From the blog "Cheat Seeking Missiles" which ironically claims "precision guided logic bombs to destroy biased purveyors of 'Dem'entia" comes this quote (emphasis added, spelling as in the original):
The college cited a community covenant all employees must sign, affirming biblical principles and tht they will "model Christian character to our students." They are not required to be Free Methodists, according to U prez Gayle D. Beebe, but, she (and she is a she) told the WSJ, "It's an expectation they will be acting out the Christian faith both in the way they teach and in the way they live."I have it on good sources that Dr. Gayle D. Beebe is in fact, a man (or at least he presents as one).
17 comments:
One of the hardest parts of trans activism (and probably of any kind of activism) is dealing with the angry injustice of counter-activists.
I pray grace for you, and for us all, as we cope with this. May our love overcome their anger. Please know that you are loved and supported by many, many more people out there than you can count!
I agree there are some counter-activists, as you call them, who unfortunately present their disputes angrily, but there are also lots of other people who simply disagree. They are not wrong; they disagree.
Each side deserves respect.
I happen to fall on the other side of most who write on this blog. If Julie wishes to live as a woman, that's fine. But I wish she would do so in an environment that is more accepting. I do not understand her desire to push her ideas and values on an institution that obviously has a differing view.
Whatever happened to live and let live? If SAU wants to live one way and Julie wants to live another, why shouldn't they each be allowed to go their own way? Why should one party force another to accept something they say is against their beliefs? That goes for both Julie and SAU. SAU wants Julie to be John. Julie wants SAU to accept her transformation. I say they both agree to go their separate way and leave each other alone.
Julie, I know you love the faculty and students. But your choices have disrupted those you say you love. Why did you think it would be okay to force your values on the school when you are so opposed the school forcing their values on you?
Because I support the articulated values of SAU. What I do not support are values that are created after discriminatory actions as a way of trying to defend those actions. These fabricated "values" almost cost me my life. That is why riding quietly into the sunset is not an option. Because the next person might not be so fortunate.
Even if the "values" were created after the discriminatory action, why can't SAU decide for itself who it wants teaching its students?
I understand it accepts federal funds, so that makes it liable to federal anti-discrimination laws. For that reason I think it should follow Hillsdale’s example and not take federal funds, therefore allowing it to hire/fire whomever it pleases.
I’m pretty libertarian on the whole hire/fire subject. I think an employer, who is beholden to its shareholders, should be free to do what it thinks is in its’ and the shareholders’ best interests. Hopefully, those interests will correspond with the employees’, but that is not always the case.
The “fabricated values” did not almost cost you your life. You choose to stay there.
Please don’t get me wrong, Julie. I am in no way saying you shouldn’t have the freedom to live your life as you see fit. But you need to be willing to give others that same freedom.
I chose to stay under the bullying influence of those that sought to change the rules in the middle of the game. Because SAU does accept federal funds sex discrimination - which is what they practiced - is illegal. Why employers do have rights, so do employees. Six national organizations and four state organizations are lined up ready to help defend mine if need be. I am still hopeful that this won't be necessary.
Christy, I'm all about the libertarian perspective. I support gay marriage and legalization of most drugs (I'd definitely have tighter controls on antibiotic use than I would marijuana, but that's really for another blog). I also support an institution to discriminate however it chooses. They could bar blacks, gays, straights, English guys with bad teeth, Amish or whomever they want. What I can't support is an institution taking public funds and engaging in any discrimination.
...and besides, I'm so thankful Julie chose life. Death sucks.
Bruce and Julie,
I agree -- as I said in my post above, if SAU takes federal money it has to play by federal laws. And I also said Julie has the right to live however she wants. I, too, am glad she didn't die.
What I don't understand is how Julie thinks taking a brother to court is okay. There may be nothing in the Bible about GID but there sure as heck is something about Christians suing Christians.
This is from I Cor. 6:7-8: The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
Do you not think the unity among believers is more important than your GID and the enforcement of anti-discrimation laws? From what I understand, you have found a church family who accepts you, there are Christians like myself who are willing to let you live as you wish. Why must you insist on having people accept your choices?
