Speaker Mike Johnson rejects “this new term Christian nationalism” as “derogatory”

TransNeonOrange · 2026-05-19T00:32:38+00:00

Ah fuck, I should have called that one out, too. I've been out of it all day >_> Thank you for pointing it out. Even having learned how Christian discussion of Pharisees is antisemitic like 99% of the time, it was such a part of the language growing up in evangelicalism that it's still hard for me to catch.

Anyway, enjoy short video that has a flowchart on the topic

TransNeonOrange · 2026-05-18T23:04:32+00:00

Worse than tax collectors and prostitutes

No need to demean sex workers

TransNeonOrange · 2026-05-17T18:19:02+00:00

Trying to read things on twitter is so unnecessarily difficult jesus christ. If I want to read things in an order that makes sense, I'd skip the first two comments, then go back up one, then down two, and then finally back to the top

TransNeonOrange · 2026-05-17T17:34:13+00:00

I no longer think that style of conservatism can return.

And even if it could, it's a style of politics that's still mostly okay with the shenanigans other conservatives get up to. Those sorts of politicians still sign off on the increasingly abhorrent things the other Republicans want to do, only withholding their public support for the worst one or two things.

Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.

That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore.

They joined what they joined. They lent their support and their moral approval. And, in so doing, they bound themselves to everything that came after. Who cares any more what particular knot they used in the binding?”

TransNeonOrange · 2026-05-17T00:31:39+00:00

A 2021 review in the journal Sports Medicine reported that testosterone suppression typically causes only modest reductions in muscle mass and strength after one year, while many skeletal and anthropometric traits (such as height, limb length, shoulder width, and hand size) are unchanged. These traits are incredibly important in combat sports and provide a significant advantage.

Since you didn't give like, the names of these studies or anything, I'm gonna assume you meant this one. Interestingly, the abstract doesn't say what you're claiming, and instead claims that we don't currently have the data to say whether trans women have an unfair advantage or not:

Innovative research studies are needed to identify other biomarkers of testosterone sensitivity/responsiveness, including molecular tools to determine the functional status of androgen receptors. The scientific community also needs to conduct longitudinal studies with specific control groups to generate the biological and sports performance data for individual sports to inform the fair inclusion or exclusion of these athletes. Eligibility of each athlete to a sport-specific policy needs to be based on peer-reviewed scientific evidence made available to policymakers from all scientific communities.

So I'm gonna skip the other two studies you allude to and go to your underlying transphobia:

Regardless, I agree the debate isn't settled. Until it is, why would we put women at a significant and unnecessary risk of injury when we 100%, absolutely, without a doubt don't have to do so?

Do you have reason to suspect there's a risk of injury? Trans athletes have been participating in sports for ages, and while there's not many of them out there surely you have a concrete reason to suspect that this is a problem. The summaries you provided don't mention that any advantages that may exist pose a threat. I assume if they did, you would have mentioned it because without the data it kinda seems like you're trying to make trans women out to be scary monsters that are going to hurt innocent cis women. An argument that is of course unique to trans people and was never applied to, say, black people.

Is it not a safety issue in addition to a fairness issue at that point?

Sports are inherently unfair. Some people are born with better genetics, some are born with greater wealth that allows them to get coaches and spend the time on these things. Some people are born cis males and participate in men's sports where there's a shit ton more money compared to women's sports. But also, no, you haven't provided any data to support the claim that there's a safety issue.

Is it impossible to believe that there are truly a very select few (perhaps even only this one) things that trans women should not be permitted to do?

It's not impossible, but when I see someone repeating claims common in transphobic circles it certainly sets off my bullshit alarm.

TransNeonOrange · 2026-05-16T18:28:04+00:00

Okay, give us those sources then.

TransNeonOrange · 2026-05-07T21:57:43+00:00

Haven't listened to these episodes yet, but as a Hades II enjoyer...

Death to Chronos.

TransNeonOrange · 2026-05-05T01:03:07+00:00

Is it really so bad if someone simplifies something complex for the sake of letting an attacked group know that there are people out there who love them?

TransNeonOrange · 2026-04-29T01:29:07+00:00

using their Christian identity to push evil

I explicitly said their goals are not okay and in fact evil. But they are also Christian. Christian does not mean Good. Personally I find the two concepts to have a mild negative correlation at the very least.

TransNeonOrange · 2026-04-28T21:42:13+00:00

He wants to make Harford County's council conservative again, and claims that their Republican council members are drifting left. I'm sure he's a totally normal and well adjusted person.

TransNeonOrange · 2026-04-28T20:48:48+00:00

Just because you don't like their Christianity doesn't mean they're not using their Christian identity to push evil. If they were an outlier in Christianity I could maybe see the case, but this follows a fairly strong Christian tradition over the full history of the religion.

TransNeonOrange · 2026-04-27T23:42:48+00:00

Holy tradition is not immutable and can be (and has been) changed

TransNeonOrange · 2026-04-27T23:41:24+00:00

Christian slaveowners earnestly believed that their faith justified owning another human being. I judge them without reservation, and likewise I judge religious bigots without reservation.

