Alternate Viewpoints

Recently a conversation took place on Scottie’s blog that I felt was worth sharing. I decided not to do a “reblog” because I primarily wanted to focus on a conversation between Scottie and one of his readers related to his post.

The topic was a common one on Scottie’s blog … sexual identification … and he had included a copy of an article from

In response, an individual who used the tag, ROBINDD4L. offered this comment:

I agree homosexuality has always been around and it’s why it’s referred to as an abomination in the Bible. God says it’s a sin and we’re given the reason as to why He calls it this. What is new, however, is the transgender and homosexuality push to teach this ideology in the schools. And, YES, they are trying to teach it. Where the problem comes in is when the LGBQT community tries to force THEIR views onto the conservative family. Christian families want nothing to do with this ideology. We don’t want it in our schools, in our businesses, in our churches or in our families. Now that doesn’t mean we would be ugly or rude to someone just because they’re gay, no, because that wouldn’t be right. It just means we believe what the Bible teaches and the Bible is quiet clear, those whose practice this sin, will die in it. Whether you believe in God or not doesn’t change this simple fact.

This was Scottie’s response … which I thought was excellent. It was very thorough and very well well-thought-out. He hit all the important points, yet never censored the individual or made any rude comments:

I read your comment and pondered if you are just a misinformed true believer or a troll. Not that it matters. I could explain to you that what that verse the abomination really referred to was temple boys being used by men for sex in some faiths, I could explain that it doesn’t matter what is or is not a sin as this is not a theocracy, never was intended to be, and so far it is not now. None of that really matters to what you seem most misinformed on. Let’s talk about that.

What you take as teachers pushing an ideology is that you somehow have lost track of the last 50 years, and the idea that you as a Christians won’t tolerate it in your communities, your schools, your families … is you are not everyone! The rest of us get a say in the PUBLIC and in PUBLIC schools. Your family is your business, but the rest of us have families and views also that don’t agree with yours. Look up the polls Robin. Times have changed. Get out of your bubble. The majority of people are accepting of gay people, same sex marriage, and yes also the trans community.

Here is what you don’t get. You think that not allowing you to oppress the LGBTQI+ means you’re being persecuted. Wrong. It doesn’t matter if you accept it or not, but the medical science and data is in. People are born gay; people are born with a different gender identification than they are assigned at birth. Look at the graphs on the side bar of this blog to understand the scientific data! Your religious views don’t matter, your knowledge is based on what people knew 2,500 years ago. This is 2022, we know and understand a lot more now.

It is not your school; it is the public school. And the public disagrees with you. You don’t want tolerance and acceptance taught in your schools to your kids, don’t send them to public schools. Simple. See what you are demanding is the rest of us live by your church rules, your religious views. No sorry we don’t have to. You want to fine. Don’t agree with gay sex, don’t have any. Don’t believe in transgender, don’t transition. Don’t want same sex marriage then don’t get married to someone of the same sex. But you have no right to stop anyone else from living the life they were born to live. The rest of us have rights also. We have the right to live equally in the US democracy. Not Theocracy, Democracy.

We know and understand that people are born LGBTQI+. Including the two that seem most mentioned the trans and the gays. Born that way. They have the right to have a full and open life just as people born cis or straight. Religion is a choice but being LGBTQI+ is not, you are born LGBTQI+. Society understands that now. We have learned and advanced tolerance and acceptance. What you call pushing ideology in schools is actually simply requiring tolerance and acceptance of diversity or difference. Just as no kid should be bullied or picked on for wearing a cross no kid should be picked on for wearing a pride / trans flag. Just as no kid should be bullied for reading the bible, no kid should be bullied for reading a book with gay or trans characters or subjects. That is what you are so afraid of, tolerance and acceptance. You want to indoctrinate what you believe is the only way, only good. It doesn’t work that way. Society has moved on.

