Humans are of 2 genders: male and female
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
One of the "hot topics" of our day in pretty much only so-called Western (!) culture concerns genderism, and in particular the claim that humans can be of rather many different genders and even be "transgender".
The Biblical truth concerning the matter seems rather plain and very clear to me, given in Gen 1:27
Gen 1:27 (AV)
So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
There are two genders mentioned with which God created humanity => (1) male, (2) female. Plain and clear.
Comments
-
Amen
-
Now, since it is evident from Scripture as well as observation from the natural setup of mankind that there are only 2 genders - male and female - found among humans, then the question is what is the current propaganda and talk of transgender or divers gender etc. about?
Since there are naturally no transgender humans, what is the case with people claiming to be transgender or claiming a different gender from their otherwise obvious natural gender?
-
Wolgang said:
Since there are naturally no transgender humans, what is the case with people claiming to be transgender or claiming a different gender from their otherwise obvious natural gender?
Wolfgang, does the same thing apply to RACE? Did God make all humanity? How many races are there? Claiming to be a different race is the same as declaring "transgender"? Are the two, race and "transgenderism," a matter of self-identity? Please explain!
No, this is not being racist. Is self-identification a sin or against God's will? CM
PS. Don't get lost in the weeds. Address the matter from a rational point of view. Is there a linking or connection between the two issues?
-
They are in open defiance of God.
-
One race, many people groups.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Now, since it is evident from Scripture as well as observation from the natural setup of mankind that there are only 2 genders - male and female - found among humans, then the question is what is the current propaganda and talk of transgender or divers gender etc. about?
Since there are naturally no transgender humans, what is the case with people claiming to be transgender or claiming a different gender from their otherwise obvious natural gender?
If you accept that humanity today knows more about... just about everything... than humanity knew when Bible writers wrote, it's not hard to understand the "current propaganda" about gender awareness as part of the natural progression of knowledge and understanding. For example, Genesis 1.16 suggests the moon is a light source, what the verse calls "the smaller one" God created to "[govern] the night." Of course the moon is not a light source except as the sun's light reflects off its surface. Humanity didn't figure that out until the middle of the fifth century B.C.E., 150 or so years after the Genesis 1 creation story came into final form, so we shouldn't expect the Genesis story to reflect that knowledge. Similarly, it seems to me, we shouldn't expect Bible writers to know what we know about gender or sexual orientation.
You're welcome to claim "there are naturally no transgender humans," of course, but I recommend that over time you not expect the body of humanity's understanding of gender and sexuality to concur.
Since there are naturally no transgender humans, what is the case with people claiming to be transgender or claiming a different gender from their otherwise obvious natural gender?
You're posting this question to a group of people who, I presume, have no personal witness to offer about gender issues. Some of us might know people who have experienced such issues first hand, but I doubt any of us can testify based on our own journeys. Perhaps a better option, therefore, is to seek out the writings and other witness from people who can respond to your question from personal knowledge. I don't know what it's like to struggle with gender issues; but there are people who do. I recommend you seek out their stories.
-
Question One: How are human babies created?
Answer: A present there needs to be the present of:
(1) a female human (or an individual with anatomy that is commonly labled as female)
(2) a male human (or an individual with the anatomy commonly thought of as male) to give directly to, or to somehow donate sperm to the female mentioned in point one.
As far as I am aware there is no other human gender outside of the two mentioned above that are together or alone capable of producing offspring.
Science and human knowledge has indeed increased and has been refined time and time again but never the less in-spite of such great progress the two factors or anatomical genders need for the production of human offspring has not changed but has remained constance throughout the ages.
Question two: Can two transgender individuals acting as a couple procreate?
Answers: Yes, if one of the transgenders individual's possess male anatomy and if the other posses female anatomy.
If, the two transgender individuals have male anatomy they can adopt a baby/child, but not together produce offspring. If the two transgenders individuals both have female anatomy they have the choice of adopting or of going to sperm bank or donor but again the two transgendered individuals with female anatomy can not produce a child of and in themselves.
