• Being Christian and Transsexual: Life on Planet Mercury
    • Key Bible Verses
    • Links

ts4jc

~ Being Christian and Transsexual

ts4jc

Tag Archives: South Carolina

Potential for an Individual Voter to Influence the Presidential Election

03 Tuesday Nov 2020

Posted by ts4jc in About Me, General Transsexual issues

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2016 Election, 2020 Election, absentee ballot, alpha, At Large, beta, branches of government, California, Candidate, Checks and Balances, Civil War, Colorado, Congressional District, data points, Democratic Party, disenfranchisement, Donald Trump, Egalitarianism, Electoral College, Electoral Votes, exit polls, felons, Florida, formula, Hillary Clinton, House of Representatives, Joe Biden, larger states, Maine, Majority, Margin of Victory, minority, Mitt Romney, Nebraska, New York, non-citizens, past performance, Political Party, polls, Populism, prediction, Presidential Election, privilege, redistricting, Relative Influence, Republican Party, Senate, smaller states, South Carolina, stock broker, swing states, Texas, Third Party Candidate, Tipping Point, Transgender, U.S. Constitution, Union, United States, Urban Areas, US Presidents, Utah, volatility, Voter, Voting, voting rights, Winner Take All, Wyoming

Introduction

This should be used for academic purposes and discussion, not to discourage anyone from voting. I have left out party labels because they are not relevant to the discussion. This is not intended to encourage anyone to vote for any particular candidate.

I have been reading some discussions and have seen some charts discussing the Electoral College regarding its fairness and which states have the most power under the system.  Leading up to the 2016 election, it was generally accepted that the larger states with their large block of electoral votes had the advantage.  Since all states with the exception of smaller states Nebraska (5 electoral votes) and Maine (4 electoral votes) are winner take all in terms of the Electoral College, if a candidate in states like California (55 electoral votes), Texas (38 electoral votes), Florida or New York (29 electoral votes each) should win that state’s vote by just one vote, they would be awarded all of the electoral votes from that state.

See page for author, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Because most large urban areas tend to vote for Democratic Party candidates and most of those large urban areas are in the states with the most electoral votes, the prevailing opinion going into the 2016 Presidential election was that Secretary Clinton had a built-in advantage going into the election. Of those top four states, California and New York had voted for the Democrats in the last four Presidential elections, Texas had voted Republican and Florida was a swing state. Assuming that trend continued, the best Mr. Trump could hope for was to trail 67-84, and the worst case would be a deficit of 38-113 to overcome with the rest of the country. Adding in the remaining two states with at least 20 electoral votes (Illinois and Pennsylvania: 20 apiece), both of those states had voted for the Democrats in the previous four elections.  This would increase Secretary Clinton’s advantage to a minimum of 57 electoral votes and a maximum of 115 electoral votes.  With 270 electoral votes needed to win the election, it was seen as a huge starting advantage for Secretary Clinton, especially since a significant number of small and medium-sized states also voted for the Democrats during the previous four elections.  Mr. Trump would have to hold Texas, swing Florida his way, and win a large number of small and mid-sized states to have a chance at winning.

But when Mr. Trump won the election, contrary to the polls conducted just before the election and even contrary to some of the exit polling, analysts and the Democratic Party leadership have been searching for answers. As a result, some of the attention has been focused on the Electoral College, whether it is fair and whether it should be replaced.  In particular, because of the way that electors are assigned to each state (one for each Congressional seat; i.e. every state gets two electors for their Senate seats and then additional electors in accordance with the number of seats they have in the House of Representatives; and the District of Columbia gets assigned 3 electors), it was claimed by some that smaller states have an unfair advantage because the electors corresponding to Senate seats give small states a disproportionate number of electors per resident. 

However, that claim assumes that the smaller states have a common interest to vote in a block against the larger states.  This is not so.  Just as there larger states are not unified, neither are the smaller states.  There is a diversity of interests that have some solidly Democrat, some solidly Republican and some in the swing state column. Of the ten states with the lowest population per electoral vote, five tend to vote Republican and five tend to vote Democrat.

Furthermore, the Electoral College was not made part of the Constitution solely for the purpose of fairness, although it would be wrong to claim that it is totally unfair.  One of the primary purposes of the Constitution was to create a system of checks and balances to minimize the possibility that one group could impose itself on the rest of the country and a majority could oppress the minority.  Thus those in charge of the three branches of government are selected by different means. 

