Відео

leave off the name Christians label these people progressive religion ist

My name Sr W.A. geddes and I am Roman catholic. I pose the question, do we always look to Paul for answers when we fail to understand the teaching of Jesus or should we try a little harder to listen to Jesus and the Spirit of God He promised was within us. Look to yourself before you usurp the job of God in judgement of others. When you are perfect, then perhaps you can judge another. Your job is to love one another. St Teresa of Calcutta, when asked what she thought of gays and trans people, replied, “Oh, you mean the beloved children of God.”

Thanks for featuring Kristi, she's right.

The Bible is a grossly immoral work of ancient mythology. Christianity is a disgusting ideology.

Christians don't ignore those verses. they just don't READ them, and then they pretend they don't exist. It's really simple. Christians only read those parts of the Bible deemed "safe" by their pastors. It's not because they are deliberately ignoring them - it's because the Bible is so boring and convoluted and hard to understand that Christians just basically only read the easy bits. Sometimes, however, Christians DO read the whole thing. And when they do, pretty soon afterward they stop being Christians

props Kristi for getting reaction videos. You are being heard.

Christians ignore huge swaths of the bible, particularly parts where god tells people to kill others, to kill men and women and keep virgins for themselves, the parts where god instructs how to keep slaves and so much more.... The god of the bible is a homicidal maniac that instiitutes genocide, calls for genocide and kills so many people. However we can really start talking when someone can actually prove there is a god. Which nobody has managed to do yet. It is all imaginary.

Christians ignore all the contradictions of the bible for sure. Way more than six. If you want to do some videos and show us how he is wrong, try to disprove Holy Koolaid's video. I would love to hear the double speak you will have to come up with since he uses the bible as refence.

There's two verses most Christians ignore, and some Christians use to justify atrocities and bigotry: Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46.

BTW there was a famous case that went to the US supreme court here a year or so ago. A coach was having his team go onto the field and pray before the game. This was generally thought to be prohibited prior to that case. It was pointed out that the team had just been on the sideline where they could have prayed somewhat inconspicuously. Prior to that they had been in the locker room where they could have prayed privately. The coach made sure they went out of the locker room, off of the sideline, and into the center of the field in front of the entire stadium. That is the kind of thing I believe she is referencing.

I think you are falling into the same hole many theist do. She is saying that you are not following your own beliefs, not that she shares them. She may believe that judging is fine. I also think this may be a difference in biblical interpretation. I was raised Catholic in the U.S. and we were taught the judge not lest ye be judged was likened to or possibly even linked to the "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" idea. In that frame of reference it is a valid complaint. We don't do it but we don't ignore it? WOW.

Okay I have to disagree with you. That was a flattering freeze frame. Kristi has fantastic teeth

8:00 How is it irony? Where in the the Atheist Bible does it command atheists not to judge? Oh, yeah, Atheists don't have a Bible. So no irony as it's not analogous.

why are you so slowly making sure you are saying the right thing in your responses? here is the final word. who gave god the right to be the judge, jury and executioner of the world? nobody voted him into office of ruler. where did god come from. and don't give me that sorry excuse of he has always been there. prove it!!!!!! gen. 1:1 is flawed. where according to the bible is god? Psalm 115:3: "Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him" Corinthians 5:1: "God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few" Isaiah 66 "The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?" Acts 7:49 "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest?" in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth. where was he it heaven had not vet been created. not until gen. 1:1. anything that you are saying doesn't make sense. the worst people i know are christians. christianity made me an atheist. i was there for 60 years and it know it's a joke and fantasy. prove god to me.

Bruh. U sound so weird tryna defend ur religion. She is right on the things she said in that video.

I don't think she's saying that Christianity is wrong because Christians aren't following the Bible. I think she's saying that Christians believe they should be following the Bible but they aren't actually following the Bible.

Ironically she’s judging Christians for judging others, and now am I judging her by her logic? Wow eisegesis can cause a never ending viscious cycle is seems 😂

My dear friend please stop making excuses for what is BLATANTLY WRONG the bible explicitly says what is right and wrong don't use words and cliches to excuse what you know is wrong, God may well judge you and all the others like you unless you repent and ask for God's mercy.

