Pronouns

Author: rbelivb

Posts

Total: 327
#271
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,348
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
But men want to use the woman's bathroom,
And women to use the men's bathroom,
The sign on the door is law enough of what's expected,
But this is more about pronouns than bathrooms,
Why does the existence of X many trans, mean a need to refer to them in a false pronoun?

I don't mean to equivocate them with criminals,
The point is about numbers/percentages, not crime.

rbelivb at beggining of thread says,
"If someone asked me to call them by the pronoun "she / her" - although they were born as a male - I can agree to this purely as a matter of social convention. I do not need to believe that this person is "really" female or "really" male. In other words, just because I use female pronouns to refer to this person, it doesn't necessarily imply anything in terms of my beliefs about their chromosomes" #1

So they're asking us to lie in speech?
Why should we do this for a tiny percent?
It doesn't matter if that tiny percent is X many, if in proportion they are small,
Also doesn't matter if percent is X many if they are not enough to vote the law into being,

We should consider ourselves lucky that they are so few of the populace,
It 'should mean that their absurdity cannot be normalized.
#272
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
The point is about numbers/percentages, not crime.
But the point here is that "conservatives" are wanting to create a crime where no crime currently exists.
#273
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
So they're asking us to lie in speech?
If I tell you my name is "bob" - do you demand to see my birth-certificate ?
#274
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
Why should we do this for a tiny percent?
you are not personally obligated
#275
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,348
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
If you say you are 21 and try to drink,
Bartender asks for ID.

If you try to sign up for male or female boxing,
I imagine they get verification of 'some sort.

If a guy or girl enters the bathroom/changing room/bath house of the opposite sex,
Are they not asked to leave?

The existence of this thread seems to imply that I 'am expected to pretend men are women, and that women are men?
#276
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
If you say you are 21 and try to drink,
Bartender asks for ID.
Because age is QUANTIFIABLE (the date of your birth is registered with the state) without the need for a dna sample or a strip search
#277
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Lemming
Schizophrenia is only one type of mental illness. If being honest you really should include all mental illness which is a very large number. And there are special laws to protect them.
#278
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
If a guy or girl enters the bathroom/changing room/bath house of the opposite sex,
Are they not asked to leave?
some are and some are not

some women who are born women and have always identified as women are not only asked to leave the women's bathroom, but are verbally and sometimes physically assaulted if they refuse to leave SIMPLY BECAUSE to some people ("conservatives") they "look like men"

even though they have committed no crime
#279
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,348
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@3RU7AL
Is sex not quantifiable?
Even age has problems of definition, as people vary in mental quality, maturity, but simply because exceptions exist, are we to disregard age as a basic rule?

Is it not an expectation in society that children are raised in accordance with their sex?

I'm not bothered by laws protecting people,
But I am unsure what this thread is arguing or advocating.
#280
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
The existence of this thread seems to imply that I 'am expected to pretend men are women, and that women are men?
the existence of this thread seems to imply that people do not generally acknowledge their own epistemological limit
#281
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
Is sex not quantifiable?
not without a gross invasion of privacy
#282
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,348
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
The fact that many individuals need sex surgery, implies that their sex was obvious enough before altering their body it as something else.
#283
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
Is it not an expectation in society that children are raised in accordance with their sex?
FDR Grew Up in a Dress: It Wasn't Always Blue for Boys and Pink for Girls [**]
#284
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,348
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Sure, and the Greeks once wore togas, I think,
'Not the same as telling one's child that they are the opposite sex, and raising them in cultural context as if they were.

So what does this thread and you imply or want of people?
#285
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
The fact that many individuals need sex surgery, implies that their sex was obvious enough before altering their body it as something else.
not necessarily

many people cannot tell men from women (especially people from an unfamiliar cultural background) at a glance, without cultural clues, like clothing and hairstyle, especially as they get past the age of about fifty-five
#286
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,348
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
So what does this thread and you imply or want of people?
#287
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
So what does this thread and you imply or want of people?
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
#288
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,348
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
What does that mean?

Personally my take is that rbelivb doesn't really think that trans 'are their opposite biological sex, and he just lies to them.
Yet there's the problem when they enter the opposites sex's sport, implying that the people who support such 'really 'do think that trans are the sex they claim.

Well, I suppose it's more complex than rbelivb just lying to trans about their sex,
 rbelivb is claiming that woman and man mean something other than woman and man.
#289
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
Yet there's the problem when they enter the opposites sex's sport,
and that "problem" begs the question of why the sport is divided along those lines in the first place

AND,

this is obviously a "problem" that only affects the officiators of whatever respective sport you might be referring to

these people change the rules all the time, this is not some sort of special "crisis"

and there is absolutely no need for the government to enact any new laws (specifically to EXCLUDE individuals from public life based on their personal choice of clothing and hairstyle and nickname)
#290
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,348
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Why people would want a separation of sports by sex, seems clear enough to me.
#291
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
Why people would want a separation of sports by sex, seems clear enough to me.
would you care to reveal this "reason" to me ?
#292
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Since we're talking about sports what about pay. Women on average are paid less than and some jobs that less pay are contributed to them being physically less capable as the opposite sex. So how does pay work for someone who says they're female but has a make body that might be capable of more physically than a female counterpart. Like say fireman.
#293
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,348
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
The video is satire, but C'mon, look at the difference in PT standards between men and women.
#294
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@3RU7AL
> The same reason why you would make laws excluding the very small percent of pedophilles we have from being within schools.