Due to populist and egalitarian movements over the years, especially as the country expanded westward, has evolved to more of the democracy elements and less of the republic elements of this democratic republic.  Senators, previously elected by state legislatures, are now elected by popular vote.  The same is true for the electors in the Electoral College.  South Carolina was the last state to have their state legislature vote for the electors by vote of the state legislators rather than by popular vote.  They switched to popular vote when they were readmitted to the Union after the Civil War. By a fluke, Colorado was the last state to choose their electors for a Presidential election by state legislature vote. In 1876, they were admitted to the Union too close to the time of the general election to organize a popular vote for President.

So for me, it is intuitive that the larger states have the greater amount of influence on the election, even if they have a larger ratio of residents per electoral vote.  They have a much greater chance of being the tipping point in an election. 

But my interest is in the individual registered voter. Each person has to decide who to vote for or if they should even vote.  The focus of my study is the relative probability that any individual voter can influence the Presidential election.

Methodology

I chose to look back over the past five elections which would roughly equate to a generation worth of elections. There were no third party candidates nationwide in any of these elections who would have significantly skewed the results, although there were occasionally third party candidates who polled well in an individual state here and there.

I recorded the margin of victory in each election between the two major parties.  I assigned the margin to be a negative number if it was in favor of one of the parties and a positive number if it was in favor of the other party. Because my data source assigned a positive number to the winning party and a negative number to the losing party, and because the same party did not win all five elections, I made this assignment so that I would have to change the sign for the fewest number of elections. The sign has to be consistent throughout so it will accurately show the potential for an election to be close. 

For example let’s take two states. For state A, the party X wins all five elections by 10,000 votes each election. For state B, party X wins three elections by 10,000 votes and party Y wins two elections by 10,000 votes.  For state A, the average Δ is 10,000 votes per election. If I take the absolute value of the vote differential for state B, the average Δ would also be 10,000.  But obviously the chance for a close election is much greater in state B than it is in state A because the parties are alternating in winning the election. The average Δ for state B therefore would be 2,000: [((3*10,000)+(2*(-10,000)))/5].

Once I have an average over the 5 elections, then I take the absolute value because I only care about how close the elections are in those states. I don’t care which party is more likely to win. At this point, I take the inverse of this number.  My reasoning is that this shows me the likelihood that any one voter will change the outcome of the election.  If the average Δ for my state is 10,000, the odds that any voter will change the outcome are 1 in 10,000. At this point in the calculation, it does not matter if there are 200,000 total votes cast or 10,000,000 votes cast. What matters is the closeness of the election. (Later on, the total number of votes will matter indirectly. See below.)

Of course, this assumes that the vote is cast for one of the top two contenders for the election. I could calculate the odds for any third party that runs candidates with regularity each election cycle, but I would have to record the margin between that party’s candidate and the winning candidate in the state. If third parties are performing poorly, then the odds of a voting for a third party influencing the election decrease.

However, this does not take into account situations where the voter would have voted for one of the major party candidates if the third party candidate was not on the ballot. A more sophisticated model would be needed for that situation and far more detailed data would also be needed. Based on raw numbers, there is no way to know which candidate would have been voted for if the third party candidate was not on the ballot. It might have been one of the major party candidates, but it might not have; it might have been another third party candidate, it might have been a write-in or no candidate might have received a vote from that voter.

Earlier I mentioned Maine and Nebraska. These states have chosen to vote for two electors at large corresponding to the electors assigned based on their Senate seats and for their remaining electors to be chosen severally by congressional election district corresponding to their seats in the House of Representatives.  Therefore, in addition to taking the statewide totals, I had to take the data for each congressional district. But there is a problem with that. Based on the census taken every ten years, the House of Representatives is reapportioned, although in this case, the number of House seats allotted to Maine and Nebraska did not change. 

Even so, redistricting can occur, and if there was a change of the party in power between the 1990 and 2010 census, the more likely a significant change in redistricting would have occurred at least once. The districts in the 2000 election were based on the 1990 census; in the 2004 and 2008 elections based on the 2000 census; in the 2012 and 2016 census based on the 2010 census. Therefore, I took the statewide margins for all five elections for these states, but the congressional district margins for only the last two elections.

