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 used Promise Keepers because they explicitly defined "man" in terms that contradict biology and they are an anti-trans organization. That's all the information I needed to expose the hypocrisy of the "but 'man' and 'woman' always refers to biology" farce of an argument people keep repeating.I do not recommend Promise Keepers as a Christian organization
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.
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!
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.
Can you give an example of this happening in the past?Trans people didn't start using "man" and "woman" in nebulous, subjective ways. They continued to use "man" and "woman" in nebulous subjective ways the same way most people do from time to time.
I believe I said “biology” instead of sex. Can you give examples of gender being distinct from biology in the past?People commonly attribute subjective attributes to "man" and "woman" so we both already understand the concept that "sex" is distinct from "gender". This has been going on a long time before trans people entered the scene.
*You said we separate sports based on biological sex, not gender.I never said anything of the sort.
I never said anything of the sort.
I don't know how to respond to questions you pull whole-cloth out of your imagination.
What post number did I agree to this? Perhaps you misunderstood me.No one is redefining gender. I already demonstrated, and you agreed, that there is a distinction between the concepts of "sex" and "gender"
I've already pointed out to you they did not do this. Why do you continue to make this claim?I used Promise Keepers because they explicitly defined "man" in terms that contradict biology and they are an anti-trans organization.
I was just going by what YOU said.You really think that trans people don't want to be a part of society?
No; I think my ideas are brilliant; you are the one who seems to see it as a problem.I'm glad we can admit your ideas are the problem.
Of course not! I make assumptions about them based on how they look. That’s what everyone does.That's a rubbish way of doing it. Are you giving people an examination to see what their chromosomes are before you refer to them as either a man or a woman?
Because it's true and your refutation failed. If a real man weeps, then a biological male who does not weep is not a man. If a person can be a biological male and at the same not be a man, then the concepts are distinct.I've already pointed out to you they did not do this. Why do you continue to make this claim?
See above.Can you give an example of this happening in the past?
Sex refers to biology, gender does not.I believe I said “biology” instead of sex. Can you give examples of gender being distinct from biology in the past?
That's a lie. Or do you expect me to believe you don't know what you said?*I responded; then why do they fight to have biological men compete against biological women in sports?
I pointed it out when you did it and you did not contend it. If you need to reread posts to refresh your memory to keep up with the conversation, that's on you. If you can't keep up with the conversation, that's your failing and not my responsibility.What post number did I agree to this? Perhaps you misunderstood me.
Again; they were using the “no true scotsman” fallacy, referring to men vs real men. They were not claiming people who do not do as they claimed were not men, but rather women, animals, or something else. I think you know this, but are so desperate to get a win, you’ve hit rock bottom, and have now started to dig!Because it's true and your refutation failed. If a real man weeps, then a biological male who does not weep is not a man. If a person can be a biological male and at the same not be a man, then the concepts are distinct.
Proven wrong; see above.See above.
Again; point to an example from the past of gender not being in reference to biological sex.Sex refers to biology, gender does not.
It was not an exact quote; the jest was the same. I don’t recall the exact words I used, but my point was, sports are not always separated by biology, there is an attempt to separate them by gender, with gender to be defined by what goes on inside your head.That's a lie. Or do you expect me to believe you don't know what you said?
I suspect either you misunderstood me, or you are willfully being dishonest. For the record, I do not agree with that position, so please refrain from claiming that I do.I pointed it out when you did it and you did not contend it. If you need to reread posts to refresh your memory to keep up with the conversation, that's on you. If you can't keep up with the conversation, that's your failing and not my responsibility.
Something doesn’t seem right here. Take a look at this from Medline Plus:
No, it was not. For someone so obsessed with words, you sure don't care about what you really say.It was not an exact quote; the jest was the same.
No walking stuff back just because you don't like what it means for your position. Sex and gender are distinct concepts, you accepted it, now move on.For the record, I do not agree with that position, so please refrain from claiming that I do.
I was just going by what YOU said.
No; I think my ideas are brilliant; you are the one who seems to see it as a problem.
Of course not! I make assumptions about them based on how they look. That’s what everyone does.
Something doesn’t seem right here. Take a look at this from Medline Plus:
“Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) is when a person who is genetically male (who has one X and one Y chromosome) is resistant to male hormones (called androgens). As a result, the person has some of the physical traits of a woman, but the genetic makeup of a man.”
Androgen insensitivity syndrome: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia
Now look at what you have posted from Accord Alliance:
“But there are girls and women who have XY chromosomes. This can happen, for example, when a girl has androgen insensitivity syndrome.”
Does having a Y chromosome make you a man? Does lacking one make you a woman? | Accord Alliance
That’s not correct. That’s a mistake. What Accord Alliance was describing is true of females with Swyer syndrome:
“In approximately 15-20 percent of patients, Swyer syndrome occurs due to mutations of the sex-determining region Y (SRY) gene on the Y chromosome or deletion of the segment of the Y chromosome containing the SRY gene.”