There are always going to be people who agree and disagree with what we want to do. We can't force people to endorse all our choices.
I understand you have the "right" under the law to sue the university. I'm wondering if you also think you have the right to sue under God's?
The printed word isn't always the best way to communicate because we can't see facial expressions or hear each other's voices. Please know I am not angry -- just engaging in discussion.
Thanks,
Christy
I have not yet taken SAU to court. All I have done to date is file an EEO complaint. SAU is an EEO employer and this is the process that EEO complaints are to follow . . . Christian or not.
Christy,
I wrestled with the concept of taking a brother to court, as you pointed out in your blog. I recently heard a sermon on the verse that you pointed out that helped to clarify my thinking. It is different to take an institution to court than it is to take an individual to court. The institution may have a mission or value that is Christ centered, it may also have several individuals that are Christian within it's structure, but the institution is a thing, not a person who could be saved.
How does an individual address an injustice with in an institution? Speaking directly to the administration did not help.
There is the added dimension of trying to help individuals understand the condition. You may have found that you have examined an issue more closely when you have known an individual that was struggling with a certain problem. It is much like that at SAU. Julie is a respected professor and administrator in the institution. Having a history with individuals within the institution has helped many to look more closely at their own beliefs and test to see if their preconceptions really stood up. (I have gone through the process and found after learning about Julie's condition, have redefined my thinking. We know of others that have gone through the same process.)We know that we can not force someone else to have the same belief, but sometimes in the process of the challenge, a person can come to a deeper understanding. Not everyone at the university thinks what Julie is doing is wrong.
Another issue that prompts us to seek mediation is the fact that at this stage in life, and the present cultural milieu for transsexuals, it is very difficult for a person to find a job, no matter how qualified. Early on Julie made some inquiries about a job at other academic institutions, but nothing materialized. We felt that God had brought us to SAU and it wasn't time to go yet. God would make it plain when the time was right. It is appearing that the time may be now.
We sought the Lord in prayer before filing the complaint. We asked several Christians to pray with us and to let us know if they sensed that this was not of the Lord. We would not have pursued the complaint if they had a different answer.
Some times it takes drastic measures for us to question what we have held as a belief. Sometimes the Lord wants to correct our understanding. We are hopeful that our story is helping the body of Christ to seriously look at how they are treating others.
Julie and Joanne,
Thank you both for your responses. I appreciate the dialogue you have encouraged, and appreciate that you have allowed someone who is wrestling with the issue to participate with you.
Christy
Great discussion.
Just a quick thought on Julie's comment that it almost cost her life. The statistics show that LGBT young people are significantly more likely to commit suicide than others, and significantly more likely to be homeless than others. By some accounts, up to 40% of transgender young people are forced to live on the streets at some point in their lives. For a very Christian, very personal perspective on this, you might read Mel White's book Stranger at the Gate: To be Gay and Christian in America.
Christy, can I ask a question to test your theory? How does it apply to a marriage? Should a transgender person leave his or her partner when they disagree over the matter?
Hi Ally,
I agree; this has been a good conversation.
Thanks for your question. I've actually been thinking about that. Because I'm a Christian I think there are only two reasons for divorce: when the unbelieving partner leaves or because of adultery. So obviously, being diagnosed GID isn't in there.
With that said, however, once you get married you no longer get to do things just for yourself. Every action I take impacts my husband, and now, my three children.
GID is not like cancer; it can't actually kill you. I believe if my husband came to me and said he wanted to transition like Julie has done, I would not only stay with him, but I would get him the help he would need to take care of himself but not disrupt the lives of our children.
When we become parents, we are parents for life. Even with grown children, the actions of parents can affect the children. We shouldn’t deny ourselves everything just because we are parents, but there are definitely things we must deny for the sake of our children.
I have a long streak of alcoholics in my family. Some scientists are saying there might be an "alcoholic gene" and some people really can't help themselves. If I became an alcoholic, it would be wrong of my husband to say, "Well, she's got this genetic predisposition to drink, so there's nothing I can do about it."
