• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

NHS England Prohibits Access to Puberty Blockers at Gender-Identity Clinics, Limits Them to Research Settings

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
That's very interesting, professor. I have never in my life ever considered the possibility that categories exist and are a thing.

Of course, it has literally no impact or relevance whatsoever on anything I wrote. But it sure is interesting.
Your continued lack of civility seems almost pathological :(

Anyway, YOU are the one banging on about how a rule isn't a rule if there are exceptions, and several of us disagree. In this case we are talking about a categorization, that of biological sex. So zooming out and talking about the nature of categories is completely relevant.
 

Ignatius A

Well-Known Member
Sounds like an emotional argument to me.


Except some don't, and you still call them women. So this is false.


Except some don't, and you still call them men. So this is false.


Yes it does. That's literally what a rule means.

"It is a rule that all swans are white."
"What about black swans. Are they not swans?"
"No, obviously, they are still swans."
"But they're not white."
"They're still swans, though."
"So then the rule 'all swans are white' is false?"
"No, all swans are white. That's the rule."
"But what about the exceptions?"
"They're exceptions."
"So not all swans are white?"
"Correct. Not all swans are white, obviously."
"So... What's the rule for deciding whether or not something is a swan?"
"The rule is all swans are white."

This is the level you are currently functioning on. It's baffling.


Since gender is a social construct, yes you can.
Yes you are emotional.

So a human being born with one arm means human beings do not have 2 arms right?

A "social construct"? Lol I love that silliness. It's almost as silly as "gender assignment". All word play none of which is rooted any logical reasoning.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Yes you are emotional.
SOOOO emotional. Totally.

So a human being born with one arm means human beings do not have 2 arms right?
No.

You really don't understand the argument I'm making, do you? Do I need to dumb it down even more? Because I feel I've explained my position is a way a toddler could understand it.

A "social construct"? Lol I love that silliness. It's almost as silly as "gender assignment". All word play none of which is rooted any logical reasoning.
Maybe, for someone who doesn't understand sociology, biology, anthropology or linguistics.

Is it really wroth debating you? I'm asking honestly. Are you willing and open to changing your mind about anything? Or do you seriously believe you literally know everything that there is to know, and you have nothing more to learn or understand?
 

Ignatius A

Well-Known Member
SOOOO emotional. Totally.


No.

You really don't understand the argument I'm making, do you? Do I need to dumb it down even more? Because I feel I've explained my position is a way a toddler could understand it.


Maybe, for someone who doesn't understand sociology, biology, anthropology or linguistics.

Is it really wroth debating you? I'm asking honestly. Are you willing and open to changing your mind about anything?
You should away. I would if I was you but thank goodness I'm not
 

Ignatius A

Well-Known Member
Your continued lack of civility seems almost pathological :(

Anyway, YOU are the one banging on about how a rule isn't a rule if there are exceptions, and several of us disagree. In this case we are talking about a categorization, that of biological sex. So zooming out and talking about the nature of categories is completely relevant.
That poster seems to think because there are oddities within the categories that means the rules which distinguish the categories dont exist. It's really nonsensical
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
That poster seems to think because there are oddities within the categories that means the rules which distinguish the categories dont exist.
Not a big fan of reading, are you? Since I've never said or implied that. My argument has clearly always been just that the rule that YOU are using obviously isn't actually a rule.

"The rule is that all British people wear bowler hats."
"So, there are no British people who don't wear bowler hats?"
"No, obviously there are British people who don't wear bowler hats. But the rule is that they all do."
"That seems weird. Why not just acknowledge that it's not a rule, since there are exceptions?"
"OH! SO YOU'RE SAYING RULES DON'T EXIST AND WE CAN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CATEGORIES?! LOL! WHAT NONSENSE! LOL!"

Do better.

It's really nonsensical
Whereas your position, that it is a "rule" that women produce ova, except you also acknowledge that there are people who DON'T produce ova and this doesn't mean that they AREN'T women, makes perfect sense.

