Author Topic: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform  (Read 17821 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
« Reply #40 on: April 14, 2015, 04:07:32 PM »
The Gender Binary Battle

Did you realize that society is in a gender war? It is currently transitioning from a mere debate into a huge battle. As in the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, there are 2 sides, a right and a wrong side. We need to make sure that we are on God’s side in this gender conflict.
Our enemy, the devil, specializes in mixing good with evil. He uses the knowledge of good and evil to confuse the unwary, and lure them into accepting his mixture of right and wrong. That’s how it is with the gender battle. There are good elements mixed in to deceive those who are not grounded in the truth. For example, the emphasis on stopping the violence and abuse of women and non-binary people is a worthy goal. However, we must not become swayed just because of some worthwhile elements.

We must saturate our minds with the truths of God’s Word in order to intelligently stand on the side of truth. We must believe and practice the principles of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, or else we will be sucked into society’s sinful reasoning. There are eternal consequences at stake.
Here is a brief description of the two sides in this gender battle.

Side 1, the “old-fashioned” biblical side, currently labeled by society as the Binary belief is:

•   God created just 2 sexes, male and female, as opposite sexes.
•   Marriage is only between a man and a women. A romantic relationship between same-sex couples is sinful.
•   There is to be a plain distinction between the sexes—in identity, roles and appearance.
•   God designed the husband to be the head of the home, and the wife to be his helper.
•   God designed the husband to be the priest of the home, the spiritual leader. The home is a “mini-church,” and God designed the church to have male leadership.

Side 2, Modern Culture’s side, labeled the Non-Binary position, declares:

•   Gender is very complicated. Gender is not binary, with only 2 choices, but is a spectrum; therefore there are many choices each individual has regarding their gender identity, expression and orientation. Their gender identity is where they feel they fit on the spectrum, their gender expression is how they choose to dress and present themselves outwardly, and their sexual orientation determines their sexual relationships.
•   One’s biological sex does not determines their gender. Each individual is free to choose and change their gender. The non-binary proponents validate their choice.
•   All the gender identities are completely equal, meaning that they have equal rights to identical roles and freedom of expression. There should be no roles or opportunities that are off limits to any of the gender identities. Equal rights should apply to all.
•   Binary belief is bad. It is unloving and unkind, and marginalizes all non-binary individuals and women. Binary belief opposes Feminist and LGBTQ agendas, thus it should be demolished.
•   The closer society comes to gender neutrality in gender roles and expression, the safer and fairer it will be, with freedom for all. We need to be accepting of all genders.

These viewpoints are not compatible, and are diametrically opposed to each other. One hundred years ago, the majority of society believed in Side # 1. Today, the majority of youth agree with Side # 2. Society is gaining new converts rapidly to its position. Many are still somewhere in the middle, not sure where they stand. As the issue heats up, each individual will eventually decide between the two beliefs.

We need to make one thing clear at the outset. As Christ’s followers, we are to have His love, His compassion, His mercy, His willingness to even lay down our lives for our fellow people, even those who identify themselves as non-binary individuals. Never should we treat anyone unkindly, because the blood of Christ has been shed for each one of us. Each human is a candidate for heaven.

The world has a definition of love that is opposite from God’s definition. It requires that we condone that which God has declared to be sinful. That is why those who believe that God created only two sexes will be considered unloving and unkind. They will become extremely unpopular and even hated by society at large because their binary belief makes a plain distinction between the sexes. This appears to be unloving to all those who want to blend the genders so that all non-binary individuals feel included.

In the future, when the binary believers express their biblical views, they will be accused of hate speech, which will most likely become illegal. Through the power of the majority, Satan will use extreme pressure to convince God’s people to change sides to the more popular and accepted one, where they will then be perceived as “loving” to society.

While we should love as Christ loves, He also wants us to share His definition of sin, and His hatred of sin. He wants us to love His holiness, His purity and His righteousness. He wants us to allow His Holy Spirit to transform us into holy and pure men and women, without a taint of the world’s philosophy. He is willing to heal us of all our sexual confusion and wrong thoughts and feelings.

In considering women’s rights, gay rights, and all of our rights, God has given us the right to make moral choices. We are free moral agents. We have the freedom to transgress His law, the freedom to sin. But that does not make it right to do so. It is not righteous to sin. God defines sin as the transgression of His law.

