Put your unpopular opinions here and someone who disagrees will debate you

Author: AceDebatesStuff

Posts

Total: 499
#61
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Nyxified
I apologize, but I don't quite see what you mean when you say this or if it's relevant to what you're saying. I don't mean that sarcastically, just genuinely unsure.
It came from me misreading your post, so you can ignore it

No different from every other aspect of one's identity, I can't answer 'where' it comes from more specifically than just the brain. Nobody can. Gender might not mean the same thing or look the same for every person, but it is innate.

'Woman' is both used to refer to a sex and a gender identity. It is my opinion that, in every meaningful way, a trans woman can reach the point their sex is indistinguishable from a cis woman; I believe I could make a convincing argument for that belief.
This is where I think the fundamental contradiction comes in, though. Look at the comparison you're drawing, it's between cis women and trans women. But cis women are women BECAUSE of inherent biology. The trans argument is that gender is a "social construct" but that social construction comes from how society intersects with inherent, fixed biology. The entire notion relies upon their being meaningful and workable definitions of  "man" and "woman" in the first place that one can change to (or discover if you prefer), and these have to come from somewhere. It's rather obvious to me that they come from sex. If someone with XY chromosomes, a beard, a penis, adams apple, a deep voice, who dresses like a man and engages in stereotypical male behavior and hobbies can self identify as a woman (and that person can under your ideology) and we MUST respect it than the entire concept has no meaning. It doesn't convey any information. So I don't see why it would be that important

Identity is indeed innate, which is why it's something most people do not question at all. A person being so fixated on their identity being "wrong" isn't a mark of good health. That's why I get so enraged at "gender affirming care" for confused young people who need to be brought into a positive self identity instead of having damage done to them chasing the impossible. I also drew from other posts that you identify as trans. Adults should be free to make their own decisions and I'll respect that...but that should go both ways. I shouldn't face social sanction for refusing to profess that Bruce Jenner, a person who spend the first 65 years of life as a high testosterone alpha male, is in the same category of gender as my mom or my wife, or that girls who are clearly confused and uncomfortable with puberty should take hormones or have their breasts removed
#62
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
Identity is indeed innate, which is why it's something most people do not question at all. A person being so fixated on their identity being "wrong" isn't a mark of good health.
Here's a possibly unpopular opinion. I don't believe that thinking deeply about your identity is a good or a healthy thing to do, even though our society now finds it incredibly important to do and something we must do nonstop. I didn't think of myself as white until I was like 14 or 15 years old probably. I know that I MUST have known I was white, but I've looked back quite a bit (and I have an excellent memory) and I genuinely can't remember a single point in childhood where I thought about it, or self identified as white. Some would say that comes from "white privilege" and actually there's a lot of truth to that. But like a lot of "privilege" that just means something that's good actually and shouldn't be carelessly discarded. It was 100% more healthy for me not to even think about race instead of feeling anxiety and/or anger over the nonstop racial discourse

#63
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,170
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@thett3
Here's a possibly unpopular opinion. I don't believe that thinking deeply about your identity is a good or a healthy thing to do, even though our society now finds it incredibly important to do and something we must do nonstop.
I am 100% behind that.

Our identity, like the identity of a chair or a tree is enormously complex. Imagine every category a chair, tree, or human can belong to? To obsess over it necessarily requires incredible simplification.

More importantly thinking about those categories out of a relevant context is pointless. "Who am I" is the question of a novice philosopher. "What should I do" is the wise question... not the least because who you are is mostly what you do.
#64
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,296
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You good bro?
#65
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Edit: I forgot the sarcasm tags the first time. I have to be careful about the special needs around here.
Was someone talking to you?
#66
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@sadolite
And for the record, Democracies suck ass, they are nothing more than "MOB RULE".  I much prefer a Republic.
Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Can you name one of these democracies that suck so bad?

#67
Nyxified
Nyxified's avatar
Debates: 21
Posts: 224
2
3
9
Nyxified's avatar
Nyxified
2
3
9
-->
@thett3
I do not agree with the notion that there are biological features inherently attached to the gender you were assigned at birth that permanently designate you as one sex or the other--a view backed up by experts. If that's something you want to do a debate on, I'd be happy to.

