Famous news source says: “The thinking of transgender activists is inherently confused and filled with internal contradictions. Activists never acknowledge those contradictions. Instead, they opportunistically rely on whichever claim is useful at any given moment.
On the one hand, they claim that the real self is something other than the physical body, in a new form of Gnostic dualism, yet at the same time they embrace a materialist philosophy in which only the material world exists. They say that gender is purely a social construct, while asserting that a person can be “trapped” in the wrong gender.
They say there are no meaningful differences between man and woman, yet they rely on rigid sex stereotypes to argue that “gender identity” is real, while human embodiment is not. They claim that truth is whatever a person says it is, yet they believe there’s a real self to be discovered inside that person.
They promote a radical expressive individualism in which people are free to do whatever they want and define the truth however they wish, yet they try ruthlessly to enforce acceptance of transgender ideology.
It’s hard to see how these contradictory positions can be combined. If you pull too hard on any one thread of transgender ideology, the whole tapestry comes unraveled. But here are some questions we can pose:
If gender is a social construct, how can gender identity be innate and immutable? How can one’s identity with respect to a social construct be determined by biology in the womb? How can one’s identity be unchangeable (immutable) with respect to an ever-changing social construct? And if gender identity is innate, how can it be “fluid”?
The challenge for activists is to offer a plausible definition of gender and gender identity that is independent of bodily sex.
Is there a gender binary or not? Somehow, it both does and does not exist, according to transgender activists. If the categories of “man” and “woman” are objective enough that people can identify as, and be
, men and women, how can gender also be a spectrum, where people can identify as, and be, both, or neither, or somewhere in between?
What does it even mean to have an internal sense of gender? What does gender feel like? What meaning can we give to the concept of sex or gender—and thus what internal “sense” can we have of gender—apart from having a body of a particular sex?
The challenge for the transgender activist is to explain what these feelings are like, and how someone could know if he or she “feels like” the opposite sex, or neither, or both.
Even if trans activists could answer these questions about feelings, that still wouldn’t address the matter of reality. Why should feeling like a man—whatever that means—make someone a man? Why do our feelings determine reality on the question of sex, but on little else? Our feelings don’t determine our age or our height. And few people buy into Rachel Dolezal’s claim to identify as a black woman, since she is clearly not.
If those who identify as transgender are the sex with which they identify, why doesn’t that apply to other attributes or categories of being? What about people who identify as animals, or able-bodied people who identify as disabled? Do all of these self-professed identities determine reality? If not, why not?
And should these people receive medical treatment to transform their bodies to accord with their minds? Why accept transgender “reality,” but not trans-racial, trans-species, and trans-abled reality?
The challenge for activists is to explain why a person’s “real” sex is determined by an inner “gender identity,” but age and height and race and species are not determined by an inner sense of identity...Gender identity can sound a lot like religious identity, which is determined by beliefs. But those beliefs don’t determine reality. Someone who identifies as a Christian believes that Jesus is the Christ. Someone who identifies as a Muslim believes that Muhammad is the final prophet. But Jesus either is or is not the Christ, and Muhammad either is or is not the final prophet, regardless of what anyone happens to believe.
So, too, a person either is or is not a man, regardless of what anyone—including that person—happens to believe. ...Which is it? Is our gender identity biologically determined and immutable, or self-created and changeable? If the former, how do we account for people whose gender identity changes over time? Do these people have the wrong sense of gender at some time or other?
And if gender identity is self-created, why must other people accept it as reality? If we should be free to choose our own gender reality, why can some people impose their idea of reality on others just because they identify as transgender?...A transgender future is not the “right side of history,” yet activists have convinced the most powerful sectors of our society to acquiesce to their demands. ”
To be clear, both arguments had to be dramatically edited, from over 10,000 characters each to under 5,000 by 5 characters that last case.
Don't worry you haven't, though I appreciate the sentiment, I'm tired of responding to the same tired old arguments over and over again. I will continue to do so however.
I'll reply to that in our debate. I'm sorry if I have aggravated you.
Incorrect, before one could claim that they would have to show an inherent logical inconsistency within transgenderism. There is not one, as I have already demonstrated and will rebuke the egregious claims of the heritage foundation later.
I think the main problem with opponents of transgender is that they mistake gender for gender identity and vice versa. They think Transgender people are trying to philosophically conclude whether they are male, female, or a third gender, while in reality it's a belief similar to religion, that should be respected.
Testosterone and Estrogen are responsible for the sex phenotypes, not gender identities.
other than testosterone and oestrogen, which is the third hormone that creates a third gender variation?
