But your fallacy is that you did not create a genuine non-intersection. You would have had to assert, for example, that there was a class of "clothing only women wear," which, as we know, isn't true, just as the converse isn't true. The term women is used, of course, in two contexts, one exclusive (a woman is not a man, and vice versa) and the other descriptive of categories of items (which is not exclusive.)
You have, I notice, failed to address my argument directly, by challenging my categorization in a substantive way. I would be happy to discuss that, but not to discuss whether men wear womens clothing or women wear mens clothing.
BTW, my struggle with this is not, as you contend, great. I am just trying to help you understand that there are, in the end, no ethics without religion.
We are so steeped in societies based on religion from the very earliest days (as far as we know, no non-religious societies have ever existed--if there really were no Gods, you would have to posit that every single human culture just somehow happened to invent them, which if you think about it is astonishingly unlikely), so it's much, in philosophical terms, like the air we breathe -- something we just take for granted.
Just as man can go into space and claim to be free of earth's atmosphere but must be protected in a suit that continues to provide air, so you can go into the realm of athiesm, but are protected with the environment of religion. |