If someone with XY chromosomes, a beard, a penis, adams apple, a deep voice, who dresses like a man and engages in stereotypical male behavior and hobbies can self identify as a woman (and that person can under your ideology) and we MUST respect it than the entire concept has no meaning. It doesn't convey any information. So I don't see why it would be that important.
Even if you don't think it's important ( I think it is, but that's not important at the moment), my argument is that a trans woman identifying as a woman can only give you as much information as a cis woman identifying as a woman. There's a lot of biological attributes that women typically have, such as:

  • Breasts
  • Specific muscle/fat distribution patterns
  • Reproductive organs
  • Higher pitched, head resonating voices
  • XX chromosomes
A woman can get her breasts removed and still be a woman. A woman can take estrogen-blockers to treat an estrogen-dependent cancer, thereby losing the muscle/fat distribution typically seen in females, and still be a woman. A woman can have her uterus and/or ovaries removed and still be a woman. A woman can have a deep voice and still be a woman. A woman can have every aspect typical of female biology and live fifty years while identifying as, being perceived as, living as, and, in all meaningful ways, being a woman only to discover at age 50 that she has XY chromosomes. In every way that means anything, she's still a woman.

Even though all these attributes are typical, a cis woman who doesn't have one or more of these is still a woman. The only concrete thing we can take from someone identifying as a woman, then, is that their gender identity is female. This is true of both cis females and trans females; if the only thing you know about someone is their gender, you can't derive anything from that info with certainty other than their gender identity. If, to you, that means that gender identity is meaningless rather than genders being meaningful in spite of the fact they have varying expressions, then that's fine. That's not what I'm speaking about.

You can try to attach definitions to subjective labels if you want. I'm choosing not to because those labels mean different things for different people. Do they have a set of common attributes and common meanings? Sure. That doesn't mean everyone using that label has/has to have all those attributes nor that their use of the label means/has to mean all those things.

Identity is indeed innate, which is why it's something most people do not question at all. A person being so fixated on their identity being "wrong" isn't a mark of good health. That's why I get so enraged at "gender affirming care" for confused young people who need to be brought into a positive self identity instead of having damage done to them chasing the impossible.
A trans person isn't fixated on their identity being wrong, a trans person is fixated on their outward presentation not matching their identity. What you're describing is conversion therapy, and we learned fifty years ago that that doesn't work.
#68
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
why aren't corporations run by democratic principles ?

why can't people vote for their managers and executives ?
Because corporations and countries are two entirely different types of entities with two different sets of goals.

The purpose of a corporation is to make a profit.

The purpose of a government is to solve society’s problems thereby improving life for all of its citizens.

These are not the same thing at all, so the idea that they should take the same approach makes no sense.
#69
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,170
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Nyxified
I do not agree with the notion that there are biological features inherently attached to the gender you were assigned at birth that permanently designate you as one sex or the other--a view backed up by experts. If that's something you want to do a debate on, I'd be happy to.
It's not possible to debate that, it's a matter of pure definitions. You either agree on the definition or you don't, if you don't there is no point using the word to communicate.
#70
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,170
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
The purpose of a corporation is to make a profit.
That is a common misconception. A corporation is just a legal abstraction owned by one or more individuals. You can write anything you want into a corporate charter. You can make a corporation that dedicates itself to covering the land area of the planet with cotton candy.

Most corporations explicitly or implicitly place profit as the highest goal because the owners want a higher standard of living (just like everyone else).
#71
Nyxified
Nyxified's avatar
Debates: 21
Posts: 224
2
3
9
Nyxified's avatar
Nyxified
2
3
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's not possible to debate that, it's a matter of pure definitions. You either agree on the definition or you don't, if you don't there is no point using the word to communicate.
That's true of basically everything? If their definition of 'sex' and my definition differ, it's completely possible to debate which is the more useful or reasonable definition.
#72
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If I decided to use my car as a lawn decoration, that would be its goal. That doesn’t make the statement “cars are made for lawn decorations” accurate.

If you’re going to chime in please have something productive to say. Thanks.

#73
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,170
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Nyxified
It's not possible to debate that, it's a matter of pure definitions. You either agree on the definition or you don't, if you don't there is no point using the word to communicate.
That's true of basically everything?
That's true of every definition (which relates the sounds/symbol to a concept). Reality and concepts of reality are not subject to arbitrage (or rather the belief that they are is fallacy). However if run into somebody on a desert island who doesn't speak your language and he just refuses to use anything but "huwuhu" to describe a coconut that's not something you can disprove.

If their definition of 'sex' and my definition differ, it's completely possible to debate which is the more useful or reasonable definition.
(A) A concept can be more or less useful than another. You could debate that.

(B) You could also argue that a word has in the past been used in such a way that your redefinition is more accurate to the de facto  rather than de jure concept.

You could not argue that a series of sounds or letters must imply a certain concept.

If thett does not which to debate you on A or B, I will.

I refuse to use the word "woman" for males because I believe the redefinition of the word as well as the redefinition of 'gender' from a synonym of sex to a different concept was largely pushed for dishonest reasons, namely to extract privileges during the period of equivocation. The definition of gender/sex as identifying the egg producer and the sperm producer, and all that implies for mammals is very useful and useful word-concepts should not be changed so as to maximize language utility.

