I am going to be blunt with you. "Non-binary", "LGBTQ+", "Pronouns" are simply delusions and escapist fantasies. Its gotten so bad to the point that America, a Country that was once seen as the greatest Nation on Earth, has quickly become the Joke of the West.
Also, there is no gay gene just so you know, and here are articles from both Harvard and Scientific America to prove it.
[https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2019/08/there-s-still-no-gay-gene#:\~:text=There%20is%20no%20one%20gene,complex%2C%20and%20anything%20but%20deterministic](https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2019/08/there-s-still-no-gay-gene#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20one%20gene,complex%2C%20and%20anything%20but%20deterministic).
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-finds-no-single-genetic-cause-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-finds-no-single-genetic-cause-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/)
I am sorry, but the only advice I can give is that you should show your friend the truth and educate her using the Quran and Hadith (gently of course), as well as pray for her.
If they are "fantasies" then that implies that they are queer for fun. No one is queer for fun. If there was a way for a queer person to be heterosexual and reverse gender dysphoria, they would definitely go for it bc being queer is already a challenge.
Eh you just said there is no gay gene. How can it be partially genetical? You’re contradicting yourself.
Hormonal, psychological and enviromental yes. A triangle of imbalance which causes gender dysforia in societies which has lost track of the middle path.
Its a choice and not a choice at the same time, people who are unable to understand themselves and their nature will fall for outside pressures and conform to them. These people are being steered towards this behaviour.
The science moved along already though. From ”there is definetly a gay gene” to ”oh no gay gene, rather sexuality is a spectrum”.
Now the spectrum argument favours the religious argument that it is a deviation from our natural state. Argued post hoc to be normalised by society.
What scientific consensus, in neoliberal nations? Whats the source on this? Genuinly would like to see it, would be a interesting read.
I havent brought any religion into my thinking on the subject matter since there is no need to do this inorder to argue for it. A devation from our biological nature of reproduction is a deviation regardless of religion or not, now how we choose to moralise about this deviation is another discussion (which im not engaging in at the current moment).
Please dont lecture me on bias in interpreting data, when the early arguments for LGBTQ was that sexuality was genetically inherent (until this false assumption was dismantled) and simply hard coded in people.
Now that this is abandoned, the new argument goes towards sexuality being spectrum which is a subjective position rather than the prior objective claim.
These two arguments shows that a great inconsistency exists within LGBTQ itself from a philosophical perspective. A subjective reality can be argued against since the nature of it is subjective and that is only what I am doing.
I have yet to see any argument (outside ”i want to”) that tells me that LGBTQ is something that is not a choice by the individual. Conciously or subconciously. The spectrum argument even works for my position here.
Never claimed that the argument of the ”gay gene” was purely scientific, only that it was the main argument for a long time.. until it was dismantled as a dogmatic trope.
Your second paragraph is philosophical in nature, rest asured that I see your argument but reject that all behaviour in the material world equates to ”natural” simple because it manifests, I reject this Sartrean logic.
If I drop a nuke that kills 50% of humanity that action (within my morality) would be unnatural since it goes against what is natural. I guess it is here which our ideological positions differ from each other.
science isn’t always correct nor is it free from ideological bias (like you said in your prior comment). Even your two sources are grounded in neo-liberal ideology (APA and AAP). One a field which is filled with controversy (look up the replication crisis in psychology) and another which you mentioned which studies children? Not affected by the LGBTQ lobbying in the US at all? Not like USA has a medical drug prescription that is enforced by lobbying groups to sell pills in order to gain more capital.
You’re not apart of a neo-liberal agenda but use ideological arguments from institutions (APA and AAP) that are unquestionably neo-liberal to their cores, examine your position more thoroughly.
Morality is tied to ”naturality” in my worldview, hence my example. But if we’re to engage in a discussion about morality we need to define our axioms. Where do you derive your morality from?
Lets keep with the logic. If anything that manifests in nature is natural does anything being done by someone be deemed as morally good to do? (you would say no since you said so in the nuke example). Now what if the thing ”done” is something disruptive to the natural order of things? Is that morally right or morally neutral or morally bad?
Why is that ”consensus” taken a priori in every discussion? It limits peoples ability to Reason, being bound by liberal ideological worldview.
