Transgender teen commits suicide, cites Christian parents in blog

Luckily, I live in a small country with a funny name (Yunanistan) located in Yurope, where its pious, law-abiding and decent people live by the traditional Christian values of the One True Holy Mother Orthodox Church, as well as with the traditional gender roles followed in ALL of the Middle East. Men in particular ALL follow the Turkish concept of "erkek" (manliness) in their day-to-day affairs. There ain't no thing as a "transgender" here, just ridiculous non-erkek "men" who dress up in women's clothing.

Was there any response from the parents? Also, suicide by truck? Not cool, man. Not cool.

Krispy said:

Was there any response from the parents?

The parents maintained that "their son" went out for a walk and was killed in "an accident".

esselfortium said:

A human being is never an "it".

We're all "its" actually. We just don't like to degrade ourselves and try to hold our noses high as something better than an it while using gender pronouns to make ourselves feel special. Everything is an it. We gotta get over ourselves.

I guess it all boils down to grammar and semantics. In Greek, there's a neuter, masculine and female form for almost any animal (e.g. Η γάτα (female cat or generally "cat"), Ο γάτος (male cat) and Το γατί (indeterminate gender "cat"), while even in Italian (which has no neuter gender), some animals have a "neuter" term to refer indiscriminately to a member of their species e.g "pollo" = "chicken", vs "gallo" (rooster) and "gallina" (hen).

However, people in Greek can only be "him" or "her" though, unless you are referring to "a human being", which is neuter.

Maes said:

However, people in Greek can only be "him" or "her" though, unless you are referring to "a human being", which is neuter.

Looks like Greece needs to check it's privilege.

Clonehunter said:

We're all "its" actually. We just don't like to degrade ourselves and try to hold our noses high as something better than an it while using gender pronouns to make ourselves feel special. Everything is an it. We gotta get over ourselves.

I doubt that it has anything to do with trying to make ourselves "feel better". "It" mainly applies if you don't know the persons gender.

For example; John: Someone at the office won the lottery.
Henry: Who was it?

I suspect that people are referring to the transgendite as an "it" because its biologically a man but emotionally a woman.

Doominator2 said:

I doubt that it has anything to do with trying to make ourselves "feel better". "It" mainly applies if you don't know the persons gender.

For example; John: Someone at the office won the lottery.
Henry: Who was it?

I suspect that people are referring to the transgendite as an "it" because its biologically a man but emotionally a woman.

I was merely suggesting an idea. That is also the right use of It, however. I also suspect that's why they are referring to the trans as an It, but regardless, my completely pointless point still stands.

Angsty American teen with bible-thumping parents commits suicide. More at 10.

Something should be said about formulated social constructs and this need to divide human beings into sub categories based on paper thin distinctions. These kinds of labels carry so much weight on the psyche that it's boggling why one would subscribe to the idea that doing a certain something or having a certain persuasion would make you a wholly unique entity among 'normal' or 'straight' people. It's too caustic on the soul to take a second hand idea of what you're supposed to be based on some arbitrary distinctions of the collective.

I empathize with this kid. If my son ever came to me and said he was gay or whatever, I'd be disappointed that he felt the need to carry the kind of weight of fitting into someone else's idea that he's in a different sub-class of people. I feel the correct mind-set would be "I'm going to do what I want without hurting anyone else. I'm not anything you say I am. I am I. Fuck you."

Graf Zahl said:

One can extrapolate from his actions - and the only conclusion would be that Jesus would not only not have condemned homosexuality (or any other fringe group of modern society), he would have treated them as his equals, just like he did with other disadvantaged groups of his time period.

I was thinking about this, and I have to say I don't really agree. Yes, you can extrapolate from Jesus actions, but the point is precisely that when people are teached about homosexuality from a christian point of view, they will always rely in the Old Testament, because after all, it's the word of God, not Jesus (unless, of course, you believe in the One-being trinity). In that case, the Old Testament takes precedence over the New Testament, simply because the Old Testament can be considered the "Original Law" or "The Law of God".

