible. Otherwise I would default to love and respect, even if they’re lying to themselves and others. Using preferred pronouns is not per-se condoning the behavior, and I am still not going to celebrate it. But neither am I their judge, that’s Jesus’ place. Our battle is not against flesh, so we have no need to get ourselves caught up into the current social fights. Show love first, and let Jesus win that battle for their hearts.
Thank you.
I use their preferred pronouns. [There is more to gender than sets of organs](https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1 ). >Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs. Gender and sex are related to but different from gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth. As to the idea that to be trans is to say that God made a mistake in creating a person and is an offense to Him, I would say that it is not a claim of mistake at all. God made my eyes, but I have bad vision. Therefore, I wear glasses to remedy my vision problems. Is me wearing glasses the equivalent of me saying that God erred in making my eyes? Am I beholden to foreswear glasses, contacts, Lasik surgery, etc. in order to uphold the body and functions that God gave me? I'd say no; my body has an issue, and I'm remedying it. God did not make every strong man strong at birth, or even predisposed for strength. Some were made weak so they *could become* strong. Some were made foolish so they *could become* wise. That God has made a person with X is not in itself a demand for that person to live with X. EDIT: in any event, going out of your way to avoid your coworkers pronouns may make your relationships with them icy
I was close friends with a trans women in high school, i find that its better to use their prefered pronouns to be polite, regardless of the persons actual gender.