LGBTQ

[El Correcto]

Well, in case you've never seen or learned about it:

View attachment 475360



Why is it demeaning? It's a description of a biological reality. It's like describing a person as generally having 2 arms and 2 legs.

Yes but you don’t say their purpose and what defines them is having two legs and two arms.
You’re not going around to soldiers that got limbs removed and saying they are not technically a man anymore because that is not how they were designed. You’re trying to strip away identity based on biological functions and that is not what defines a woman.

There are women born without their full reproductive system, they are still women.

 

[BrownFlush]

 

[vantexan]

But you’re also a science and fact based atheist, look even the Christians agree with you

I for one agree with anyone who says something I believe to be true whether they believe things I believe or not. I don't deny obvious truth that's accepted scientific fact in order to win an argument.

 

[BrownFlush]

It's the biggest pretend st show of all time.

 

[Box Ox]

You’re not going around to soldiers that got limbs removed and saying they are not technically a man anymore

Of course not. Limbs have nothing to do with the definition of man/male.

 

[Box Ox]

There are women born without their full reproductive system, they are still women.

Who said they're not?

 

[El Correcto]

I've already said it was appalling what they did. I think all those priests and any other paedophiles should be in prison. Yet I'm seeing people talk of MAP's. That's likely the next big push. Forgive them because they can't help it. Good to see you have a point that you draw a line at.

You didn’t address anything, you just suggested that homosexuality is one step above pedophiles in your eyes. Like I drew the line there. I’ve never condoned it and don’t see a similarity at all between attraction to minors and same sex attraction.

You could just argue that I’m wrong about white because it’s a social phenomenon and nothing codified into law, then argue it’s religious groups that have extra rights in this country, not just Christians. That would be a fair argument, but I think my take is more correct on a social level and factual law based level.

 

[El Correcto]

Who said they're not?

You’re trying to suggest design and their reproductive functions or system as a definition for them. I’m not sure where you’re getting confused that you’re not doing this.

Either that you’re admitting that science doesn’t offer concrete yes or no of what a woman is, that there is room for error in your definition that you’re using “design” as duct tape to hold together.

 

[vantexan]

Yes but you don’t say their purpose and what defines them is having two legs and two arms.
You’re not going around to soldiers that got limbs removed and saying they are not technically a man anymore because that is not how they were designed. You’re trying to strip away identity based on biological functions and that is not what defines a woman.

There are women born without their full reproductive system, they are still women.

Saying someone who has lost a limb is no longer a man because he no longer has all his limbs isn't a valid argument. Have never heard anyone even attempting to make that case until now. If a man declares himself a woman, yet he lacks a woman's reproductive system, he's not a woman no matter how much he wishes to be. This is a mental health issue. But it's a free country. If a man wants to pretend he's a woman that's his business. Just don't tell me I must accept it or threaten my livelihood if I don't. And don't indoctrinate kids in order to get widespread acceptance down the road.

 

[El Correcto]

Saying someone who has lost a limb is no longer a man because he no longer has all his limbs isn't a valid argument. Have never heard anyone even attempting to make that case until now. If a man declares himself a woman, yet he lacks a woman's reproductive system, he's not a woman no matter how much he wishes to be. This is a mental health issue. But it's a free country. If a man wants to pretend he's a woman that's his business. Just don't tell me I must accept it or threaten my livelihood if I don't. And don't indoctrinate kids in order to get widespread acceptance down the road.

Yes I agree, using physical biological functions or features as a definition of what someone is ain’t a great argument to base the definition of man and woman around.

Rest of your point I disagree with.

 

[Box Ox]

You’re trying to suggest design and their reproductive functions or system as a definition for them. I’m not sure where you’re getting confused that you’re not doing this.

Either that you’re admitting that science doesn’t offer concrete yes or no of what a woman is, that there is room for error in your definition that you’re using “design” as duct tape to hold together.

OK, let me try this new word. It is "nature," used to describe the biological reality of the situation without any potential suggestion of the involvement of a higher being, aliens, etc:

A female is one whose design nature is to produce ova, the large gamete in sexual reproduction.

A man is one whose design nature is to produce ova, the large gamete in sexual production.

 

[El Correcto]

I asked you people define woman and you can’t.
All you do is demean women’s meaning down to their biological functions or features then use it to insult transwomen.

This conversation is beyond ridiculous.