According to God’s Word, all immorality is sin. It is sin to practice homosexual sex, because the Bible teaches us so in several passages. And it is sin to change your sex identity, to become transgender. How do we know that? There is a particular passage in the Bible that shows us clearly that this is wrong. It is the passage that tells us that is sinful to wear the clothing of the opposite sex.

God foresaw this gender binary battle that we are facing today. He provided us with valuable instruction to forewarn us. The women’s rights movement carried the rebellious seeds that have now sprouted and grown and produced evil fruit. In the 1850’s, these seeds were planted in the minds of spiritualists who were in rebellion against God and became willing agents of Satan’s agenda. They developed a philosophy which usurped God’s order and plan for the opposite sexes, and they introduced a fashion that would further their agenda.

That is why God warned His people so strongly, even using the word abomination, and this warning is especially pertinent to us today. We have been warned NOT to join this movement, which has morphed into the non-binary movement, and NOT to wear their fashions which remove the distinction between the sexes.

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
« Reply #41 on: April 14, 2015, 04:10:14 PM »
"Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights and the so-called dress reform might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message. The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other." {1T 421.3} 

How much we need this counsel today, exceedingly more than we did in 1855. That battle has intensified from a small local flicker to a wildfire that is rapidly spreading across the whole world.

As was mentioned, in the beginning, God created two sexes, and He wants them to be kept distinct in every way. He wants you to identify as opposite of the other sex. He wants you to express yourself in your appearance as opposite of the other sex. He wants you to be sexually attracted only to the opposite sex. There are no grey areas. Opposite is opposite. This is where God draws the line regarding this issue that has confused society.

God’s people are also to be opposite from the world. They are to be opposite in character, in life, in dress, and in conversation.  (See 1T 127-129) Opposite in dress is not similar in dress. It is not imitating the fashions of the world. It is being willing to stand out from the world as opposite in their appearance. We are to dress attractively, neatly, clean and tidy, yet opposite from the world.

What is one way we are to be opposite from the world? Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits God’s people from wearing the clothing of the opposite sex and reveals God’s will regarding His desire for a plain distinction between the sexes. If this principle was honored by society in general, as it was in the early 1800s, there would not be a binary battle today. To be non-binary such as the androgynous or transgendered involves wearing the clothing of the opposite sex. Also, gay and lesbians either violate Deuteronomy 22:5 themselves, or they are attracted to those who do. In their hearts, the non-binary do not submit to God’s requirements to make a plain distinction between opposite sexes; they approve of same-sex appearance and relationships. The entire LGBTQ community approves of the violation of Deuteronomy 22:5.

God’s protection for any society from gender confusion is found in the keeping of the commandment found in Deuteronomy 22:5. When this commandment is violated by an entire society, confusion cannot help but be the result. This includes confusion in sexual identity (whether you identify yourself as a male, female, both or neither), expression (your dress, mannerisms, appearance) and orientation (whether you are attracted to males, females, both or neither). The roles you choose in the home, church, society, relationships all are affected by your sexual identity, which then affects your gender expression.

Ellen White wrote about the “increasing tendency” for women to dress similar to men in her day. This tendency was manifested in the 1850s by the American Costume, a knee-length dress over pants advocated by leaders of the women’s rights movement. We will be taking a close look at this issue as found in Testimonies to the Church, volume 1, pp 457-462. Please read the entire section in the Testimonies. We will be looking at one phrase or sentence at a time. First, we see that this involves an abomination, which is something extremely displeasing to God:

"There is an increasing tendency to have women in their dress and appearance as near like the other sex as possible, and to fashion their dress very much like that of men, but God pronounces it abomination.”

Let’s consider what it is God considers an abomination. What kind of style were these women in the 1850’s promoting? Notice these phrases:

“increasing tendency” When a tendency is increasing, it continues to grow and develop. It wasn’t just something that was a temporary fad; it has been an increasing tendency for over 150 years and it still is increasing.

The style was “As near like the other sex as possible” Near like means similar, or close to. It doesn’t mean identical. So they were not actually wearing men’s clothing, just very similar clothing.

This style was “very much like men” Again, very much like means similar or close to, not identical. They were creating a fashion that was quite close to men’s attire.

“They imitate the opposite sex as nearly as possible.” To imitate means try to be like. Apparently, God was very displeased with their desire to mimic the opposite sex.

