The Debate Group discussion
LGBT etc.
>
How many genders are there?
message 1:
by
｡✷ 🎀 𝐿𝒾𝓏 🎀 ✷｡
(new)
May 17, 2025 03:57PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
There is ONLY TWO genders.
Mod
Why?
Mod
➶ ｡˚ ° Pierce Samuel ˋ°•*⁀➷ wrote: "AnnaLaura wrote: "There is ONLY TWO genders."Why?"
Because it’s how we were made. And I can’t refrain from using the Bible because it’s the truth no matter what others believe.
theres male and female, theres never been so much confusion in our culture before over what I believe to be an extemely simple biological fact
Faith wrote: "theres male and female, theres never been so much confusion in our culture before over what I believe to be an extemely simple biological fact"Exactly!!!🥰
the truth IS. only lies have to be made up
Mod
Oh, and what's your source for this biological fact? Because I have many sources that prove that there are more, and biologically people who are transgender are biologically correct in that. So, please, share your source.
Mod
Why?"
Because it’s how we were made. And I can’t refrain from using the Bible because it’s the truth no matter wh..."
The bible IS truth, I am Christian, I can agree with you on that. BUT, not everyone believes in it, some people believe THEIR religious book is truth, and using The Bible in a debate that has NOTHING to do with religion doesn't make sense. Like imagine you were debating with a Muslim person, and they use the Qur'an as a source. YOU don't believe in that, but they do. But it might be confusing, and even offensive if they said you're wrong because of a religion, that YOU don't believe in.
➶ ｡˚ ° Pierce Samuel ˋ°•*⁀➷ wrote: "AnnaLaura wrote: "➶ ｡˚ ° Pierce Samuel ˋ°•*⁀➷ wrote: "AnnaLaura wrote: "There is ONLY TWO genders."Why?"
Because it’s how we were made. And I can’t refrain from using the Bible because it’s the ..."
True…..ya I guess you’re right.
Faith wrote: "theres male and female, theres never been so much confusion in our culture before over what I believe to be an extemely simple biological fact"intersex people do in fact exist though so this can’t be factual because they don’t fit into either gender
AnnaLaura wrote: "There is ONLY TWO genders."There's two SEXES and even then you're still wrong because intersex people exist.
Oh, so we’re pretending biology is a choose-your-own-adventure now? Cute. In reality, there are two sexes—male and female—based on, you know, actual science like chromosomes and reproductive roles. XX means female, XY means male. It’s not rocket science; it’s high school biology. Now, intersex people? Yes, they exist, and they’re born with rare biological variations. That doesn’t magically invent a third sex—it just means nature isn’t always neat and tidy. Intersex conditions are exceptions within the male-female framework, not some loophole to toss the whole system out. Sorry, but biology didn’t suddenly change because someone on the internet said so. Stop saying that people who believe in science are “narrow minded” you just sound like you’re chronically online and having a low IQ moment.
Mod
Read it and weep.
https://www.ese-hormones.org/media/ei...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles...
"This feels like a good place to quickly skim over trans scientific research. I
say skim not because I want to rush over it (I did a PhD: I love a good bit of
science), but because, as trans people, we don’t need to rely on peerreviewed papers to know who we are. However, it can sometimes be
reassuring to know you’re not alone or ‘weird’ for feeling how you feel.
Many papers support that socially and medically transitioning reduces
dysphoria and increases the wellbeing of trans people.fn1 Some papers
strongly support a biological basis of gender identityfn2 and suggest that
being trans is a result of hormone exposures when you’re developing in the
womb.fn3 Some scientific research has found similarities in the brain
structures of trans women and cis women.fn4 Not to toot my own horn, but
my own research supports this pattern too, where trans men’s arousal
patterns were more similar to what you’d see from cis men rather than cis
women.fn5 That’s all pretty cool if you ask me! But again, scientific papers
aren’t the golden nugget you need to fully understand who you are (sorry).
It’s more of an internal research process that you have to carry out for that
one." - Jamie Raines, The T in LGBT
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles... - Fn1
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25667... - Fn2
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21334... - Fn3
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10843... - Fn4
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33635... - Fn5
Mod
Also, like you said, intersex people DO exist. They're a biological phenomenon, and literally ANYONE could be intersex. You could be, I could be, ANYONE could be. As it is usually just having a combination of the gamedes that aren't the usual two XX and XY. It is as common as being red headed, I'll let that sink in. It is LITERALLY a third sex, a sex out of the binary.
It’s important to approach topics like intersex and gender with respect and accuracy — not just passion. Yes, intersex people absolutely exist, but saying “anyone could be intersex” oversimplifies and even disrespects the real medical conditions they live with. Intersex is not just a fun fact or a quirky identity; it’s a range of complex, often distressing variations in fetal development. Many intersex people go through invasive medical procedures, hormonal imbalances, infertility, and deep struggles with identity — not because they’re “a third sex,” but because their biological development didn’t follow the typical male or female path. Calling it a third sex might seem inclusive, but it flattens a nuanced medical reality into a category it doesn’t biologically belong to.And while gender is, yes, a social construct — intersex is not. It’s not a gender, and it’s not something someone can identify into. Most intersex people don’t want to be a symbol in debates about gender identity; they want privacy, dignity, and the ability to live as male or female — without being reduced to “X” on paper or politicized in internet arguments. If someone truly cares about intersex people, the best thing they can do is stop using their existence as proof of a broader ideology and instead advocate for respectful medical care, informed consent, and personal choice — not just broader labels.
Mod
Okay, let me break it down. Intersex traits can be hereditary, OR just randomly develop. So, yes ANYONE could be intersex, as it is a result of a mutation at conception in the gamedes. And you're right, some intersex people DO go through invasive surgeries without even knowing that it happened, because it often happens at such a young age, and it's terrible. BUT if we have Red and Blue for example, and we mix them, and we get some shade of purple, would we exclude purple as a color? No! It still is a color, even if it isn't a primary color/not as common.
How do you know that's what an intersex person wants? Do you have a source? Are YOU intersex to know that that's what being intersex is like?
You're right, gender IS a social construct, and intersex ISN'T a gender, but when someone IS intersex, it makes them sexually diverse, which often subjects them to discrimination/oppression. By ignoring intersex people, it's like ignoring the color purple. Or, for a more realistic analogy, if we ignored intersex people, that'd be like ignoring every red head's experience as a red head. As it's the same percentage for both mutations.
@ray pines- seems like we’re on the same page. Thanks for the respectful responses! You’re a great debater.
I don't think that lgbt is right because I believe in the Bible, but that's kind of a different subject. if I didn't believe God's Word, I'd probably be thinking, "why not?" or at the very least apathetic towards the subject.
Mod
Look at the sources I provided above, (especially the exerts from Jamie Raines's book) that is proof that it is likely that IN THE WOMB transgender people are made that way. Why would God punish something HE created? I can also provide sources on the biology behind gay people, if it is at your request.
@Ethan – I get that you’re following what you believe the Bible says, but it’s interesting that without that belief, you’d feel differently—or at least be more indifferent. As someone who’s agnostic, I’m just trying to understand. Didn’t Jesus teach love and compassion for everyone, even those considered “sinners”?
without God, I believe I would be a different person. Loving someone doesn't mean affirming their actions. If someone is doing something that is harmful to themselves, it's our obligation to help them because we love them. If someone does hate someone else, that is a sin, but condemning a wrong action is not a sin.
I don't think that there's anything wrong with someone if they are literally physically made that way. if they just "feel" that way, however, that's the issue.
Mod
Loving someone doesn't mean affirming their actions. If someone is doing something that is harmful to themselves, it's our obligation to help ..."
Actually, if you read some of the sources I referenced, you will learn that transitioning has saved lives. And actually, I believe condemning someone IS a sin. Remember the story when Jesus said that the first to throw the stone was without sin? Or the verse in Matthew about the beam in your own eye. You worry about yourself, and we'll worry about ourselves.
I don't feel queer, that is just how I am. How I am wired in my brain is simply just different from you.
we can feel a lot of things. I can feel hate, I can feel jealous, I can feel any way I want to feel, but if it's against God's will, then it's a sin. also, you didn't read the whole passage in Matthew. if you finish it, this is the whole passage:
Matthew 7:1-5 KJV — Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
it tells us that is we're guilty of the same thing, then we first must address our own selves. Once we do that, THEN we are able to address our brother's eye.
Mod
also, you didn't read the whole passage in Mat..."
Silence is compliance, you didn't respond to my contention about transgender folk, so I'm assuming you agree?
Right!! But we will NEVER be perfect, only Jesus is. So, only Jesus really has the complete jurisdiction to do so.
what? ok man, I was responding to your most recent comment. you were talking about judging people, I gave you an answer. I never agreed with you.
if you want Biblical proof, though, I'll give it to you. 1 Corinthians 6:9 KJV — Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Romans 1:26-27 KJV — For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Jude 1:7 KJV — Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Leviticus 18:22 KJV — Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV — The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
The last one deals directly with transgenderism.
Mod
1 Corinthians 6:9 KJV — Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor i..."
Oh hold up I did an analysis on a bunch of these
Btw for the last one, that was probably talking about STDs, so
no, it's not taking about STD's. it's very clear what it's talking about.
Mod
Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 - These verses could also be referring to "soft" sexual morals. ie: Rape or child molestation/pedophilia.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "effeminate men" won't enter the kingdom of heaven, the actual untranslated word means more so "soft" as in soft sexual morals, ie; rape and child molestation/pedophilia.
1 Timothy 1:10 - Same thing about soft sexual morals and rape.
"However, in both passages [referring to timothy and Corinthians], there is debate about the terms now translated as referring to gays. "The ambiguous word is often translated 'sodomites' but there's no equivalent in Greek or Hebrew," said Mary Rose D'Angelo, a biblical scholar at Notre Dame. "The word means something like 'softy' and refers to liking sex too much." Even assuming that Paul is referring to homosexuality in these passages, there is dispute about exactly what he's condemning and why. "Many scholars think that Paul is arguing against grown men having sex with adolescent boys and/or against men who are forced into the non-dominant position," said Kelly Murphy, a biblical scholar at Central Michigan University." - Same website I cited before.
"Romans 1:26-27
Many theologians say this is the key passage on homosexuality in the New Testament.
Paul writes: "God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
Jeff Weima, an expert on the New Testament at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, is among those who say this passage is a clear, unambiguous condemnation of homosexual activity.
"The text of Romans 1:26-27 is quite clear about the prohibition of same-sex activity for both men and women," Weima said.
Not so fast, say others.
"The passage does seem to say that all same-sex relationships are unnatural," Murphy said. "But then we have to remember that Paul and the world Paul lived in did not understand gender the same way that we do today, and also that Paul is using that example to lead up to his argument against worshipping idols.
"Opinions are split about whether Paul is upset about heterosexual people having same-sex relations or about pederasty -- but the larger point is that worshipping idols instead of God leads to mistakes in morality," she said.
John Fitzgerald, an expert in the New Testament who teaches at Notre Dame, said that parsing the words of each text isn't the only challenge.
"Although biblical scholars disagree about the meaning of some of the biblical texts ... the real differences emerge in how these texts are to be interpreted and applied in our own time," Fitzgerald said.
Differing views on same-sex relationships in Christianity reflect "different assumptions and different interpretative approaches" to the Bible, he said." - Again, the same website I cited before.
Mod
How do you know?? Because people back then were VERY unclean, and putting on someones already worn garment could very much cause diseases akin to STDs, or other diseases that are contagious.
although it's being translated from another language, and words aren't EXACTLY translated to the letter, it's still true in it's context. put those words in the correct context and it makes sense. If you take the verse from Leviticus, "don't lie with mankind as you do with womenkind" it would not make sense of you used the word "soft sexual morals." it would not need all those extra words. instead, it would say something like, "obstain from pedophilia and/or rape." same thing with the other verses you mentioned. it's extremely clear in it's meaning.
and no, they weren't "VERY unclean, " the Bible actually tells them how to be clean. that's why they were forbidden to touch dead rotting animals, eating pork, quarantining lepers, etc.
Mod
... Right.... Say that again The Bible, was teaching them how to be clean... Ie; not sharing garments...
no. simply being "unclean" is not an abomination. that's also pretty clear, as we all eat pork now.
Mod
Sure, we'll say for that one (1) verse, that it doesn't make sense for it to be talking about rape. Then what IS it talking about?
This might be talking about pedophilia, again. Surprise surprise.
It might be referring to stuff like eromenos and erastes, which wasn't common in ancient times. It
You can also read this interpretation/analysis of it, if you'd like.
https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/1....
Mod
Do you know WHY we do, but why Jewish folk don't? It's because when Jesus was born, a bunch of those old laws were no longer needed, because he is the savior. But Jewish people don't believe in the New Testament, while we do.
now it gets kinda gray for me cause it's kinda hard figuring WHAT laws are not needed anymore. the ones listed as abominations will still remain as abominations, as God doesn't change. that means cross dressing is one of them. that also means lying with same sex. you know you're just trying to justify that sin. stop trying to get around it.
it's not talking about pedophilia or rape. do your own research on the Bible. there is interlinear if you want to see direct interpretations.
Mod
Mate, I quite literally am doing my own research <3 And the fact that I've providing detailed analysises and what not, and your entire argument it you taking it at face value really shows.
Mod
It also says not to mix cloth, so you better be wearing pure cotton clothing rn if you're criticizing me.
actually I am wearing 100 percent cotton XD coincidence really. like I said, that's more of a gray area whether some laws cross over or not, but if the sin is an ABOMINATION, it will definitely stay a sin, seeing as God doesn't change.
you're taking OTHER people's research. do your research on the Bible. That's why we have it. Also, you're supposed to take these verses as face value. it's not a riddle. you can look at these verses, look at the interlinear, and apply it's meaning. it's not a like a parable where you have to interpret it's meaning.
and if you are just looking at the Bible at face value, my mistake.
Mod
Pierce is doing his own research though..."
EXACTLY. To clarify though, I'm non-denom. So I just interpret The Bible based on my research (Literal hours of research)
Mod
like I said, that's more of a gray area whether some laws cross over or not, but if the sin is an ABOMINATION, it will definitely st..."
So your shirt, pants, socks? Like bsfr
How do you know that? Have you talked to God personally?
And wait till you find out about how research papers work. You HAVE to have sources to back your claim, and then you build onto that. My claim about eromenos and erastes? That was based off of my own observation and previous knowledge. WHERE in The Bible does it say to take things at face value? Should we not ponder The Bible??
yes... my clothes are 100 percent cotton. big surprise. they're just more comfy.yes, you should figure out other people's beliefs to be able to either combat them or apply them. but you should not answer every question with someone else's answer. so far, you've listed NO verses to support your claims. You have tried to debunk verses, but never brought other verses into the debate.
and yes, you should take the Bible at face value. sometimes you might wonder what the Bible meant by something, and that's when 2 Timothy 2:15 but these verses are clear.
Mod
Hello...?? You are actually making zero sense to me. Because I DON'T answer every question w/ someone else's answer?? But also The Bible is 3000 years old, so my answer DEFINETLY wouldn't be original to myself <3 And I have debunked verses, because they are clearly mistranslated. That's like saying "The Bible never mentioned having a disability that causes fainting, but it did show that people who had enough faith with a disability could be healed, so disabled people must be fake Christians!!!" like... That's how that sounds like.
Mod
Why?? Because as someone who plans to study theology in college, taking a deeper look at The Bible is so important.