In terms of the prayer thing, I think that's more applicable in the states than the UK and Ireland. I feel like in the States you'd be more likely to get social cred for public prayer than here so it's a bigger temptation.

While I don't think Matthew 10:14 is a explict command for all people, it's definitely a model of evangelism we can learn from. The principle of shaking the dust off your feet can be useful. That doesn't mean God has given up on them, others can come to them with the message of Jesus instead and they may be more respective. In the same way, this passage shows that door-to-door evangelism is a good technique to try.

I would agree that a lot ignore the context of the passage and don't even know about John 7:24 ,discernment is a judgement. 2nd point.. If Jesus intended us to stop every time someone didn't want it, his own ministry would've gone nowhere. Nobody wanted him. We are to go about with unbelievers a lot different than members of the Body. 3rd point. Believers do not redefine love, we have experienced unconditional love. Unbelievers do not know God so they go by off what they perceive as love. Loving someone doesn't mean you have to be their best friend and coddle them all the time. Love can and should be a strong rebuke at times. Discernment is key.

Thank you for a calm rational explanation of Christian doctrine and the Anglican Church structure. There is too much hate in the world and not enough love. The extreme Left and woke culture is a menace to truth and stability.

... Another appointment to the 'brood of vipers', teaching (what will be) 'the commandments of men'.

The word "deacon" in Hebrew is "SHAMASH" meaning "servant" or "one who serves" which is meant to be a very humble role, not something elevated with special titles or privileges. The consonant Hebrew root of "SHAMASH" are the three letters "S - M - S" ("SHIN - MEM - SHIN") with the intrinsic meaning of "service" which is also employed in the related root word "SHEMESH" for the "sun" as the sun "serves" the earth with light. In modern Hebrew the term "BEIT SMIMUSH" or "House of Services" is used to describe a public toilet in polite terms. Also the Biblical character "Samson" is actually "SIMSHON" from the same root as a servant of God having taken the Nazarite vow not to cut his hair. Thus in Hebrew the word for "deacon" is related to a "servant", the "sun" and a "toilet"! These words do not link in English, but as we see "deacon" is a very humble "servant" role.

You're defending Archdeaconism, but where will you find Archdeacons in the Bible? 🤔 That is an un-Biblical as the other things you denounce and condemn. 🙃

God help us all. Literally! Is it a woman or a man? There is nothing else!

Time for the church to get its act together, no Perverts or freaks kick out all of the spawn of Satan.

I've done some reading about this issue-- because I attended Grace for years and this didn't seem to fit with my experience with church doctrine preached there. The only conclusion I can draw is that the facts of this case were not lining up with the accusations. In some cases, it's hard to know the truth of what actually happened. In America, there is a presumption of innocence. Perhaps the elders of the church believed the elder based upon the facts they had. Moreover, as an attorney, I can tell you there are many, many people wrongly accused.