By United States Congress – https://www.romney.senate.gov/about-mitt, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=76018780

Does this make the data much less reliable for those congressional districts or only marginally less reliable?  Based on my methodology, it would make it much less reliable since there are only two data points, not five. Some might propose I should have used weighted averages, giving higher weight to more recent elections and a valid argument could be used for that method. But that also might give undue weight to an anomaly (for example a much wider Republican margin in Utah in 2012 because of Mitt Romney as the Republican candidate).

Earlier I said that the total number of votes matter indirectly.  That’s because a state with 10,000,000 total votes (approximately the total in California which has 55 electoral votes) will have more electoral votes assigned to it than a state with 200,000 total votes (approximately the total in Wyoming which has 3 electoral votes). So to calculate the potential influence an individual voter has in the election, I multiplied the inverse of the absolute value of the average margin (i.e. the odds) times the number of electoral votes. Since this is a unitless number, I arbitrarily multiplied this result for each state (and congressional district where applicable) by one million. This was because the original result was a tiny fraction with a lot of leading zeroes. Most people would find it easier to compare numbers greater than zero, even if taken to two decimal places to the right of decimal point. I have labeled this result as “Relative Influence”.  

What matters most is the comparison of the numbers for different states to get a relative value, not the raw number.  For example, if state A has a relative influence of 100 and state B has a relative influence of 20, a voter in state A voting for a major party candidate has 5 times as much chance affecting the result of the national election as a voter in state B voting for a major party candidate. In reality, the amount of influence any one voter has during a national election is much smaller. Remember that we multiplied by one million to get a number that is easier to relate to.

Each voter in Maine and Nebraska affects 1 electoral vote in their congressional district and 2 electoral votes statewide.  So to calculate the Relative Influence of any major party voter in these states, their statewide Relative Influence based on 2 electoral votes was added to their district Relative Influence based on 1 electoral vote.

Chart: Probable potential influence of an individual voter by state, ranked from highest to lowest

JurisdictionEVRelative Influence
FL29789.47
VA13573.00
IA6351.87
OH18298.05
ME – CD 21291.91
CO9184.27
NH4177.41
NV6173.59
NM594.31
NE – CD 2188.43
PA2080.96
WI1080.36
NC1570.76
MN1068.91
AZ1168.57
GA1650.88
DE349.68
MI1648.62
MO1047.11
AK345.81
OR742.79
ME – CD 1142.39
SD341.30
MT340.09
ND339.59
SC938.30
RI437.36
VT337.30
WV535.12
IN1134.00
WA1232.41
AR632.38
MS632.31
HI431.55
TX3831.25
WY330.83
NE – CD 1129.89
TN1127.87
NJ1427.54
CT727.31
LA826.24
KS624.89
IL2023.08
KY821.40
CA5521.03
AL920.15
ID419.60
NE – CD 3118.17
MD1018.17
UT617.69
NY2916.40
OK716.20
MA1114.09
DC313.89
ME – At Large2 
NE – At Large2 
Total538
Note: Maine and Nebraska are ranked by Congressional District, not statewide.

Summary

As I stated in the introduction, this study is focused on the probable potential influence an individual voter can have on the presidential election, not how much influence one state has compared to another. This has been determined by two factors: the likelihood that one vote can swing the results of an election and the likelihood that one state (or in the case of Nebraska and Maine, one congressional district) can swing the results of an election. The former is based on how likely the election will be close within a state. This is more important than the number of voters per electoral vote. The latter is determined by the number of electoral votes. The more electoral votes a state has, the greater the chance that it could tip the election from one candidate to the other.

To highlight the importance of close elections on the potential influence a single voter can have, we can compare Florida and New York. Both have the same number of electoral votes this year, 29. But the average margin of victory in Florida in 36,733.4. In New York, the average is 1,768,022. According to my formula, the probable potential impact of a Florida voter is ~48 times greater than that of a New York voter.

Does this mean that the New York voter need not bother to vote? Absolutely not (I live in New York and I vote). Voting patterns change over time. Trends change over time. And if I used a weighted average of the margins, giving greater weight to the more recent elections, the 537 vote margin in the 2000 election in Florida would have had much less influence on the results. Also, if I do this analysis again for the 2024 election, the 2000 election results will be deleted and replaced by the 2020 election results. Also the electoral votes will be reallocated based on the 2020 census. 

When I was a stockbroker, one thing we had to tell clients (and the prospectus usually included this statement as well) is that past performance is no guarantee of future results.  (Of course elsewhere in the prospectus, the fund company shows you how much your $10,000 would be worth today if you had invested it ten years ago.) The same is true of margin of victory in presidential elections. Based on what has happened in prior elections, there is no way to predict what the margin will be in the next election.

