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

Author: AceDebatesStuff

Posts

Total: 499
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Reece101
Gender is the expression of biological sex and the two do not diverge.  The concept of "gender identity" is an illusory creation of the identitarian left. 

Gender isn't going away any time soon.  It is biologically ingrained.  
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@coal
The concept of "gender identity" is an illusory creation of the identitarian left. 
When it comes to gender identity or gender roles it doesn’t matter. As long as we both agree we should get rid of it.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@thett3
Apotemnophilia is a psychological disorder in which the victim wants a healthy limb removed. It still happens but about twenty years ago for whatever reason there was a relatively large wave of people suffering from this disorder. Would it be in the interest of medical ethics for elective amputations of healthy limbs to occur? Is this also so much nobodies business that we shouldn’t even opine on it on a debating website? 
0.01125%
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Reece101
They and them are the only pronouns they’ll be using now. 

Gender abolition is coming. 
More likely people and groups that adopt evolutionarily maladaptive behaviors like this will fail to reproduce themselves and will be replaced. Modernity is funny like that, it selects for people who reject it 
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@thett3
Modernity selects for people who reject it? Dude you lost me. 
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Reece101
Modernity selects for people who reject it? Dude you lost me. 
The people who have children are largely those who reject the type of thing you’re after. Not a whole lot of they/thems who are parents,  lots of religious folks with big families 
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@thett3
Well child marriage is having a come back in many red states. Is that what you’re referring to? I have no clue. 
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Reece101
Well child marriage is having a come back in many red states. Is that what you’re referring to? I have no clue. 
That’s not what I’m referring to, and it’s not coming back. What I’m referring to is how fertility correlates with various belief systems. The highest fertility subgroups in the US (7+ children per women) are the Amish and the Hasidic Jews both of whom completely reject modernity. More mainstream religious white conservatives and minorities, who are less on board with this kind of social liberalism, have roughly replacement level fertility rates 

Highly educated white liberals who are at the forefront of “abolishing gender” and other such nonsense have abysmally low fertility rates. In this case in particular many who most zealously support the ideology have their children sterilized in their teens trying to “transition” 
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@thett3
Fertility correlates with various belief systems.
I would go further and say it isn’t just correlation. Though when it comes to modernity there are cultural drivers other than close relatives passing down stories. 
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Reece101
I would go further and say it isn’t just correlation. Though when it comes to modernity there are cultural drivers other than close relatives passing down stories. 
“Modernity” was a poor choice of words on my part because that can mean so many things…technology isn’t going away for example. But I’m not betting on the end of gender, that’s for sure. The men and women of the future will call themselves men and women, while the few who deny reality largely won’t be passing on their genes. 
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@thett3
It seems like you think language and genetics are as interconnected as gender and biological sex. 

By the way what do you think of surrogate parents?
 

thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Reece101
It seems like you think language and genetics are as interconnected as gender and biological sex. 
I think that things proven to be fertility shredders will over time retreat in favor of things that are fertility maximizers 

By the way what do you think of surrogate parents?
Haven’t thought about it at all 
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@sadolite
What does democracy mean?

democracy is defined as “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” A nation with this form of government is also referred to as a democracy.

democracy is achieved by conducting free elections in which eligible people 1) vote on issues directly, known as a direct democracy, or 2) elect representatives to handle the issues for them, called a representative democracy.

The word democracy dates back in English to around 1525–1535. It comes from the Greek dēmokratía, meaning “popular government.” Ancient Greece was home to what most consider to be the oldest form of democracy, the city-state of Athens. In Athens, the people (Greek, dêmos) held the power (Greek, krátos) and made the decisions for their society—forming a dēmokratía.

But it’s essential to note the people who are able to vote in Athens only included certain non-enslaved Athenian men, making this direct democracy very different from the way we understand democracy today.

What is a direct democracy?

For example, if a town only had enough funding to repair either their sewer system or roads, it might ask the citizens to vote on which one should get the money. Its members would vote on their preference, and the town’s government would follow the will of the people and go with their choice. This is a basic example of direct democracy.

Many referendums are voted on this way, such as the Scottish independence (from the United Kingdom) referendum in 2014 and the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum (popularly referred to as Brexit) in 2016.

What is a representative democracy?

In contrast to a direct democracy, the people in a representative democracy elect representatives who act then on behalf of them, known as their constituents. Many of the world’s parliaments and the US’s Congress are an example of representative democracies.

Today, it is inefficient, if not impossible, to have every eligible citizen vote on every issue—to vote on every piece of legislation that it takes to run a city, a state, a country. Instead, citizens vote for leaders to do the work of governing for them.

Let’s revisit our municipal sewer/road matter. A representative democracy would not have each and every citizen of a town directly vote on whether to fund a sewer system or road repairs. Instead, the citizens would elect a mayor and city council to handle these issues in their place. The elected officials would then vote on where city funding should go, doing their best to reflect and respect the needs of the people who voted for them.

What does republic mean? 

republic is defined as “a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.” Sound familiar? It should.

You see, many of today’s democracies are also republics, and are even referred to as democratic republics. So, the US and France are considered both democracies and republics—both terms point to the fact that the power of governance rests in the people, and the exercise of that power is done through some sort of electoral representation.

The key concept to the word republic is that the leader of this government (or state) is not a hereditary monarch but a president, whether they are elected or installed.