Jesus *did* address the issue of homosexuality. Jesus addresses it in Matthew 5 & Matthew 19. In these chapters, Jesus addresses the issue of marriage. Jesus rooted His understanding of marriage in the teaching of Genesis 2, which gives us marriage between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation, illustration and sanctification. He also made it very clear that what God has joined together, man cannot separate. In other words, God is the author of marriage, not man. Therefore, God is the one who defines marriage, not man. Therefore, man does not have the right to introduce the concept of same sex marriage because: 1.) By definition it's not marriage, it's another thing. 2.) Because by definition, it goes against what has been created in Genesis 2. Jesus did address the issue of homosexuality, because He addressed the issue of sexual impurity. He addressed the issue of fornication. Jesus in the sermon on the mount talks about porneia. He talks about sexual impurity, which is a reference to the porneia code in leviticus 18 which clearly upholds the idea that homosexuality is sinful. The Bigger issue with "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality" is that it's not just that Jesus is God but that Jesus is a member of the Godhead. It's not just that Jesus is divine, but that He is a member of the Trinity. Jesus has existed eternally as God & Jesus has existed eternally in perfect union with the Father and The Holy Spirit. Although He ook on a human nature in His incarnation, He did not come into existence in His incarnation. You cannot divorce Jesus from the rest of the Bible. Therefore, when you read in Leviticus 20:1 that "The Lord said to Moses" then that *is* Jesus speaking. You also cannot separate Jesus from the Father and the Holy Spirit on the issue of homosexuality. You cannot claim that Jesus never addressed the issue of homosexuality, unless you want to argue that Jesus has a different opinion on the matter than God the Father & God the Holy Spirit, which is hugely problematic because that would mean a breach in the Trinity and the whole universe would cave in on itself. Lastly, The Bible is one story. Not many. You can no more separate Jesus from Paul or Peter than you can separate Jesus from The Father or The Holy Spirit. What do the apostles teach? The apostles are whose apostles? They are Christ's apostles. So the teaching that they give us, is the authoritative teaching of the church from The Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Jude 1:7 speaks of “Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh” (KJV). In context, Jude is assuring his readers that God has punished sin in the past and, therefore, He will continue to do so in the future. Jude gives a list of incidents as evidence of God’s judgment, and one of the incidents that he cites is the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. The King James Version and the New American Standard Version are similar in the translation of Jude 1:7, and both use the term strange flesh. “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire” (NASB). The ESV has a more interpretive translation: “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” The ESV includes an alternate translation, “different flesh,” in a footnote. The NIV provides the most interpretive translation: “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” The traditional understanding of this passage is that the “strange flesh” refers to homosexual desire similar to what was exhibited in Sodom in Genesis 19. Two angels (appearing as men) visited Sodom. Lot, not knowing that they were angels, asked them to come into his home. The men of the city learned of the visitors and mobbed Lot’s house, saying, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them” (verse 4). In recent years, there has been an attempt to legitimize homosexual desire and even to look for ways to make it compatible with biblical teaching. Some have challenged the traditional understanding that the pursuit of “strange flesh” refers to homosexual lust. Jude 1:7 begins with “in the same way,” which calls our attention to the situation in the previous verse. Verse 6 says, “And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling-these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.” This has often been understood as a reference to Genesis 6. The first verses of that chapter highlight the wickedness that precipitated the flood. Many interpret the Genesis passage as referring to angels who in some way had sexual relations with human women. According to some, the logic in Jude 1 runs this way: in verse 6 angels have sexual desire for human beings, and in verse 7 human beings have sexual desire for angels. The conclusion is that the desire for “strange flesh” in Jude 1:7 refers to human-angel relations, not any kind of human-human relations. This interpretation has several problems. First, it is far from clear that Jude 1:6 is a reference to Genesis 6:2-4. Second, it is far from clear that “the sons of God” in Genesis 6:2-4 refers to angels or that human-angel sexual activity is what is in view. Third, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah warranted judgment before the angels ever showed up (Genesis 19:20). In fact, pending judgment was the reason the angels went to Sodom in the first place. It is not as though angels were being assaulted on a regular basis in Sodom. And, finally, the men of Sodom had no idea that the “men” visiting Lot’s house were angels, so the issue could not be an unnatural attraction to angels. The next issue that needs to be addressed is the term translated “strange “ in the phrase “strange flesh.” The word translated “strange” is hetero, which means “different.” The issue is complicated by the fact that we use the term heterosexual to refer to attraction to the opposite gender and homosexual to refer to same-sex attraction. Jude 1:7 says that Sodom and Gomorrah were judged because of hetero attractions. However, the context is clear that hetero in this case does not mean “different gender” but “different from the norm,” as in “strange.” Romans 1:26-27 calls these urges and actions “unnatural”-that is, they are different (hetero) from the God-ordained design. Finally, some have charged that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality per se, but violence and attempted homosexual rape. They claim that Genesis 19 has nothing to do with loving, mutual homosexual desire. Certainly, the violence of the men of Sodom adds an additional layer to the problem. It may account for why Jude describes the incident in Sodom as one of “gross immorality,” but it does not explain why Jude says they desired “strange flesh.” Furthermore, it was not for the single incident with Lot that Sodom was judged; rather, that incident simply demonstrated and confirmed the kind of immorality that was rampant in Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding areas. When all the evidence is considered, the traditional understanding is still the most consistent with the biblical data. Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding areas gave themselves over to all sorts of sexual perversion (rape would be included in this), but homosexual attraction and activity, described as a desire for “strange flesh,” is also included. Jude describes homosexual desire as a desire for hetero flesh because it is “different” from the God-ordained plan for sexuality. Jude says that the men of Sodom were judged for this and stand as an example of God’s willingness and ability to judge such actions in the future.

