The argument I've been making is:
(1) What some evangelicals (and I've used Eldredge as an example) claim is how boys "ought" to be (and conversely, how girls "ought" to be) is not borne out in Scripture. In the Bible there's no teachings on how boys and girls "ought" to be. So when Eldredge says that boys and men "ought" to be outdoors-sportsmen, ought to be able to "fix" things, ought to be "tough", ought to be "manly" (whatever that means), he's not getting that from Scripture but from some other pseudo-Christianized Western image he has (or, as he even talks about in his book, inferences drawn from his own personal experience...which hardly seem like they "ought" to apply to everyone else).
I'm right about (1). If you think I'm wrong, show me from Scripture where I'm wrong.
(2) There are "normative" behaviors for boys and girls, insofar as there are, within any population, statistical norms. Just like it's "normative" for people to be right-handed (9 out of 10 people in fact are right handed), but there are always some outliers (1 in 10 people are in fact LEFT handed). But that doesn't mean that the outliers aren't "legitimate". So most boys will prefer playing with trucks over dolls when they're little, but that doesn't mean that the boys that prefer dolls aren't "real boys". They're just not typical; they're statistical outliers.
I'm right about (2). It's supported by observable reality and data.
In a survey done on parents, here's what parents observed about their kids:
- 80% of their sons like to play with cars but only 19% like to play with dolls
- 43% of their daughters like to play with cars but 71% like to play with dolls
(see:
https://www.madeformums.com/school-...hink-the-toys-were-giving-our-boys-and-girls/)
Does this mean that the 19% of boys who prefer dolls over trucks aren't "real boys"? No. They're just outside the "norm".
(3) The standards for behavior in Scripture have to do with character and treating others. They don't have to do with how the genders specifically should act.
If you think I'm wrong about (3), prove it. So far you've not done so. You've just said I don't know the Bible, and you've said you're not interested in my theology. Fine, you don't have to be interested in mine; I'm interested in YOURS. But you've not put up at all.
And then you have the temerity to say that I'm "woke", when what I've been arguing against backup and Temujin is literally the exact OPPOSITE of woke. Which means you really don't understand what you're talking about.
So I've invited you numerous times now to show me where I'm wrong. You either are unwilling to do it (and instead just prefer to hurl invectives at me), or you are unable to do it. I'm not a betting man, but if I was, I'd wager a large sum on the latter being the case.