On last thing, you talk about sin and those who practice this sin will die. Yes they will, eventually. Guess what, so will you. No joke, you are going to die also. Also this line was funny Whether you believe in God or not doesn’t change this simple fact. You still don’t get it. Your god doesn’t matter. Not to me. Not to the majority of the people in the US. Your god doesn’t set the laws nor the standards in a democracy. The US is a democracy. Here is the key, your god matters to you and in our country you have the right to worship that god yourself for yourself. You do not have the right to force me or anyone else to follow your god. We are tolerance of you. We insist you also be tolerant of us. That is what makes a civil society.

So now let’s consider the topic itself. What do you think? Did ROBINDD4L have a point? Or do you agree with Scottie? 


59 thoughts on “Alternate Viewpoints

  1. I agree with Scottie and think this guy was kinda trolling him as he’s not replied back to Scottie as far as I know. Any way, we all can agree that the only correct view point to have on anything is the Muslim one because Allah is real and all other gods and holy books are false. It says so in the Quran.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. I agree mostly with Scottie, but I have some reservations

    (a) Despite Scottie’s claim to the contrary, the majority of Americans still claim a Christian affiliation, which by my reckoning means the US is a Christian nation, but not a Christian government/state

    (b) In some US states, ROBINDD4L represents a plurality, and sometimes a majority of voters. which brings me to the next and most important point: majorities.

    (c) Human rights should not be dependent on the support of a plurality or majority of the population. In a truly free society the only restrictions placed on individuals should those that cause harm to others or diminish their rights. If a state legislature, supported by a majority of the voters, decided to reinstate Jim Crow laws, or laws giving privilege to Christians, and assuming SCOTUS didn’t rule it unconstitutional (which given the current state of the US court system, is a possibility), it would be lawful and popular. However that doesn’t make it right.

    Another example that exists in the USA is that it’s okay to use electric shock as form of “discipline” on autistic people but not on animals. Effectively this is a taser strapped to the body that can be activated remotely. This was specifically approved by SCOTUS, overruling federal guidelines. In some US states the majority of the population, not to mention health professionals, hold attitudes towards neurodiversity that were commonly held towards homosexuality in the early to mid twentieth century – it’s a mental disorder, being antisocial, the result of deliberate misconduct (sinning), or being possessed by demons. Even if a majority of the population (and legislature) deem electrocution a legitimate form of “discipline”, that doesn’t make it right.

    Decisions by the majority, which seems to be the most accepted form of decision making can, and frequently does end up being tyranny by the majority. Most developed societies are guilty of this to some extent, but there is no better example than America – a constitution that originally didn’t prohibit slavery, Jim Crow laws that still persisted when I was a teen and were totally incomprehensible to me, and a level of religious and political intolerance and partisanship today that totally mystifies folk in other developed nations,

    A recent court decision in my own country is another example. the court ruled that restricting the voting age to 18 and above conflicted with NZBORA (New Zealand Bill OF Rights ACT) which prohibits discrimination based on age (unless reasonable grounds can be given). The decision was made following an appeal by a movement urging the voting age be lowered to 16. I won’t go into details, but neither those who oppose it nor the court itself, were able to come up with anything substantial to support the existing restriction apart from that’s the way it is. The ability for 16 year olds to make reasonable political decisions was not questioned at all by those opposing a lowering of the voting age. However it’s not going to change, because the majority of the population believe that 16 year olds can’t make reasonable decision (so why are children as young as 12 tried as adults for serious crimes?).

    The point I’m making is that Scottie used “majority” several times to justify his argument. I think using “majority” is unhelpful and possibly harmful given the strength of the Conservative Christian Right in some US states. Granting full human rights to the LGBTQIA, neurodivergent, and other minority communities in no way affects the rights of the majority, nor does “normalising” (the acceptance and valuing of) of such communities harm the majority. No one is forced to be gay or trans or autistic or blind, and yes, it’s necessary to include discussion of these minorities from an early age if misunderstandings and prejudice are to be minimised.