Jude 1:7 in Greek: ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι. In English: just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the around them cities - in like manner with them having indulged in sexual immorality and having gone after flesh strange are set forth as an example of fire eternal [the] penalty undergoing. What the strange flesh that is mentioned is (σαρκὸς ἑτέρας), is where the question comes in. Among those who agree that the Bible prohibits homosexual practice, there is a disagreement about whether the story of Sodom and Gomorrah should be used in support of this conclusion. Traditionally, the sin of Sodom has been considered, among other things, the sin of pursuing same-sex intercourse. Hence, the act of male-with-male sex has been termed sodomy. More recently, others have maintained that attempted homosexual gang rape is hardly germane to the question of committed, monogamous gay unions today. Sodom had many sins-violence, injustice, oppression, inhospitable brutality-but same-sex intercourse per se is nowhere condemned in the Genesis account. Some conservative scholars, while still holding conservative conclusions about marriage and homosexuality, have concurred with this line of reasoning, arguing that when it comes to deciding the rightness or wrongness of homosexual behavior, Genesis 19 is irrelevant. There are many important considerations to weigh when trying to make sense of Sodom and Gomorrah. Obviously, the Old Testament context matters. Knowing something about the Ancient Near East may help too. Looking at literature from Second Temple Judaism is also important. Most critical, however (at least for those with an evangelical view of Scripture), is how the New Testament understands the sin of Sodom. Which is why Jude 6-7 is so important. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day-just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire (sarkos heteras), serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 6-7) There is a case to be that Jude’s comment about sarkos heteras (“other flesh”) is a reference to sex with angels not sex with other men. Verse 6 is likely an allusion to the sin of the angels in Genesis 6:1-4, which according to Jewish tradition, involved angels having sex with the daughters of men. So it is not far fetched to think that the “other flesh” in verse 7 is a reference to the men of Sodom trying to have sex with Lot’s angelic visitors. If this interpretation is correct, it makes it less likely (though not at all impossible) to see the sin of Sodom as being, at least in part, the sin of homosexual practice. Which, of course, would do nothing to invalidate the other verses that speak on the subject, but it would set aside the most infamous account of homosexuality in the Bible. Having said all that, I still see good reasons to accept the traditional interpretation and conclude that Jude 7 is a reference to the sin of homosexual behavior. 1. This interpretation is in keeping with prevailing Jewish norms in the first century. Both Josephus and Philo not only condemn relations that are “contrary to nature,” they explicitly understand Genesis 19 as referring to homosexual acts. 2. As a striking example of sexual immorality, it would certainly be more relevant in a first century Greco-Roman context to warn against homosexual behavior as opposed to the non-existent temptation to have sex with angels (cf. 2 Peter 2:6). 3. It would be strange to refer to attempted sex with angels as pursuing other “flesh.” Of all the ways to reference angels, the very physical, human, and earthly sarx seems an odd choice. 4. The men of Sodom did not know they were trying to have sex with angelic beings. Even if sarkos heteras could be taken to mean a “different species” (and I don’t think it does), the men of Sodom had no idea that that is what they were pursuing. Isn’t it more likely to think they were guilty of pursuing sex with other men (as they saw them), then that they were guilty of pursuing sex with angels (which they did not understand)? 5. If pursuing “unnatural desire” is a reference to seeking out sex with angels, how do we make sense of the beginning of verse 7 which indicts Sodom and Gomorrah *and* the surrounding cities of this sin? Were Admah and Zeboim guilty of trying to have sex with angels? It makes more sense to think that Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities all had a reputation for sexual immorality and that one flagrant example of such sin was homosexual practice. This is why the parallel passage in 2 Peter 2:7-8 can depict Lot as greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of these cities. They had a reputation for lawlessness which did not rely on angels to be manifested. In short, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah and the whole region was not just a one-time attempted gang rape of angelic beings, but, according to Jude a lifestyle of sensuality and sexual immorality, at least one aspect of which was exemplified in men pursuing the flesh of other men instead of the flesh of women.

