markiplier of ideas

But here’s how I broke my logic down after becoming gender critical:

Is gender dysphoria a real condition? Yes.

Am I sympathetic? Absolutely.

Can it be caused by exposure to pornography, abuse of all kinds, neglect? Yes.

And because it’s real, does that mean we should enable it, cutting off healthy body parts, inverting parts or creating them and sewing them on, giving people hormones which increases their risk of medical conditions and sending them to an early grave? Absolutely not. We should find another way that allows them to live long lives, not try to force science fiction into a reality by making people human test subjects.

Then later, I expanded that thinking to homosexuality. I realized that how we treat homosexuality is just a less extreme version of transgenderism. Transgenderism is the logical conclusion of LGB. That explains why all these LGB organizations swiftly adopted the T after they won their legal battles. It’s not a “slippery slope” but rather the logic that was applied to the LGB was applied to the T. The ideology that propped up LGB easily propped up the T. But now there is a blowback to the extreme, that forces people to look back on the LGB and rethink whether the arguments for LGB are logically sound.

So…here’s how I break down my current thoughts on homosexuality:

Is same sex attraction a real condition? Yes.

Am I sympathetic? Absolutely.

Can it be caused by exposure to pornography, abuse of all kinds, neglect? Yes.

And because it’s real, does that mean we should enable it, saying it’s okay for people to do sexual acts which increases their risk of disease (without informing them of those risks), encourages dangerous sexual behaviors that tend to spiral into more extreme sexual acts, which sends people to an early grave? Absolutely not. We should find ways for these people to be cured of their conditions so they don’t feel the urge to behave in ways that causes them to die sooner.

Both are disordered. Both should not be encouraged. Both should be cured.

Wow!!! Someone who’s excited for me to be Baptized?! Thank you!! I feel so touched by your excitement for me! I’m so happy to hear you’ve reverted!! That’s amazing news! I’ll pray for you also.

I’m getting baptized Easter of 2027! Next weekend is my Rite of Entrance to the church. I’ll be an official catechumen after the ceremony.

I’m glad to know other people had similar origins to me! My family are areligious and Protestant (in name only, they rarely go to church, not even for Christmas). I signed up for OCIA in December of last year after slowly crawling out of the ball of pessimism that I had become. The church, its history, Father Mike Schmitz, and Ascension Press as a whole were amazing motivators to join.

Basically, radical feminism identifies reality (while transgenderism denies it) but Christianity offers a good solution to reality. It offers a way to organize society to minimize pain for women through recognizing the ills of unbridled lust. Of course, this doesn’t make Christianity perfect, but it is clear modern Christianity offers a much better alternative to the atomized and sex-obsessed secular culture that dehumanizes women. That has led to the grooming gangs of England which finds no problem with pre-teen and teenaged girls being sold into sex slavery because they think that is “progressive.”

And it isn’t the other women someone who doesn’t know what I’m talking about may immediately jump to, like a far right fascist woman who wants gender roles from 1665 to return, although that would endanger women…the difference is that those women are fewer in number from the women I’m thinking of.

I’m talking about the female journalist who laughs at the idea of girls as young as six years old being gang raped.

I’m talking about the women who stand around to protect men who’ve just stabbed multiple children from street justice.

I’m talking about female judges who let rapists, murderers, abusers go because they “feel sorry for them” only for those criminals to continue to rape, murder, and abuse.

I’m talking about female teachers who give endless excuses to misogynistic and violent male behavior from oftentimes migrant teenagers on the basis of their ethnicity.

All of these women do this because they are afraid of being labeled as right wing, racist, or anything that is ironically, not associated with feminism. They indirectly harm women because they want to seem ideologically closer to what people associate with feminism. They care more about passing the purity test and virtue signaling than the lives of the female sex.

For example, atheists shut down the Trinity because it’s not easily explained with an explanation that appeals to materialism. For example, sacrificing an animal to appease a god “makes sense” to the atheist, not that they believe it is possible, but that sacrificing an animal is an exchange that would receive a favor from the god. They can understand the mechanism and thought process behind why some religions would sacrifice an animal. But they cannot understand the thought process behind the Trinity, because what benefit or mechanism is there to the Trinity? They believe religion is primitive, so they paint it with a wide brush and simplify it.

The atheist points out that Christians have an obscure answer to what the Trinity is, but because they prioritize materialism and objectivity, they struggle with the fact that Christians define the Trinity by what it isn’t rather than what it is. Like the church has for thousands of years rejected various interpretations (heresies) trying to explain what the Trinity is, while strictly adhering to what Jesus said and thus what is in scripture. Not trying to invent explanations that could explain the mechanism of the Trinity. They struggle with the fact that metaphysics operates differently from materialism. In studying the material world you can create a theory and test it. But with Christian metaphysics it is quite literally against the core tenant of the faith to test God (Deuteronomy 6:16 -> Matthew 4:7 & Luke 4:12).

It’s just as silly as trying to shove Buddhism into a Christian framework to explain it. No, Buddhism is a separate religion with separate foundational principles snd mechanisms that cannot translate clearly into Christianity without making stuff up. For example, I can explain away Buddhist thought by saying “Buddha = Saint,” but that isn’t true. Buddha = Buddha. With reincarnation and enlightenment being a central tenant of the Buddhist faith, I can’t just make a comparison like that when Christianity doesn’t believe in reincarnation or enlightenment. I’m just making stuff up. And sure, being a Buddha may have parallels to being a Saint, but these similarities doesn’t mean they are the same. They have different foundational mechanisms that change both the outcome of the “pinnacle of humanity” (Saints and Buddhas) and how people get to the peak (submission to God and enlightenment).