It's just a strawman because he has a middle school comprehension of gender dysphoria and doesn't think people are cool with the concept of not being gay after they transition.
Like the whole point of a person getting gender affirming surgery is that they were born with the wrong parts, so someone in this position likely identifies as a straight version of the opposite sex and not a gay version of their assigned sex well before surgery. But really who cares because just let people do what they want to do with their bodies without trying to debate them.
I mean, yeah, but the specific gotcha here is that he's using "sexuality is immutable" to apply to the label/construct (gay vs straight) rather than the internal experience of a person. it's middle school, and I'm sure his understanding of dysphoria is even worse, but I don't think it's a strawman, just galaxy brain.
I believe Matt here is a religious conservative, maybe evangelical. For those folks, it's actually super-important for their doctrine that being attracted to the same sex is a choice, not something innate to your being. If it's a "choice", then it can be written off as "sin", which is consistent with how the Bible talks about homosexuality. But if it's not a choice, then it really does bring up some uncomfortable questions for evangelicals. If same sex attraction is innate, then that means they were made that way by God. And if that's the case, well, then they have to wrestle with questions of how a good God can orient people a certain way but still consider it "sin".
I think they actually go a step further and say that (not in these terms) people have agency so even if you are attracted to people of the same sex, you are sinning if you choose to engage in those behaviours.
It's also why you shouldn't engage with them and the parameters of their fucking stupid discourse.
What????? What is this even supposed to mean??? Like, what point is he trying to make here?
deleted by creator
It's just a strawman because he has a middle school comprehension of gender dysphoria and doesn't think people are cool with the concept of not being gay after they transition.
Like the whole point of a person getting gender affirming surgery is that they were born with the wrong parts, so someone in this position likely identifies as a straight version of the opposite sex and not a gay version of their assigned sex well before surgery. But really who cares because just let people do what they want to do with their bodies without trying to debate them.
I mean, yeah, but the specific gotcha here is that he's using "sexuality is immutable" to apply to the label/construct (gay vs straight) rather than the internal experience of a person. it's middle school, and I'm sure his understanding of dysphoria is even worse, but I don't think it's a strawman, just galaxy brain.
He’s saying to give conversion therapy another shot
bEiNg tRanSgEndEr is GaY coNverSiOn tHerApy
deleted by creator
and this is how we get mike pence to support forced bimbofication
I believe Matt here is a religious conservative, maybe evangelical. For those folks, it's actually super-important for their doctrine that being attracted to the same sex is a choice, not something innate to your being. If it's a "choice", then it can be written off as "sin", which is consistent with how the Bible talks about homosexuality. But if it's not a choice, then it really does bring up some uncomfortable questions for evangelicals. If same sex attraction is innate, then that means they were made that way by God. And if that's the case, well, then they have to wrestle with questions of how a good God can orient people a certain way but still consider it "sin".
I think they actually go a step further and say that (not in these terms) people have agency so even if you are attracted to people of the same sex, you are sinning if you choose to engage in those behaviours.
It's also why you shouldn't engage with them and the parameters of their fucking stupid discourse.
even if it was changable and not immutable, why do we have to assume its a decision that then can have sin applied to it?? what a dumb arguement