Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 1, 2020 21:31:07 GMT
I have tried to explain to you that because the Bible is written beyond your rudimentary reading level, it is also often the case that the attempts of people to explain their beliefs to you are just as beyond your level of understanding. Try as you might to "accept" their definitions, those remain beyond your reach. It might serve your understanding to have clear definitions from an expert on English. A list is here.
Never the less, by demanding just before that your words are to mean what you tell me they mean, you echo the request I make of those who follow a traditional reading of the Bible - such as when it tells us humans are made 'in God's image', or when thinking of a deity possessing such obvious anthropomorphic traits as love, jealousy, anger and forgiveness etc. Instead of your usual insults about their intelligence and reading skills. Consistency is the point here. (In the link you gave, even you admit that "Few people accept any anthropomorphic god in the modern world." which admits of necessity the fact that some at least, do. A QED.)
But don't take my word for it. Here's what David Hume, one of the most important philosophers to write in English, with a highly influential system of philosophical empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism said, back in the day: “Enthusiasts” distort God “into a Resemblance with themselves, & by that means render him more comprehensible” (LET, I, 51/#21). You will note, btw, that neither he or I say that this is the 'right way' to define a deity since we all agree 'that which we call God' can cover a huge range.
And your authority for an opposing view is? None, as usual.
You have never successfully shown that I was, am, or ever will be in any error.
A lack of belief in God is not agnosticism. It is rather what defines atheism. Sorry about that. I had to explain it to you before, and it appears it has been necessary again.
The meaning of "fantasy" gender is very precise because it simply means based on criteria that are not obviously biological or that are merely mental.
As I said, as sensitive as ever. LOL. The criteria of 'fantasy' is purely subjective and, frankly socially conservative-phobic on your own part towards notions of gender fluidity. You also seem to imply that personal conviction and determined mental states must be fantasy (they can be, but it is not necessarily so). Otherwise your own conviction on points of gender fluidity can be ruled out, as equally bearing no relation to reality. See how it works?
That would mean so much more if the "World Health Organization" spoke English or had any cause or right to set definitions in English.
I would ask you to provide an authority which disagrees with the WHO distinction, or indeed the standard dictionary definitions I gave of 'gender' and 'sex' but. I know I would be wasting my time. And since you have already told me that the terms can be muddled in usage, then that suggests there must be two distinct things to be mixed up in the first place. That's another QED. I have also found it hard to find any 'cultural determinants' for gender fluidity especially suggested by an authority. Are you really suggesting that people feel they are in the wrong body because of the culture they live in? I doubt whether you will provide any links for this either, to substantiate another of your wild claims..
What happened that you failed to notice is that in the past "gender" was used rather strictly to refer to grammatical gender. You should readily notice that grammatical gender is very different and requires a different word. The difference between sex, the biological state, and sex, the activity, was something people solved by examining the context. Later when people like you obliterated context, the need for a different word for the state and the activity become apparent and "gender" was stolen for the state... There should be no confusion
Never the less, the distinction is perfectly clear while, while you have demonstrated quite adequately with your own confusion the possibility of muddle. (Your dragging in of grammatical gender, which plays no part in the debate, is a non-sequitur - and I can see how you might need to muddle things further by casting about.)
And:
"Please quote where I have done this before [using "cultural" determinants of gender [which are]error prone."]. Evasion will be noted.
... Evasion noted.