There are better phrases and words to use for all the concepts in question that don't require an equivocation period. LGBTQ 'gender' = gender role for instance.
#74
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,170
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
The Congo, Venezuela to name a few

#75
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,170
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
If I decided to use my car as a lawn decoration, that would be its goal. That doesn’t make the statement “cars are made for lawn decorations” accurate.
I didn't say "the purpose of corporations is to cover the world in cotton candy", I pointed out that not all corporations must seek profit as their highest priority.

This is also a poor analogy for the simple reasons that cars are made for a very specific purpose, they were designed so. A corporation as I pointed out has no design except that which is given it by the charter.

A better analogy would be saying that a sheet metal factory could produce lawn decorations or it could help produce cars.

An even better analogy would be you saying cars are made to commute, and me pointing out that some are made to race or look good.
#76
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,604
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Clownfish are initially male; the largest fish in a group becomes a female. Most species of parrotfish start life as females and later change into males.
#77
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,170
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@FLRW
Which is to say they start out producing sperm, then they start producing eggs. There is no biological law that says you can't produce both, and many organisms do. It really has nothing to do with the issue though does it.

The issue is the confusion arising from equivocation, that is using different definitions for the same word in the same line of reasoning.

They say gender isn't sex, gender is social and sex is biological.... but then they (as you just did) bring up biological trivia. Why would clownfish gamete production matter if gender isn't biological? Why would surgery be required if it the concept isn't biological.

Even in organizations claiming to promote the redefinition they repeatedly mess up and make claims like "fastest female swimmer", "first female joint chief (or whatever)."

The people (not all, but most) pushing for the redefinition only want it to apply in precisely the contexts they deem appropriate. They have no problem using old definitions if any when it becomes convenient. That is quintessential equivocation fallacy.
#78
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@FLRW
They originally searched for Nemo but it was Shemo that revealed herself.
#79
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@thett3
You would enjoy Wylted's newfound Buddhist ideals.

That said, many Eastern philosophies encourage that approach. The labelling of ourselves is mostly only useful for artificially presenting our strengths and weaknesses on a resume or dating profile, as well as in psychiatry. In the end everybody is at least 50% exaggerating or toning down their real self in their job application and general dating profile's description of themselves.

#80
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Nyxified
A woman can get her breasts removed and still be a woman. A woman can take estrogen-blockers to treat an estrogen-dependent cancer, thereby losing the muscle/fat distribution typically seen in females, and still be a woman. A woman can have her uterus and/or ovaries removed and still be a woman. A woman can have a deep voice and still be a woman. A woman can have every aspect typical of female biology and live fifty years while identifying as, being perceived as, living as, and, in all meaningful ways, being a woman only to discover at age 50 that she has XY chromosomes. In every way that means anything, she's still a woman.
This is like saying we can't say humans have ten fingers because a small minority are born with eleven fingers or because others lost one in an accident. Very few people are anatomically perfect, but we know what human beings look like. When it comes to sex/gender we are a sexually dimorphic species and it's generally incredibly obvious which side of that dynamic any particular individual falls on. With respect to those sex/secondary sex characteristics the relevant consideration is that most cis women have *all*  of them while trans women have none, and have to brute force their bodies with chemicals or surgeries into coming anywhere close. That right there should tell you something. 

 The only concrete thing we can take from someone identifying as a woman, then, is that their gender identity is female. This is true of both cis females and trans females; if the only thing you know about someone is their gender, you can't derive anything from that info with certainty other than their gender identity. If, to you, that means that gender identity is meaningless rather than genders being meaningful in spite of the fact they have varying expressions, then that's fine. That's not what I'm speaking about.
If your statement was factual the highlighted bit is what it would mean. But the statement is incorrect. We can guess with a high degree of accuracy a LOT about a person simply by knowing if they are a woman or a man--ESPECIALLY on the things trans people are concerned about, like breasts or facial hair because we are a sexually dimorphic species. There is a distribution of values on many thousands of characteristics that differ between male and female individuals. I'm sure there is a man out there in the world who is otherwise anatomically typical who for some reason has breast tissue that produces milk but it would be the height of silliness to say that because like 0.0001% of men have something that like 99.99% of women do "man" and "woman" aren't meaningful concepts other than how we choose to define them. If an alien came down and studied humanity they would come up with the same division of sex we did, and would put virtually every individual in the exact same category that we do.


A trans person isn't fixated on their identity being wrong, a trans person is fixated on their outward presentation not matching their identity. What you're describing is conversion therapy, and we learned fifty years ago that that doesn't work.
No, gender affirming care is the equivalent of conversion therapy. Sexuality is...complicated. The fact that gay men report molestation victimization rates as children around 10x that of straight men pretty much shuts the door on any argument that the environment can't impact ones sexuality, at the very least sexual trauma or first experiences can in many cases. But I would definitely agree that by the time almost anyone is able to express their sexuality it's immutable and can't be meaningfully changed, so conversion therapy is just damaging.