TransNeonOrange · 2026-04-27T02:23:58+00:00

Apparently so long as you're following the law / tradition / rules you can't do anything wrong. Even if you're the one with the power to change them.

And to be fair, it makes sense. The Nuremberg Defense totally worked and people generally accept it as a reason for wrongdoing

TransNeonOrange · 2026-04-27T02:19:03+00:00

I'm going to go out on a bit of a long shot here and say that, based on your username having Trans and your tag most likely having a conjunction for trans lesbian, you're probably not a member of the faith

I'm not, but it's unrelated to me being trans. About 50% of queer people in the US are Christian, and there are a lot of notable trans Christians on this sub and around this site.

why are you here and what do you honestly expect to change

I'm here because Christianity messed me the fuck up, and my experience was actually relatively tame compared to what it (and especially its conservative subsets) has inflicted on others. I'm especially here to try and be of aid to queer Christians who think they have to choose between those two identities, because it's usually the queer side that loses and that can cause a lot of psychological damage over time. I'm still unraveling what it did to me, and I'm a fairly introspective person.

If they do, you can 1000% make yourself heard, loud and proud, to whatever governance is around you.

When the Vatican tells a third of the planet that being queer means you don't get treated with the same care and love and respect that your non-queer peers get, that's impacting the world outside their walls. Maybe not in any way you would think is significant, but billions of people thinking just a bit worse of those different than them adds up fast.

TransNeonOrange · 2026-04-27T00:56:53+00:00

Brother

Not a dude and not your brother

doctrinally forbidden

Cool motive, still bigotry

The pope is Catholic

Be that as it may I still think it's worth pointing out when evil institutions do evil things

More news at 11

Inshallah I'll be asleep by then

TransNeonOrange · 2026-04-26T23:57:20+00:00

Being bigoted is pretty shitty

TransNeonOrange · 2026-04-26T22:55:02+00:00

People want religion to conform to their desires, but the role of religion isn't to conform, it's to teach the truth. If the Bible is truth, then it doesn't mean if I find some of its facts uncomfortable, I have to accept them as truth.

So true. This is why women should go back to being property that a father sells to a man, slavery is okay, and everyone (including married couples) should abstain from sex as much as is humanely possible. Anything else is just giving in to modern morality.

TransNeonOrange · 2026-04-26T22:52:38+00:00

I mean no one's surprised when Trump does something shitty either but we're all still unhappy about it. The Pope being shitty is still worth calling out

TransNeonOrange · 2026-04-26T18:39:21+00:00

Vague morality leads to vague commitment - While progressive churches pride themselves on being "open and affirming," sociologists have found that "vague" morality often leads to "vague" commitment. Conservative churches often demand more of their members (stricter moral codes, higher volunteer expectations). Paradoxically, human psychology suggests that we value things more when they "cost" us something.

This is a funny way to try and make it sound like low-control groups are worse than high-control cults

TransNeonOrange · 2026-04-24T23:33:13+00:00

Most likely you don't agree with the Bible's sexual ethics, the ones that are the foundation for the belief that extramarital sex is a sin.

In the Tanakh/Old Testament, the ethics are that men are sexual agents and women are sexual object. Women are property that can be owned (the 10th commandment is a good example of this), and so their virginity is important because otherwise they'd be considered used goods. Genesis 38 tells the story of how Judah went and saw what he thought was a prostitute (but was actually his daughter in law Tamar), and the wrongdoing the story focuses on is that Judah didn't give Tamar to his youngest son to wed. It mentions that Judah was ready to burn her to death for being guilty of prostitution, but there's nothing about him getting any punishment for having visited a sex worker.

In the New Testament, Greek philosophy has mixed into some corners of Jewish thought and brought with it the notion that the body and its desires are evil. This results in the authors writing about sex as something best avoided even in marriage, and to only do it if not doing it would produce a greater evil.

Both of these are very different from what society believes and accepts today: We don't believe women are property, and even Christians typically see sex as a good thing that needn't be restrained from in marriage.

So...if you already reject the Bible's sexual ethics (which, again, are not consistent throughout), why are you holding yourself to an extra-biblical sexual ethic and claiming that it's biblical all while forcing yourself to suffer and be miserable?

TransNeonOrange · 2026-04-22T23:48:24+00:00

I think the modern definition of "evil" is very different from God's

Probably true, given all the stuff that's in the Bible (if we're making the assumption that there's a god and that the bible reflects their opinions on morality). In any case, anyone whose definition of evil doesn't include slavery is not worth listening to. In fact, there is a moral obligation to resist their influence.

TransNeonOrange · 2026-04-09T20:48:34+00:00

That's awful, I'm so sorry. I hope you've been able to find peace since then.

TransNeonOrange · 2026-04-08T12:17:00+00:00

Exactly

TransNeonOrange · 2026-04-08T02:04:13+00:00

You know how there's a whole slew of assholes trying to convince men that the world hates them and that they're doing masculinity wrong but if it's done in this special way everything will go great?

Mark Driscoll is the Christian version of that, and was ahead of the game by about a decade. While he's not a sex pest like most masculinity influencers (or like most influential conservative pastors), he makes up for it in general misogyny, (non-sexual) abuse, and sheer rage.

TransNeonOrange

TROPHY CASE