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.
Who are all of these people claiming man/women is not based on their biology?No. I didn't say that at all. I said most people push the idea that "man" and "woman" are not strictly defined by biology. Most people are not trans. So most people pushing the idea are not trans people.
Using "man" and "woman" in ways that don't involve biology at all is already common language. Stop acting like trans folk are trying to redefine words.
They said "real men" do those things. If you don't do those things, you aren't a "real man". There's no twisting your way outta that. So what does it mean to "not be a real man"? They're using "man" in a way that ain't got nothin to do with biology, that's the stuff that you have a problem with, let's hear it.If I said "men use condoms" are you gonna assume those who don't are not men? Of course not! The same goes here; they did not address the biological men who don't weep, love or cry; they only mentioned the ones that do.
Okay; so according to them, if you don't do those things you are not a real man; just a man. What's the difference? Ask them, they are the ones making the distinction. BUT nowhere are they suggesting you are a woman if you don't do those things.They said "real men" do those things. If you don't do those things, you aren't a "real man". There's no twisting your way outta that. So what does it mean to "not be a real man"? They're using "man" in a way that ain't got nothin to do with biology, that's the stuff that you have a problem with, let's hear it.
You quoted me stating:The quote of mine you provided did not make your case, as a matter of face, in that quote I wasn't even referring to gender roles. Care to try again?
No, you already stated that "trans ideology" is "the idea that there are non-biological, completely subjective attributes to the concepts of 'man' and 'woman'".Trans ideology is the idea that based strictly on what is going on inside of your head, a biological men can be women, and a biological woman can be a man. Provide examples of Christians and Conservatives making that claim.
lol If something is "not a real X" then it is "not X". That's what "real" means, bro. The same way you would say that a trans woman is not a real woman.Okay; so according to them, if you don't do those things you are not a real man; just a man. What's the difference? Ask them, they are the ones making the distinction. BUT nowhere are they suggesting you are a woman if you don't do those things.
Now I don’t know the Promise Keepers to be able to tell you if I recommend their teaching or not, but I’ll say this. When someone says to the men, real men do this, they mean if you are a man, whom is being addressed, then act like it. The same way you might tell someone to act their age because they’re throwing a fit. Christians do have a teaching about gender roles, but they have a responsibility to understand the Bible’s teaching on it correctly and live faithfully. For example, husbands are to be head of their wives. It is a symbol of Christ being head of the Church.lol If something is "not a real X" then it is "not X". That's what "real" means, bro. The same way you would say that a trans woman is not a real woman.
Point is that you keep acting as though it's only trans people that refer to "man" and "woman" in ways that don't involve biology. I just proved you wrong. Own it. Gender is a social construct and trans people didn't make it and trans people aren't the only ones perpetuating it.
I will agree that there are some non-biological, completely subjective attributes people apply to the concepts of man and woman. But never has these non-biological attributes been the ONLY determining factor of what constitutes a man or a woman until now. THIS is what I was calling trans ideology.You quoted me stating:
"the idea that there are non-biological, completely subjective attributes to the concepts of 'man' and 'woman'"
And then referred to that as "trans-ideology".
So "trans-ideology"
=
"the idea that there are non-biological, completely subjective attributes to the concepts of 'man' and 'woman'"
Gender roles are non-biological, completely subjective attributes too.
If that were true, nobody would use the term real X. The only reason they do is because they are making the subjective distinction between real X vs X.lol If something is "not a real X" then it is "not X".
No, stop lying, bro. This is what you referred to as "trans ideology":But never has these non-biological attributes been the ONLY determining factor of what constitutes a man or a woman until now. THIS is what I was calling trans ideology.
It is true. That's what "real" means.If that were true
Which post number did I say that?No, stop lying, bro. This is what you referred to as "trans ideology":
"the idea that there are non-biological, completely subjective attributes to the concepts of 'man' and 'woman'"
There's no "only" there.
That is the dictionary definition. Obviously people who use "real" that way as they did are using the word out of context.It is true. That's what "real" means.