RUN AS FAR AWAY AND FAST AS YOU CAN FROM THESE WEIRD, WOKE, WELBY TYPES ! THEY ARE THE WORST THING FOR YOUR SANITY, HEALTH AND SALVATION.. THEY ARE COMPLETE LOONIES GIVING IN TO THE SPIRIT OF THE AGE. 😢😢😢

The older generation is wrong about mental health. some people respond very well to medication. medication sometimes is not a good fit for everyone. I have adhd and anxiety. After trying medication I decided going medication free was best in my situation. I don't know why the church is not accepting mental health. I am assuming because if you get help with counselling and medication they are afraid you won't be attending church or giving the church money.

Satans church allows this wickedness

i am so glad that i left the C of E and become catholic

Under Welby...We now haven't got a C of E. ...

Thank easy and straight forward explaination

Amazed at the unchristian tone of the comments here.

Is the rioting actually unusual for Northern Ireland though? How often do you get riots as relics of the Troubles? On that note, part of what makes this more newsworthy is the riots are taking place in England but outside of London; which is where riots historically took place. In terms of Christianity and Islam worshipping the same God, I have no issue saying that really. Whenever the bible shows interactions with Jews, the assumption is always that they are attempting to worship the same god; but nevertheless the only way to the Father is the Son. The same logic applies to Islam. Although as an aside same logic does not apply to Hinduism as it's not Abrahamic; and my understanding is that non-polytheistic Hinduism is pantheist; which means that they are really worshipping the Universe rather than a transcendent being who created the universe.

Christians should embrace all who wish to live in the way of Christ, as we are all sinners, but celebrating the sin is not really what the Church should be doing.

That's quite a bit of fancy dancing. I am always amused by Christians who announce - "let's look at what the Bible says" and then launch into a carefully curated version of their renegotiation of the text they are isolating. Some of the more educated and shrewd ones will actually use the original language but most do not because they can't read the text in the original. So, what do we have in this little bit of scripture? 1. Paul states a bit of dogma - the natural world shows that God exists. And by God, he means the Christian version, no other. Romans 1:18-20; 2. This dogma that the natural world shows the existence of God is known as natural theology. It is a classic philosophical argument from Greco-Roman times. Paul argues that as the pagans he references know this but insist on worshipping their false idols, they are deliberately rejecting the Christian God. Romans 1:21-23, 25. We can set aside for the moment the presupposition in Paul's argument, namely, that his Christian God is the one true God. 3. This rejection cheeses off the Christian God enormously. So, He gave these pagans over in the sinful desires of their hearts, to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. There are a couple of things in this statement worth noting. The Greek translated as "gave them over" in the text is the same as the Greek text used when Judas hands Jesus over in the garden for his trial and crucifixion. The Christian God has decided he has enough of their sinful idolatry so HE hands them over to sexual degradation of their bodies with each other. He is the agent mandating this to happen. As a result, the Christian God has removed any natural moral or ethical barriers these pagans had that restrained them from certain actions and created the condition in which these folks will be impelled into these actions. Romans 1:24-25. This is classic Paul in his use of Greco-Roman pagan philosophy to form his arguments. It is a theme found throughout Greco-Roman paganism and is a theme Paul and his readers would have been familiar with. It even survives down to today in such sayings as "for whom the gods would destroy, they first deprive of reason". 4. So, God mandates their actions, handing them over to shameful actions, and abandoning their prior natural desires. Romans 1:26-27. Now note something interesting here. God is the actor. He is the one who initiates the shameful actions of these folks. And he does it because he wants to punish them, i.e., give them the due penalty for their error. What error is that? It is their refusal to acknowledge him as God and to engage in idolatry. So, the Christian God removes all the natural moral and ethical barriers these folks had regarding the actions Paul mentions, causing them to cease their prior natural desires and start engaging in same-sex activities along with murder, adultery, etc. 5. So what happens to these idolatrous people being punished by God for their idolatry? The next portion of Paul's text tells us: "Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, God gave them over to a depraved mind so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." Romans 1:28-32. This passage is Paul's condemnation of idolaters and idolatry, attacking the surrounding pagans and showing how God punishes them for this transgression. He is acting very much within the confines of the Greco-Roman world's concepts of how the world operates. Whether that system of beliefs is still valid is another matter but not important here. The text makes it clear that God is the actor here. He is angered by the pagans' rejection of him. He punishes them by removing any natural ethical or moral barriers they might have naturally had. He pushes them into committing sexual actions they would not have done had God not removed those moral and ethical barriers. He also pushes them into committing numerous other actions, including gossip, slander, envy, murder, deceit, malice, etc. What I find interesting is how this passage is used very carefully, isolating it from the context in which it is found, forming it as an attack on the LGBT community. Now, leaving aside the issue of the morality of homosexuality as a volitional act between consenting adults for a moment, using this passage raises some issues. First, as mentioned above, the Christian God is the actor here. He decides to punish these idolaters by removing their own natural inhibitions towards certain actions, including but not exclusively, same-sex sexual behavior. And the passage is not about just same-sex sexual activity. It is about people whom the Christian God has sentenced to all manner of depravity for the sin of idolatry. He is the one who has agency here when it comes to all this activity, not the people he has punished. Yes, they might have been engaging in the act of rejecting God and worshipping idols but the Christian God is the one who removed all their natural moral and ethical barriers to such depravity and tossed them right into it.