For me the above is in prefectly inline with what is stated in the Bible that God created humankind male and female and that he later told them to be fruitful, multiply, in order to populate the earth.The combination of those two geneders are still the necessary ingredients for the reproduction of the human offspring.
Grace and Peace
-
@Bill_Coley said:
You're posting this question to a group of people who, I presume, have no personal witness to offer about gender issues".
Balderdash! Bill, on what grounds do you speak such? What indicators caused you to draw such conclusions? Is this because all the current users of CD are males? All the current male users professed to be Christians? Is it all current male users of CD professed to be Christians and believed in the Bible? Is it all current male users of CD professed to be Christians and believed in the Bible and past posts? Is it one, all, or none of the statements above you used to draw your conclusions?
How do you know if some of the users are not in the closet or struggling in silence? What makes you so sure, none of the current users of CD are not struggling with "gender issues"? Why do you "doubt any of us can testify based on our journeys" about "gender issues"?
I know they're the same basic questions in different ways. Must gender issues advertise, declared, or flaunted? Has "Transgender issues" been defined in this thread? Again, are "Transgender issues":
- Identity?
- Lifestyle?
- An affiliation?
- A declaration?
- A Commitment?
- Dress?
- Anatomy Surgical changes?
- A denial of birth origination?
- Is it a mindset?
What questions should the Christians be asking about transgenderism? Perhaps, can or should the church accommodate "Transgender people? CM
Consider these sources for enlightenment:
- Piazza, Michael. Holy Homosexuals: The Truth about Being Gay or Lesbian and Christian. Dallas: Sources of Hope Publishing, 1997.
- Rudy, K. Sex and the Church: Gender, Homosexuality and the Transformation of Christian Ethics. Boston: Beacon Press, 1997.
- Troiden, Richard. “Self, Self-Concept, Identity, and Homosexual Identity: Constructs in Need of Definition and Differentiation.” Journal of Homosexuality 10:3-4 (1984): 97-109.
-
@C_M_ posted
Wolfgang, does the same thing apply to RACE?
No
-
@Mitchell posted
Question two: Can two transgender individuals acting as a couple procreate?
Answers: Yes, if one of the transgenders individual's possess male anatomy and if the other posses female anatomy.
I do not see how or why such individuals would be transgender ... the simple truth is: One is a male, the other is a female.
Biblically asking, What is a "transgender" human individual? Biblically answering, There is no such human individual, for there are only male or female human individuals.
In today's (mainly Western) societies some human individuals claim to be "more or other" than real male or real female, and these minuscle minorities who claim such have mass media support to convince the majority of absolute nonsense, and against their better knowledge and proof visible to each person by taking a look at their body to see which gender specifics they have.
-
@Bill_Coley posted
If you accept that humanity today knows more about... just about everything... than humanity knew when Bible writers wrote, it's not hard to understand the "current propaganda" about gender awareness as part of the natural progression of knowledge and understanding.
I accept that concerning certain aspects of knowledge, and I accept that science in numerous respects has been dead wrong on quite many things and has falsely claimed things to be correct which then were changed and "re-corrected", etc ...
In particular, to many rather basic and simple facts and truths humanity does NOT necessarily know more or more accurately, but perhaps knows more false ideas an ideologies falsely proclaimed as scientific facts which in reality do not have anything to do with true knowledge and understanding.
For example, Genesis 1.16 suggests the moon is a light source, what the verse calls "the smaller one" God created to "[govern] the night." Of course the moon is not a light source except as the sun's light reflects off its surface.
Hmn ... does Gen 1:16 say what you so nonchalantly claim it says?
Gen 1,16 (AV)
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
Where is there a mention of "light source" in the modern day physics sense of the word "light source"? I read NOTHING about light source in that verse of scripture.
In addition, the moon is most definitely a source of light in the night ... just go outside and observe the difference between when clouds cover the moon and when clouds do not cover the moon ... what provides and thus is the source of light during night time is the moon (and it is totally irrelevant how the light provided by the moon to the earth is initially produced.