If I had wanted to make my formula more sophisticated (which I might do in the future), I would have included a measure of volatility in the margin.  Let’s look at two hypothetical states.  For State A, the margins were 300, 100, 125, 75 and 400. For State B, the margins were 60,000, -20,000, 1,000, -80,000 and 40,000.  The average margin is the same for both states: 200.  But the volatility is much greater for State B than State A.  Therefore, the likelihood of a close election is much higher for State A. To continue the investing analogy, I have factored in the alpha component (or more accurately inverse alpha, since we want low numbers not high performance) but not the beta component.  But this is just a first draft to elicit comment and get it posted by the end of Election Day 2020. 

There are additional factors that should be remembered when deciding whether to vote. The first is that voting is a right that many people around the world do not have. Furthermore, it was a right denied to different groups of people and in most cases it took hard fought battles to win those groups the right to vote. Taking that right lightly could be looked upon as disrespectful of those who fought hard to win the right to vote and even of those who fought hard to win independence and the right to self-determination for this country.

There is also an element of privilege to voting as well as it being a right. People under a certain age do not have the right to vote. While it isn’t a perfect standard as some people gain these qualities faster than others, the idea is that a person should have a certain level of maturity and experience before being allowed to vote. Non-citizens do not have the right to vote in federal, state and most local elections. In most cases, a person must have lived in this country under a certain visa or work status for at least 5 years and also pass a citizenship test (which sadly I suspect that many native-born citizens could not pass). And some people who have lived here longer than 5 years simply do not choose to apply for citizenship, forgoing that right to vote.

There are some other categories where the right to vote varies from state to state. The right of felons to vote varies from total enfranchisement to total disenfranchisement (except for the right of petition to have the right restored), with various levels or conditions for reinstatement in between.

While there is no law expressly denying transgender individuals the right to vote, in some places, transgender individuals have been blocked from voting because their gender presentation does not match the gender marker on their ID.  This is why I voted by absentee ballot in 2012.  Because of my profession as a professional tax preparer, I had a relatively tight window between October 16 and mid-January of the following year to legally change my name, change it on my legal ID, change it with Social Security and the IRS, and change it with the State of New York Department of Taxation (which heavily regulates paid tax preparers compared to most other states).  There was no way that I could coordinate all that and also change my voter registration between October 16 and the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.  So before the deadline passed, I requested my absentee ballot, checking the most applicable reason on the application. Since then, I have always voted in person, whether in general elections or primaries. And it has never been a problem where I live. But it has been a problem for other transgender people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_disenfranchisement_in_the_United_States

Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: – Acts 6:3,5

I don’t want men in the women’s bathroom either …

25 Monday Apr 2016

Posted by ts4jc in General Christian issues, General Transsexual issues, Living Female, The Bible on transsexualism

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

1st Corinthians 10, 2nd Amendment, AMA, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, bathroom stalls, Bible, Biblical argument, bigotry, body parts, children, Christ, Christians, coed bathrooms, coed dorms, Columbia, Curt Schilling, danger, discredited psychiatrists, discredited studies, discrimination, Dispute, doors, Ephesians 4:15, eunuch, evidence, female, findings, fruit of the Spirit, gender assigned at birth, God, Gospel of John, gun control, hatred, high murder rate, ignore, innate gender, Jesus, John's epistles, Leon Lott, liberal, lies, Love, male, Matthew 19:12, medical community, men, mind, misrepresentation, moral argument, murders of transgender people, New Testament, nudity, Old Testament, Paul's epistles, personal testimony, plot, protection of women, real-life experience, research, Richland County, right to privacy, rogue organizations, sex offenders, Sheriff, South Carolina, spirit, Spirit of truth, state capital, steadfast faith, Transgender, transgender women, true gender, truth, underreported, women, women's bathrooms

I don’t want men in the women’s bathroom either …

… but as always, the devil’s in the details … and in the definitions.

So this is the new rallying cry, is it?  “No men in women’s bathrooms.”

Well I happen to agree.  A man has no right in a public women’s bathroom.  What I disagree on is their definition of man and woman, male and female.

It continues to sadden me that certain segments of the Christian population are spearheading this attack on the safety of transgender people.  But what saddens me particularly today is the blatant disregard for truth by these Christians.  Love of the truth should be one of the hallmarks of a Christian.