This core idea helps explain in part why autocratic governments like North Korea is officially called the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Its citizens vote (or “vote”) on a single candidate. A historical example of a republic is also instructive. The Republic of Venice, a mercantile city-state of the Middle Ages, was led by a doge who was elected by wealthy merchants and served until his death. Neither of these governments would be considered a democracy.
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@coal
What do you mean?
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@thett3
It’s such an absurd standard to set that unless 100% of women possess all of the traits we ascribe to women there’s no meaningful definition of woman. It’s not how anatomy works.
Late to the party, but exactly this.
Within the Philosophy of Science there is the concept of a kind of thing, which are increasingly understood to be centered around the concept of Homeostatic Property Clusters. To quote from the SEP,
"Homeostatic property clusters (HPCs) occur when mechanisms exist that cause the properties to cluster by ensuring that deviations from the cluster have a low chance of persisting; the presence of some of the properties in the cluster favours the presence of the others"

This is exactly what you have been arguing. A natural kind, within the Philosophy of Science, would be able to be defined as something containing a set of traits while it being understood that certain members don't contain every one of those traits. We can apply this same exact concept to human sex and everything you are saying here becomes vindicated.

Women/females are structured around production of large gametes (ova)and typically have certain sexually dimorphic traits. Men/males are structured around production of small gametes (sperm) and typically have certain sexually dimorphic traits.

With this understanding of male and female and even this understanding of what natural kinds are, even intersex people end up squarely within the sex binary. Sure, certain intersex conditions might make it hard to properly identify one's sex when they are a baby, but that doesn't mean that they fall outside the sexual binary.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,167
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
I know what the difference is between a Democracy and a Republic. You are attempting to say they are the same thing by saying Democracies are also Republics, which of course they are not the same at all. The key fundamental difference  being Republics are based on the rule of law where as democracies are based on popular opinion on any given day. The rule of law means nothing in a Democracy.
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Thank you, my poor grasp of philosophy gets me in trouble sometimes so it’s good to see that something I said makes sense 
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@sadolite
I am not saying they are the same thing, I'm responding to your fallacious comment that a republic is an alternative to democracy as if that supports your constant railing against the idea of a democracy itself, as well as your acting as if the idea of a republic is the answer to the terrible system of governance here in the US while ignoring he fact that the US is a republic.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@thett3
@TheMorningsStar
There’s a more accurate name for biological sex than just calling it binary. But I forgot what it’s called.
By the way, this is science, not philosophy. 
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@sadolite
@Double_R
Can we are agree the US functions as an oligarchy?
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,167
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Reece101
Yes we can agree on that. The US quit being a Republic when the federal reserve was created
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,167
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
The US was a Republic until the Federal Reserve was created, now it is a lawless Oligarchy  in my opinion. But My statement still stands, a Republic is better than a Democracy or any other form of govt assuming you can keep it. 
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Reece101
I know that it has become popular to call sex bimodal rather than binary, but that is because of an attempt to say that intersex people do not properly fall in the binary. The issue is that this ignores what 'kinds' are in order to do so.

And the philosophy I was using is the Philosophy of Science. I don't see how it is not appropriate to use philosophy to understand a term, and to dismiss points from the Philosophy of Science in a discussion on a scientific topic just for being philosophical also seems misplaced to me.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@TheMorningsStar
 The issue is that this ignores what 'kinds' are in order to do so.
Could you explain? 
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Reece101
Within the Philosophy of Science it is understood that there exist typical traits for a kind but that deviations can occur. Not all traits will be present in every member of the set, but there are still typical traits that are assigned to said set.
This is why you can describe humans as having two arms, for example, yet a human can be born that lacks one arm  or has an extra finger one one hand and still be classified as the same kind of being. It doesn't change that humans are a kind of being that has two arms, 5 fingers on each hand, etc.

This is also applicable to men and women. This is why, as an example, a woman can be born and not develop breasts and still be the same 'kind' as other women.

People with intersex conditions still, ultimately, are built around either male or female gametes, even if the 'plumbing' is not fully developed. Even in instances where one is born with both a teste and an ovary the plumbing is built around the production of one of them. Because of this they would still fall within the same 'kind' as either a man or woman, even if it might not be immediately apparent which category they do belong to.

As such, sex is still binary (based primarily around gametes) and not bimodal.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Primarily around gametes or only around gametes? There lies the difference between binary and bimodal. 
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Reece101
How would that create a difference between binary and bimodal?
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Think of binary as two seperate things while bimodal is hourglass shaped. 
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Reece101
I know what bimodal is, but you are ignoring that 'kinds' do not need to share every trait in common to be of the same kind.
Furthermore, creating a spectrum of traits in order to create the sense that sex is bimodal has its issues.

We can look at height, which has sex differences. Men tend to, on average, be taller than women. Should that be a trait on a spectrum then?
Is a 6'3" woman less of a woman due to her height? Is a 5'2" man less of a man?

We can even do this with other traits.
Is a woman with DD sized breasts more of a woman than one with only C-cups?
Is a man with an 8 incher more of a man than one with only 5 inches?

If we put these traits on a spectrum to create a bimodal distribution, you must say 'yes' to all of these questions, and this would create not only inaccurate categorizations but also would be quite offensive to some people.
Instead, it would be more appropriate to say "certain shared traits between men and women are bimodal" and not "sex is bimodal". Sexual categories can still be defined off certain traits with an understanding that you don't need every single one of them to be a man or be a woman. If you do this then you cannot call a woman less of a woman for having a flatter chest or being very tall. She would just have certain traits more typical of men while being the same 'kind' as a woman (and thus being a woman).
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Okay so primarily gametes are what makes up your biological sex, but apart from that, size is what matters? Give me a break.