"In this style of dress God's order has been reversed” To reverse God’s order means to be heading in the opposite direction than God intended.
“His special directions disregarded. Deuteronomy 22:5” To disregard His special directions found in Deuteronomy 22:5 means to ignore and thus violate this biblical commandment. His calls this abomination.

“God's prohibitions are lightly regarded . . . ” to lightly regard God’s prohibitions would involve doing something that God prohibits.

“ . . . by all who advocate doing away with the distinction of dress between males and females.” This is what the promoters of the American Costume were advocating. Amelia Bloomer was referring to Deuteronomy 22:5 when she declared: “It matters not to us what Moses had to say to the men and women of his time about what they should wear.” Elizabeth Cady Stanton declared, “The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's emancipation.” Obviously, they lightly regarded God’s prohibitions in the fashion they were advocating. Nonetheless, the fashion they promoted was still a lot more distinct from men’s clothing than the gender-blurring fashions of today!

“God designed that there should be a plain distinction between the dress of men and women” God made it clear that the American Costume which led to doing away with the distinction between the dress of men and women, and was an abomination to Him. From this, we can know that the “plain distinction” that God designed in women’s clothing should be more distinct from men’s clothing than a knee-length dress over pants.

God “has considered the matter of sufficient importance to give explicit directions in regard to it;” He has given us a very definite command in Deuteronomy 22:5. This must be a very important matter to Him! He gave us “explicit directions.”

“for the same dress worn by both sexes would cause confusion and great increase of crime.” This is a prophetic statement, and this prophecy has absolutely been fulfilled, without a doubt!

If Paul could see Christians in the American Costume “he would utter a rebuke.” Why does Ellen White say that? It becomes obvious because she then quotes the verse where Paul instructs women to dress in “modest apparel.” The American Costume, a knee-length dress over pants, did not qualify as being “modest apparel” for women.

Ellen White clarified that the American Costume “is immodest apparel, wholly unfitted for the modest, humble followers of Christ.”

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
« Reply #42 on: April 14, 2015, 04:12:08 PM »
Ellen White explains that she wrote all this as “a reproof to those who are inclined to adopt a style of dress resembling that worn by men.” This reproof still stands today and applies to all women who wear clothing that resembles that worn by men.

She clearly states, “We do not think it in accordance with our faith to dress in the American costume.”

This is her conclusion of all that she wrote about this subject of women wearing clothing that resembles, or is similar to what men wear. Our faith is to embrace everything that God, through inspiration, has set forth to guide us in righteous living. And that includes Deuteronomy 22:5. From this quotation, we can clearly see that God’s admonition to us, which is absolutely applicable in our day, is that we are to make a plain distinction in our clothing from that of the opposite sex.

(Please notice this point: Ellen White is here referring to the clothing, which is be plainly distinct from the clothing of the opposite sex. Even if the woman’s facial features, body shape, hairstyle, etc. are very distinct from men, there is also to be a plain distinction between the clothing of opposite sexes.)

It is only by divine wisdom from God that Ellen White was able to discern this issue clearly in her time. Logical reasoning would have led her to embrace the American Costume in the 1850’s, since she was in harmony with its proponents in battling against the prevailing fashion of hoop skirts. Ellen White and the women’s rights leaders all agreed that hoops were unhealthful, impractical, impeded free movement, and were extravagant. Now was presented a healthful, practical and simple fashion in the American Costume. Yet, through God’s direction, she declared it was an abomination. God showed her that it was in violation of Deuteronomy 22:5.

At this current time in the world’s history, when gender confusion has taken over society, Christians should love and appreciate the direction God has given us in Deuteronomy 22:5. We should embrace it as precious counsel to guard and keep us from becoming entangled in the pollutions of the world. We should be very careful to obey the principle which would lead us to make a plain distinction in what we wear. We should not get anywhere near the gender-blurring fashions of the world, either to approve of them on others or to enjoy participating in them. The more confused and blurred the world gets, the more distinct from the opposite sex women should strive to present themselves.

In 1 Timothy 2:9 God admonishes women to dress in modest apparel with shamefaced and sobriety. If this counsel were followed, women would not be aspiring to achieve the roles God has designated for men. “Modest apparel” means a long, flowing garment in the original language. Shamefacedness and sobriety, which portray a meek, quiet and submissive spirit along with the distinctive feminine attire is descriptive of godly womanliness. And remember, God’s ideal for womanliness is very different from the world’s idea of femininity—which includes worldly appearance and behavior that is seductive, immodest, and prideful.

