In far-reaching executive order, Biden redefines 'sex'

rjs330 said:

I think it's fine for people to feel whatever they want. If you want to feel like a man if your biologically a woman, then fine.

But it's wrong for you to force me by law to accept that and cater to the point that you get to shower with me or share a locker room with me.

And biogically if you are a man you shouldn't be able to shower with women or participate in women's sports. It's cheating. It's not really a woman thats.winning. it's a man.

Click to expand...

It has taken me a little thinking, but some women rights groups are declaring, defining women as not existent, ie men and women are the same, is actually denying the fight for womens rights. Women want to be acknowledge as different but equal to men. If you deny the difference is only who you identify as, you lose the recognition of the unique issues faced alone by biological women.

In medicine they have recognised most drugs have been tested on men, and the results do not take into account differences in biology that women face. For instance, women on average live 7 years longer than men. It has been suggested that this is because of two X chromosomes improve their immune system that is missing in men. These differences cannot be changed by identity which is a subjective perception, your chromosomes are part of your body to the day you die.

To remedy this situation, it has been proposed in all drugs trials there should be two trials, one for men and one for women to identify the benefits and problems to either sex.

It is absurd to ignore biology as if biology is a social construct, which is a left wing marxist idea. In biology the differences matter for the survival of the organism, as well as the similarities. Language and interactions need to respect and reflect this, for the benefit of all.

God bless you

LightLoveHope said:

It has taken me a little thinking, but some women rights groups are declaring, defining women as not existent, ie men and women are the same, is actually denying the fight for womens rights. Women want to be acknowledge as different but equal to men. If you deny the difference is only who you identify as, you lose the recognition of the unique issues faced alone by biological women.

In medicine they have recognised most drugs have been tested on men, and the results do not take into account differences in biology that women face. For instance, women on average live 7 years longer than men. It has been suggested that this is because of two X chromosomes improve their immune system that is missing in men. These differences cannot be changed by identity which is a subjective perception, your chromosomes are part of your body to the day you die.

To remedy this situation, it has been proposed in all drugs trials there should be two trials, one for men and one for women to identify the benefits and problems to either sex.

It is absurd to ignore biology as if biology is a social construct, which is a left wing marxist idea. In biology the differences matter for the survival of the organism, as well as the similarities. Language and interactions need to respect and reflect this, for the benefit of all.

God bless you

Click to expand...

Rest assured that you have just misunderstood what we believe. We don’t think that biology is a social construct, and we don’t think that women and men are the same. Are you learning about the beliefs of feminists directly from them, or as interpreted by people who disagree with them?

Alex Reynolds said:

I will say however, it is more Christian to hate the sin not the sinner.

Click to expand...

That's the Christian adage. And the Text does say He hates the lawlessness.

But we also have to interpret verses like this:

NKJ Romans 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

Sparagmos said:

Rest assured that you have just misunderstood what we believe. We don’t think that biology is a social construct, and we don’t think that women and men are the same. Are you learning about the beliefs of feminists directly from them, or as interpreted by people who disagree with them?

Click to expand...

I agree that biology is not a social construct. And I don't think I've ever heard leftists claim it is. The claim is "gender" is a social construct.

Which is why I said I don't really care who or what you claim to be unless it directly interferes with what I do or am forced to do. Biology should determine men and women, not feelings.

Because that directly interferes with my ability or my daughter's ability to participate in life. My daughter may now be relegated to a secondary position because she is comoeteling against a man for certain things. And she may be forced to feel uncomfortable this psychologically damaging her because she has to shower with a man.

My favorite Jewish Conservative explaining this subject with facts and logic.

loveofourlord said:

right it's the left snowflakes, not the right snowflakes freaking out about being being treated with equality heh. The right is far more snowflake then anone on the left.

Click to expand...

hmm.. depends on the topic. They seesaw in terms of who is far more snowflake.. but since this is thread is speaking about an issue that snowflake leftists are mostly on, then I will reference them for the context.

