To Seem, Rather Than To Be? (Trans Ideology)

[didactics]

Sorry, are you suggesting that Swyer syndrome and AIS are the same thing?

No, I'm not suggesting they are the same thing. I'm saying there can be a bit of confusion if we're not careful to notice something here. Swyer syndrome only affects females. AIS only affects males. However, if you refer to AIS, that it can affect girls, it should be noted, someone who identifies as a girl. Otherwise, it might sound like this reference is to Swyers, where a female who looks female has what appears to be an XY sex chromosome pair, caused by mutation or deletion "of the segment of the Y chromosome containing the SRY gene." [quote by rarediseases.org]

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

So that’s the game you play huh? You falsely accuse me of saying something, when I ask when did I say that; you tell me to look it up? Sorry it does not work that way. If you are gonna accuse me of saying something, you need to provide proof that I said it; otherwise it’s just another empty claim.

Wrong. You asked a question, which is not making a point,

Believe it or not, it is possible to make a point by asking a question.

and "why do they fight?" was not the question.

I didn’t say it was!

You've already admitted you don't remember what you said.

C’mon you know I never said such a thing. If you did you would point out when I said it. Just another one of those empty accusations you’ve become known for huh?

I answered the question you asked, and then you responded to my post as though I answered a question you just made up that never happened. You sure do make a lot of stuff up.

No, I responded in the context of the absurd response you gave.

You did. Now you're lying about it.

Another empty accusation? That’s 3 now; how many more are you gonna make?

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.

Again; the reason your example failed is because the Promise keepers never claimed a difference between men vs biological men, they created a farce of a 3rd category (that does not exist) called “real men” and gave a description of this non-existent 3rd category.
Of course you know this, you just prefer grasping at straws rather than admitting your argument failed, because you can't come up with an actual example; something else besides empty accusations you are becoming known for.

 

[Moral Orel]

You falsely accuse me of saying something

I didn’t say it was!

C’mon you know I never said such a thing

No, I responded in the context of the absurd response you gave.

That's four lies. These are claims you're making, and they're all false. If I go through the trouble of going back through your posts to prove it, what do I get? Will you declare me the winner of the thread and bow out of the thread completely?

Again; the reason your example failed

It didn't fail, you acknowledged it worked just fine.

 

[Ken-1122]

That's four lies. These are claims you're making, and they're all false. If I go through the trouble of going back through your posts to prove it, what do I get? Will you declare me the winner of the thread and bow out of the thread completely?

No; but if I made a mistake, I will admit it; but you have to prove I've made the mistake first.

 

[Moral Orel]

No; but if I made a mistake, I will admit it

Shuuuuuuure you will.

 

[didactics]

Shuuuuuuure you will.

Let me see if I can understand what's going on here. The main thrust of your argument is that anti-trans organizations do a similar thing that trans activists do when it comes to words, not that they have compromised their views, but their word choices are used poorly. However, I don't think Promise Keepers is a good representation of sound biblical study in the first place.

 

[Moral Orel]

Let me see if I can understand what's going on here. The main thrust of your argument is that anti-trans organizations do a similar thing that trans activists do when it comes to words

I only used an anti-trans organization as an example to ensure no one would say it was coming from the trans community. My claim is that almost all people talk about things like manhood, womanhood, masculinity, and femininity as separate and distinct concepts from biological sex.

It's so widespread and common that frankly I think it's disingenuous for anyone to claim otherwise. No one is suggesting we delete biological sex as a concept.

 

[didactics]

I only used an anti-trans organization as an example to ensure no one would say it was coming from the trans community. My claim is that almost all people talk about things like manhood, womanhood, masculinity, and femininity as separate and distinct concepts from biological sex.

It's so widespread and common that frankly I think it's disingenuous for anyone to claim otherwise. No one is suggesting we delete biological sex as a concept.

Because you say "almost all" and not just "all" then I would have to agree with you here. If I oppose the ideology of transgenderism, it's on me to clarify myself and use my words wisely, so that I'm not running roughshod over those whom I debate.

 

[Moral Orel]

Because you say "almost all" and not just "all" then I would have to agree with you here. If I oppose the ideology of transgenderism, it's on me to clarify myself and use my words wisely, so that I'm not running roughshod over those whom I debate.

You've already established that you believe in gender roles. These roles (like who should and shouldn't play with dolls) have nothing to do with biology, so you're already making a distinction between biological sex and gender.

It doesn't really matter how you phrase things. Semantics won't offer you an escape from the distinction. Transgenderism isn't the thing that makes a distinction. It's normal for people in general to do so.

Acknowledging the distinction doesn't even say it's okay to be transgender. Acknowledging the distinction doesn't say that we ought to segregate sports or bathrooms or locker rooms or prisons based on gender rather than biological sex. Refusing to acknowledge the distinction is just a way to bury your head in the sand and lose arguments because you aren't giving any factual based reason not to do any of those things.

Now the "running roughshod" you mention is the Equivocation Fallacy I've pointed out. In a debate, participants need to agree on terms so that they're understood. One side is saying, "There are two concepts at play, here are two terms to discuss the two concepts" and the other side is saying, "No! I'm going to use both terms completely interchangeably!". It's the latter that is sowing confusion, which is what makes it all so dishonest and hypocritical.

 

[didactics]

You've already established that you believe in gender roles. These roles (like who should and shouldn't play with dolls) have nothing to do with biology, so you're already making a distinction between biological sex and gender.

It doesn't really matter how you phrase things. Semantics won't offer you an escape from the distinction. Transgenderism isn't the thing that makes a distinction. It's normal for people in general to do so.

Acknowledging the distinction doesn't even say it's okay to be transgender. Acknowledging the distinction doesn't say that we ought to segregate sports or bathrooms or locker rooms or prisons based on gender rather than biological sex. Refusing to acknowledge the distinction is just a way to bury your head in the sand and lose arguments because you aren't giving any factual based reason not to do any of those things.

Now the "running roughshod" you mention is the Equivocation Fallacy I've pointed out. In a debate, participants need to agree on terms so that they're understood. One side is saying, "There are two concepts at play, here are two terms to discuss the two concepts" and the other side is saying, "No! I'm going to use both terms completely interchangeably!". It's the latter that is sowing confusion, which is what makes it all so dishonest and hypocritical.

Acknowledging that people use the words gender and sex to mean different things doesn’t mean that I agree with gender theory — correct. And so it goes, we have a battle over words. I was making a hypothetical statement, that if I were a father, I wouldn’t think it’s a good idea to get a doll for a son. My reason was based on trying to fit cultural norms or expectations. And I get it, doesn’t that mean I’m reinforcing a “social construct” that has nothing to do with biology? A choice based on how the toy is presented, and if the appeal is marketed towards girls, is the reason why I would not get it. On the other hand, it probably wouldn’t be a good idea to be too strict about it either. What if a boy is invited to play along with his sister? Or is playing with a baby doll and being nurturing strictly a girl thing? I don’t think so. My point is to say that parents have the choice whether to accept or deny a child’s request for things (or whether they get to keep them). Is it always loving to give stuff to your kids just to make them happy? As an authority figure, parents have a great influence on bringing up their children and instilling values that they can pass on to them. Sure, it's a little besides the point of this debate.



“In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity”

The phrase comes from an undistinguished German Lutheran theologian of the early seventeenth century, Rupertus Meldenius. [according to an article from Ligonier]

 

[Landon Caeli]

MOD HAT ON​

Due to multiple rule violations​

MOD HAT OFF​