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

[Ken-1122]

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.

Who are all of these people claiming man/women is not based on their biology?

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

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.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

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.

 

[Moral Orel]

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?

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.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

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'".

I just showed you the Promise Keepers stating that a biological male can be not a real man. It doesn't have to make you a woman, it can be non-binary.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

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.

 

[didactics]

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.

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.



For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

Ephesians 5:23



These rules are not arbitrary, as they go back to Genesis. The creation order shows us that man was “formed” (Gen. 2:7) while woman was “built” (Gen. 2:22)



From a 9Marks article, “Therefore, the more closely we attend to Genesis 1–2, the more apparent it will be that gendered themes are subtly diffused throughout.”

Man and Woman in Creation (Genesis 1 and 2)



Transgenderism teaches that our internal sense of self is what makes us men or women. On the surface, that might sound like it’s no different than Christians teaching gender roles. But, transgenderism also teaches that our internal feelings and not our biological sex determines our maleness or femaleness. Reformed Christians on the other hand teach that biological reality, without a doubt, corresponds to our gender roles.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

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.

 

[Ken-1122]

lol If something is "not a real X" then it is "not X".

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.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

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.

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.

If that were true

It is true. That's what "real" means.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

Which post number did I say that?

It is true. That's what "real" means.

That is the dictionary definition. Obviously people who use "real" that way as they did are using the word out of context.

 

[didactics]

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.

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.


Not even on its surface does trans ideology fit with the message of the Bible. The gendered roles are not determined by someone’s internal sense of self; God sets the standards (objective), not we ourselves (subjective). The progressive Christian might try to harmonize its philosophy with the Bible, but I see no good in that; it is a godless ideology at its core. I get that cultures may develop gendered stereotypes that have nothing to do with anything good for society, Moral Orel, but your concern is, why criticize trans ideology if it’s all a social construct to begin with? There is a difference between principle and stereotypes.

 

[Kylie]

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.

So your answer is to just shun them from society? That's lovely.

Biology IS a box, but they aren’t talking about biology, they’re talking about gender as a human construct.

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.

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?

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?

Why do they care what pronouns I use if I am talking to somebody else?

You just don't get why people deserve respect.

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.

Yes, send them all to an island where there are only trans people! What a wonderful idea, separating those who are different has NEVER resulted in problems in the past! And it's not discriminatory at all!

 

[Moral Orel]

In the spirit of the thread and the attitude of "tell the truth no matter the feelings" I'm going to respond to the following quote in kind.

Not even on its surface does trans ideology fit with the message of the Bible.

I don't care.

 

[Moral Orel]

That is the dictionary definition.

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.

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".

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).

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)

 

[RDKirk]

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)

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.

 

[Ken-1122]

The dictionary describes how people use the word. It doesn't decide how people ought to speak.

Actually it does describe how people ought to use the word.

Language is subjective. Humans made it all up and we change it all the time.

If language were completely subjective, communication would be impossible because everyone would have different meanings to the same word.

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.

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”?

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".

And as pointed out before, using the word out of context.

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).

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.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

Ummm, YES.

Trans folk straight up tell you that "man" and "woman" are subjective terms that don't entail hard facts like biology, but when trans folk use those terms that way, you all act like biology is what defines them. That is a text book equivocation fallacy.

 

[Ken-1122]

So your answer is to just shun them from society? That's lovely.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

 

[Moral Orel]

Actually it does describe how people ought to use the word.

No, that's not what dictionaries do. Learn about dictionaries.

If language were completely subjective, communication would be impossible because everyone would have different meanings to the same word.

What a silly non-sequitur. Inter-subjectivity is a thing which is still completely subjective. Look it up.

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”?

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.

And as pointed out before, using the word out of context.

Context has nothing to do with it.

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.

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).

But thank you for acknowledging that doing what Promise Keepers did creates a distinction. Now we know I didn't take anything out of context, and we can refer to a million other examples of folk doing the exact same thing, ergo a million other examples of people using "man" and "woman" in a completely subjective manner distinct from "biological male" and "biological female" which are much more objectively defined.

I won the point that there is a distinction between "biological male" and "man". And your argument against "trans ideology", which is parroted by most people on your side, is clearly an Equivocation Fallacy, so I won the whole debate right there.