• 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!

What is the definition of a "Woman"?

F1fan

Veteran Member
Biologically? No. What is going on inside of your head has nothing to do with your biology.
Except that some mental disorders are chemical imbalances, and that is biological. How the brain functions can be affected by low blood glucose and other deficiencies, so there are many biological elements to our mental state. Even many personality traits are natural expressions of the individual brain. And as far as my limited understanding goes, how a person sees themselves as gay or trans is unknown to science, but data suggests it isn't learned, that there is something about the brain that does make a person as they are.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
The new supreme court nomination of Biden Ketanji Brown Jackson can not answer this question.

My opinion:

Some fear that men will cross dress or be transgender. They might have the right to use women's restrooms and locker rooms or compete as women in sports. They worry that little girls might be raped by these men who have access to their restrooms. Some men feel that they are women (they are free to choose their own sexual orientation). This makes the definition of "women" difficult.

President Clinton said that in the military, don't ask, don't tell.

President Trump said that the military has a difficult job to do, and should not be burdened with men hitting on men, or special facilities for Gay men, or allowing Gay men to ogle straight men.

Many government agencies refuse to hire Gay people, fearing that they might buckle in to extortion and give away government secrets to keep from being outted as Gays. Even private companies that use government security clearances, can refuse to hire Gay people.

The Religious Right claims that Gay marriage would "somehow" wreck their straight marriages. They claim that it would make their marriages invalid if anyone could marry. But marriage also imparts legal rights (child custody, inheritance, social security of spouse, government aid, etc).

Though the Christian bible is against people being Gay, only God is the judge. Christians shouldn't be judgemental. Jesus said (Sermon on the Mount): "Judge not lest ye be judged."

Christians are supposed to be tolerant and nice, and should not harm or restrict Gays.

What people do in the privacy of their own homes is there business.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
Except that some mental disorders are chemical imbalances, and that is biological. How the brain functions can be affected by low blood glucose and other deficiencies, so there are many biological elements to our mental state. Even many personality traits are natural expressions of the individual brain. And as far as my limited understanding goes, how a person sees themselves as gay or trans is unknown to science, but data suggests it isn't learned, that there is something about the brain that does make a person as they are.

I think that there are many ways in which people can be Gay. Some have different hormones. Some have different chromosomes. Some just choose to be Gay.

Some members of the Religious Right say that being Gay is a choice, and they can easily switch. If this is true, then a heterosexual man could easily choose to be Gay. I don't know of any heterosexual men who believe this. However, high pitched Reverend Jerry Falwell believed it.

Is it right to force someone to go against their nature?

What would happen if Gays took over a city or county (or even state), and made laws prohibiting straight marriages? Would that be fair to the straight people?

Perhaps there should be civil laws and civil marriages that respect Gays, and people could still be free to practice any religion that they choose?

Religious freedom should not be freedom to take religious freedom from others.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
There s a blurred line between man and woman. I know a couple of "very" female men, a woman who was a man, and an androgynous person who does not like to be identified as either.

That's just to my personal knowledge so yes know in a general sense but it us impossible to be precise.

People should be free to define themselves.

People should be able to choose their own religion (according to the First Amendment)....that is the American way.

One religion shouldn't impose their values on other religions in America.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Why should a judge bother with biology and psychology? Isn’t it their job to focus on the law? Did the law bother to define gender? Is their definition valid?
You raise some good points, and this is a conservative problem that they use for political purposes. As we see with the threat to women's rights we see more pressure from the right on what makes a woman. I suspect part of this is the obsolete tradition of women being property of men and must adhere to whatever definition men say. And with an African American woman, well, some conservative senators seem to show disrespect to these two categories that the far right is prejudiced against.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
People should be free to define themselves.

People should be able to choose their own religion (according to the First Amendment)....that is the American way.

One religion shouldn't impose their values on other religions in America.

I agree, but note that America only accounts for 5% of the world population

There are countries where people are not free (to a certain extent, that includes parts of the US)
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
A female is a female. She has a vagina and reproductive equipment.
Except where there are genetic imbalances and defects. Then what do you declare? You're a biologist, right?