Gender is a totally different beast. Sex is immutable from the day you're born. Universally. The trans ideology argues that gender and sex are separate but like... My big issue with the trans ideology is that it wants to have it's cake and eat it too. Look closely at what you wrote..."their outward presentation not matching their identity." What's this "outward presentation" based on? The sex characteristics of cis women or men...which come purely from biology. So the identity is fundamentally rooted in an immutable biology that is opposite to what the person has, but if they claim the identity they have just as strong a claim to it as anyone else. Do you see my issue? I don't think it's possible to actually change with current technology. Gay conversion therapy tried to change people into something they are not using propaganda and chemicals--in my view gender affirming care is the exact same thing.

Instead of futile attempts to change the sex of confused children and teenagers we should focus on providing them with a positive self identity based in reality as it is, and not how they wish it was. If an adult still wants to take opposite sex hormones or do an operation...well I have my thoughts on if that's ethical. I don't think surgically removing healthy organs is medically ethical--but at least it's between consenting adults. 

What do you make of the huge increase of teens identifying as trans?
#81
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@RationalMadman
 The labelling of ourselves is mostly only useful for artificially presenting our strengths and weaknesses on a resume or dating profile, as well as in psychiatry. In the end everybody is at least 50% exaggerating or toning down their real self in their job application and general dating profile's description of themselves.
I pretty much agree with that. Even the concept of what “the self” is is just kind of navel gazing imo…people can do it if they want to but it’s not a requirement. It’s generally healthier for society to get people to consider less and less minute distinctions between people 
#82
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Because corporations and countries are two entirely different types of entities with two different sets of goals.
many conservatives complain that government should run more like a corporation

a ceo can be voted out by a board-of-directors

an elected official can be voted out by organized-moneyed-oligarchs

the key distinction is the frequency at which they can be voted out
#83
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Pre surgery and medical intervention, 35 was about ones limit anyway.

Nonetheless, potential is acquired at birth.

And I did say, notwithstanding physiological anomalies.

Egg producer, sperm producer = procreative potential.

But when it comes to recreational sex....Well.......Bob's your Uncle and Fanny's your Aunty or Bob's your Aunty and Fanny's your Uncle.

Though  the balls and dick usually produces the sperm. 

And the intended sperm receptacle usually gives access to the ovaries.

Though other receptacles are available.

And some people do have a penchant for the unusual....Which is readily catered for these days.



#84
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@thett3
and it's generally incredibly obvious
only if you strip them naked

"all toupees are ugly and obvious" (this is an example of sample-bias)

because, of course, how would you spot the good ones if you only notice the ugly and obvious ones
#85
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Egg producer, sperm producer = procreative potential.
how do you propose the state "fact-check" someone's "gender" claim ?

and furthermore, why does the state even need to record "gender" in the first place ?
#86
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@thett3
because like 0.0001%
The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range of 0.02% to 0.05%. Other conditions involve atypical chromosomes, gonads, or hormones.

now, i know you might have some "problem" with "minorities", so it may be worth pointing out that (0.02%) is roughly, one million, five hundred and sixty thousand souls

and (0.05%) is roughly, three million, nine hundred thousand souls
#87
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Usually says on the Birth Certificate.....Which is generally in the first place.

Why do we record things?

Because recording things is what sets us apart from every other species, allowing us to do all manner of stuff, whilst everything else just eats and f**ks and eats.

Do you think that you are not the State?
#88
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@thett3
I pretty much agree with that. Even the concept of what “the self” is is just kind of navel gazing imo…people can do it if they want to but it’s not a requirement. It’s generally healthier for society to get people to consider less and less minute distinctions between people 
perhaps you should "self"-identify as you wish

and allow other people the same courtesy

why does the state need to know what chromosomes each of us might possess ?
#89
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Usually says on the Birth Certificate.....Which is generally in the first place.

Why do we record things?

Because recording things is what sets us apart from every other species, allowing us to do all manner of stuff, whilst everything else just eats and f**ks and eats.

Do you think that you are not the State?
"we record information and that's why we record information"

honestly, that was a bit more informative than i expected
#90
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
perhaps you should "self"-identify as you wish

and allow other people the same courtesy

why does the state need to know what chromosomes each of us might possess ?
People can self identify however they want. That doesn’t mean it’s ultimately a healthy or rational choice for them but it’s their decision. My massive problem with the trans stuff is that it’s being pushed onto children, and the result is an exponential growth in the number of youth identifying as trans, a portion of which undergo life altering medication and/or surgery. Something that harms the youth is everyone’s concern imo. Especially when it comes from the public schools that we all pay for