The mention of this supposed "example" shows more how incorrectly much of humanity seems to read the Scriptures.
Humanity didn't figure that out until the middle of the fifth century B.C.E., 150 or so years after the Genesis 1 creation story came into final form, so we shouldn't expect the Genesis story to reflect that knowledge.
The Gen record has NOTHING to do with that knowledge of how the moon's light that is lighting the night is initially produced and makes its way to the earth.
Similarly, it seems to me, we shouldn't expect Bible writers to know what we know about gender or sexual orientation.
The truth is, the Bible does NOT AT ALL talk about gender or sexual orientation in the sense of the ideology by which it is fed to people today. The Bible is clear that gender is a biological matter and "defined" essentially at conception and from the time in which the embryo grows as either male or female. The Bible knows very well the rather simple and plain truth => Humans are either male or they are female.
-
Comments from @Mitchell and @Wolfgang to which I offer the same basic response:
@Mitchell posted:
Question One: How are human babies created?
As far as I am aware there is no other human gender outside of the two mentioned above that are together or alone capable of producing offspring.
Science and human knowledge has indeed increased and has been refined time and time again but never the less in-spite of such great progress the two factors or anatomical genders need for the production of human offspring has not changed but has remained constance throughout the ages.
For me the above is in prefectly inline with what is stated in the Bible that God created humankind male and female and that he later told them to be fruitful, multiply, in order to populate the earth.The combination of those two geneders are still the necessary ingredients for the reproduction of the human offspring.
@Wolfgang posted:
I do not see how or why such individuals would be transgender ... the simple truth is: One is a male, the other is a female.
Biblically asking, What is a "transgender" human individual? Biblically answering, There is no such human individual, for there are only male or female human individuals.
In today's (mainly Western) societies some human individuals claim to be "more or other" than real male or real female, and these minuscle minorities who claim such have mass media support to convince the majority of absolute nonsense, and against their better knowledge and proof visible to each person by taking a look at their body to see which gender specifics they have.
In modern usage - and this is part of what in my previous post I called "the natural progression of knowledge and understanding" regarding "gender awareness" - the sexual and biological components of procreation are NOT gender-related issues. They are important and necessary, but they're not about gender; they're about sex. As for procreation, male and female components are biologically necessary. But gender is not about biology as much as it is about identity.
For what I consider to be a very helpful summary of the modern meaning of gender, and how it differs from sexuality and sexual orientation, see THIS ARTICLE.
An Oxford-powered online dictionary defines gender this way: "Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Another online dictionary defines the word this way: "Gender is the state of being male or female in relation to the social and cultural roles that are considered appropriate for men and women.... You can use gender to refer to one of a range of identities that includes female, male, a combination of both, and neither."
You are welcome, of course, to dispute the modern meaning of "gender," but as a matter of fact, gender today IS regarded as being about identity more than biology.
God's "be fruitful and multiply" commands to fish, birds, sea creatures, and humankind (all Genesis 1), then Noah and family after the flood (Genesis 9), and Jacob/Israel (Genesis 35) are not commands to each recipient's gender identity, but to their sexual procreativity, which is a different, albeit critically important, issue.
@Wolfgang posted:
I do not see how or why such individuals would be transgender ... the simple truth is: One is a male, the other is a female.
I doubt that it's a simple truth, but it IS the truth that gender is not about biology nearly as much as it is about identity, which in my view explains how people can be transgender. Male and female, at least in the way I think you use the terms, are about sex, not gender.
Biblically asking, What is a "transgender" human individual? Biblically answering, There is no such human individual, for there are only male or female human individuals.
I agree that Scripture is silent as to issues of gender.
In today's (mainly Western) societies some human individuals claim to be "more or other" than real male or real female, and these minuscle minorities who claim such have mass media support to convince the majority of absolute nonsense, and against their better knowledge and proof visible to each person by taking a look at their body to see which gender specifics they have.
I'm confident you will dispute the claim, but gender is NOT first about biological organs or function; it's about identity. Hence, a body part census is not a primary source of gender information.