Sparagmos said:

Rest assured that you have just misunderstood what we believe. We don’t think that biology is a social construct, and we don’t think that women and men are the same. Are you learning about the beliefs of feminists directly from them, or as interpreted by people who disagree with them?

Click to expand...

"we don't think"
There are many different groups who claim the title feminist.
The issue is around transgender, and power politics. To some everything is reduced to power groups, and morality is conflicts between them.

Like all layered philosophy, what is true is described by which issues dominate. The consequences are you hate and dismiss individuals based on who they are not what they express. It becomes a way to argue and agitate when ones argument is flimsy.

My point is biology dominates, it rules, we are it's servant. Women are weaker physically than men, it is not an opinion. Celebrating this is important, ignoring it is insane.

God bless you

Gender is a way of distinguishing needs and rights. This can be used badly or beneficially.

Sexual attraction is dangerous, life threatening, life giving, life changing. The rules for the majority must rule for order and safety. This is simple social survival. Allowance can be made for variation, but not at the detriment of the whole.

I work with men and women, to me no different. I stand amazed why a label I use in language changes something important, unless it is about my seeing a male or female changes the work. What I care about is getting the work done and happy people.

Put simply if they cannot cope, do something else.

God bless you

Gender

All my life my gender has been irrelevant. I am who I am. I like what I like. If I have a need I find the best way of achieving this. Gender only impacts in toilet use. Can I stand to pee? Clothes are cool, and I buy what I like.

I can imagine being a girl, but beyond that, how could I ever know the reality because I am not. Why would I?
My family say my emotional expression is more feminine, yet I am male. There is the dilemma. If I can be fully me in this body, why would I say something is wrong? Could this be scape goating, a distraction, a logical answer to an emotional dilemma?

Alex Reynolds said:

My favorite Jewish Conservative explaining this subject with facts and logic.

Click to expand...

Nicely done. "If you're going to dictate to me that I'm supposed to pretend... that men are women and women are men, no, my answer is no."

Jordan Peterson took a similar stand in Canada when the gov't was attempting to force how people speak in regards to gender issues.

It's good to know there are some strong voices identifying this nonsense for what it is and taking a stand for sticking with some semblance of reality. Words matter. Gov't that tries to dictate the meaning of words and reality in most senses, goes way too far.

rjs330 said:

Which is why I said I don't really care who or what you claim to be unless it directly interferes with what I do or am forced to do.

Click to expand...

I know and understand and can certainly relate to the not caring part, or to not wanting to be bothered, but look where such thinking has gotten us. Everything after your "unless" is taking place.

Some lessons take a long time to learn.

rjs330 said:

I agree that biology is not a social construct. And I don't think I've ever heard leftists claim it is. The claim is "gender" is a social construct.

Which is why I said I don't really care who or what you claim to be unless it directly interferes with what I do or am forced to do. Biology should determine men and women, not feelings.

Because that directly interferes with my ability or my daughter's ability to participate in life. My daughter may now be relegated to a secondary position because she is comoeteling against a man for certain things. And she may be forced to feel uncomfortable this psychologically damaging her because she has to shower with a man.

Click to expand...

There’s a lot of black and white thinking going on here. I would agree that gender is social. But it’s related to,biology. It’s how we deal with the differences. What gender someone is isn’t random. It’s typically based on biology. But as in all things human there are exceptions. Those exceptions are probably at least in part also based on biology, though not the same biology as the usual distinction. So recognizing gender isn’t a complete redefinition. It’s a recognition that there are a small number of exceptions.

When people fill in male or female on a form they are not speaking about societal roles. They are talking about biology.

Changing the language so that the two are confused (so that gender is now used on forms asking about biology, not about whether you wear make-up and heels) is the act of people who want to smash society and then laugh as it collapses.

We are idiots to tolerate it.