She has lost to women many times look up her record shes is FEMALE so how does many women beat her a so called male

Whatever the discussion is, ask yourself why it is? It’s bcs of the biological advantage in female sports when athletes have to high testosterone levels. And thank you for pointing this out in your video as for the level of testosterone will give this advantage. That’s why there is a number of female sports with the regulation of testosterone level to allow athletes to fairly compete. So my request is as to IBA as IOC, show her testosterone level tests. That’s it. And just to be clear female athletes in sports where the rules applies have to keep the level below the required criteria for some period of time prior event usually half of a year or a year. Just put the politics corruption religion hate or whatever brings emotions aside and focus on fairness in sport.

This is not a transgender problem or a queer problem (as far as boxing is concerned). God played a nasty trick on these guys. The concept of gender doesn't even apply. These guys produce a large quantity of testosterone (more than girls do). This gives them an unfair advantage over girls in sports.

Dsd or intersex where both organs are there one is always more active or developed . It does not give a fair playing field for normal Xx development and bodies matter in sport .. perhaps the Paralympic’s or an open category.. it’s pretty obvious when women get out of the ring saying they never being boxed so hard … but hey let’s have a social experiment in the name of inclusion-not like any women not aware that they don’t care about gender based violence.. She would have found out no matter what she was thought to be at puberty why no breasts or periods came and she started to develop as a male …. Plus why she have a groin guard .. and where is her hijab coming from a Muslim country!

If you have XY chromosomes your a man!

If he's a man, he's a man.

Thank you for the video! I just have an objection on the comparison between Islam and Christianity. We do in Islam believe in all the prophets of Christianity and Judaism. Of course, we consider Jesus to be a prophet (Jews don't even recognize him). As for radical monotheism and trinity, Christianity is considered a monotheistic religion (if I'm not wrong!) as is Islam. Plus the three religions are classified together as Abrahamic religions !

Anybody could see that's a man and if I was that young lady I would be suing the one's who allowed him to fight a woman I don't care if he's transgender or not he's a FECKING man I would also be suing France for allowing it

It is very, very simple! He has also the Y chromosome. He is a man! He has an unfair physical advantage over women!! Case closed!! No woke s4it is going to change this fact! Unless you want to destroy womens sports with failed man athletes?!