As the years have rolled on since the 1850s, the gender blurring tendency has definitely increased. Sometimes it progressed slowly, but sometimes it was propelled forward by leaps and bounds. Marlene Dietrich and Katharine Hepburn are two of the names from fashion history that stand out as making the gender blurring fashion of pants on women popular. They also defied God’s counsel in Deuteronomy 22:5. Katharine Hepburn stated: "I'm an atheist, and that's it.” Marlene Dietrich declared: “I have given up belief in God.” This is the rebellious, ungodly mindset that popularized gender-blurring pants on women.

Each year forward has seen further developments in this increasing tendency that is an abomination to God. Just to mention a few of these fashions: The menswear-style slacks of the 1940s, the unisex denim jeans of the 1960s, the pant suits of the 1980s, the gender-blurring androgyny of the 2000s, the boyfriend jeans of the 2010, the skinny jeans for guys and girls of 2013, and the gender neutral fashions of 2015, all are in violation of Deuteronomy 22:5. All tend to blur the distinction between the clothing of men and women.

For many years now, the gender-blurring fashions have largely been women adopting menswear. But we are beginning to see the reverse of that trend also developing, with men adopting women’s clothing. This trend is highly acclaimed by the non-binary individuals, who decry the “double standard” and say that this new trend is “putting on blast decades of lingering gender hypocrisy in fashion.” The double standard and hypocrisy referred to is the acceptance of women dressing like men, while men are not yet fully accepted in women’s clothing. The goal of many is to remove all “gender markers” in fashion.

Satan is crafty in his deceptions. Not only does he mix good with evil, he offers progressive abominations, so that there is always a worse abomination on the horizon which is new and shocking; thus he takes the focus off the current popular abomination. In the matter of gender transgressive fashion, he has had many years to develop styles that blur the distinction between men and women. The twisted gender-blurring fashion introduced on the runway makes the current unisex/androgynous fashion seemed mild in comparison. That’s how he tricks us into thinking that the lesser abomination is acceptable to God. God’s professed people generally stay a few steps behind the latest fashion, but they are still followers of fashion, nonetheless. What is an abomination to God doesn't become acceptable to Him simply because society accepts it. The greater abominations don’t cancel out the lesser abominations.

In summary, there is a war going on, to put it briefly, between the Binary and the Non-binary. No doubt this battle will intensify, so that hostility will be manifested toward those unwilling to “convert” to society’s new perspective.

If this information is new to you, I invite you to study this topic out for yourself. Study the Spirit of Prophecy on godly womanhood and manhood, womanly modesty, and God’s plan for the family. It would also be very helpful to read the presentation that shows actual photos of the American Costume so you can understand God’s counsel more clearly. http://www.theandrogynydeception.com/PDF/The-Androgyny-Deception-part-3.pdf

Then do some Google searches on words like “non binary gender”, “gender equality”, “gender neutral fashion”, “unisex” and “androgyny”. Be prepared to be shocked and appalled at what you see. This is coming in like a flood, and if we aren’t well grounded, we will be swept away. It will take men and women of firm conviction to stand strong in the test ahead. But if we are compromising on the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5, our position will be weak. How could we find the strength to go against the popular tide when we have been enjoying going with the flow of gender-blurring fashion?

So, which side of the battle are you standing on? Are you 100% submitted to God’s plan for there to be distinct opposite sexes, in identity, expression and orientation? Do you agree that the Bible is plain on the rights and relations of men and women? If so, you will not be led to join the women’s rights/feminist/non-binary movement, or wear the “so-called reform dress,” which would include any fashion where women wear that which resembles men’s clothing, or the other way around. You will be led to make a plain distinction between men and women, their rights, roles, relationships and raiment. You will stand for the Binary position, God’s position, for “male and female created He them!”

Now is the time to watch and pray. A storm is brewing, relentless in its fury. May God set our feet on solid ground!

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
« Reply #43 on: April 14, 2015, 04:15:25 PM »
I would value your feedback on this recent article, whether positive or negative. I am wondering if it is plain, if the reasoning is logical, and if it provides a compelling argument for dress reform. I would like to send this out to others, but want to run it by you here first. Please send any corrections or ideas you may have. Thank you!