The EO is not about forms. It’s about what we allow people to do. Banning trans from the military isn’t a disagreement over what to put in a box.

hedrick said:

There’s a lot of black and white thinking going on here. I would agree that gender is social. But it’s related to,biology. It’s how we deal with the differences. What gender someone is isn’t random. It’s typically based on biology. But as in all things human there are exceptions. Those exceptions are probably at least in part also based on biology, though not the same biology as the usual distinction. So recognizing gender isn’t a complete redefinition. It’s a recognition that there are a small number of exceptions.

Click to expand...

I would love to see that same argument applied to Darwinian evolution, LOL. "I would agree that evolution is philosophy. But it’s related to biology."

The two are sort of related in that you're dealing with the contrast between science and scientism. They're related, loosely---but they ain't the same thing.

hedrick said:

There’s a lot of black and white thinking going on here. I would agree that gender is social. But it’s related to,biology. It’s how we deal with the differences. What gender someone is isn’t random. It’s typically based on biology. But as in all things human there are exceptions. Those exceptions are probably at least in part also based on biology, though not the same biology as the usual distinction. So recognizing gender isn’t a complete redefinition. It’s a recognition that there are a small number of exceptions.

Click to expand...

What biology? Where is the gender gene? XY chromosomes determine if you are man or woman.

What determines gender is feelings. And if you want to feel like the opposite sex I'm certainly not going to tell you you can't.

But you also don't have the right te tell me I have to shower with you or share a bathroom with you or let you play women's sports with my daughter.

GDL said:

Nicely done. "If you're going to dictate to me that I'm supposed to pretend... that men are women and women are men, no, my answer is no."

Jordan Peterson took a similar stand in Canada when the gov't was attempting to force how people speak in regards to gender issues.

It's good to know there are some strong voices identifying this nonsense for what it is and taking a stand for sticking with some semblance of reality. Words matter. Gov't that tries to dictate the meaning of words and reality in most senses, goes way too far.

Click to expand...

yes it's pretending and not biology, it's so bizarre what hills you guys will fight science on no matter how it makes you look.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Why shouldn’t have the early Church have abandoned the idea of resurrection to be more acceptable to Roman citizens? I presume you consider the resurrection merely an idea rather than an actual event in the life of our Lord, so it wouldn’t have mattered if the early Church had given up this belief in favour of a more palatable belief right? After all, the secular culture of the Roman Empire was civilized and surely we Christians were being stubborn in believing in ideas like resurrection?

Click to expand...

Those who write about the resurrection note that those who claimed to have experienced it really experienced something. There's really no getting around. They saw the risen Lord. Whether that risen Christ was on another plane of existence, whether we want to commit ourselves to the Evangelical idea that it must have been a bodily (purely physical) resurrection are separate questions. But, there's no doubt they saw him. Given that, the appearances were data for these earliest Christians. For you or me today, it's a belief based on some level of reliable testimony. But for them? Data. Experience. So, there's your answer. It wasn't a belief for the first Christians--it was lived experience.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

As a ‘Catholic’ (I don’t really see any evidence of you being a Catholic) I would have thought you would consider Gregory of Nyssa one of yours, rather than belonging just my own Church.

Click to expand...

I absolutely claim him. One of the best I've encountered. For me, as a Catholic, I'd put him right up there with Aquinas. However, this doesn't address the point I made. St Gregory teaches that it was humanity itself (as an indivisible totality) that fell and therefore humanity itself (also as an indivisible totality) that will reunite with God in the hereafter. He's quite clear about this in his Great Catechism. As St Paul put it nicely, "for as in Adam, all die. Even so in Christ, all shall be made alive." 1 Cor. 15:22. St Gregory and St Paul don't seem to divide humanity into the God-club and those outside the God-club. I therefore see no reason for you or I to do so.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

That involves secular Christians doing what is expected of them by the faith and part of the faith has been the recognition of men and women as real categories, not something someone can change on a whim.

Click to expand...