Hit me up when you want to actually debate. Not just endlessly repeat the same nonsensical statement over and over again, even when I have illustrated to you - in a way even a child could understand - why it makes no sense.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
The rule for distinguishing between men and women is one produces sperm the other eggs. Period. If the rule doesn't apply in a specific case that doesnt negate the rule it indicates something is different. It does t make that person's different gender.
You've just demonstrated for us that that isn't a rule at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Your continued lack of civility seems almost pathological :(

Anyway, YOU are the one banging on about how a rule isn't a rule if there are exceptions, and several of us disagree. In this case we are talking about a categorization, that of biological sex. So zooming out and talking about the nature of categories is completely relevant.
Perhaps now it's starting to dawn on you that biology isn't the black and white thing that you want it to be.
That, in fact, it's actually much messier than that, and doesn't often fit into neat little categories. :shrug:
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Yes you are emotional.
Your posts are dripping with it.
So a human being born with one arm means human beings do not have 2 arms right?
Nope. No one said that. You should re-read what the poster said. He was quite clear and concise.
A "social construct"? Lol I love that silliness. It's almost as silly as "gender assignment". All word play none of which is rooted any logical reasoning.
LOL You don't believe in social constructs? That explains a lot about your lack of understanding on the subject matter.
 

Ignatius A

Well-Known Member
Not a big fan of reading, are you? Since I've never said or implied that. My argument has clearly always been just that the rule that YOU are using obviously isn't actually a rule.

"The rule is that all British people wear bowler hats."
"So, there are no British people who don't wear bowler hats?"
"No, obviously there are British people who don't wear bowler hats. But the rule is that they all do."
"That seems weird. Why not just acknowledge that it's not a rule, since there are exceptions?"
"OH! SO YOU'RE SAYING RULES DON'T EXIST AND WE CAN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CATEGORIES?! LOL! WHAT NONSENSE! LOL!"

Do better.


Whereas your position, that it is a "rule" that women produce ova, except you also acknowledge that there are people who DON'T produce ova and this doesn't mean that they AREN'T women, makes perfect sense.

Hit me up when you want to actually debate. Not just endlessly repeat the same nonsensical statement over and over again, even when I have illustrated to you - in a way even a child could understand - why it makes no sense.
Ohh course its a rule. Men produce sperm and women produce eggs. That is the rule for determining who is male/man or female/woman. The rule doest apply tondo e people that's why they are called intersex. They arent a different gender or a different species.

Beyond that this trans nonsense has no basis is biology as people think gende is a "feeling". Nonsensical
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Ohh course its a rule.
Oh yeah, totally a rule. A rule that you've already admitted doesn't accurately apply and doesn't work.

Men produce sperm and women produce eggs.
You keep repeating this as if you haven't already acknowledged that this isn't accurate, since you've admitted that there are men who don't produce sperm and women who don't produce eggs.

That is the rule for determining who is male/man or female/woman.
No, it isn't. You have already acknowledged that.

The rule doest apply tondo e people that's why they are called intersex. They arent a different gender or a different species.
There are women who don't produce eggs, and there are men who don't produce sperm.

My ex-partner has had a hysterectomy. Is she not a woman?

Beyond that this trans nonsense has no basis is biology as people think gende is a "feeling". Nonsensical
Gender is a social construct. I already explained that.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Ohh course its a rule. Men produce sperm and women produce eggs. That is the rule for determining who is male/man or female/woman. The rule doest apply tondo e people that's why they are called intersex. They arent a different gender or a different species.
You're just repeating yourself again.

According to your rule, I'm not a woman. And yet, I am a woman.
Beyond that this trans nonsense has no basis is biology as people think gende is a "feeling". Nonsensical
No one said that. What we said is that gender is a social construct. And it is.

 

Ignatius A

Well-Known Member
That's not possible, according to your rule. Remember, your rule is "women produce eggs". So, if they don't produce eggs, they aren't a woman, correct?

Or do you want to just admit your rule isn't actually a rule?
No it is the rule. It is the nature of women to produce eggs. If you don't produce eggs you're an anomaly you are NOT a different gender or species.
 
Last edited:
Top