But let’s remember now, this isn’t to say that a godless man is any less of a man or is unable to act like a man. I’ve often heard that there are three characteristics that are essential for biblical manhood: a provider, a protector and a leader. Taking for example the meaning of “head of the wife” that phrase is mentioned in verse 23. In Ephesians chapter 5, “[Christ died for the church] that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word” (v. 26). Christ is the believing husband’s model. The notion that a man acts less than, indicates cowardice.So how come you're okay with folk treating "man" and "woman" subjectively when it ain't trans folk? You'll even go to bat defending them. If you're A-Okay with folk adding attributes just because they like them, why do you care if folk subtract them? The definitions already aren't objective anymore. They're subjective, and that's okay to you.
As long as their own space keeps involving other people, those other people are gonna have a say in the type of space they find. Perhaps they need to find a space that does not effect others.
Biology IS a box, but they aren’t talking about biology, they’re talking about gender as a human construct.
I said if they are a biological male, I will refer to their biology. I never even mentioned “penis” why do you keep bringing that up?
Why do they care what pronouns I use if I am talking to somebody else?
Sounds like just another example of them finding their own space that affects everybody else. How ‘bout this; find a space that does not involve other people, and I will be more than happy to leave them alone.
I don't care.Not even on its surface does trans ideology fit with the message of the Bible.
The dictionary describes how people use the word. It doesn't decide how people ought to speak. Language is subjective. Humans made it all up and we change it all the time. The only reason I play Dictionary Bingo with you is as a tie breaker to say, "No, this is how people use that word". Dictionaries are not authorities on word usage. Some try, but none are.That is the dictionary definition.
So to you and @RDKirk and most of the people that have a problem with the trans usage of the words "men" and "women":
Your Logical Fallacy Is: Ambiguity (also known as Equivocation)
Actually it does describe how people ought to use the word.The dictionary describes how people use the word. It doesn't decide how people ought to speak.
If language were completely subjective, communication would be impossible because everyone would have different meanings to the same word.Language is subjective. Humans made it all up and we change it all the time.
If the dictionary is not the authority on word usage, why did you use it on post #710 as an authority on the word “real”?The only reason I play Dictionary Bingo with you is as a tie breaker to say, "No, this is how people use that word". Dictionaries are not authorities on word usage. Some try, but none are.
And as pointed out before, using the word out of context.Here's brass tacks. Once you start letting people put extra qualifiers on what a "man" or "woman" is, you are excluding some biological males from being "men" and excluding some biological females from being "women".
I’ve made no apology for the Promise Keepers creating such distinction. Now you are being completely dishonest. You need to be better than this.And if you can have a biological male that is not a man, and you can have a biological female that is not a woman, then you have two distinct concepts.
Biological sex and gender are not the same thing. You're okay with that as you've demonstrated by bending over backwards to apologize for people creating the distinction (as long as it isn't trans folk doing it).
Ummm, YES.Umm, NO.
When trans people and their allies are unable to answer the question, "What is a woman?", you can't claim we are the ones fomenting ambiguity.
Didn’t you just say they wanted their own space? If they are shunned from society as a result of their own space, that’s their doing not mine.So your answer is to just shun them from society? That's lovely.
I bring it back to biology because I pointed out I use biology, not gender as defined by progressives. Thats why we’re having this conversation right now!You are the one who constantly tries to force it back to biology when that has nothing to do at all with their gender identity.
As I pointed out before, if you have XX chromosomes instead of XX, if you have a Uterus instead of a prostate, if you have a testosterone level of 15-25 instead of 900-1200, (I could go on but I think you get the picture) you are a biological female; not male. And just for the record; male and female are biological descriptions.So you are speaking about their BIOLOGY, not their gender identity, yet you are not talking about their genitals.
So what biology exactly are you referring to then? Their eye colour?
No, that's not what dictionaries do. Learn about dictionaries.Actually it does describe how people ought to use the word.
What a silly non-sequitur. Inter-subjectivity is a thing which is still completely subjective. Look it up.If language were completely subjective, communication would be impossible because everyone would have different meanings to the same word.
You gotta be kidding me. Go back to your post, look at the snippet you quoted just before asking this question. There is the explicit answer to this question.If the dictionary is not the authority on word usage, why did you use it on post #710 as an authority on the word “real”?
Context has nothing to do with it.And as pointed out before, using the word out of context.
You've defended their usage of "man" in a completely subjective manner, ergo you've apologized for their usage of "man" in a completely subjective manner. I used the word "apologize" in a manner that is considered common usage. Look it up in a dictionary (which describes how people commonly use words).I’ve made no apology for the Promise Keepers creating such distinction. Now you are being completely dishonest. You need to be better than this.
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?