The word “truth” occurs 117 times in the Old Testament and 118 times in the considerably shorter New Testament.  It is a major theme in the Gospel of John and John’s epistles.

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. – John 1:17

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. – John 4:24

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. – John 8:32

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. – John 14:6

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. – John 14:17

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. – John 16:13

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. – John 17:17

I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. – 1st John 2:21

My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.  And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. – 1st John 3:18-19

John was not the only New Testament writer to deal with truth.  Here are some verses from Paul’s epistles.

[Charity] Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; – 1st Corinthians 13:6

But [we] have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. – 2nd Corinthians 4:2

For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. – 2nd Corinthians 13:8

Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. – Ephesians 4:25

(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) – Ephesians 5:9

And still more verses from the New Testament:

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. – James 1:18

But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. – James 3:14

Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: – 1st Peter 1:22

Now what truth does this segment of Christianity ignore, deny and dispute?

  • They dispute our personal testimony. Even with conservative estimates of the frequency of transgenderism, hundreds of thousands of people in the United States and millions around the world claim that this is our story, our experience, our reality.  It is the testimony of little children whose lives are improved when they are allowed to live in their true gender identity.  It is the testimony of people of my generation, baby boomers, who tried to repress and deny the truth about ourselves even more than our opponents do.  But our identities persisted despite everything we did.  It is the testimony of many fine, upstanding citizens and many whose potential is untapped because of discrimination.  It is the testimony of Christians like me who have and continue to proclaim Christ, tenaciously holding onto our faith in the face of every attack we have received from those who claim to speak for the church and for Christ.
  • The ignore the danger that transgender people face every day because of bigotry and hatred against us. They ignore the horrific murder rate against transgender people, a rate that is most likely even higher than reported in a world where many murders are reported with the transgender identity of the victim hidden behind rejected name and gender; where there are many countries (e.g. Russia and China) where our very existence is denied.  They ignore the even greater danger we would face if forced to use spaces based on our gender assigned at birth rather than our true gender.
  • They outright lie about transgender people being a danger. Earlier this month, a sheriff with 41 years of law enforcement experience unequivocally gave testimony to the legislature of his state that he has “never heard of a transgender person attacking or otherwise bothering someone in a restroom. This is a non-issue.”  This is not a sheriff in the liberal Northeast or California.  This is Leon Lott, Richland County (SC) Sheriff since 1996.  His county includes the state capital, Columbia, so he serves in a populated area.  In addition, any law enforcement official at his level is going to keep up-to-date on crime trends and issues outside of his own area, especially once the issue rises to the be on the front burner in his state and around the country.  The plain truth is that of the jurisdictions that have passed laws protecting the right of transgender people to use bathrooms consistent with their innate gender, laws that have been in place for many years in some cases, there have been ZERO problems.  In addition, when transgender people are in public, we have to use restrooms.  So even in locales where such protections don’t exist, we fearfully use the restroom that corresponds to our identity.  Again there have been ZERO problems.
  • They dispute the preponderance of learned opinion of the medical community, in the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. They were very willing to accept their findings decades ago when these groups had little to go on in the way of research and real life experience.  But with nearly three full generations of evidence at hand (and more being gathered), these respected organizations have updated their opinions and protocols based on the enlightenment gathered from their findings.  Somehow in our opponents mind, without evidence, this is all a plot.  Instead, they lean on discredited studies, discredited psychiatrists, rogue organizations and misrepresentation of valid studies.  (I’m old enough to have lived through this before.  I can remember when rock ‘n roll was supposedly a communist plot.)
  • They often lie and hide their true motive for waging this battle. But not always.  With a debate version of three-card monte, they deftly shift from reason to reason behind their legislation and umbrage.  When the moral/Biblical argument is rejected, they shift to the need to protect women as the purpose.  When that argument is countered, then it becomes a matter of a right to privacy: balancing the rights of transgender people against that of cisgender women.
    • As far as the moral/Biblical argument, I will touch upon that in the next bullet point. As far as the protection argument, I have already shown that to be a canard.  But I will take it one step further.  There is a group known to be a danger primarily to women and children.  They are the people on the sex offender list.  Where is their hue and cry about such people being allowed to use public bathrooms?  And as far as transgender protection laws opening the door for perverts to take advantage of it (recently parroted by Curt Schilling, among others), not only doesn’t it happen, they (many of whom are staunch 2nd Amendment defenders) would never apply the same rationale to strict gun control measures just because a small minority of people in our society actually do carry out horrific violence using firearms.
    • As far as the privacy argument, the only bathrooms I have ever seen where the stalls had no doors was in men’s locker rooms. (I hated them.  I avoided using them whenever I could.)  A naked cisgender woman in a public women’s bathroom would likely receive a negative response unless it was a clear case of a medical problem.  I have never seen someone in a public bathroom whose genitals were in plain sight unless they were on the changing table.  In spaces where nudity is more likely to be involved, the topic is more sensitive.  (I never totally disrobe when I go to my gym, and there are private changing stalls if I ever would need to.) But even here, social custom is changing for reasons other than transgender.  When I went to my 40th college reunion two years ago (Cornell), the dorm where my class was housed is a coed dorm.  Most of the student rooms do not have private bathrooms.  The common bathrooms (including showers) are also coed.  This is a growing trend according to what I have read.
  • They distort or err on what the Bible says on the topic of transgender. I have written many blog posts countering their arguments (in conjunction with all the medical evidence that has been gathered on the nature of transgenderism).  The short version is that very little can be found in the Bible on the topic and the term is not found in the Holy Scriptures.  Of course, there are many modern terms (e.g. democracy and republic) that are not found there, either.  The closest we can come is when Jesus describes three types of eunuchs in Matthew 19:12.  The person who is born a eunuch could describe a number of situations, including someone who is transgender.  Most importantly, Jesus does not condemn any of the three examples, consistent with many instances in which the new and better covenant is more inclusive than the old.  And as to whether God defines us by our mind/spirit or our body parts, I have shown by many verses the preponderance of evidence that He identifies us by our mind/spirit.