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
« Reply #44 on: April 27, 2015, 11:58:27 AM »
Dear Seventh-day Adventist Christian: Please read the following article from The Daily Free Press, written from an increasingly popular viewpoint that stresses the need for “gender equality” including in the clothes we wear:

Clothing isn’t gender specific

Written by Mariel Cariker• April 17, 2015 12:45 am

http://dailyfreepress.com/2015/04/17/cariker-clothing-isnt-gender-specific/

This weekend, Jaden Smith was spotted by paparazzi wearing a dress in public. The pictures circulated the Internet, and people exploded. . . .

Smith posted the picture on Instagram with the caption “Went To TopShop To Buy Some Girl Clothes, I Mean ‘Clothes.'” This was a really powerful statement to his 1.8 million followers, even if he didn’t realize he was making it. Societal gender labels on clothing are harshly enforced for basically no other reason than to keep things the way they’ve always been. What’s so bad about a guy in a dress?

Girls can and have been wearing pants with no objections for decades now. The last few years of award shows and red carpets have brought in a new and sweeping trend of women in suits, which people have praised. This trend has spread to “normal” society outside of Hollywood as well. I’ve seen multiple girls wear suits to their high school proms. Meanwhile, if a boy wears a skirt or a dress, it’s seen as out of the ordinary and strange. If a boy wore a dress to prom, it would be a huge deal. Why the double standard? Why can girls wear typically masculine clothes and receive compliments while boys get ridiculed if they wear stereotypically feminine clothes?

This stems from the idea that men are looked down upon for doing anything that would portray them as feminine. By wearing a dress, they’re “destroying” their masculinity. I don’t think, though, that clothing and masculinity necessarily have to match up or have to be mutually exclusive. Someone can still wear a dress and be masculine, and when it comes down to it, a “loss” of masculinity isn’t the worst thing in the world. We are throwing ourselves into these restrictive gender categories for virtually no reason with gender specific colors, clothes and ideas. Gender fluidity exists, but many people like to pretend it doesn’t and silence those who try to express it.

Boys can’t wear makeup because it’s seen as unnatural. Meanwhile, it’s seen as odd if girls don’t wear makeup. Baby boys are surrounded with blue clothing, while girls are wrapped in pink. Young boys who like pink, or more “feminine” colors or clothes, tend to be bullied. There have been stories on the news about boys being kicked out of class for wearing makeup, skirts or high heels. We have these pre-set gender expectations for boys and girls as they grow that society enforces without really stopping to think about why.

This weekend I was hanging out with some friends and for whatever reason some people decided to switch outfits, regardless of their genders and what the items of clothing were. The boys were in spaghetti-strap tank tops and girls were in baggy jeans and sweaters, with no criticism whatsoever. Everything kept going on normally, just with everyone in gender-swapped clothes. My friend Conner ended up in my floor-length floral dress and honestly, he rocked it. He got so many compliments and he looked better in it than I did. I don’t think this attitude should exist just at college parties. Men and women should be able to wear whatever clothing they want, no matter what color or pattern it is. People get so angry about it, but if it’s not negatively affecting them, why should they care?

I’m completely on board with this new wave of fashion. Although it is a small step, I think it’s an important motion in the move for gender equality. Just a few decades ago, women couldn’t wear pants without being looked down upon, and I think the new movement of men wearing “female” clothing without facing harsh criticism is up next. There’s no need to conform to these gender limitations, and using clothing to push gender boundaries shouldn’t be frowned upon. I see this as progress, and the people pushing for it shouldn’t have their voices stifled. End of article.

Dear Seventh-day Adventist member, do you agree with her viewpoint? Is this the kind of progress we can support? If not, why not? What is your viewpoint, and what do you base it on? Can you back it up with scripture? Please reflect on what is being said in this article and ponder these questions:

The author claims that clothing is not gender specific, or at least it should not be gender specific. Do you agree with this statement?
_____YES      _____NO

The author states: “Societal gender labels on clothing are harshly enforced for basically no other reason than to keep things the way they’ve always been.” Do you agree that there is no valid reason to separate clothing in gender categories?
_____YES      _____NO

The author asks, “What’s so bad about a guy in a dress?” and then notes: “Girls can and have been wearing pants with no objections for decades now.” The author admits that “Just a few decades ago, women couldn’t wear pants without being looked down upon.”  But, over the course of time, it has become accepted by society. Do you believe that, if enough guys wore dresses for a while, so it was accepted by society, that it would then make it O.K. for guys to wear dresses or pants, while women also wore dresses or pants?
_____YES      _____NO

