I explained exactly what you said that I disagreed with. How about if you do the same and explain what I said that you disagree with? Because thus far, you have not given an example of they/them being used as singular.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I explained exactly what you said that I disagreed with. How about if you do the same and explain what I said that you disagree with? Because thus far, you have not given an example of they/them being used as singular.You disagree with basic grammar, then. And you embarrass yourself in doing so.
Bob is/are going to the party.
Bob is/are going to the party, washing his car, and eating a sandwich.
Impress me.
I explained exactly what you said that I disagreed with. How about if you do the same and explain what I said that you disagree with? Because thus far, you have not given an example of they/them being used as singular.
Is; because the subject (Bob) is singular.Bob is/are going to the party.
Bob is/are going to the party, washing his car, and eating a sandwich.
Which is correct?
Is; because the subject (Bob) is singular.
No, in that example, "everybody" is plural meaning more than one.
Again; plural. They and them in this instance implies more than one person showing up at 6:30, not a single person.
Yes.
Not quite. In this example, Bob is a singular person; but in the second example; everybody is a group. But what does this have to do with they/them used as singular?So...
Bob is going to the party -- grammatically correct.
Everybody is going to the party -- grammatically correct for the same reason.
I had a particular question. Do trans people really believe that by transitioning, that they become the opposite sex? I mean, sometimes I hear the phrase thrown around, that trans women are women. I don’t have to be a biologist to know that’s insane—trans women don’t have eggs. Trans women don’t magically start menstruating. Or who knows, maybe a progressive would fire back, does a woman need to menstruate to be a woman? And then I suppose I would have to argue based on what is normative, namely that women usually menstruate, but trans women never have eggs.
So what I’m getting at is, just how dedicated are progressives to this gender theory? Is it irrelevant to state that what is normal of male and female behavior is obvious, if perhaps they believe that what is normal now may not always be normal—meaning that humans may evolve into something different? Or, maybe progressive minded people know that their theory is senseless, except maybe not all, and they would rather use their ideas to divide and conquer. But then again that just sounds conspiratorial.
For example, I watched a video of a trans woman explaining that he thought the concept of male and femaleness really was a concept that the colonizers came up with. I can’t tell you how absurd that is. I guess there’s no point in defining humans as male and female. But that’s like saying that human procreation is irrelevant, and that’s why we don’t need terms like male and female. This really gets into dangerous territory because it’s an attempt to play God—the idea that we don’t have to have limits based on our gender.
It’s also an attack on God’s very good design, that in the beginning he made them male and female. Even Jesus affirmed this (see Mt 19:4).
Not quite. In this example, Bob is a singular person; but in the second example; everybody is a group. But what does this have to do with they/them used as singular?
Mark’s account also mentions that Jesus is questioned because He is “the carpenter”. Matthew’s account says that He’s “the carpenter’s son”.
I agree as long as it remains their business. But when things get to the point where it starts affecting MY business; and they start insisting I participate in their beliefs/views/delusions etc. that’s a little different.I think peoples gender identity is their own business. It doesn't hurt me one whit if somebody with XY chromosomes identifies as a woman.
I agree as long as it remains their business. But when things get to the point where it starts affecting MY business; and they start insisting I participate in their beliefs/views/delusions etc. that’s a little different.
Suppose I identified as a 6 year old child? Would it hurt you to pretend I am only 6 when it is obvious to you I am not? No. But it would be unfair for me to demand you pretend I am 6 just because I choose to identify that way. Whatever delusions I may have of myself are my business, but I have no right to impose them on you.Respecting other peoples gender identity doesn't harm me at all, and I don't see how it would harm you, either. And respect tends to be reciprocated and lead to a more flourishing life for everyone.
Suppose I identified as a 6 year old child? Would it hurt you to pretend I am only 6 when it is obvious to you I am not? No. But it would be unfair for me to demand you pretend I am 6 just because I choose to identify that way. Whatever delusions I may have of myself are my business, but I have no right to impose them on you.
Bingo! Now let's talk about what it means...
Most people ignorant of Jewish culture dismiss this as irrelevant, but nothing could be further from the truth. They write it off because they assume that Jesus simply assumed the family business, as it were.
But Matthew had to clean up the scandal that Mark heavily implied. In ancient Israel, as in most patriarchal societies, you are identified as the son of your father. To identify you as the son of your mother is to imply that paternity is either unknown or in dispute...
But there is no father of Jesus anywhere in Mark... Not so much as a passing mention, even though the crowd names the rest of his family...
(This comes up again in John 8:41, where a hostile crowd heckles Jesus with "We were not born of fornication," implying that Jesus was.)
Now, Matthew lifted heavily from Mark in the writing of his own Gospel... 90% of Mark is contained in Matthew, and a good chunk of ghat is verbatim. Matthew started with Mark, and added onto the beginning (Mark has no birth narrative), and the end (Mark ends at the tomb, with no sightings of the risen Jesus)
With so much Mark in Matthew, anything omitted or altered becomes significant. Matthew is believed to be writing to a more Orthodox audience than Mark, and they're not going to abide even a hint of scandal about their Messiah...
So "the carpenter" becomes "the carpenter's son," Matthew gets to refer back to Joseph (who appears for the first time anywhere in Matthew's Gospel), and Mark's implied scandal gets defused.
You asked for evidence of an alteration; there you go.
What does that mean? What is an inner sense of being male of female?I don't see "gender identity" as a delusion, since gender identity has to do with something intangible, ones inner sense of being male or female.
What does that mean? What is an inner sense of being male of female?
The problem with vague descriptions like "inner sense of being" is that they mean different things to different people. In order for us to be on the same page when discussing issues, perhaps you should be a bit more specific in what you mean so I can know exactly what you are talking about.If you can't understand something so simple, then you won't understand gender identity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?