Besides, there's also the issue of considering what part of the Bible is metaphoric and which part is literal. There's no place in the Bible where you are allowed to follow what you think is convenient and throw away what doesn't fit your own personal view of the world. It's supposed to be the work of God, not something you follow if you agree with it. So, if Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality, that's irrelevant. It's in the Old Testament, period. Religion is dogmatic.

esselfortium said:

The parents maintained that "their son" went out for a walk and was killed in "an accident".

And in case anyone though esselfortium was exaggerating:

fraggle said:

And in case anyone though esselfortium was exaggerating:

Sad. Very, very sad.

Zed said:

I was thinking about this, and I have to say I don't really agree. Yes, you can extrapolate from Jesus actions, but the point is precisely that when people are teached about homosexuality from a christian point of view, they will always rely in the Old Testament, because after all, it's the word of God, not Jesus (unless, of course, you believe in the One-being trinity). In that case, the Old Testament takes precedence over the New Testament, simply because the Old Testament can be considered the "Original Law" or "The Law of God".

Wait, what? Granted, I'm not the world's greatest authority on this, but when I was Christian, I was always taught that it was the other way around - that the New Testament was the part you should focus on, and everything in the Old Testament should be taken with a grain of salt, precisely because of the whole Trinity thing which made the teachings of Jesus the last word. I've never actually heard anyone say the Old Testament comes first, it's always been, if something in the Old Testament goes against the spirit of the New Testament, go with the New Testament, because it represents the New Covanent and all that. You know, "The Old Testament may be the Word of God, but Jesus is God, therefore parts of the Old Testament that contradict Jesus' teachings should be ignored."

I mean, I realize denominations can be very different, but I always kind of assumed everyone was on the same page with that, especially as Jesus himself kinda showed the attitude of "My teachings come before anything in the Old Testament," what with his disregard for the Sabbath and encouraging Peter to eat the "unclean" foods.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm

Bloodshedder said:

http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm

That part is not meant to be taken literally, of course.

All this new and old testament hair-splitting is a fruitless endeavour when the true and honest prophet was quite clear on the subject.

Mohammed bin Abdulah said:

Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to.

Christianity really needs it's own Hadith. Of course Europe would probably be as shitty as the Middle East if not for the obscurity that is the bible. The Hadith pretty much cements all the Qur'an's bullshit.

r_init: getpostnumberforname: post not found!

Technician said:

Christianity really needs it's own Hadith. Of course Europe would probably be as shitty as the Middle East if not for the obscurity that is the bible. The Hadith pretty much cements all the Qur'an's bullshit.

Don't forget that the Muslim world was the center of science and learning for a long time until the Crusades basically bombed it into the stone age. Europe was/is just as shitty as the M-E, just in a different way.

dethtoll said:

Don't forget that the Muslim world was the center of science and learning for a long time until the Crusades Mongol conquest basically bombed it into the stone age.

Fixed. The Mediterranean coast was hardly the intellectual hub of the Muslim world. Baghdad was the Alexandrian equivalent of the Abbasid Caliphate.

fraggle said:

And in case anyone though esselfortium was exaggerating:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6GBd3PCcAE6rrG.jpg

That text reads so emotionally dead and deflated for parents whom just lost their kid to suicide or a truck accident. Maybe its me but the only way it seems to project itself is like some corporate emotionless bland explanation. bland and dead ; Sorry for those one hundred burned up cell phones, we will deliver new ones starting tomorrow.

I do not know why but the U.S. seems to house such huge amounts of freakishly one minded, public, and expressive Roman Catholics or protestants derived from it compared to the most western parts of Europe. excuse the odd structure of that sentence.

FireFish said:

excuse the odd structure of that sentence.

No, it was bad and you should feel bad for your inability to English correctly. Go back to English Class 101 you illiterate Internet scum.

And then there's this:

FireFish said:

That text reads so emotionally dead and deflated for parents whom who just lost their kid to suicide or a truck accident.

geekmarine said:

Wait, what? Granted, I'm not the world's greatest authority on this, but when I was Christian, I was always taught that it was the other way around - that the New Testament was the part you should focus on, and everything in the Old Testament should be taken with a grain of salt, precisely because of the whole Trinity thing which made the teachings of Jesus the last word. I've never actually heard anyone say the Old Testament comes first, it's always been, if something in the Old Testament goes against the spirit of the New Testament, go with the New Testament, because it represents the New Covanent and all that. You know, "The Old Testament may be the Word of God, but Jesus is God, therefore parts of the Old Testament that contradict Jesus' teachings should be ignored."