-
@Wolfgang posted: I do not see how or why such individuals would be transgender ... the simple truth is: One is a male, the other is a female.
Exactly Wolfgang that is the irony I was attempting to point out. From what I have read so far even outwardly biologically hermaphroditic intersex individuals can not reproduce asexually or without a partner. Here is an interesting thread about this on Quora: link
-
@Wolfgang posted:
I accept that concerning certain aspects of knowledge, and I accept that science in numerous respects has been dead wrong on quite many things and has falsely claimed things to be correct which then were changed and "re-corrected", etc ...
Here you basically describe the scientific method. Advances in technology and methodology produce ever-more accurate explanations of the way things operate. There was a time when humanity believed the earth was at the center of the universe and the sun orbited the earth. Those understandings were "false" in the sense of being incorrect, but they weren't false in any malicious or nefarious sense. Humanity REALLY believed those to be true... until we learned they weren't. Fortunately, at the heart of humanity's pursuit of science is an enthusiasm to improve upon present understandings, even if that means discarding them. I can't imagine that we'd want science to respond to new learnings in any other way.
In particular, to many rather basic and simple facts and truths humanity does NOT necessarily know more or more accurately, but perhaps knows more false ideas an ideologies falsely proclaimed as scientific facts which in reality do not have anything to do with true knowledge and understanding.
I don't know what you're talking about here. Please give me a specific example of something you claim to have been an "(ideology)" that had nothing to do with "true knowledge and understanding" that was "falsely proclaimed as scientific facts."
Hmn ... does Gen 1:16 say what you so nonchalantly claim it says?
Thanks for pointing out the nonchalance of my claim. I hadn't even noticed it.
Where is there a mention of "light source" in the modern day physics sense of the word "light source"? I read NOTHING about light source in that verse of scripture.
As I read the verse, Genesis 1.16 reports God's creation of two "great lights," citizens in the array of what Genesis 1.15 calls "lights in the sky [that] shine down on the earth," whose purpose Genesis 1.14 says is to "separate the day from the night." In my view, the only "lights" those verses reference are the sun, other stars visible in the night sky, and the moon. Of those three list items, one is not like the other two - the moon is not like the sun or the other stars because the moon is not the origin of the light we see from it. I don't consider a body whose ONLY light is that which it reflects from another source to be a "great light." Yes, it is a light! But it is not a great light.
Consider a mirror. When we shine a light on a mirror, the mirror becomes a great light source. But in the absence of light for it to reflect, a mirror offers no light of its own. That is, the mirror is totally dependent on other sources for its light. So is the moon. That's NOT the case with the sun and the stars, however. Why? Because the sun and the stars are origins of light, not reflectors of light. I think the author of the Genesis text has in mind light origins, not light reflectors, when he refers to "great lights," which is why I think he depicts the moon as a light source/origin in Genesis 1. He's wrong about that! But in my view that IS what he means.
In addition, the moon is most definitely a source of light in the night ... just go outside and observe the difference between when clouds cover the moon and when clouds do not cover the moon ... what provides and thus is the source of light during night time is the moon (and it is totally irrelevant how the light provided by the moon to the earth is initially produced.
In science, a "light source" is a point of origination for the photons emanating from it. The sun, therefore is a light source because the photons from its surface that reach us originated in the sun. The moon, conversely is NOT a light source because the photons we receive from its surface in effect originated in the sun (scientifically, the photons that reach us from the moon are not the same photons that reached the moon from the sun, but that doesn't change the fact that the light we see from the moon did not originate on the moon). Yes, the moon is a source of light, but not in the scientific sense of the term.
The mention of this supposed "example" shows more how incorrectly much of humanity seems to read the Scriptures....
The Gen record has NOTHING to do with that knowledge of how the moon's light that is lighting the night is initially produced and makes its way to the earth.
For the reasons stated above, I disagree.
The truth is, the Bible does NOT AT ALL talk about gender or sexual orientation in the sense of the ideology by which it is fed to people today. The Bible is clear that gender is a biological matter and "defined" essentially at conception and from the time in which the embryo grows as either male or female. The Bible knows very well the rather simple and plain truth => Humans are either male or they are female.