You clearly have no idea what philosophy is, science is nothing more than applicable philosophy. I used science to prove my premises, not to make the argument itself, you have no idea what you're talking about philosophically. But I will get into the actual argument in the debate rounds.
You are partially correct about gender, but it certainly doesn't demonstrate any kind of dichotomy. So I'd consider that a red herring. As for the other thing, when we are arguing definitions, we use the definition that is the most applicable and the most fitting to the resolution, that's what mine does, the fact that it's by the APA and psychology as a field uses it are just supporting evidence
I’m surprised you resorted to using science to refute philosophy. That shouldn’t be necessary. I am not saying transgender is wrong, I am saying it has inconsistencies with a belief mindset (as your sources say it can depend on your brain’s birth state, but some think it is fluid... )
Any ad hominems you got from that is strictly your own interpretation of what I said, not actually what I said. I was pointing out the irony of you not understanding a false equivalence considering the rational in your username.
I never claimed your argument was unjustified due to this, that would be an ad hominem and a red herring, I did not. Again, learn logical fallacies correctly. A logical fallacy can be applicable of any premise in an argument, whereas the note to your username was simply that, a note, not a premise.
It is indeed a complete and utter appeal to authority that you just made and indeed many psychiatrists can lose their job if it's revealed they advised any client/patient that gender is binary, that's the level of peer pressure involved currently. It's alright though, as the idea that gender is inextriably linked to genitalia is also flawed.
The masculinity and femininity of any individual is linked to hormones and brain structure. Even people who believe gender isn't binary often are ignorant and think it's linked to muscle mass and other such things.
Given the definition given by the APA (American Psychological Association), Gender can not be solely binary. You believe me making a false analogy for reasons unjustified, I believe you are making a false analogy because your definition of gender is frankly incorrect, and nearly every gender psychologist disagrees with you. Not to make an appeal to authority, but when arguing definitions, their perspective is important to weigh, and it's fair to say they weigh heavily to support me. I have the preponderance of evidence to support my claims, you do not.
Insulting the logical integrity of my username is hardly a good attack in this. It's ad hominem and red herring all at once.
I am aware of how my username can appear to be implausible, especially if one doesn't understand enough about how varied and futile the meaning of 'madness' is in the eyes of the norm.
We both disagree on which of the two of us is making a false equivalence/analogy which is why I accepted your other debate as I want to explain how it isn't transphobic to see genders as binary if you accept that sex isn't the same thing as gender (they are just correlated, not linked in a concrete manner).
False Equivalence, a better or more comparable example would be the color spectrum. Let's call blue maleness and red femaleness, you can have an absence of such, black, or be ever-shifting, white. Temperature implies an inherent dichotomy that is untrue for gender.
Have you ever studied logical fallacies "Rational"Madman?
Indeed, there is also lukewarm and fairly-hot on the temperature scale but only 2 poles towards which it can be directed.
Actually, to correct you.. No. there is no depth to what this source is saying. It's a collection of messy red herring, strawmen, and non-sequiturs. No one denies gender is there, people correct you that gender is primarily a societal concept. Of course, there is some genetic and neuroscience that backs up gender identity and all of the research that comes with it as a result.
What you misunderstand is that non-binary people exist, as in people who identify with neither gender. You fundamentally misunderstand the concept of being transgender if that is the problem you are being stuck upon. I would ask you further your research instead of trying to come to your own conclusions on it. As they are logically fallacious
Actually there is a lot of depth to what they say, which I will use in our other debate. As Seldiora says, it's not that someone being transgender is a problem, it's that they deny gender is there to justify needing to turn into the other one.
The source does go too far with the whole 'what is a feeling of gender' thing, since there is a felt gender they're denying but when it comes to the logic on which transgender base their transition, it's flawed if they deny that gender is real.
So, I'm pulling an all-nighter to get this argument done as fast as possible, I can not stand the abomination that is that block of text you copy and pasted from the heritage foundation. The amount of misinformation and logical fallacies frankly concern me, you should avoid using them as a source of argumentation in the future.
This.... isn't even their argument.... they just... copy and pasted..... literally.
Which I guess if you're purely looking to become a better debater is fine, but I just like being intellectually honest. I can be devil's advocate, but it always feels dishonest; because I know an argument that would beat it.
Well seldiora argues for literally anything and everything.
You know what? It doesn't matter. You're wrong.
I'm gonna need your definition for philosophically here, do you have a syllogism that proves this?
What’s your thought on this? It’s not that it’s bad for society, or science, but rather, on a metaphysical logical realm, it starts to fall apart (similar to a religion)