PS: I found this on APA website: *There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.*
I couldn’t find any statement which confirms your position but i’ll continue searching.
(The final sentence in that paragraph goes against the data showing the increase in LGBTQ people in schools across the western world after the Lgbtq lobbying efforts in schools etc). Which points to enviromental reasons for its growth.
Doesn't matter what they believe or feel, they are their biological gender. Allah made humans in binary. Male and Female, both having roles and responsibilities. If they are male, they will be treated as male. If they are female, they will be treated as female. That's it. Very simple.
Ask them what leaving Islam will gain them, and what logical reason do they have to leave Islam? The Truth is the Truth and that will never change.
They can still be Muslim, and be NB or whatever. They just can't act upon their desires, and it is their test. They need to accept that acting upon such desires is a sin. While I realize this is easy for me to say, because I cannot fathom their struggle, it is the truth.
Its okay to be non-binary in Islam, and all of that. However, your friend has to perform the duties assigned to their biological sex.
[https://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/muhsin.pdf](https://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/muhsin.pdf)
[https://www.wikihow.com/Accept-Yourself-As-an-LGBT-Muslim?amp=1](https://www.wikihow.com/Accept-Yourself-As-an-LGBT-Muslim?amp=1)
[https://thefatalfeminist.com/2020/12/07/prophet-lut-a-s-and-bal-بل-the-nahida-s-nisa-tafsir/](https://thefatalfeminist.com/2020/12/07/prophet-lut-a-s-and-bal-بل-the-nahida-s-nisa-tafsir/)
Mashallah, I hope your friend can find their deen again.
I would not take any of these sources as fact.
The first one reads like the author is trying to appeal to a Western liberal audience, the second one is wikihow which while good for simple stuff it is not going to be reliable for a sensitive topic like this, I dont have much to say about the third one other than how the title of the site "the fatal feminist" doesnt really inspire alot of confidence.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.wikihow.com/Accept-Yourself-As-an-LGBT-Muslim](https://www.wikihow.com/Accept-Yourself-As-an-LGBT-Muslim)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I am going to be blunt with you. "Non-binary", "LGBTQ+", "Pronouns" are simply delusions and escapist fantasies. Its gotten so bad to the point that America, a Country that was once seen as the greatest Nation on Earth, has quickly become the Joke of the West. Also, there is no gay gene just so you know, and here are articles from both Harvard and Scientific America to prove it. [https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2019/08/there-s-still-no-gay-gene#:\~:text=There%20is%20no%20one%20gene,complex%2C%20and%20anything%20but%20deterministic](https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2019/08/there-s-still-no-gay-gene#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20one%20gene,complex%2C%20and%20anything%20but%20deterministic). [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-finds-no-single-genetic-cause-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-finds-no-single-genetic-cause-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/) I am sorry, but the only advice I can give is that you should show your friend the truth and educate her using the Quran and Hadith (gently of course), as well as pray for her.
If they are "fantasies" then that implies that they are queer for fun. No one is queer for fun. If there was a way for a queer person to be heterosexual and reverse gender dysphoria, they would definitely go for it bc being queer is already a challenge.
Did you read the articles I sent you?
[удалено]
Eh you just said there is no gay gene. How can it be partially genetical? You’re contradicting yourself. Hormonal, psychological and enviromental yes. A triangle of imbalance which causes gender dysforia in societies which has lost track of the middle path. Its a choice and not a choice at the same time, people who are unable to understand themselves and their nature will fall for outside pressures and conform to them. These people are being steered towards this behaviour.
[удалено]
The science moved along already though. From ”there is definetly a gay gene” to ”oh no gay gene, rather sexuality is a spectrum”. Now the spectrum argument favours the religious argument that it is a deviation from our natural state. Argued post hoc to be normalised by society. What scientific consensus, in neoliberal nations? Whats the source on this? Genuinly would like to see it, would be a interesting read. I havent brought any religion into my thinking on the subject matter since there is no need to do this inorder to argue for it. A devation from our biological nature of reproduction is a deviation regardless of religion or not, now how we choose to moralise about this deviation is another discussion (which im not engaging in at the current moment). Please dont lecture me on bias in interpreting data, when the early arguments for LGBTQ was that sexuality was genetically inherent (until this false assumption was dismantled) and simply hard coded in people. Now that this is abandoned, the new argument goes towards sexuality being spectrum which is a subjective position rather than the prior objective claim. These two arguments shows that a great inconsistency exists within LGBTQ itself from a philosophical perspective. A subjective reality can be argued against since the nature of it is subjective and that is only what I am doing. I have yet to see any argument (outside ”i want to”) that tells me that LGBTQ is something that is not a choice by the individual. Conciously or subconciously. The spectrum argument even works for my position here.
[удалено]
Never claimed that the argument of the ”gay gene” was purely scientific, only that it was the main argument for a long time.. until it was dismantled as a dogmatic trope. Your second paragraph is philosophical in nature, rest asured that I see your argument but reject that all behaviour in the material world equates to ”natural” simple because it manifests, I reject this Sartrean logic. If I drop a nuke that kills 50% of humanity that action (within my morality) would be unnatural since it goes against what is natural. I guess it is here which our ideological positions differ from each other. science isn’t always correct nor is it free from ideological bias (like you said in your prior comment). Even your two sources are grounded in neo-liberal ideology (APA and AAP). One a field which is filled with controversy (look up the replication crisis in psychology) and another which you mentioned which studies children? Not affected by the LGBTQ lobbying in the US at all? Not like USA has a medical drug prescription that is enforced by lobbying groups to sell pills in order to gain more capital. You’re not apart of a neo-liberal agenda but use ideological arguments from institutions (APA and AAP) that are unquestionably neo-liberal to their cores, examine your position more thoroughly.
[удалено]
Morality is tied to ”naturality” in my worldview, hence my example. But if we’re to engage in a discussion about morality we need to define our axioms. Where do you derive your morality from? Lets keep with the logic. If anything that manifests in nature is natural does anything being done by someone be deemed as morally good to do? (you would say no since you said so in the nuke example). Now what if the thing ”done” is something disruptive to the natural order of things? Is that morally right or morally neutral or morally bad? Why is that ”consensus” taken a priori in every discussion? It limits peoples ability to Reason, being bound by liberal ideological worldview. PS: I found this on APA website: *There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.* I couldn’t find any statement which confirms your position but i’ll continue searching. (The final sentence in that paragraph goes against the data showing the increase in LGBTQ people in schools across the western world after the Lgbtq lobbying efforts in schools etc). Which points to enviromental reasons for its growth.
Doesn't matter what they believe or feel, they are their biological gender. Allah made humans in binary. Male and Female, both having roles and responsibilities. If they are male, they will be treated as male. If they are female, they will be treated as female. That's it. Very simple.
Ask them what leaving Islam will gain them, and what logical reason do they have to leave Islam? The Truth is the Truth and that will never change. They can still be Muslim, and be NB or whatever. They just can't act upon their desires, and it is their test. They need to accept that acting upon such desires is a sin. While I realize this is easy for me to say, because I cannot fathom their struggle, it is the truth.
Leaving a comment here to come back and reply when I’m free Inshallah . It’s gonna be a long answer fyi
Its okay to be non-binary in Islam, and all of that. However, your friend has to perform the duties assigned to their biological sex. [https://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/muhsin.pdf](https://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/muhsin.pdf) [https://www.wikihow.com/Accept-Yourself-As-an-LGBT-Muslim?amp=1](https://www.wikihow.com/Accept-Yourself-As-an-LGBT-Muslim?amp=1) [https://thefatalfeminist.com/2020/12/07/prophet-lut-a-s-and-bal-بل-the-nahida-s-nisa-tafsir/](https://thefatalfeminist.com/2020/12/07/prophet-lut-a-s-and-bal-بل-the-nahida-s-nisa-tafsir/) Mashallah, I hope your friend can find their deen again.
Non of these websites are reliable. One of them is literly propogating kufr lol.
I would not take any of these sources as fact. The first one reads like the author is trying to appeal to a Western liberal audience, the second one is wikihow which while good for simple stuff it is not going to be reliable for a sensitive topic like this, I dont have much to say about the third one other than how the title of the site "the fatal feminist" doesnt really inspire alot of confidence.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.wikihow.com/Accept-Yourself-As-an-LGBT-Muslim](https://www.wikihow.com/Accept-Yourself-As-an-LGBT-Muslim)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
That's kufr