• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

A simple fix for the Transgender issue.

Discussion in 'Ethics & Morality' started by Ken-1122, Jun 23, 2019.

  1. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +6,528
    Atheist
    Private
    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.
     
  2. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +557
    Atheist
    Private
    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!
     
  3. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +557
    Atheist
    Private
    My argument is supported by scientific evidence. Is the protestant argument supported by scientific evidence? If not; your argument fails.
     
  4. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,023
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Are you saying sex organs are not biological?

    In any case, it does not change the point I am making.
     
  5. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,812
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    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.
     
  6. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +557
    Atheist
    Private
    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.
     
  7. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +557
    Atheist
    Private
    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?
     
  8. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,812
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    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.

    No it's not. You're arguing that we should arbitrarily define the word "woman" 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 w-o-m-a-n refers to biological sex. It is your opinion that "woman" 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.

    No it's not. You're arguing that we should arbitrarily define the word "he" 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 "h-e" refers to biological sex. It is your opinion that "he" 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.
     
  9. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +557
    Atheist
    Private
    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) .
    If humans are more than two categories, that would mean we are not mammals. But according to science we are. My argument has nothing to do with the letters we use referring to male or female (man woman,); which seems to be the crux of your arguments.
    Care to try again?
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2019
  10. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,023
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    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. You are disrespecting them every single time you say that you are better qualified to tell their gender than they are. 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.
     
  11. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +557
    Atheist
    Private
    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.
     
  12. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +6,528
    Atheist
    Private
    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?

    ETA - and more to the point, do you require genetic testing before deciding which personal pronouns to use for other people? Seems expensive. And totally not how anyone actually goes about the process back here in reality.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2019
  13. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +557
    Atheist
    Private
    No. But I fail to understand what this has to do with the conversation.

    No. Again; I fail to see your point.
     
  14. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,023
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    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.

    Or do you have some other definition of "biologically a man"?

    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. 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.
     
  15. Belk

    Belk Senior Member Supporter

    +6,782
    Agnostic
    Married
    Actual scientists disagree with you.

    Anatomy Does Not Determine Gender, Experts Say
     
  16. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +6,528
    Atheist
    Private
    You were the one who brought up the presumed genetic makeup of the people you want to talk to. I figured it had something to do with the conversation?
     
  17. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +557
    Atheist
    Private
    As I said before, there are always going to be rare exceptions, like hermaphrodite/intersexual.

    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.

    Why is biology disrespectful?
     
  18. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +557
    Atheist
    Private
    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?
     
  19. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +557
    Atheist
    Private
    No that is what this conversation is about
     
  20. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +9,901
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    Perhaps we should go all the way back to the OP and start over.
    1. If you are addressing the person, then the question doesn't come up; just say "you."
    2. If you are speaking of the person to someone else and neither of you know anything about his or her self-identification, then a choice of pronoun based on appearance is acceptable.
    3. If you do know what that person's self-identification is, then the choice of pronoun should be determined by that identification.

    Your opinion that a person's self-identification is a result of "confusion going on inside their heads" can be kept to yourself.
     
Loading...