I mean, I realize denominations can be very different, but I always kind of assumed everyone was on the same page with that, especially as Jesus himself kinda showed the attitude of "My teachings come before anything in the Old Testament," what with his disregard for the Sabbath and encouraging Peter to eat the "unclean" foods.

I feel I should answer this.

You can argue that the New Testament takes precedence over the Old Testament, or vice versa, but that's not the point. The Bible is meant to be considered absolute. As I said, it's meant to be a law, not a suggestion. You do not argue what the Bible says, you follow it, without questioning. What would be the point in having a holy book which presumably rules this universe's life if we are allowed to ignore what we (in our imperfect human condition) think it's "outdated" or "obsolete"? The Old Testament makes it pretty clear: you should not lay with man as with woman (or something like that). You don't agree with that? Fine, the christian God is not for you, find whatever religion suits your own personal tastes, or invent one (very good bussiness, by the way), or become an atheist, or agnostic, or whatever. If you (I know you don't, it's just an example) follow christianity, you have to expect to be ruled by the rules of christianity, which are contained in the Bible. And the Bible (which is supposedly the word of God) doesn't allow you to choose. God gives orders, and the orders are pretty clear. Homosexuality is wrong. Period. No way around that.

EDIT: Sorry, wrong word.
2nd EDIT: I wrote "lie" instead of "lay". Heh.

dethtoll said:

Don't forget that the Muslim world was the center of science and learning for a long time

But basically only because they were in contact with the last remnants of the Roman Empire (Byzantium) and with India, so they translated Greek and Indian texts into Arabs and benefited from the knowledge and wisdom of these other civilizations. That's why the modern number systems (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. instead of I, II, III, IV, V...) is referred to as Arabic numerals even though they're actually Indian in origin.

So they got numbers from India, and we in the western world got those same numbers from the Muslim world. And? I'm waiting for the part where any of that makes my point less valid.

You can't say that the Bible is meant to be considered absolute without establishing which is more important, the Old Testament or the New Testament. After all, they contradict each other. The Old Testament talks much about laws that make people unclean... The New Testament specifically says the concept of being unclean no longer applies. You have to pick one or the other, you can't follow both.

Zed said:

God gives orders, and the orders are pretty clear. Homosexuality is wrong. Period. No way around that.

Oh come on. So faggotry is a no-no forever and ever, because the Bible says so, but the laughable prehistoric silliness of Deuteronomy 22 is okay to ignore? Your LORD GOD commands you to stone your wife at her father's doorstep if she wasn't a virgin when you took her. I don't see many "stone hail accidents" in the newspaper. I'm mixing wool and linen right now, look at my unspeakable heresy. And it's against LORD GOD's law for women to wear men's clothing, yet I don't see even the most religious bigots disowning their daughters for wearing pants.

It's pretty damn obvious that going hardline with the Bible thumping is only useful and practiced when it forwards someone's current political agenda, so I call bullshit on your "put up or shut up".

geekmarine said:

You can't say that the Bible is meant to be considered absolute without establishing which is more important, the Old Testament or the New Testament. After all, they contradict each other. The Old Testament talks much about laws that make people unclean... The New Testament specifically says the concept of being unclean no longer applies. You have to pick one or the other, you can't follow both.

One would think that people who call themselves "Christians" would follow the Christ's teachings; but no. Christians in the US should be called Leviticians instead, it'd be more exact.

Due to a personal tragedy in my own very close family on New Year's Eve day, my heart suddenly goes out to the parents and everyone else in their family. No one deserves to lose a child so young. No matter how the method or what the circumstances.

I struggle to even remember any good stories about the 16 year old that we just lost three days ago. Maybe I only remember the bad, because the good is so mundane. Yet none of the bad stories matter. Its just having her around or even existing that matters. We all need her around. Tomorrow is another day, its not always 100% negative or bad. There are always smiles, joy and laughter, but now that she's gone that put a cap on those things.

This 'transgender teen' will be no different for her family too.