    Liked by 6 people

    • The problem I have with dubbing it a “Christian nation” is that it effectively says the other 35% of us who are not Christians do not belong. So, I much prefer to call it a secular nation where any and all religions are welcome, but do not dominate.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Compared to Aotearoa New Zealand, where a mere 35% claim a Christian affiliation, the US is indeed Christian, but that’s perhaps a uniquely Kiwi perspective.

        As for it being a nation where any and all religions are welcome, but do not dominate, if that was ever true, there are now states where it most definitely isn’t true, and that number seems to be on the rise. But as an outsider looking in, what do I really know? 🙂

        Liked by 4 people

        • I think it’s just the ‘exclusiveness’ of it that bothers me. I am not Christian, yet I pay my taxes, support the economy, and obey the laws, yet I am not considered a part of the country because I am a non-believer.

          You’re right that we are becoming a very anti-immigrant nation and that anti-Semitism is on the rise in the past few years, but I still believe that diversity enriches us rather than dragging us down. And the foundation of the nation is built on immigration, on welcoming one and all. Sigh. I’m so tired of bigotry in all its many forms. Hah, my friend … as an outsider looking in, you are more savvy than many of us here who cannot seem to see the forest for the trees. I always respect your views and opinions.

          Liked by 4 people

  3. Scottie said one thing that isn’t the case, namely “People are born gay; people are born with a different gender identification than they are assigned at birth.” If you ask a newborn child if they want to be treated as a boy or a girl, or a tom boy or a girly boy, you will get no answer because they neither comprehend the topic nor are they able to speak their mind on anything. People are indeed born gay, but gender identification is not biological.

    Children are born in one of two sexes, and in very rare circumstances a melding of the two. As they age and are taught by adults how boys and girls act, they are being taught a gender. They are being indoctrinated by the adults around them to conform to a set of behaviors of which they approve. When they become youths the may understand that they do not want to behave as they were taught and they may choose to identity with a different gender but it is a long process. Usually puberty has to happen first, but not always.

    If we would just relax and get out of our own ways, kids would figure this out on their own.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I can’t entirely agree. Most people who wish to express themselves as a gender they were not assigned at birth, already know by their 3rd or 4th year that they don’t like the gender they have been assigned. My observation is that while much of what we take as gender expression is culturally impressed upon us, it’s equally determined biologically. Most people’s biological tendencies is to align with the gender assigned at birth, while others lie along a spectrum of gender expressions. The precise ways that their preferred gender is expressed will depend on the culture in which they are immersed.

      The wife and I brought up our children as gender neutral as possible. We didn’t have TV and in the first year of their lives they had little contact outside our household. I’m not persuaded that there was enough outside influence to imprint gender onto them, but the daughter and son respectively showed distinctive “feminine” and “masculine” traits and interests before the age of 12 months.

      This is in spite of the background of both their parents. I’m autistic and consider myself agendered or nongendered. Outside the home I present masculine for safety reasons, having been the victim of violent attacks as a teen for not being “manly” enough. It’s mostly conscious acting on my part and quite exhausting. In private I can take of that mask an be the real me.

      The wife came from a culture where the roles of men and women are very distinct. Her family were landowners in a feudal society, and as such they had many responsibilities and duties required of them with regards to those who worked the land. The wife has a brother who was not expected to survive to adulthood, so she was brought up to take on the role expected of a feudal lord, including how she acted in public. In public and private, and as she lives thousands of miles from her homeland, she dresses as a female, but other aspects of her presentation switch from one gender presentation to the other depending what is likely to result in a better outcome for her.

      Liked by 2 people

      • They aren’t assigned a gender at birth. The form has check boxes for the child’s sex. And the gender spectrum is very broad. I had a doll on my bed into high school. That didn’t make me gender fluid, just part of a wide spectrum.

        Liked by 3 people

        • and that is the problem. The activists increasingly insist on conflating sex…which is biological…and gender, which has so many vague cultural,political, and religious-historic definitions that it is useless.


