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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Your continued lack of civility seems almost pathological
Yes you are emotional.
SOOOO emotional. Totally.
No.
Maybe, for someone who doesn't understand sociology, biology, anthropology or linguistics.
You should away. I would if I was you but thank goodness I'm not
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 nonsensicalYour 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.
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.
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.
I was civil with you for years. Any perceived lack of civility is the consequence of your actions, not mine.
You've just demonstrated for us that that isn't a rule at all.
Perhaps now it's starting to dawn on you that biology isn't the black and white thing that you want it to be.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.
Your posts are dripping with it.
Nope. No one said that. You should re-read what the poster said. He was quite clear and concise.
LOL You don't believe in social constructs? That explains a lot about your lack of understanding on the subject matter.
Oh I can. If you remember you're the one running away.
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.
Oh yeah, totally a rule. A rule that you've already admitted doesn't accurately apply and doesn't work.
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.
No, it isn't. You have already acknowledged that.
There are women who don't produce eggs, and there are men who don't produce sperm.
Gender is a social construct. I already explained that.
Not sure what race you're watching, champ.
Nope. Post #124 is you running away.
You're just repeating yourself again.
No one said that. What we said is that gender is a social construct. And it is.
What don't you get? Youre a woman that doesn't produce eggs. You aren't a different gender or a different species. Understand?You're just repeating yourself again.
According to your rule, I'm not a woman. And yet, I am a woman.
No one said that. What we said is that gender is a social construct. And it is.
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?
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.