Mad Fradd DOUBLES DOWN On Trans Catholics

More Matson Madness On Pints With Aquinas

[@michaelhettrick8510]

Matt is right.

[@pcola4594]

Words have meaning. Apparently someone here doesn’t like the truth.

[@inspiers69]

Is this Fr. James Martin secret channel?

[@danielwisell3836]

You know the content is going to be terrible coming from a channel called “AWOKEN Catholic”. Don’t call yourself Catholic if you are not in communion with the Church please

[@bigbosssauce7]

So what's the problem?

[@republicradio431]

whats the problem here? hes charrritably holding the catholic position

[@youtubeKathy]

what just happened?

[@spinningindaffodils]

Mid Fradd

[@caitlinvinci69]

So what's the issue? This hermit is just hermiting. If it were a monk of God-forbid a somehow-ordained priest, then I see the problem, but can't anyone go be a hermit?

[@randumgaming]

The issue is two-fold: 1. This person knowingly sought out a Bishop that would lie for her about her "gender"/sex publicly and allow someone with zero interest in submitting to the Church's teaching on sex and God's design for human beings (male and female, made in His image and likeness, etc.) to act as a "religious Brother" in the role of Hermit, and 2. Continues to lie about her "gender"/sex publicly while involving herself in very public roles within the art studio (I believe studio?) that she created while her entire goal as a Hermit should be SECLUSION from the public eye and devotion to Christ. In short, this person is confused, unwell, and continues to lie and encourage others to lie for her in a very public and scandalous manner so she can pretend to be a religious Brother instead of submitting to the Church, getting help, and acting as a religious SISTER in the role of Hermit.

[@waakow]

no

[@davidcatabui2018]

Anyone can be a hermit but no one can publicly deny human nature on a fundamental level and expect to be taken seriously

[@user-xm4gd3st6s]

Dis channel is a disgrace

[@thescoobymike]

So nice that he made his own QR code to bully one person

[@Blake_737]

The bishop? It's his public contact, we're meant to contact our bishops if something is wrong.

[@donkler5476]

Whether or not you believe someone 'ought' to be trans-gender, there is no contradiction when a male becomes a woman, or a female becomes a man. A male cannot become a female, and vice versa, because you cannot fundamentally change your body like that, to the opposite sex. At least right now. But there is nothing "not real" or "impossible" or "contradictory" about a Male, taking on certain characteristics of a woman, and therefore 'becoming' a woman (depending on how you define a woman). If someone looks like a woman, talks like a woman... it might be a woman. Unless you want to take out your microscope and examine their chromosomes, and tell them to their face 'yOuR nOt a WoMaN bEcause I've defined a woman as someone who is female, because I'm dumb' My definition of a woman: A human who has the secondary sex characteristics (Phenotype, etc) of a Female. No one actually defines a woman as a Female, because no one is actually checking their biological genetic material when they meet them. So as far as I can tell, if someone is presenting with the secondary sex characteristics of a particular sex, then I will aknowledge them as such. Now that doesn't address whether or not someone 'ought' to be trans, but it at least shows that it is not some contradictory, non-real thing to be. Someone can in fact be trans gender.

[@LonelyParticle231]

I think it's possible in the extremely far future where people may possibly have the technologies to re-arrange the particles in their bodies to large extents where they can potentially become the opposite sex.

[@Blake_737]

You've got to defend your definition of a woman my friend. Why on Earth would we go with the secondary characteristics? Are men with long hair and skinny arms now women? For all of history we have understood women to be adult female human beings, and indicators like body type, hair length, voice tone and pitch, and dress are used as just that: indicators. You can see someone with long hair, a high pitched voice, and feminine clothes and call him a woman, but his Y chromosomes in his DNA would just prove you mistaken.

[@donkler5476]

@@Blake_737 Why do we care about Y chromosomes? If someone has all of the visible characteristics of a woman, but you just can’t tell whether or not they have the private parts, and the Chromosomes of a female…. I mean… what do you call that person? Do you call them a man? They’re portray themselves femininely, and the word ‘woman’ is a much more feminine title, so I feel like 1 + 1 = 2 Are you going to instead call them a man? Well you won’t be able to unless you check their pants, and/or their DNA in a microscope. If you want to keep your definition of a woman, which includes the precondition that one must be female, then that’s fine, you can use that definition. But I also feel like using woman in the way that I’m using it, can be perfectly reasonable. It really comes down to whether or not we think that a male becoming feminine, or a female becoming masculine, is a thing that ought to be allowed. If it is to be allowed, then I think my definition of a woman would be perfectly reasonable to use. (And I think my definition of a woman is the definition that you’re already realistically using, because you’re determining whether or not people are men or women based on their secondary sex characteristics, not their underlying biological status)

[@Blake_737]

If I knew this person had Y chromosomes but he appeared to be a woman, then yes, I would call him a man. I think the confusion is in what would make someone a woman and how we determine (on a normal basis) whether or not someone is a woman. Yes, if I see someone with the face shape of a woman and long hair I'll refer to that person as she/her and regard that person as a woman (unless I know from that person's history that he isn't actually a woman). Your definition is unnatural and unfounded. Yes, we refer to feminine-seeming individuals as women most of the time, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the definition of woman is "an individual thay is feminine-seeming."

[@donkler5476]

@@Blake_737 Well if you’re unwilling to call someone who by every metric appears to be a woman, a woman… What term would you use for them? Because while yes, they’re a male, they’re presenting just as femininely as most females, and in some cases more feminine. I feel like just using the term woman for them is the most useful thing. And to be honest; when are you actually examining genitals, and/or chromosomes? You’ve never done either in your entire life. You’ve gone off of appearance. I think it just comes down to whether or not you’re okay with people presenting more femininely or masculinely than is common for people of their chromosomal make-up. What do you have against someone who decides “Ya know what, I want to shave my legs, grow out my hair, try out make-up, and dress like a woman”? Do you think we ought to discourage such behavior, and if so; why? When assessing whether or not someone ‘ought’ to do (x) thing, we generally ask ‘who will this harm?’. And if the answer is precisely nobody, and in fact will make the person in question more satisfied in life… then I would only be encouraging such an action.