    • Steve, I tend to agree with you that gender dysphoria is not biological. However, it may be “in the genes.”

      From an Abstract at

      Here we review the evidence that gender identity and related socially defined gender constructs are influenced in part by innate factors including genes. Based on the data reviewed, we hypothesize that gender identity is a multifactorial complex trait with a heritable polygenic component.

      IOW, it’s complicated. 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

  4. “Where the problem comes in is when the LGBQT community tries to force THEIR views onto the conservative family.”

    Does this poster mean the way that conservative Christians are trying to force their particularly narrow (and I dare say long outdated) views of morality, sexuality, and gender, onto the rest of us?I assume that kind of forcing of ideas is OK, because it’s coming from their own religious point of view, and should always be accepted without question, while the rest of us should conform to them. At least the LGBTQ community has more than an appeal to tradition, as they appear to have science on their side too.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. I agree with Barry, that the majority does not automatically know what is right, even though in a democracy they get to set the standards. I agree with Scottie, that it should be obvious, that we now know more, than the dudes who who wrote the Bible – divinely inspired, or not – and therefore we have an advantage to them in our moral evaluation. I think, that the question wether or not people are born homosexual is moot and tends to muddle the waters. It is irrelevant wether we are born to drive a car, ride a horse, swim, or shoot a gun just as it is irrelevant if an old book says a god does not like homosexuality between men, or tattoos. This is not how we decide wether something is right, or wrong. We decide on our assesment wether something is harmfull, or not, if it is also moral. Some people are more analytical about it and others rely heavily on intuition. Intuition is often based on shared cultural heritage and it is easily confused with conscience. On some level even the hyper religious know this and thus try to excuse their god (who always agrees with them, wether their holy texts do or not, or even totally contradict their own taste) by appealing to the most outlandish claims of harm they expect to come from homosexuality (but rarely from tattoos) – like it causing death, as in the example.

    Homosexuality, or transgenderism do not cause actual harm, other than the ikky feeling some people get from them, but repressing them causes plenty of actual harm of wich we have plenty of evidence. So there, that is the only relevant issue in estimating their moral impact. This, in my opinion, is the moral logic (or “ideology” if you please) that should be taught to kids, so that they could apply the same in other issues of concern also. If gods do not agree, it tells more about the gods and their lack of moral fibre, than anything else. Gods demand we choose to worship one or another of them, but in that respect, if we wish to be moral, we need to be able to determine wich of the gods, if any, are worthy of worship, or do any of them even exist.

    Liked by 2 people

    • WordPress posts are open to all sorts of people via the Reader, and based on the category I select, those who use it may wish to visit and offer their thoughts. Further, I do have some Christian followers and they occasionally add their perspective when the topic is religious or borders on same. We each have our reasons for what we write about, n’est pas?

      Liked by 2 people

    • I’d say 42 comments is a sign it’s a very good blog post and I find Nan has some interesting and sometimes controversial posts and not the same old politics….

      Liked by 4 people

  6. This is a good exercise of a religious nut using his god to discriminate against LBGQT people. This indoctrinated person would be fake in saying they would not be ugly or rude towards gay people. Sure enough to their faces he would not but when Christians were taught by a German leader to despise Jews, homosexuals and gay people some decades ago we all know what the outcome was for these people, we must learn from history.

    Liked by 3 people

    • That isn’t the point, Ten Bears. Sure. They’re often trolls, but not always and if someone enjoys countering their distorted POV with some “real-world” facts, why not? It’s their prerogative, right?

      Liked by 1 person

      • I used to hunt trolls, in the early days, seek them out and butt heads. Hunted bots too; published all kinds of how-tos. Got paid for it a few times. Enjoyed it. Things change. You can’t change these people, you won’t change their minds, in which they have the absolute “god-given” right to do whatever they please. Engaging them encourages them, it gives ’em a trickle down their leg, and in the end you only aggravate yourself.