As I demonstrated in a previous post in this thread, gender is first and foremost about identity, not biology. As I read the Bible, I think it's silent on matters of gender.
-
In case the point is germane, and consistent with my previous response to you and Wolfgang, "hermaphroditic" and "intersex" refer to biological and sexual function, NOT to gender. Gender today is widely understood to be much more about identity than biology.
[FWIW, as I read the literature, "hermaphrodite" is NOT a synonym for "intersex," and is generally used to refer to the biology and sexual function of plants and animals, not humans. "Intersex" is today considered the appropriate term to refer to humans."]
-
Which, of course is utter nonsense. Liberal trash.
-
@reformed posted:
Which, of course is utter nonsense. Liberal trash.
Just when I thought your responses to posts with which you disagree couldn't get any more thoughtful and instructive, you launch a "liberal trash" meme at me, and as the immediate successor to what I think might have been the debut of a new variation on your oft-employed "nonsense" critique. As a result, any angst I felt over the possibility that you might actually engage these issues in a meaningful, substantive way has subsided. I should not have doubted you.
-
Bill_Coley posted: In case the point is germane, and consistent with my previous response to you and Wolfgang, "hermaphroditic" and "intersex" refer to biological and sexual function, NOT to gender. Gender today is widely understood to be much more about identity than biology.
Bill I respect that in a growing number of places in the western world this may indeed be the case. However, where I live (Japan) male or female identity seems to still seems to be very much connected with whether one is biologically a male or a female. For example here when one needs to decide as to which restroom to go to one must still be careful to choose the restroom to connected with his or her biological identity or risk being arrested. Some trains have cars that are restricted to biological females if a biological male who identifies as a female were to gets on such a car he would be escorted off the train and if he were to continue I do not doubt that he would not be arrested. There are also of course high school school for males only and female only and jobs that specify a particular gender. I could go on and one but I seem very little sign that indentity is widely understood to be much more where I currently live at least not when it comes to the law.
Grace and Peace
-
@Bill_Coley posted
Gender today is widely understood to be much more about identity than biology.
So then, Bill, my gender is "elephant" because I do IDENTIFY with elephant and begin behaving that way??? Or would one call my gender perhaps "insane" or "psychologically ill" if I identified as elephant ??? Notice: In such case, my gender would have nothing to do with biological sex ...
I would say that what you describe as "identity" as defining gender is in reality "insanity" and "mental illness" ... but interestingly it is aimed at and designed to do away with the actual biological sex and turn it into a different one (a male claiming to be and "identifying" as a female, etc.
In other plain words: The whole modern day supposedly ah so developed aspect of knowledge of humanity regarding {what? biological sex? psychological feelings? misguided mental perception? or something else?} "identity" is rather ignorant and developed in the wrong direction?
-
@Mitchell posted
Bill I respect that in a growing number of places in the western world this may indeed be the case. However, where I live (Japan) male or female identity seems to still seems to be very much connected with whether one is biologically a male or a female.
Indeed, as I have mentioned previously as well, this "genderism" ideology (!!!) is still only widespread and more or less accepted as "true" in the so-called "Western culture world". But then, of course, the Western ideologists have sunk so low in their morals and ideas inflicted on society that simple truths found in nature are being buried under a heap of "ideological junk" (not only in regards to "genderism", but also other issues as well). Interestingly, once these supposed developed ideologies often sold as "more freedoms" have been established by powerful minorities, the large majority then is more or less forced into accepting these sick ideas as being "the healthy norm".
As you mention in your example of life in Japan, there are still societies in which such unnatural and mentally and morally unhealthy ideas are not accepted by the society at large. Living in a "Western world" country like Germany, one is almost regarded to be an evil fascist who is not in his right mind if you claim that a male is a male and a female is a female ... why? because you don't consider some male who identifies as female as being "normal"
-
some added thoughts ....
@Bill_Coley posted:
I agree that Scripture is silent as to issues of gender.