Please understand that this is not a transgender vs Christianity issue, nor should it be.  I and a number of friends are evidence that a person can be both.  And I have many devout conservative Christians in my life who are accepting and supportive.

I know full well that there are a number of topics on which Christians are in disagreement.  And there is always room for honest disagreement.  But what hurts the most is the vitriol directed by this segment of the Christian population at the transgender community.  And even if Christianity has come under attack from some segments of the transgender community (and I will not descend into a “who started it” black hole), Christians are not supposed to return evil for evil.  We are called to a higher purpose.

Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. – 1st Corinthians 10:32-33

When you read the many verses earlier in my post, you may have noticed a connection between truth and a loving attitude.  (If not, look again.)  Even if the segment of Christians who I have called out in this post earnestly believe what they are preaching about transgender people, all Christians are admonished to be “… speaking the truth in love …” (Ephesians 4:15).

God bless,

Lois

Christian Mom Encounters Transgender Woman In Bathroom: These ‘Ghastly Things’ Happened Next

Pages

  • Being Christian and Transsexual: Life on Planet Mercury
    • Key Bible Verses
    • Links

Recent Posts

  • The Next U.S. Civil War? – Part 2 January 5, 2021
  • The Next U.S. Civil War? – Part 1 January 5, 2021
  • Potential for an Individual Voter to Influence the Presidential Election November 3, 2020
  • Transgender and Pro-Life January 9, 2020
  • A Tale of Two Churches January 9, 2020
  • My Sermon on 10/20/2019 October 27, 2019
  • Salute to Misfile (and all my favorite comic strips) October 5, 2019
  • Death of a School – But Not Its Spirit – Part 3 September 13, 2019
  • Death of a School – But Not Its Spirit – Part 2 September 9, 2019
  • Death of a School – But Not Its Spirit (Part 1) September 7, 2019
  • Non-Christians, Baby Christians, Discipleship and Moderation July 27, 2019
  • Scapegoats May 28, 2018
  • And Now For Something Completely Different … – Part VIII February 17, 2018
  • And Now For Something Completely Different … – Part VII February 11, 2018
  • And Now For Something Completely Different … – Part VI January 3, 2018

Categories

  • About Me
  • General Christian issues
  • General Transsexual issues
  • Just for Fun
  • Living Female
  • The Bible on transsexualism
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • January 2020
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • July 2017
  • February 2017
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Recent Comments

ts4jc on The Next U.S. Civil War?…
Kelly on The Next U.S. Civil War?…
joannamjourney on Lois Simmons: Evangelical Tran…
ts4jc on Lois Simmons: Evangelical Tran…
joannamjourney on Lois Simmons: Evangelical Tran…

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy