How do we handle the science of sex/gender

[Anesti33]

No, you’re trying to claim that there are more than two sexes.

No I’m not.
I am attempting to demonstrate to you that science might claim this. It is not a position I would personally take during my lifetime.

Both scenarios are medical oddities of sexual reproduction, however…

What is God trying to tell us by genetic disorder resulting in abnormal sex characteristics? That disease and sickness exist?

You call them “oddities” and “disorder” and “disease” and “sickness”, these are emotional, charged, human terms. They are culturally decided by consensus of doctors and scientists and the acceptance of laymen. They have variable definitions.

Science has moved on from labeling homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. Do you not see that science could “move on” in many, many other ways? I am not saying I accept this scientific decision! I am demonstrating to you that the science you rely on may eventually let you down in a big way.

 

[MNathaniel]

Parthenogenesis is not unheard of, I mean, right? What biological process effected the Virgin Birth?

Sorry, are you suggesting that under your interpretation of gender, our virgin Mother Mary doesn’t count as a woman?

So you think Scripture got it wrong and Elizabeth was misguided, say, to call Mary blessed among women? Mary’s womb and motherhood aren’t enough for you to acknowledge she belongs to the female sex? Her God-arranged married to Joseph, a man, also doesn’t hint to you that the Creator God Himself who declared marriage as between a man and a woman, considered Mary a woman?

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

! I am demonstrating to you that the science you rely on may eventually let you down in a big way.

I’ve noticed you seem to be very worried that I’m going to be somehow devastated when the scales fall from my eyes and I find out the truth about…

Something?

The problem is, I’m not quite sure where you’re coming from.

In this thread, I am merely trying to achieve clarity on why there are only two sexes.

And I’ve answered every objection thrown my way.

That’s all.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

We have Galileo moments every couple of hundred years. It’s just growing pains.

Very well put. You’re quite perceptive. I had never thought of it quite that way before.

 

[Anesti33]

Okay, I’ll skip Canons 1 and 3 and go to 2.

What I am saying is that science is malleable. I am saying that science and its changes and findings sometimes causes us to take a good hard look at what is infallibly defined as a truth of the faith, and say “That truth is still true, but the science is threatening to contradict it. Let’s evaluate both the science and the definition.” The definition can’t be changed, but the science can be condemned.

But what I am also suggesting here is that we be very careful about what material facts of science we go around condemning. Just like non-Christian religions, there are elements of light and truth around scientific falsehoods that should be recognized and affirmed.

I hereby firmly reject all three propositions in the Vatican I canons thus quoted, and I hereby retract anything in my previous posts which may have contravened the truths of faith thus revealed. So help me God.