A protestant who didn't have the self-control to avoid saying the a similar thing about a Catholic's Christianity here would get banned.I do not see trans women as real women; I see them as men who imagine themselves as women.
Upvote
0
A protestant who didn't have the self-control to avoid saying the a similar thing about a Catholic's Christianity here would get banned.I do not see trans women as real women; I see them as men who imagine themselves as women.
There you go with sex organs again! Penis = man, Vagina = woman. I never said anything like that; yet you keep bringing it up. Why? I've been clear from the jump my reasoning is based on biology not sex organs; yet you refuse to address biology and insist on bringing up sex organs. It appears you have no interest in an honest conversation. Until you are ready to address my actual reasons rather than making stuff up.... yeah I agree, you're done!And just because you think they aren't real women, just because you think that a person needs to be born with a vagina to be a real woman, doesn't mean you are right.
Since ytou can't treat trans folk with respect and since you have shown that you aren't interested in treating them with respect, but instead only want to justify your disrespect of them, it's plain that nothing I can say will change your mind, and so I'm done.
My argument is supported by scientific evidence. Is the protestant argument supported by scientific evidence? If not; your argument fails.A protestant who didn't have the self-control to avoid saying the a similar thing about a Catholic's Christianity here would get banned.
There you go with sex organs again! Penis = man, Vagina = woman. I never said anything like that; yet you keep bringing it up. Why? I've been clear from the jump my reasoning is based on biology not sex organs; yet you refuse to address biology and insist on bringing up sex organs. It appears you have no interest in an honest conversation. Until you are ready to address my actual reasons rather than making stuff up.... yeah I agree, you're done!
No it's not. You're arguing that we should arbitrarily define the word "gender" based on biological science, that isn't the same thing as having biological science support your argument. There is no scientific evidence that the string of letters g-e-n-d-e-r refers to biological sex. It is your opinion that gender should be defined in such a way, and it is the opinion of some folk that Catholics aren't Christians based on their own subjective decisions on how to define words. His argument wins. Your argument lost a long time ago.My argument is supported by scientific evidence. Is the protestant argument supported by scientific evidence? If not; your argument fails.
No, I'm saying biology is much more than sex organs. The fact that you are constantly claiming I base it strictly on sex organs rather than biology (as I have been saying since day one) tells me you aren't interested in addressing my pointAre you saying sex organs are not biological?
You needed to replace vagina with biology. If your point is I don’t consider them real women unless they are biological women, then I would agree with that point. But then if that is what you meant I’m sure you would have phrased it that way rather than acting as if it’s all about the sex organs.In any case, it does not change the point I am making.
I’ve never said anything close to that. I said Gender is based on “make believe” and biology is based on science. That is why I address biology not gender. Care to try again?No it's not. You're arguing that we should arbitrarily define the word "gender" based on biological science, that isn't the same thing as having biological science support your argument. There is no scientific evidence that the string of letters g-e-n-d-e-r refers to biological sex. It is your opinion that gender should be defined in such a way, and it is the opinion of some folk that Catholics aren't Christians based on their own subjective decisions on how to define words. His argument wins. Your argument lost a long time ago.
Ugh... Just trying to keep it concise, but okay:I’ve never said anything close to that. I said Gender is based on “make believe” and biology is based on science. That is why I address biology not gender. Care to try again?
Here is my argument.Ugh... Just trying to keep it concise, but okay:
No it's not. You're arguing that we should arbitrarily define the word "man" based on biological science, that isn't the same thing as having biological science support your argument. There is no scientific evidence that the string of letters m-a-n refers to biological sex. It is your opinion that "man" should be defined in such a way, and it is the opinion of some folk that Catholics aren't Christians based on their own subjective decisions on how to define words. His argument wins. Your argument lost a long time ago.
Do I need to keep going through all the gendered pronouns for you to get the point? Didn't say "anything close to that" indeed.
No, I'm saying biology is much more than sex organs. The fact that you are constantly claiming I base it strictly on sex organs rather than biology (as I have been saying since day one) tells me you aren't interested in addressing my point
You needed to replace vagina with biology. If your point is I don’t consider them real women unless they are biological women, then I would agree with that point. But then if that is what you meant I’m sure you would have phrased it that way rather than acting as if it’s all about the sex organs.
For the ump-teenth time, I am not defining GENDER, I speak of biology. Can you bring yourself to mention biology? That's what my entire argument is based on and you seem to be avoiding it like the plague.Yet the fact remains that you think your arbitrary decision about how gender should be defined is more important than what those people want for themselves.
Again; I don't speak of their gender. If you had been listening to what I am saying this would be obvious.You are disrespecting them every single time you say that you are better qualified to tell their gender than they are.
Unless you are willing to respond to what I actually say, I agree you are done.Hence, you are disrespectful, and you show no sign that you want to do anything more than say that you are right and they are wrong. So, like I said, I am done.
Funny thing is, real biology is a lot more complex than this.Here is my argument.
According to science, humans are mammals. Mammals are divided into two categories; male and female (XY Chromosomes for male XX for female) .
No. But I fail to understand what this has to do with the conversation.Funny thing is, real biology is a lot more complex than this.
But in any case, what difference does it make to the pronouns people prefer? I mean, I don't need to go have a genetic test to figure out that I'd prefer to be called a man. Do you?
No. Again; I fail to see your point.ETA - and more to the point, do you require genetic testing before deciding which personal pronouns to use for other people?
For the ump-teenth time, I am not defining GENDER, I speak of biology. Can you bring yourself to mention biology? That's what my entire argument is based on and you seem to be avoiding it like the plague.
Again; I don't speak of their gender. If you had been listening to what I am saying this would be obvious.
Unless you are willing to respond to what I actually say, I agree you are done.
I’ve never said anything close to that. I said Gender is based on “make believe” and biology is based on science. That is why I address biology not gender. Care to try again?
No. But I fail to understand what this has to do with the conversation.
As I said before, there are always going to be rare exceptions, like hermaphrodite/intersexual.Okay, you wanna talk biology, how about a person with XY chromosomes who is a fertile woman?
Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development
By your logic, you should call her a man.
Should I refer to them as a leprechaun if they ask me to? Or do I have the option of recognizing leprechauns don't exist and refer to them as human.In any case, you are completely ignoring the fact that if someone asks you to refer to them by a certain set of pronouns, it's disrespectful not to.
Why is biology disrespectful?You do not seem to care about people, you only care about fitting people into the only little boxes you have decided are suitable. Like I've said many times, disrespectful.
The link you provided does not even address the point I made. Your link is about gender and anatomy; Not what I actually spoke of. Do you have something that supports your claim that science disagrees with me? Or is your word supposed to be good enough?
No that is what this conversation is aboutYou were the one who brought up the presumed genetic makeup of the people you want to talk to.
Perhaps we should go all the way back to the OP and start over.No that is what this conversation is about
1. If you are addressing the person, then the question doesn't come up; just say "you."How about if we just don’t address it? When referring to men vs women, when deciding which public restroom or shower facility to use, when unsure to call someone a ma'am or sir, instead of assuming gender, why not just assume sex? The difference? Sex refers to biology, (XX vs XY chromosomes, sex organs, etc) where as gender refers to perceived social roles based on sex.
When I speak to people, if I use the pronoun he or she, I’m referring to their sex not their gender. I’m making an assumption of their biology, not whatever confusion they might have going on inside of their heads. If a biological woman identifies as a man, she shouldn’t assume I am addressing her identification when I call her she, this woman should assume I am referring to her biology.
Does this make sense? Your thoughts?
Ken