(OLD) Pikmin Drawn

Yes the Bible does mention other genders and sexualities. Just not in the way some people want it to. There are no words in the Bible for transgender or non-binary or intersex or LGBTQIA+ because those words didn’t exist back then. But the people did. The stories did. The complexity of humanity did. They’re there if you look closely enough. Let’s start with the most obvious one. Eunuchs were a recognised third gender in the ancient world. They were often assigned male at birth but didn’t live as men. Some were castrated. Some weren’t. Some were seen as sexually different. They show up over forty times in the Bible. They weren’t erased. They weren’t rejected. They were included. In Isaiah 56 God says this to the eunuchs: “Do not let the eunuch say ‘I am a dry tree’… I will give them a name better than sons and daughters.” In Matthew 19 Jesus says this: “There are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb… others were made that way by others… and others choose to live like eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus knew there were more than two types of people. He said it himself. The Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 is the first recorded non Jewish person baptised as a Christian. A Black outsider. A gender-nonconforming believer. The apostles didn’t reject them. The Holy Spirit welcomed them in. These are not warnings. These are blessings. Let’s talk about same sex love. The kind the Bible actually talks about with tenderness and poetry. David and Jonathan “Your love for me was more wonderful than the love of women.” Ruth and Naomi “Where you go I will go. Where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people.” This is not fear. This is devotion. It is love without shame. Love beyond convention. As for the verses people love to throw around to justify their bigotry, they were never about love. They were about rape and violence. They were about ritual abuse. The people quoting them now are twisting them. They are using them as weapons. But those verses were warnings against cruelty not against identity. The first human in the Bible, ha-adam is not male. Not female. Just human. Gender only gets divided later in the story. If we are made in God’s image then so are the people who don’t fit the binary. So does the Bible mention other genders? Yes. Does it mention other sexualities? Yes. Does it condemn people for being queer? No. It condemns people for being cruel. So next time someone tries to quote scripture at you tell them to finish the book before they start preaching. For Christian’s, God did not create humanity just to limit it God created a world of difference and then called it good.

The attempt to split LGB from TQIA+ did not come from inside the community. It did not grow organically out of lived experience. It was introduced deliberately as a wedge. This tactic has a long history. When a minority group cannot be eliminated outright, the next move is fragmentation. You identify internal differences. You exaggerate them. You promise one section safety if it distances itself from the rest. You frame that abandonment as maturity, realism, or courage. This is not accidental politics. It is campaign strategy. Far-right and authoritarian movements have used this approach repeatedly. Divide labour movements. Divide feminist movements. Divide racial justice movements. Divide queer communities. The goal is always the same. Break solidarity so resistance collapses inward. The “LGB without the TQIA+” narrative fits this pattern exactly. It reframes shared oppression as competing interests. It tells lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people that their safety depends on sacrificing others. It dresses exclusion up as pragmatism and calls it concern. Some people fall for it because fear works. When people feel threatened, they look for distance from whoever has been marked as the current target. But it is important to be honest here. This is not just gullibility. It is resentment. It is bitterness. It is people choosing hierarchy over solidarity because hierarchy feels safer than equality. That is why this campaign is driven by hate, not misunderstanding. You can see this in how it behaves. It does not stop at disagreement. It moves quickly to harassment, intimidation, and obsessive fixation. It polices bodies. It polices language. It polices who counts as “real.” It treats people as contaminants rather than neighbours. That is not a disagreement about policy. That is a hostility toward existence. You can also see it in who amplifies it. The same networks that push anti-immigrant rhetoric, anti-feminist talking points, and authoritarian culture wars are the ones boosting the “divorce” message. The overlap is not subtle. It is structural. These groups are not trying to protect lesbians or gay men. They are using them as a shield. What makes the campaign collapse is reality. Real communities do not separate cleanly. Trans lesbians exist. Gay trans men exist. Bisexual trans people exist. Non-binary partners exist. Intersex people exist across every sexuality. You cannot cut TQIA+ away without erasing people who already live inside LGB. That is why the argument keeps failing in practice. The people being told they will be “protected” are the same people who get targeted next. History makes this unavoidable. The same systems that punish homosexuality punish gender nonconformity. Gender policing comes first. Attraction policing follows. Anyone pretending there is a safe stopping point is ignoring how power works. That is why the campaign has to keep shouting. It has to keep escalating. It has to keep inventing threats. Because once people look at their actual friends, partners, families, and communities, the story falls apart. Solidarity is not sentimental. It is practical. It is how LGBTQIA+ people survived criminalisation, medical abuse, and social exile. It is why rights were won at all. And it is precisely why authoritarian movements are so invested in tearing it apart. The bitter irony is that this campaign has done the opposite of what it intended. By trying to fracture the community, it exposed the shared reality more clearly. People saw the overlap. They saw the cruelty. They saw the playbook. You do not defeat a community built on lived intersections by pretending those intersections are imaginary. And that is why the split keeps failing.