You seem to be looking at this issue on the trend of biological norms and the majority of female samples. But as a conservative don't you value individual rights? Doesn't a person who has a different outlook and some biological factors outside the norm have a right to BE that person? If you think individual rights threatens you then perhaps you oppose guns rights since concealed carry make others feel threatened.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
A female is a female. She has a vagina and reproductive equipment.

My opinion:

J. K. Rowling (Harry Potter author) got in trouble for talking about women who were born with vaginas (to distinguish them from men who become women). I know that Rowling is not bigoted against Gays, since she made Professor Albus Dumbledore Gay.

Some say that merely cutting off a penis doesn't make someone a woman. They say that women think differently. If a Gay man is attracted to other men, does that make him a woman?

I think that narrowing the definition of woman to a vagina is a bit too restrictive, given the numbers of men who become women. Though they may not be exactly like women, I think that they should be free to choose their gender.

However, this opens a can of worms when it comes to using restrooms, showers, gyms, dorms, and shared military quarters. It is often too expensive or difficult to have separate facilities for the transgendered.

Only God is the judge, and Christians must not be judgemental. The various Christian protests should not be allowed by the Christian religion.

Lawsuit: Female Prisoner Says She Was Raped by Transgender Inmate

There are plenty of stories (like the website above) that show transgender men raping women.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
I agree, but note that America only accounts for 5% of the world population

There are countries where people are not free (to a certain extent, that includes parts of the US)

I agree.

Forced sterilization policies in the US targeted minorities and those with disabilities – and lasted into the 21st century

Forced sterilization in the US targetted women and minorities.

National Security Study Memorandum 200 - Wikipedia

NSSM 200 was a US program to sterilize (can't have babies) African and South American women. Often the tribal chief decided for them. The idea was to limit populations so they wouldn't use up resources. Many had more kids than they could afford assuming that many would die and a few might survive. These sterilized women (and members of their tribes) felt that the US was preventing reproduction to steal their land and resources.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I think that there are many ways in which people can be Gay. Some have different hormones. Some have different chromosomes. Some just choose to be Gay.

Some members of the Religious Right say that being Gay is a choice, and they can easily switch. If this is true, then a heterosexual man could easily choose to be Gay. I don't know of any heterosexual men who believe this.
I can't see any heterosexual man chewing to be gay without some tendency. I have known women who have intimate relationships with other women which seems more socially acceptable.

However, high pitched Reverend Jerry Falwell believed it.
I'll bet Falwell had a pretty deep closet of secrets, along with many other conservatives who are rabidly opposed to gay rights.

Is it right to force someone to go against their nature?
The "prey away the gay" nonessential illustrates how the far right agenda has focused on gays as part of their obsolete social tradition. I think they push this far right agenda to help further a separation of society and to create a more divisive alliance within their tribe. We see some of the conservatives in this discussion pushing a black/white definition of gender and think we all can ignore the exceptions. This is an effort to limit freedom of citizens to help make the conservative feel better about themselves.

What would happen if Gays took over a city or county (or even state), and made laws prohibiting straight marriages? Would that be fair to the straight people?

Perhaps there should be civil laws and civil marriages that respect Gays, and people could still be free to practice any religion that they choose?

Religious freedom should not be freedom to take religious freedom from others.
This does seem to be the tactic of conservatives, fear of some extreme "next step" like marrying animals. Absurd. the same was said back when mixed race marriage was illegal.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
If we don't know how to define what a "woman" or "female" is.... is Kamala Harris really the first woman/female VP?

What criteria gives her that title?
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
A female is a female. She has a vagina and reproductive equipment.
Amazing how intelligent you are. Who would have ever known that? :D

I mean, it is disputed with such intensity, you speak it with such authority, like you know what you're talking about and are credible!

You state it like it is a fact! Thank you for educating us properly!:thumbsup:
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
Not always.
Know any who've had hysterectomies?

Simple definitions applied to complex
phenomena sometimes just don't work.
A women who had a hysterectomy is still a women. Its not complex. Rebellious humans that don't want to accept what they are have created a bunch of fake drama.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
Amazing how intelligent you are. Who would have ever known that? :D

I mean, it is disputed with such intensity, you speak it with such authority, like you know what you're talking about and are credible!

You state it like it is a fact! Thank you for educating us properly!:thumbsup:
Well, its not at all complicated. Its like drinking alcohol isn't what's really wrong with alcoholics, its just a symptom.
 
Top