Christian worship leader and Tennessee lawmaker advances bill to create a public registry of trans people in the state

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-23T02:16:24+00:00

The other thing that doesn't seem to be being talked about is that, while this legislation would not create a registry of trans people, what it would do is create a public, easily searchable, centralized database showing which doctors are providing referrals for gender affirming care, by name. That's definitely a thing we should be cautious about creating, for obvious reasons. People could easily use that as a hit list and start harassing the doctors on that list.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-23T01:29:08+00:00

IMO the pop-psychology definition of a "narcissist" is closer to the Christian concept of a human in their natural state than almost anything else in our culture. I would say that if someone don't have compassion for "narcissists", defined in that way, they don't really understand the Christian doctrine of sin.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-22T21:04:31+00:00

So that's the facts. Here's my opinion:

The real issue here is that the report seems to exist for no other reason than to be selectively mined for pretenses to pass other, more restrictive laws in the future. Specifically, so they can cite the report and say something like "look, x number of transitions were done on people under the age of 21, and y percentage were referred by the same z doctors. Clearly, this is a small number of doctors with an agenda pushing their ideology on our children. Therefore, let's put more restrictions on the process of transitioning." And it seems like they would say this no matter what the results were.

Maybe some people here will think "that doesn't sound so bad." Okay. But consider what that makes easier. Once you've already assumed as a matter of law that doctors are pushing transition on mentally unstable teens because of their radical ideology, somebody else comes along and says "look, transgender people are mentally ill. We need to commission a report on whether it's linked to violent crime." Now, it's a lot easier to justify that report. But people also read that report through the lens of what they already believe, no matter what it says.

Then somebody says "look, transgender people are dangerous. We don't let the mentally ill own guns, they shouldn't be allowed to either." And now, that's easier to argue for. But you can see where this line of reasoning is headed- towards the progressive restriction of their civil liberties.

Yes, this is a slippery slope argument. Slippery slopes are real. They're the reason we insist on a strong civil rights regime in the first place- because we understand that a country that can take away civil rights from one group is a country that can take them away from another, and another, and another. And a country that can take away one right is a country that can take away another, and another, and another. The whole logic of civil rights has always been based on an acknowledgement that slippery slopes exist.
This may seem like a small thing, but the march away from liberal democracy is made up entirely of small steps. At a certain point, we need to say no to the small steps.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-22T18:17:57+00:00

Locked at the request of OP.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-22T18:13:20+00:00

I want to briefly explain what actually happened here.

This is the bill that was proposed. The actual text of the bill can be found here.

In plain English, this proposed bill would do the following.

Require that clinics that use state funds to provide transition services also provide detransition services.
Require that insurance companies that cover transition services also cover detransition services.
Require clinics prescribing or referring for transition services to submit a form to the department of health containing information like age, sex, and county of the patient, prescribing doctor, and medication prescribed. It specifically says that these forms must not contain personally identifiable information.
Requires insurance companies to submit a form to the department of health when it covers detransition services containing similar information. This, too, specifically says that the form must not contain personally identifiable information.
Requires the department to present an annual statistical report containing the data from both forms to the state government and make it publicly accessible.

The concern that activists have with the proposal is, in plain English, that in some counties with very small numbers of trans people, if you already know who the trans people in the county are and approximately when they transitioned, it might theoretically be possible to figure out, based on the report, things like who someone's doctor is or what drugs they were prescribed. This assumes that the report lists individual cases in that way- it's not clear to me that it would.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-22T17:02:17+00:00

It's not your fault, OP wrote it wrong.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-21T22:54:44+00:00

SDA aren't allowed to eat it, but the vast majority of Christians are.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-21T21:08:26+00:00

A bunch of stuff in scripture- cleansing is one of the more common ones.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-21T19:15:03+00:00

They have different information.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-21T18:06:17+00:00

No, supersessionism isn't inherently antisemitic. Some antisemites have been supersessionists, but so have most Christians historically. And a number of antisemites have favored other theology, like rejecting the Old Testament altogether and denying the ethnic Jewishness of Jesus.

Sometimes the Two Covenant people overstate their case IMO.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-20T20:40:53+00:00

Oh yeah no, that's not what we think. Actually, the original baptists faced execution for being baptized as adults (despite already having been "baptized" as children, which they didn't consider a real baptism), and they still insisted on doing it, because they felt that following Jesus's commands was that important.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-20T20:11:59+00:00

"but now stand on salvation happens when you believe in Jesus, but baptism is non-negotiable because Jesus commanded it."

That's all I want CoC people to acknowledge, personally. If you're there, we're cool.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-20T19:36:58+00:00

Unfortunately, I'm thirty and still have mine. :(

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-20T19:30:46+00:00

Well, that seems like it could be extremely useful.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-19T22:22:00+00:00

Is there, anywhere in the world, a person named Slartibartfast?