        My personal feeling is time is better spent …

        Liked by 2 people

        • Yes it can. From evolutionary biologist Coyne:

          “The purpose of pretending there are more than two sexes is to support those who have assumed non-traditional gender roles. In other words, those who question the binary nature of sex are doing so because they’re trying to make nature itself conform to an ideology that accepts the non-binary nature of gender. The conflation is deliberate, an example of what I call the “reverse appeal to nature”: “what is good must be what is natural.” But as Richard Feynman said about the Challenger space shuttle disaster, “reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”

          And, in the end, there’s no reason to misrepresent science: people of different genders can be supported and respected without having to distort the nature of biological sex.”

          Aligning beliefs about reality with reality is not done by saying words. It’s done by learning about and respecting reality’s arbitration of them. Supporting this process and standing up for what’s true does not make one a Terrible Person. Maligning those who do so does not make one a morally superior person.

          Liked by 1 person

  7. The issue Robin raised was the unfairness of pushing indoctrination of an activist ideological belief in the public schools regarding gender while denying the same right to do so to a religious kind of ideological belief.

    He has a point.

    Gender identity is a belief that we all come with some innate gender (similar to a ‘soul’) that may or may not align with our biology. And this belief IS taught from kindergarten on… in every public school (as well as reinforced from every captured public institution and institutions that receive public funding as part of their operating budget). So Robin’s point is that it is unfair to allow one set of ideological beliefs to be publicly subsidized and taught in schools as if true while maintaining that certain ideological beliefs if religious are not.

    This reminds me of the incoherence so many of us choose to ignore of allowing gender and anti-racist ideology to be forced on everyone as if virtuous but then decrying ‘racial theft’ of anyone daring to identify outside their inherited race! It’s okay for males to take over what it means to be female and force that down everyone’s throats but it’s bigotry for those of European and Asian and African decent to take over what it means to be indigenous! Too funny!

    Oh, and just in case anyone cares to question their own assumptions about all of this, there’s a terrific video here between Peter Boghossian and Andrew Doyle (aka Titania McGrath) describing what’s going on. What colossal fools we have become in our zeal to be oh so righteous.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’m in the process of watching the video; however, the thought came to me as Andrew was speaking. This is HIS perspective. Yes, he could be correct in his outlook. But nonetheless, I find it unbecoming and discriminative to call those who see things differently as “colossal fools.”

      Liked by 2 people

      • As a colossally foolish society, the anglosphere has become indisputably hysterical under all kinds of leadership that has demonstrated nothing but slavish obsequiousness to this activist minority. And I think Andrew is exactly right to say repeatedly that this isn’t a left-right political thing but is more like a witch trial where the assumption of belief of the accusers RELIES on those in positions of authority to go along with the (incoherent) belief that the core issue (be it witches or gender are real) that they champion is aligned with reality when it so obviously is not. Hence the take over and redefining of progressive language to help us fool ourselves about what we’re really supporting. This is where Robin’s point is exactly right: an ideology – a reframing – of a world that only comes into being by believing! This is the indoctrination he’s talking about. And he recognizes this gender teaching in public schools and his religious beliefs not taught in public schools are really the same kind of belief systems!

        Liked by 1 person

    • “The issue Robin raised was the unfairness of pushing indoctrination of an activist ideological belief in the public schools regarding gender while denying the same right to do so to a religious kind of ideological belief.”

      Remembering back to my school days, I was indoctrinated into heliocentrism. The geocentrists were not given a fair chance.

      “And this belief IS taught from kindergarten on… in every public school”

      I’m very skeptical of this. Generally speaking, the teachers come from the community and are not likely to be indoctrinating children in views contrary to what the community holds.

      Yes, most teachers try to be accepting of all children, including those of other races and including transgender students. But this is not the same as indoctrinating children in anti-racism or in transgender ideology.

      Liked by 2 people

      • You are focussing on the term ‘belief’ but substituting the different meaning (it is probably the case) for the original use (trust or confidence without evidence). So a statement of fact (like heliocentrism) is not a belief statement of the second kind but of the first. This is a very typical kind of religious argument switching meaning without switching terms used by apologists.

        Your skepticism is also quite normal and Andrew addresses this tactic in the video I referenced. All I can say is that I was a teacher and continue to get various kinds of periodicals on the state of education and it is unquestionably full of gender ideology, how to teach it, and how it all fits into Critical Theory. Also, changes to the criminal justice code and hate laws bolster every kind of lewd and rude and over the top gender expressions based on changing the language to equate gender identity with sex and create conditions so that any disagreement is legally bigotry. This is not an accident but quite intentional and public education must fully endorse it in all ways… from academics to sports to facilities. And it is ALL based on belief that we each have this mysterious thing called a gender identity that must be respected by all or face punitive consequences. Of course you don’t believe it… because it’s insane. Or would have been a decade ago. And yet… here we are. Now there’s no professional dress code except nipples, groin and buttocks must be covered by an opaque fabric. That’s it… for both teachers and students.

        Liked by 1 person

        • “So a statement of fact (like heliocentrism) is not a belief statement of the second kind but of the first.”

          Sorry, but this does not work. Yes, heliocentrism is a fact, but only because we accept it as a fact. A geocentrist could readily argue that we were indoctrinated into accepting it. Heliocentrism is surely not true, except in the sense that we choose to treat it as if true.

          I chose this example to illustrate the problems of your accusation of indoctrination.

          Just to be clear, I am not a fan of gender identity activism. But I think you seriously overstate your case.

          Liked by 2 people

        • @Tildeb, do you not have a gender identity, you would prefer being “respected by all”? I mean, I think gender is an overblown issue in human relationships and in social roles, but the thing about the “gender ideology being pushed” at schools appears to me more as a blowback from the existing problem, than the problem itself. An attempt to repair something, that has been broken for so long people have gotten used to it being like it is and now affraid of the change. I do not know what is being taught in American schools, maybe there are problems in emphasis, as all the teachers may not be on the level on what is expected of them, but as far as I know, here the move is towards teatching tolerance and acceptance of difference in appearance, creed and all the rest of our perks. It is ideological, of course it is, but it is for the better, if you BELIEVE in making the society more accepting of variability, but less tolerant of discrimination and discriminative ideologies. Should schools only teach hard facts? Is it not a hard fact, that discrimination and segregation lead to suffering? Should we be so tolerant, that we tolerate fascism?

          Modern intersectionalism pretty much states that race and gender are social constructs, but that we need to react to them, because they are not going away just by ignoring them being implemented by many. Do you not agree?

          Once again you seem to have confused how religions are ideologies and not the other way around.

          Liked by 5 people

        • tildeb — I’m allowing this comment because it’s a response to rautakyy, but this is the last one on this particular post.

          rautakyy, I suspect the you like so many well intentioned people do not understand the problem, namely, that what is being taught as tolerance and acceptance of difference in appearance, creed and all the rest is quite different than what these terms meant less than a decade ago. In fact, they are exactly the opposite of what reasonable people presume them to be. What is being taught is intolerance, that character is irrelevant to race, that differences by group membership determines level of inequity, and so on. Once this fact is grasped by looking specifically at what is being taught, one realizes that the goal is creating activists for advancing a very specific kind of group-based ideology. In other words, tolerance of differences is not being taught; there is only one right way to think, one right way to act. And all of it is based on disguising it with old fashioned liberal terms in order to gain wider acceptance. You mistake the terms as if these are being taught when what is actually being taught is the exact opposite. As more and more parents realize this and complain, they are dismissed wholesale as belonging to a discredited group BECAUSE they dare to disagree with the goal of the ideology: to create activists.

          This is not my opinion. This is fact. It is part and parcel of not only public education but now THE central feature of oaths to gain licensing in professional, medical, and institutional organizations. It’s not a small problem and we can’t even talk about it without being discredited and vilified and censored and punished. It is equivalent to a religious test at the very least and often much more like a purity test straight out of China’s cultural revolution.