Swyer syndrome - NORD (National Organization for Rare Disorders)
This statement was correct from Accord Alliance:
“And there are boys and men who have XX chromosomes. This can happen, for example, when a gene on the Y chromosome ends up on an X chromosome, causing that X chromosome to function more like a Y.”
This is what’s known as de la Chapelle syndrome, and you can read about it here: 46,XX testicular disorder of sex development: MedlinePlus Genetics
But are you noticing something? Females with Swyer syndrome have a mutation occurring or deletion on important parts of the SRY gene. With de la Chapelle syndrome, a translocation occurs, a piece of the SRY gene attaches with an X chromosome.
But maybe it’s just a battle over words. Was Accord Alliance implying that a male with androgen insensitivity syndrome can be someone who self identifies as a girl or woman?
I care about exact words when exact words are important. In this case exact words were not important as long as my point is understood.No, it was not. For someone so obsessed with words, you sure don't care about what you really say.
There is no moving on with this. I've was clear, I do not agree with that. If you wish to continue with this conversation, you need to respect what I say my beliefs are and are not.No walking stuff back just because you don't like what it means for your position. Sex and gender are distinct concepts, you accepted it, now move on.
Check out post #669, 726, & 739. It's been approx once per day. How many likes and agrees have you gotten lately?You are the only one who thinks your ideas are brilliant. I've not seen anyone else here who says they agree with you.
As I said before, once I entered a public men room, I saw what looked like a lady, I said this is the mens room, this person said he was a man. I assumed he was a biological man and went about my business.And you hold your assumptions to be a more accurate representation of who they are than what they actually tell you.
Check out post #669, 726, & 739. It's been approx once per day. How many likes and agrees have you gotten lately?
As I said before, once I entered a public men room, I saw what looked like a lady, I said this is the mens room, this person said he was a man. I assumed he was a biological man and went about my business.
I answered the question you asked. The question you asked was not what you later claimed it was.I care about exact words when exact words are important.
You claim to know the gist was the same, but you don't know what you said... lolthe jest was the same. I don’t recall the exact words I used
Not after you tell me what they really are and then change them back after you realize what it means to your "argument".you need to respect what I say my beliefs are and are not.
I know you're dead in the water with this startling revelation that treating gender as something non-biological was already normal. But those are the facts I demonstrated. Now you're lying, as you've lied so many times before, because the implications of you acknowledging that distinction absolutely destroys the farce you've perpetuating thus far.There is no moving on with this. I've was clear, I do not agree with that.
No; I provided proof of other people who agree with me.I ask for examples of people who agree with you, and the only person you can show is yourself.
The fact that more people like your responses than mine does not surprise me. I stay away from forums where most share my views, I prefer discussions where I get more disagreements because I like knowing how the other side think, and I like having my views challenged.I've received more likes than you in every single category, despite having been for less time than you!
Again; if this person were a biological female, I would refer to them as a biological female. However there was no way for me to find out, so I took them at their word.And if this person was born with a vagina, you'd refer to them as "she," wouldn't you?
How was it different?I answered the question you asked. The question you asked was not what you later claimed it was.
Wrong. I made the point that progressives have fought to have biological men compete in female sports.You claim to know the gist was the same, but you don't know what you said... lol
I didn’t do that.Not after you tell me what they really are and then change them back after you realize what it means to your "argument".
You keep saying this, I keep asking for examples of this happening in the past, and you seem to forget to provide examples. Again; provide examples of this happening in the past.I know you're dead in the water with this startling revelation that treating gender as something non-biological was already normal. But those are the facts I demonstrated.
True! And that concept has a history of bigotry, misogamy, and justifying male dominated societies. I thought we were supposed to be past that already. We’re supposed to be in a society where women can do anything a man can do; these gender roles and limitations is supposed to be something we are trying to get away from.There is a whole other concept as to the preferences, behaviors, and feelings people typically attribute the qualities of "masculine" and "feminine" to, and that concept is gender.
Go back and read your own posts. I'm not looking them up for you just because you wanted to write something other than what you actually wrote. You could have referenced your own words a long time ago when it was just a few posts ago. You chose to make things up instead. That's what you do.How was it different?
Wrong. You asked a question, which is not making a point, and "why do they fight?" was not the question. You've already admitted you don't remember what you said. How are you telling me what you said??Wrong. I made the point that progressives have fought to have biological men compete in female sports.
You did. Now you're lying about it.I didn’t do that.
That's the example you acknowledged was making a distinction, so yeah, I don't need another example. The concept of "manhood" is distinct from the concept of "biological male". It didn't need proving because it's so common, but I proved it anyways.You keep saying this, I keep asking for examples of this happening in the past, and you seem to forget to provide examples. Again; provide examples of this happening in the past.
And don’t go bringing back that Promise Keepers absurdity, you know better than that.
According to etymonline.com, the word “transgendered” came into existence in 1974. The Promise Keepers was founded in 1990.Sex refers to biology, gender does not.
See above.
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?