I would contend that Scripture is not silent on issues of gender. Biblically speaking, male and female are the Biblical terms which describe what gender humans of either of the two biological sexes. Since there are no more than the two biological sexes, there are no more than two gender identities.
I'm confident you will dispute the claim, but gender is NOT first about biological organs or function; it's about identity. Hence, a body part census is not a primary source of gender information.
Of course it is ...because "gender" (even the modern day definition of the term) is about the type of identity related to biological sex and biological organs. Why else do so-called "transgender" folks (formerly more accurately perhaps called "transsexuals") try and do away with (penis removal) or try to get some sex organs (boobs) if "gender" identity is not about the biological organs and gender determined and defined thereby?
-
Brethren,
Below are the voices of others on the subject matter, beyond the limited number of posters in these forums. These references may support your position or broaden your understanding of your opponents. All are to read wider and be enlightened. No, this is not an effort to "carry the Devil's water". None of us know it all, let's remain teachable. You may take a hard position, but a hard position doesn't constitute complete knowledge. CM
Besides, Bill said:
Perhaps a better option, therefore, is to seek out the writings and other witness from people who can respond to your question from personal knowledge. I don't know what it's like to struggle with gender issues..."
- John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980), 119-300.
- Rudy, K. Sex and the Church: Gender, Homosexuality and the Transformation of Christian Ethics. Boston: Beacon Press, 1997.
- England, Michael. The Bible and Homosexuality. Gaithersburg: Chi Ro, 1998.
- Piazza, M. Holy Homosexuals: The Truth about Being Gay or Lesbian and Christian. Dallas: Source of Hope Publishing House, 1995.
- Maduro, Otto. Religion and Social Conflicts. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1982.
- Throckmorton, Charles. “Redeeming the Bible for Sexual Minorities: A Modern Hermeneutic for Allegorical Exegesis.” In Journal of the Society for the Study of Metaphysical Religion, 6:1, Spring 2000: 49-53.
- Cornille, C. “Canon Formation in New Religious Moments the Case of the Japanese New Religions.” In Canon and Decanonization, A. Van Der Kooij and K. Van Der Toorn, eds. New York: Brill, 1998.
- Ellwood, Robert. Many Peoples, Many Faiths. New York, Prentice Hall, 1999.
- Hartman, Keith. Congregations in Conflict: The Battle Over Homosexuality. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1996.
Disclaimer:
The sources cited above are not an endorsement of CM or representative positions of CD (Christian Debate). They are expand one's understanding of transgenderism, to provide ministry and outreach to this people group. CM
-
Hmn ... does homosexuality or lesbianism have something to do with transgender, multigender, etc? Seems to me that homosexuals or lesbians are rather pretty plainly of either male or female gender (and biological sex as well)
-
I'm not calling you liberal trash, I am calling that line of logic liberal trash.
-
It all has to do with defiance against God and His natural order. Period. Romans 1
-
@reformed posted:
I'm not calling you liberal trash, I am calling that line of logic liberal trash.
I'm very aware and grateful (not to mention a bit surprised) that your "liberal trash" critique was about the argument I made, not me. If you revisit my response, I'm confident you will not note that your "liberal trash" critique calmed my fear that you might "actually engage these issues in a meaningful, substantive way."
-
@Bill_Coley posted
Gender today is widely understood to be much more about identity than biology.
While out on a walk with my dog, I was thinking a bit more about the above statement, in particular about the term "identity".
What establishes an identity? what defines an identity? It seems to me that in regards to gender identity, the biological male or female characteristics are what proves and establishes the gender identity. I can rightfully identify as or claim an identity of MALE because there is evidence which establishes and proves this male gender identity ... taking my clothes off and looking in the mirror leaves no room for doubt.
What if I identified as FEMALE ... how would I go about doing that? If I claimed to be of female gender identity, what evidence would I have to support my claim (as it really is no more than a claim) and not actually prove myself to be not in my right mind, that is to be insane? Wouldn't someone supporting my in my false ideas and insanity also qualify as being "far out in left field mentally"? I would think that any medical personnel supporting a person in such insanity (even to the point of conducting mutilation of the person's body with "sex adjusting surgeries") should be removed from their profession ...