Do you agree that it is hypocritical for society to allow girls to wear typically masculine clothes, while men are ridiculed for wearing typically feminine clothes—as stated by the author: “Why the double standard? Why can girls wear typically masculine clothes and receive compliments while boys get ridiculed if they wear stereotypically feminine clothes?”
_____YES      _____NO

Do you agree that “gender fluidity exists” and that “restrictive gender categories” exist for “no reason”?
_____YES      _____NO

Do you agree that we should not oppose those who want to express it? In other words, should we approve of gender fluidity by approving of people who want to cross gender boundaries in their appearance?
_____YES      _____NO

Do you believe that the reason society has upheld “preset gender expectations” throughout history has any moral implications, specifically related to Deuteronomy 22:5?
_____YES      _____NO

Do you realize that now for the first time in modern history, there is a strong effort to remove all gender boundaries, distinctions, or markers in fashion, roles and relationships?
_____YES      _____NO

The author believes: “Men and women should be able to wear whatever clothing they want, no matter what color or pattern it is.” Her article portrays the position that no fashions should be designated as women’s clothing or men’s clothing. Do you agree with this concept?
_____YES      _____NO

Are you on board with this “new wave of fashions” and agree that “There’s no need to conform to these gender limitations, and using clothing to push gender boundaries shouldn’t be frowned upon.”
_____YES      _____NO

The author wonders why some people have such a strong reaction toward switching clothes around. “People get so angry about it, but if it’s not negatively affecting them, why should they care?” While it is true that we should not “get angry” in an ungodly manner, should God’s people be concerned if all of society, including members of the church, interchange clothing so that there is no distinction between what men and women wear?
_____YES      _____NO

If we should be concerned, what is our reason, and how strongly should we be concerned?

Please email your comments or request more information on this topic from a biblical perspective at
truebiblicalwomanhood@gmail.com for

jjeanniton

  • Guest
Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
« Reply #45 on: August 26, 2017, 04:50:16 PM »
This has always been a major contention of mine: the sexes are not just distinct - they are biologically and ontologically DISCONTINUOUS from each other. Likewise, if we can prove that the "races" or "subspecies" of mankind are biologically real, then they must be every bit as precisely defined and biologically discontinuous from each other as are the sexes. A "race" of mankind, in the biological sense of the term is: ‘a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type’ – and which traits all members of that type and only members of that type have by virtue of its very essence. And if God wills it, I can prove the following propositions.

1. No 'race' nor 'subspecies' of mankind is a fuzzy set. (A fuzzy set is a set such that there are some individuals for which it cannot be determined precisely whether the given individual is a member of that set or not.)

2. No 'race' can contain the whole of any other 'race', but on the contrary, all such 'races' are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.

3. It is a fact of Science and also a wise dispensation of Divine Providence that the entire Human Species, and therefore each “race” thereof, is only a finite set.

4. Because finite sets can only have finitely many subsets, it follows that the number of different 'races' or 'subspecies' of mankind is only a finite whole number. (And I can prove from Proposition 3 that the truth of Proposition 4 is independent of the truth of proposition 2.)

5. These 'races' or 'subspecies' are discrete, and in fact, the genetic variations between the “races” which DEFINE their very ESSENCE, and DEFINE them as being different “races” must be biologically discontinuous, and the same is true for subspecies. And we can prove that these Propositions 1 - 5 are also true for "sexes".

6. But because it is a fact of Science that only CONTINUOUS genetic variations between the different peoples around the world have been observed, and lack the necessary biological discontinuity to define a different "race" or subspecies, therefore there is only one race - the Human Race. There are only two human sexes - the male and the female, because this distinction DOES have the required biological discontinuity that the distinction between the so-called "races" of mankind lacks! And also the Bible teaches that there is only ONE race - the Human race! See: https://answersingenesis.org/racism/are-there-really-different-races/. Therefore the Bible teaches that there are only TWO sexes, but only ONE race of mankind. And I will move this reply of mine to a different section if necessary. In the meantime, may God bless you and your work in defending and upholding the true nature, distinctions, and BIOLOGICAL DISCONTINUITY of the sexes! Through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.