As I said above, the culture asking you to go beyond binary does not require you to abandon male and female. Rather, it's to include more than only male and female.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

There was no nonsense about letting the child choose his ‘gender’ and I see no reason to abandon our Christian standard in favour of the new secular atheist morality you are pushing. Where is the limit? When do you say no to secular culture? Do you ever say no?

Click to expand...

I agree with you that these are valid concerns. Can we let a young child determine by his/herself the gender of preference? How young? 7 years old? 3 years old? 15 years old? These are not easy questions, and I would err (like you presumably) on the side of not letting a young child make such irrevocably life-altering decisions. What if that gender-preference turns out to have been a phase. There are folks who transitioned young that publicly say now that they regret it. On the other hand, there are others who transitioned young that say it was a wonderful decision years later. The YouTuber Blaire White/Black has explored (and interviewed) some of these stories. You might want to check her out. She leans conservative, so you might find her palatable.

Peace be with you!

hedrick said:

But those things are controlled by NCAA and Olympic rules.

Click to expand...

Yes, and..? You've cautioned in this thread against letting our fear in these contexts mislead us. But, sometimes fears are warranted. In this very short, very particular EO, the president actually uses the word "sport." That doesn't resolve everything, but I'm suspicious of what he's after there. I suspect that he's inclining to allow trans MTF to compete against bio-females. And this is simply unfair on a basic level. Moreover, even though the majority opinion in Bostock doesn't mention sports, the dissenting justices make a heyday of such a ramification. Bostock and this EO don't have to have entail this for sports, but they just might!

hedrick said:

Presumably college recruiters understand that not every trans athlete in high school is in compliance with those rules.

Click to expand...

I hope you are right.

hedrick said:

I would rather leave them to decide what rules should be used in college and later, and not intervene legally in either direction.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. When it is reasonable to anticipate that unfair practices would ensue given a certain changing playing field (as would happen with trans athletes competing against female athletes) it's better to get out front of this with regulations. Better than allowing a female athlete to be a victim of an unfair scenario. In baseball, when many began to use PED's in the 90's, those athletes who later said they would never have considered using if PED's weren't present, were themselves victims. They were victimized by a system that didn't anticipate what would reasonably happen with the introduction of unfair advantages by some athletes. As Dr. Julian Savulescu has noted in many places, it created a situation in which far more athletes were "taking" just in an effort to equalize the suddenly unlevel playing field. It was either become a user yourself to keep up, or get left behind. Not fair. As a society, we opted against such a system that would unduly pressure athletes to potentially harm themselves with PED's just to level the playing field. This analogy holds quite well with trans females competing against biological females--we need to regulate and get ahead of it to prevent something systemically bad from happening. We owe it to our girls to do so.

hedrick said:

(However I would expect college intramural sports to accept trans people fully.)

Click to expand...

100% agree. And, further to your general thrust here, we do need to make room for trans athletes in NCAA and even the professional arena. It's not going to be smooth or easy. It's probably going to be quite messy. But, they are human and deserve a space just like everyone else. I'm just not so clear on where that space will be! The president seems to suggest that it's in whatever locker room and sport corresponds to your selected gender. But, that is far from obviously the best path forward, especially in the interest of our nation's girls.

Hazelelponi said:

God is unchanging...

Click to expand...

I would agree. I'd probably put it stronger as Aquinas does--God is unchangeable (no potentiality whatsoever within the being of God. He is pure actuality).

However, if you are a Baptist, you must believe that whatever we want to say about God and change, the church very much and rather often changes. The baptist church bears very little resemblance to the church of the first millennium. So, it must be capable of change. I'm not trying to bait you into an early church vs Evangelical church argument. I don't care much which church a person is a part of--if it works for you, knock your Baptist self out. But, if you get deep into the 2,000 year history of the church you will find change, change and more change!! In the mid-20th century, the Catholic church described this phenomenon as aggiornamento, which basically means that the church is ever updating herself and her teaching in the light of deeper understandings over time. Or, put another way, ecclesia semper reformanda est - the church is always reforming itself.