Since I am not in Joanne or Julie's shoes I don't know if they explored other options than a full-blown transition. But my desire, if my husband came to me with this, would be for us to find a way to care for him without bringing this information to the children. I hope my husband's desires or needs would not supersede the needs and welfare of our children.
I don't know how to say it in a way that doesn't sound holier than thou. I’m just answering the question from my perspective.
Christy
I like the way you're thinking through this, Christy. Being able to ask hard questions is so much more honest (and, I think, so much more honoring to God) than imagining we've got it all figured out.
My purpose in bringing up marriage was to look at the "why don't you just go your separate ways" question from a different perspective. I've heard the same question frequently in a slightly different form: "If your denomination doesn't accept you, why don't you just find another one that does?" My answer is that I love my denomination and I love the church, and when I think they've deviated from the heart of the gospel and the kingdom, my love compels me to be a stay and seek to be a catalyst for positive change.
When I came out to my wife, after twelve years of marriage and almost 30 years of denying my trans-ness, I knew it would be an incredible challenge for her to accept me. I feared it might be impossible. There were times during those first few months when I feared she might decide to leave me if I could not change. The problem was that I knew I couldn't. I'd tried all my life to change, and had sought God's help via every channel I could. My self-hatred, guilt, and frustration (not my trans-ness) were making me a very different person from the one she'd married and who had fathered our children. She deserved to know the real me, and to make an informed decision about whether she wanted to be married to that person or not. I also deserved the chance to be the real me, to recover my joy in living, and to interact with God's world as a whole person. (The fact that GID cannot kill a person like cancer can does not mean it is wise or advisable to leave it untreated. There are things worse than dying and deaths worse than the physical.) In the end, after much prayer, she decided that God would have her change. It helped, I think, that she found her way to the large body of evidence that children of LGBT couples suffer no greater psychological or emotional risks than children of straight couples.
One other thought: I think the analogy to alcoholism is a flawed one, at least in that application. If you became an alcoholic, the great injustice would be for him to refuse you treatment. Knowing there is a genetic predisposition helps, I think, in preventing us from placing the heavy burden of responsibility on the person who suffers. Something that heavy belongs on God's shoulders, I think.
Ally,
Thanks for giving me a glimpse of your life. I appreciate it.
I find it interesting to read, "In the end, after much prayer, she decided that God would have her change." I know you said you prayed but you didn't change. If God could change her heart, don't you think He could have changed yours?
I acknowledge I’m no scientist, but after all the reading I’ve done on the subject, I still fall on the side of GID and trans-ness coming as a result nurture, not nature. There is no physical test to diagnose this; I’m sure you know the only way to “diagnose” the condition is through examining feelings.
And I still come down on the side of the innocent victims, the children and spouses. The only choice they have, if they intend to stay in your life, is to accept the transformation. For a child, that’s not really a choice he/she should have to make, is it?
I feel like this discussion is a bit like the conversations going on about global warming. There are no conclusive findings to say man is causing global warming; quite the contrary. There are loads of scientists on both sides of the issue. But thanks to Al Gore and his accomplices in the media who broadcast his views without question, the masses say, “Oh my word, we’re causing global warming!” They don’t ask for evidence; they simply believe because it’s been repeated over and over and over.
I’m not totally inoculated to these issues; my very first best friend came out in high school and is now the lead anchor on a LGBT radio station in San Francisco. I love him no matter what, but I am sad for his choices, as I’m sure he’s sad when I make choices to sin.
Anyway, I appreciate the conversation very much. And I hope agreeing to disagree is okay!
Christy
What I find really disappointing is how quickly some people descend into the land of being judgmental about topics they so obviously have little knowledge of, and even less understanding.
I posted an article trashing Peter LaBarbera, which attracted an amazing number of "anonymous" commenters who seemed to be all too quick to quote the Bible chapter and verse to condemn transgender people. (Usually from really bad stereotypes)
It led me to write a rather detailed commentary about Julie's situation (based on what I could find in the news) - which the wingnuts have amazingly not commented on.
However, I mostly wanted to wish Julie and family all the best in your journey. I'm saddened that the actions of a few narrow-minded hypocrites have made your lives "public interest".
Post a Comment