-
@Mitchell posted:
Bill I respect that in a growing number of places in the western world this may indeed be the case. However, where I live (Japan) male or female identity seems to still seems to be very much connected with whether one is biologically a male or a female. For example here when one needs to decide as to which restroom to go to one must still be careful to choose the restroom to connected with his or her biological identity or risk being arrested. Some trains have cars that are restricted to biological females if a biological male who identifies as a female were to gets on such a car he would be escorted off the train and if he were to continue I do not doubt that he would not be arrested. There are also of course high school school for males only and female only and jobs that specify a particular gender. I could go on and one but I seem very little sign that indentity is widely understood to be much more where I currently live at least not when it comes to the law.
I know basically nothing about the intersection of law, culture, and gender issues in countries other than my own, so your observations here inform me. In the U.S., and in the science of gender issues as I understand it, there is a slow motion revolution of thought and awareness underway, so our respective cultural backdrops are quite different.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
So then, Bill, my gender is "elephant" because I do IDENTIFY with elephant and begin behaving that way??? Or would one call my gender perhaps "insane" or "psychologically ill" if I identified as elephant ??? Notice: In such case, my gender would have nothing to do with biological sex ...
I would say that what you describe as "identity" as defining gender is in reality "insanity" and "mental illness" ... but interestingly it is aimed at and designed to do away with the actual biological sex and turn it into a different one (a male claiming to be and "identifying" as a female, etc.
In other plain words: The whole modern day supposedly ah so developed aspect of knowledge of humanity regarding {what? biological sex? psychological feelings? misguided mental perception? or something else?} "identity" is rather ignorant and developed in the wrong direction?
As always, you are welcome and entitled to your beliefs, Wolfgang, but in my view, this response and the others you have offered in response to my previous post display a significant lack of understanding (as well as disrespect for) of what "gender identity" means, and how it differs from sex or sexual orientation. In an earlier post, I offered a link to what I think is a helpful summary of those issues. I am in no position to improve upon the information that article provided, so other than the following comments on specific matters you raise, I think it's best to allow that work to speak for itself.
my gender is "elephant" because I do IDENTIFY with elephant and begin behaving that way??? Or would one call my gender perhaps "insane" or "psychologically ill" if I identified as elephant ???
No. In the context of our current exchange, gender is species-specific. It's about male and female identification among human beings, not elephants, and about male-female identification, not mental health classification.
I would contend that Scripture is not silent on issues of gender. Biblically speaking, male and female are the Biblical terms which describe what gender humans of either of the two biological sexes. Since there are no more than the two biological sexes, there are no more than two gender identities.
I agree that the Bible references two biological sexes, but by definition biological sex is different from gender identification. You're welcome to disagree with the definitions of those terms, but your disagreement will not change them.
Of course it is ...because "gender" (even the modern day definition of the term) is about the type of identity related to biological sex and biological organs. Why else do so-called "transgender" folks (formerly more accurately perhaps called "transsexuals") try and do away with (penis removal) or try to get some sex organs (boobs) if "gender" identity is not about the biological organs and gender determined and defined thereby?
FACT CHECK: "Transgender" is NOT "more accurately perhaps called 'transsexual'." Transsexual means the person has undergone medical/surgical treatment to align their gender assignment with their gender identity. " Not every transgender person seeks such medical treatment, and those who do not are NOT "transsexual."
does homosexuality or lesbianism have something to do with transgender, multigender, etc? Seems to me that homosexuals or lesbians are rather pretty plainly of either male or female gender (and biological sex as well)
No. Hetero- and homosexuality concern sexual orientation, not gender identity. (see the article to which I previously linked)
-
Here is the absurdity of the gender argument.
I feel like I am actually a woman therefore I am.
So, by the same logic, I can say, I feel like a MLB Center Fielder therefore I am one and should be treated as such.