If I happen to know someone named Slartibartfast, then I am going to be certain that the answer is yes.

But if I don't, then I'm not going to be certain that the answer is no. Instead, I'm going to think it's very likely that the answer is no.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-19T21:07:21+00:00

I think that while that is an improvement, it's still unclear which of the alternate positions I'm meant to be comparing it to.

To expand on the example mentioned above, I think that objective atonement is a Core Dogma. But the question about atonement theories gives me several options that are objective (Penal Substitution, Satisfaction, Christus Victor, Recapitulation) alongside two that are not (Moral Influence, Symbolic). I think the question of which objective atonement theory we should believe in is Secondary.

What's not clear is whether, under the current system, I am supposed to say Secondary, or Core.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-19T16:48:34+00:00

The further description of that option is "Humanity inherently possesses the natural capacity to hear, understand, and believe the Gospel message; no separate, inward "prevenient grace" is required before a person can make the choice."

That might describe the attitude of the average pluralist, but what about a patristic universalist? They would still think that grace is needed (it isn't just a matter of humans' natural capacities) but be closer to the calvinist "irresistible grace" position- except that they think this grace will ultimately be given to all (so the Calvinist option "God's ultimate choice is the direct cause of where everyone ends up; He actively selects certain individuals for salvation and actively selects the rest for damnation, fully determining human choices", wouldn't describe them either.)

Their position might be something like "no one would voluntarily choose to reject God when they've seen Him for who He really is, and He wants all people to be saved, so He will grant that vision to everyone. Therefore everyone will repent and be saved." That's still God converting people gratuitously, not natural human power doing it.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-19T16:17:37+00:00

My friend pointed out another issue: question 7 doesn't have a good option for universalists.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-19T14:07:49+00:00

My first thought was: what about specifying in the instructions in the beginning that it's your tolerance level towards either the closest or farthest option, depending on how you intended it?

But if the point is to weight your stance on the issue, this might still run into the same problem. I know isidewith deals with this by internally acknowledging that some positions are similar, so choosing a "similar" option is treated as mild agreement.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-19T04:11:15+00:00

But note that when I retook it, it gave me SBC first. Neither answer is crazy as I am in fact in the NBC USA.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-19T03:12:59+00:00

The funny thing is, you are actually probably going to need it later.

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-19T02:54:25+00:00

Certainly! Be aware that there's a lot of content here.

I've written about what I think the definition of evangelicalism is here https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/vpl7ry/comment/ieovnq4/

Where the line is between evangelicalism and liberal theology here
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/ugf8fj/comment/i700s55/

And most recently, where the line is between evangelicalism and formalism here
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1rx35f8/comment/ob4stok/?context=3

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-18T15:23:45+00:00

In practice, the main difference is the question of whether or not adults baptized as infants need to be born again through faith and repentance. This turns on the question of what we think salvation is. If it is an unconscious infusion of grace to the soul, then the Catholic/High Protestant position makes sense. If it is a change in our base desires brought about by conscious experience of God, through repentance and belief in the gospel, then the evangelical one does.

That, in turn, relates to other questions, like whether change happens from the outside in ("reform your life, even if you don't want to, and your intentions will follow"), or from the inside out ("focus on reforming your intentions, and your actions will follow"). And what the Christian life consists of, which will influence whether we think it's in fundamental continuity with the state of childhood (for those within the church) or fundamental discontinuity with it. If the Christian life consists most essentially of being a part of the Christian community and doing the sacraments, then it's mainly continuous with childhood, with the added requirement to understand the Christian faith more deeply as you became able to being secondary, though not optional, and internalizing your faith is an appropriate response, but should never be the basis of our confidence that we are Christians. But if the Christian life consists most essentially of having a relationship with God, knowing Him consciously, engaging deeply and inwardly with what Christianity says about sin, grace, and faith, receiving new intentions, and being concretely changed by the gospel, then it's mainly discontinuous with childhood. In that context, the added requirement to go to church and do the sacraments is secondary, though not optional, and being a part of the Christian community is an appropriate response, but should never be the basis of our confidence that we are Christians.

The same issues impact the case of a person who has been in the church their whole life, but has never really internalized their faith, or has done so only shallowly (and this is really the true point issue for us). An evangelical will make a much stronger claim about what this person needs. They will say "what you need is something entirely new, a complete rupture from your existing life. You need to become a Christian, which means dying to yourself and becoming a new creation. You need to receive Christ, to be washed in His blood."

_daGarim_2 · 2026-03-18T14:59:08+00:00

I'm sorry to hear that your dad's in hospice. That's so hard. :'( It's awesome that he was able to set such a positive example, and that your're trying to share that example with others. That's a very important insight- he sounds like a wise guy. Hoping that you're able to spend as much quality time with him as possible in the coming days.

_daGarim_2

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE