War on Society -- What is a Woman?

[Retrobyter]

13 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

That is simply your personal opinion.  Since you have made your opinion perfectly clear I have no interest in discussing the subject with you.

I am more than happy to discuss this and any other issue with people who do not have an agenda to force on others.

Since I can't put you on "ignore", I will simply type "IGNORED" on your future posts.

Shalom, JimmyB.

You DO understand that a woman is a person with XX chromosomes, right?

A man is XY chromosomes, and by the way, these chromosomes are found in the DNA of EVERY CELL IN A PERSON'S BODY!!!

[JimmyB]

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, JimmyB.

You DO understand that a woman is a person with XX chromosomes, right?

A man is XY chromosomes, and by the way, these chromosomes are found in the DNA of EVERY CELL IN A PERSON'S BODY!!!

That is the physical definition of gender.  Clearly there is a lot more to being a woman or a man than their chromosome makeup.

The current issue that is facing society is whether a person has the right to identify her/himself with a different gender than the one they were born with.  There are clearly a large number of people who do not identify themselves with the gender they were born with.  The question is: do they have the right to individually determine whom they want to be or does society have that right?

[JimmyB]

Referring back to an earlier post... when Philip met the Ethiopian eunuch, why didn't he lecture him on his choice of gender identity?  According to some, he should have chastised him for changing the gender with which God created him and refused to baptize him because he was so sinful.  Instead, Philip explained Scripture to him and baptized him, something that some "Christians" would never have done.

[Retrobyter]

2 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

That is the physical definition of gender.  Clearly there is a lot more to being a woman or a man than their chromosome makeup.

Shalom, JimmyB.

No. Not really. A person is either male or female from CONCEPTION! That's all it takes! There's really no more to being a man or a woman than the person's maturity. If a male has not become full grown, yet, then he is called a "boy"; when he has become mature, he is called a "man."

When a female has not become full grown, yet, then she is called a "girl"; when she has become mature, she is called a "woman."

2 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

The current issue that is facing society is whether a person has the right to identify her/himself with a different gender than the one they were born with.  There are clearly a large number of people who do not identify themselves with the gender they were born with.  The question is: do they have the right to individually determine whom they want to be or does society have that right?

It's not a "right" to lie.

[JimmyB]

5 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, JimmyB.

No. Not really. A person is either male or female from CONCEPTION! That's all it takes! There's really no more to being a man or a woman than the person's maturity. If a male has not become full grown, yet, then he is called a "boy"; when he has become mature, he is called a "man."

When a female has not become full grown, yet, then she is called a "girl"; when she has become mature, she is called a "woman."

It's not a "right" to lie.

That is simply your opinion.  Obviously your determination of "gender" is very limited, and some would say "naive".  A person is a lot more than whom they are biologically.

"A gender stereotype is a generalized view or preconception about attributes or characteristics, or the roles that are or ought to be possessed by, or performed by, women and men. A gender stereotype is harmful when it limits women’s and men’s capacity to develop their personal abilities, pursue their professional careers and/or make choices about their lives."  United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner

"Gender stereotyping presents a serious obstacle to the achievement of real gender equality and feeds into gender discrimination. Gender stereotypes are preconceived ideas whereby males and females are arbitrarily assigned characteristics and roles determined and limited by their sex.

"Sex stereotyping can limit the development of the natural talents and abilities of boys and girls, women and men, their educational and professional experiences as well as life opportunities in general. Stereotypes about women both result from and are the cause of deeply engrained attitudes, values, norms and prejudices against women. They are used to justify and maintain the historical relations of power of men over women as well as sexist attitudes which are holding back the advancement of women."  Council of Europe

It's not a "right" to lie.

Edited June 7, 2023 by JimmyB

[George]

4 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

That is simply your opinion.  Obviously your determination of "gender" is very limited, and some would say "naive".  A person is a lot more than whom they are biologically..

It's not a "right" to lie.

So are you accusing someone of lying? 

Seriously ... confusion is not OF GOD ... think about it!

[Retrobyter]

2 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

Referring back to an earlier post... when Philip met the Ethiopian eunuch, why didn't he lecture him on his choice of gender identity?  According to some, he should have chastised him for changing the gender with which God created him and refused to baptize him because he was so sinful.  Instead, Philip explained Scripture to him and baptized him, something that some "Christians" would never have done.

Shalom, again, JimmyB.

The eunuch was not a eunuch by choice. He was castrated at the discretion of a ruler's order. It was not his choice to be a eunuch! It was done probably because he worked as a slave to the queen or the king's harem. This would protect the royal women from being forced by another man.

Daniel, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego were also all eunuchs. It was usually done to slave boys just entering puberty.

And, just as a side note, nothing done to these men affected the genetic makeup of those persons.

None of these MEN had done any sin to become eunuchs.

[JimmyB]

1 minute ago, George said:

So are you accusing someone of lying? 

Seriously ... confusion is not OF GOD ... think about it!

Retrobyter is the person who wrote "It's not a right to lie", so direct your comment to him.

The rest of your post is IGNORED.

[George]

Sorry ... I misread something ... it's easy to do!  Be blessed!

[JimmyB]

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, again, JimmyB.

The eunuch was not a eunuch by choice. He was castrated at the discretion of a ruler's order. It was not his choice to be a eunuch! It was done probably because he worked as a slave to the queen or the king's harem. This would protect the royal women from being forced by another man.

Daniel, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego were also all eunuchs. It was usually done to slave boys just entering puberty.

And, just as a side note, nothing done to these men affected the genetic makeup of those persons.

None of these MEN had done any sin to become eunuchs.

a) There is nothing in the Bible that says that Daniel, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego were all eunuchs.  

b) Your comment that "nothing [supposedly] done to these men affected the genetic makeup of those persons" is correct, but self-defeating.

c) You haven't given an explanation about why Philip didn't reject the Ethiopian because of his gender identity (as many of today's "Christians" would have done).