to think that this 'transsexual' Jesus play should not get public funding?

[whatwilltheythinkofnext]

I would say 'no words' but how about "disgusting, insulting, disrespectful, immoral..." need I go on? How does this awful thing get 'public funding' - I'd be demanding a refund of my council tax. Enough already!

Donkeymecis
from www.glaad.org/reference/transgender

Transgender woman
People who were assigned male at birth but identify and live as a woman may use this term to describe themselves. They may shorten to trans woman. (Note: trans woman, not "transwoman.") Some may also use MTF, an abbreviation for male-to-female. Some may prefer to simply be called women, without any modifier. It is best to ask which term an individual prefers.

Feel free to say what you believe. I'm very much a pro-free speech and no no platformer person, but please don't use insulting terminology while you're doing it.

Trans women, not transwoman.
Transgender, not transgendered.

It is clear that people have different views on gender.

The point is that they have the freedom to express them. (Even if that does sometimes cause offence).

Why is transwoman insulting? And trans woman isn't? What about trans-women?

Give me strength. Assigned male at birth?

Penis/testicles/prostate.

If it looks like a duck...etc.

And while we're on the subject of manners, don't call me donkey.

Donkey was surely an auto-correct? Anyway, you refuse to address people how they prefer to be addressed, you should accept the same may happen to you.

But you've yet to explain to me how transwomen / trans women is offensive?

A quick google at all sorts of articles etc shows both terms are used. Often. As is trans-gender.

All that^^ is a straw man anyway, but I'm curious.

I've not misgendered anyone in this thread. (or any other)

I won't call you Donkey if you don't call me Twiggy.

Because Transwoman implies that trans is at the very heart of their identity. Keeping it separate means it's descriptive. It's the difference between calling somebody a blackwoman and a black woman. Or a gayman and a gay man.

Your name suggests you feel strongly that the correct terminology is important. If you want to be (or not be) referred to in a certain way, it would be rather hypocritical to refer to other people in a way they do not want. A bit like you not wanting to me to call you Donkey, but you calling me Twiggy. (Besides, at 17 stone I'm much more like a log.)

And I only mean it's technically correct to say trans woman rather than transwoman. Most trans people wouldn't care that much after getting called "tranny" "she-male" "it" etc for half their lives, but some would.

OK, that makes sense.

It was a genuine question and I will do that in future.

You can call me donkey. I can be arsey. We can agree on that, though not much else I imagine.

Although that sais, there is a current thread started by a transwomen referring to herself as exactly that, all the way through the thread.

She must have missed the memo.

Although that said...etc etc

I've just told Ego that she has made me reconsider my stance on refusing to use the pronoun 'she' when talking about a trans woman. A pp here called it good manners and she was right. As a Christian I ought not deliberately add to someone's agony.

I wish people would extend the same courtesy of not misgendering when it comes to the Son of God.

But faberge, you don't actually know that, do you. None of us do.

see, I don't see the play as misgendering
the playwright isn't saying that a real historical person called Jesus was in fact not a man but a trans woman - for one thing it's about an imagined return of Jesus
I'd guess she's saying more, 'what would it be like if Jesus came back and (this time) was a trans woman?'
which doesn't seem so far removed from other stories which have asked what it would be like if Jesus came back

It's distasteful to see a man like Tiggy telling women how they must speak. Not surprising but distasteful.

Has anyone on this thread actually seen the play? I might see if there are any tickets left.

I'm too late - the only showing of the film is on today between 3pm & 5.30pm

I'm just amused at 'Lefty' being used as an insult on this thread. Surely Jesus would have been a Lefty if anyone was. Amazing how many of his 'followers' are right-wing, hateful, conservative (small-c), intolerant gits. Not specifically referring to anyone on this thread... in general.

Jesus was not liberal. Far from it.

God sent His only begotten Son. Jesus is God and repeatedly referred to as He. Any attempt to reconstruct his gender is crass and demonstrates the author is inadequate.

The hateful and intolerant gits currently causing misery and mayhem in Paris are not Christian. The Christians on this thread do not demonstrate hatefulness or intolerance. Perhaps you simply do not like Christians who actually profess their love and devotion to Christ?

Any attempt to reconstruct his gender is crass and demonstrates the author is inadequate.

don't buy a ticket then.

How does anyone know Jesus' bent in this regard?

OK, how about this

I once read a story (years ago so can't ref) about Jesus visiting an African village. Briefly, a woman invites him to spend christmas with her. She spends all day preparing. First a young girl, then a disabled person, then a very old person come to her home and are sent packing. Jesus never arrives. The next day she meets him in the market place
why did you not come to my house?
I came 3 times but you sent me away

Now, I am not a christian, but I imagine most christians would sympathise with the sentiment of this story, at least I would hope so. Yet here we see (in an IMAGINARY story) Jesus is represented as someone other than an adult male. Also, of course, he didn't visit Africa and even if he did not for Christmas.

I don't see how that story is necessarily different to the play UNLESS you view being transgender as inherently shameful.

Ah, FabergeEggs, you came back!

Would you like to kick around my thought experiment of whether it would've been OK to portray Jesus as left-handed 200 years ago, and whether it would be OK now?

I can honestly say I have no idea what you expect me to say, Shanti. You have narrated a made-up story about Jesus at Christmas in an African village. What am I to do with that?

I've already attested that any attempts to divert attention away from the message of the Cross - was Jesus left-handed/trans/vegan blah, blah - and bring the Saviour down to our level in the name of 'art' is blasphemy. All you need to know about Jesus is written in the Word. His purpose in life and death is there for all to read. He came to offer salvation and redemption to all of mankind. That is it. That is all you or I need to know.

Shanti, I can see the point of the story: Jesus would want us to treat the young, disabled and elderly with the same kindness and respect as we would reserve for Him. Fair enough. However, that cannot be extrapolated to mean that Jesus would want to be worshipped in any other incarnation than that of God. God is He, Jesus is He/the Son.

That is it. That is all you or I need to know.

case closed, I guess.

I think an excellent demonstration of why we need plays like this.

This is not about Jesus being portrayed as transsexual per se. This is about Christians taking offence/being saddened that God Himself is being used as liberal Left political fodder. He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, not some tin-pot icon to be reconstructed for the benefit of some attention-seeking inadequate.