 

[vantexan]

You didn’t address anything, you just suggested that homosexuality is one step above pedophiles in your eyes. Like I drew the line there. I’ve never condoned it and don’t see a similarity at all between attraction to minors and same sex attraction.

You could just argue that I’m wrong about white because it’s a social phenomenon and nothing codified into law, then argue it’s religious groups that have extra rights in this country, not just Christians. That would be a fair argument, but I think my take is more correct on a social level and factual law based level.

Being an atheist is a religious affiliation too. And atheists have gotten public displays of Christianity removed. Do atheists have special rights? Or are they exercising their constitutional right to protest? Are Christians exercising special rights or are they defending their constitutional rights to practice their religion? You're frustrated that you're not getting your way on your point of view. You have gotten your way on some issues. But it'll never be enough until you get everything the way you want it and Christianity is completely suppressed. In other words you're an authoritarian when it comes to what you want. There's no compromise, no give and take. My way or the highway. That's not America.

 

[El Correcto]

OK, let me try this new word. It is "nature," used to describe the biological reality of the situation without any potential suggestion of the involvement of a higher being, aliens, etc:

A female is one whose design nature is to produce ova, the large gamete in sexual reproduction.

A man is one whose design nature is to produce ova, the large gamete in sexual production.

Yes this is what Tommy also does.
Remember Tommy’s natural law and long winded rants about how gay sex is on par with murder?

You’re working through stages of deconstructing your faith and I appreciate this, but nature also just means your opinion on the features and functions of a woman.

 

[Box Ox]

Yes this is what Tommy also does.
Remember Tommy’s natural law and long winded rants about how gay sex is on par with murder?

You’re working through stages of deconstructing your faith and I appreciate this, but nature also just means your opinion on the features and functions of a woman.

It's simple biological reality. I showed you the female reproductive system chart and described the gametes that are generally, naturally produced by men and women. Males and females. One can't be the other. I don't know what more I can tell you.

In any case, I'll never be a Tommy. I know too many gay and lesbian folks who are good people for that.

 

[BrownFlush]

Yes this is what Tommy also does.
Remember Tommy’s natural law and long winded rants about how gay sex is on par with murder?

You’re working through stages of deconstructing your faith and I appreciate this, but nature also just means your opinion on the features and functions of a woman.

One more time...
Gay sex is not on par with murder.
You argued that one is "born gay". A natural born gay person has no choice but to be gay.
I countered with, if that is true a murderer can say he is a "born murderer". In other words, he has no choice. Thus, he would not be responsible.
But, continue on with your selective (how ever you decide how to deposit it in your brain) memory and charges that are false.
Long winded? Rants? lol. You're the king of blow. No pun intended.

 

[Box Ox]

One more time...
Gay sex is not on par with murder.
You argued that one is "born gay". A natural born gay person has no choice but to be gay.
I countered with, if that is true a murderer can say he is a "born murderer". In other words, he has no choice. Thus, he would not be responsible.
But, continue on with your selective memory and charges that are false.
Long winded? Rants? lol. You're the king of blow. No pun intended.

I didn't even realize he was talking about you. Been a while since I'd seen the Tommy thing.

 

[El Correcto]

It's simple biological reality. I showed you the female reproductive system chart and described the gametes that are generally, naturally produced by men and women. Males and females. One can't be the other. I don't know what more I can tell you.

In any case, I'll never be a Tommy. I know too many gay and lesbian folks who are good people for that.

I’m not dumb I know what you’re describing to me friend, I just don’t think it’s an accurate metric for defining someone’s being.
You’re using a purely biological metric for biologists explaining phenomena; one very strict definition to describe a phenomenon observed by one group of people studying those things.

That isn’t the scientific world view on trans people or women or what defines a woman in our society. That is just a scientific definition of a biological function. You’re being very disingenuous if you use that describe what a woman is.

 

[Box Ox]

I’m not dumb I know what you’re describing to me friend, I just don’t think it’s an accurate metric for defining someone’s being.
You’re using a purely biological metric for biologists explaining phenomena; one very strict definition to describe a phenomenon observed by one group of people studying those things.

That isn’t the scientific world view on trans people or women or what defines a woman in our society. That is just a scientific definition of a biological function. You’re being very disingenuous if you use that describe what a woman is.

It sounds like we won't be agreeing on what a woman is. That's OK.

 

[BrownFlush]

I didn't even realize he was talking about you. Been a while since I'd seen the Tommy thing.

I hear ya.
Been a long time since I told the story of my gay friend, Tommy.
I think he's hot for him.