          Liked by 1 person

    • tiledb…as the resident trans skeptic (not phobe…skeptic) I agree with you here but was keeping quiet.

      the argument that allowing men who feellllllzzz. like women to intrude into female spaces is less harmless than claimed.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “The resulting report is rich with detail and gut-punch quotes that school leaders offered researchers in exchange for anonymity.”

      Golly gee whiz, I wonder why remaining anonymous is so important to get honest answers… when there’s no such thing as a culture war or cancellation for having the ‘wrong’ opinion?

      Granted, this survey is from principals only who are used as the standard bearers for implementing what passes for education these days. So they would and should be on the front lines of dealing with disaffected parents and teachers. The one keenly honed skill, however, that unites the people in this position is just how deftly they are able to avoid any and all responsibility while appearing virtuous; apparently, it’s always someone else’s fault and they’ll really get to the bottom of the problem they themselves have forced into being. So they’ll call more meetings, demand more reports, and get back to the problem parents and problem teachers just as soon as… the next media-interesting problem arises.


      • tildeb, I don’t allow some of your comments because there are occasions when you come across as a self-righteous member of the Suidae family. This is one of those times.

        You say you were a teacher in your former life. Are you sure you spelled that correctly? Like maybe instead of a “t”, you meant to use “pr”? 😈

        Liked by 3 people

  8. There’s a good old James Michener book called Recessional, while not about this topic, a group was gathered and talking about how most people were 80\20% of the sex the were born as, but it skewed from there. A woman say was 80% female and 20% male, meaning traits, interests, capabilities and behavior patterns, and nothing to do with homosexuality. One lady in the group considered herself more 70/30% because of some how her traits and likes etc. they all said a 90/100% woman would be a nymphomanic a Marilyn Monroe type perhaps. Same thing with men…90/100% man would be the Marlboro Man, but with some bullying traits and not much gentleness etc.
    I can see how it could go to 50/50% and still a person could be straight, gay or bi.
    More than that, as an example, a man who felt he was 70% female and 30% male, I think would be where transgender could come into play and they desire for surgery might too.

    I think it’s so many things that influence this in someone’s life…some parents, indoctrination of cultural mores, peers and then some genetics or simply brain chemistry, as well. It’s a propensity or fluidity, with many factors. The main thing is so what! Who cares and it shouldn’t be a big deal at all.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I agree with your last point … that it shouldn’t be a big deal . The problem is, too many people MAKE it a big deal. I suppose, in a way, that’s your point. If we could all just live and let live, the world could be a much better place.

      Unfortunately, too many must criticize and castigate others in order to engender their own self-esteem.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Teaching children from a very young age to believe in gender ideology is not “live and let live.” There’s a reason why there has been a 5000% increase in young girls at gender clinics claiming gender dysphoria, 96% who then begin the process of chemical and surgical alterations with life altering effects. And pointing this out is not to bolster the self-esteem of the person who raises it but a lifting of the curtain of ignorance surrounding what gender ideology activism causes in real life. To children.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. I remember when Anita Bryant started on her anti-gay campaign in the ’70s. I was a teen at the time and I knew next to nothing about same-sex attraction, but I did some research because of Anita. Because I was raised to respect the dignity of all people, I quickly realized Anita was a bigot. I was living with my grandmother, a devout Christian, at the time and she, too, recognized Anita was a bigot who was ‘stirring the pot’ to advance her personal agenda. Grandmother joined the boycott of Florida oranges and orange juice in support of gay people (Anita Bryant was the spokesperson for the Florida Citrus Commission) and when the local school district did a fundraiser selling non-Floridian citrus fruit that winter I pitched in with Grandmother to buy a crate. The fruit was delicious, all the more so because it demonstrated respect for LGBTQI+ people during a national campaign advocating discrimination against them.

    It’s sad that love of one’s neighbor, one of Jesus’ two Great Commandments, has gone out of favor among Christians.

    Liked by 3 people

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.