the same reason

which is presumably, BECAUSE THEY ARE CRIMINALS AND GENERALLY CONSIDERED A DANGER TO SOCIETY
I was speaking on the function of why we even take action against criminals even though they are a small part of our society. Another example is, if one person is kicking their dog next door to me, even though he's only one person, and him kicking a dog doesn't directly affect my well being, I still think we ought to do the right thing. 
#295
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@rbelivb
No I still think it is wrong, trans women are men, under the best, most scientific and useful definition. What you have done is essentially saying "1+1 is 15 because well under my definition of the word, it's the case". You haven't proved why the term is necessary, or how it helps.  
You are basically building into your view the idea that it's never legitimate for people to use words in a new way, to use different definitions or grammatical rules.
I want to be clear that if this isn't an intentional strawman, this is not my view at all. My view isn't that words can't change or evolve, my view is that when we do decide to change terms, we ought to do so because the new term is better, not because it makes some people happy. 

You say you don't support age because it obfuscates the difference between biological boys and men. That's a perfectly good critique, and I'm confused as to why you don't apply it to gender.
I don't know why you keep asking this question, because I already said that it's because children lack autonomy.
Autonomy? Are you denying their sense of self and desired expression? Also again I could make a shift then to, instead of describing age, to use species as an example. 

  • Gender is the way one feels in relation to their sex 
  • Speeses is the way in which one feels in relation to their species.  
Ought we now take "speeses" over "species"? Under your view, it would seem so. 

The reasons on the other side is literally to make >1% percent of the society correct. Oughtn't truth prioritize such an endeavour? 
You already agreed that it isn't an issue of truth, but about how we use language.
But how we use language can obfuscates and covers truth. If we I take the terms "1+1" and redefine them so that technically, what I mean when referencing "1+1" is different to you, I'm obviously muddying the waters. 

But I know all this. I know that Bones isn't a real name, so people who argue that it is not my given legal name are correct. I don't mind that. Bones is a different label for a different purpose. Whatever my name is, whether it Bone or Bones, does not and cannot change any objective fact about me. 
The same thing applies with biological sex. Trans women are aware that their biological sex is not female, and their preferred gender pronoun implies nothing about their biology.
But it does, because the term "women" for the entirety of linguistic history, has been grounded in biology, and redefining it without a good reason (or even a definition you can provide) is counter productive. 

Also, I'm not sure your claim that trans women aren't aware they aren't actual women is true. They want to compete in women's sports, be legally women, enter women's facilities and demand you are transphobic if you don't date them purely on the grounds that they a trans. 

I've already established why this name-gender link is fraudulent - the term "man" is a noun, and you still haven't given me a cogent definition of the term and thus your entire argument is void on that ground. 
So your problem with "trans ideology" comes down to, we shouldn't be using a noun in a way that doesn't follow the usual grammatical rules for nouns? It seems like a trivial issue to me.
My issue is you are using terms which you can't define, and if your case is based around undefinable words, then the entire case falls into shambles. 




Topic's author
#296
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Bones
I want to be clear that if this isn't an intentional strawman, this is not my view at all. My view isn't that words can't change or evolve, my view is that when we do decide to change terms, we ought to do so because the new term is better, not because it makes some people happy. 
But in any case, where you use the language in a new way, someone who thinks your use is worse could muddy the water by calling your statement "false" according to their previous definition, making it appear that you are confused about the underlying reality.

Also, your position might allow for changes in definition, but it does not seem to allow for changes in syntax or grammar, since you believe that all nouns should be definable in a particular way that you prefer. Even if their language is "meaningless" according to your standard, that doesn't necessarily make it "wrong" - just as a lot of art would also be considered meaningless in terms of a strict semantic definition of meaning as reference to an object. Yet it functions as a legitimate vehicle for self-expression.

Autonomy? Are you denying their sense of self and desired expression?
Yes.

Also again I could make a shift then to, instead of describing age, to use species as an example. 

  • Gender is the way one feels in relation to their sex 
  • Speeses is the way in which one feels in relation to their species.  
Ought we now take "speeses" over "species"? Under your view, it would seem so. 
I don't know why, every time I answer this you seem to just ask the same question again, or switch to another of the three examples. You haven't actually shown what is wrong with the answers I have given.

But regardless, I do not actually need to be able to articulate why I reject it in any case, just as you are generally free to disrespect a trans person by calling them whatever you want to.

But how we use language can obfuscates and covers truth. If we I take the terms "1+1" and redefine them so that technically, what I mean when referencing "1+1" is different to you, I'm obviously muddying the waters. 
But which truths you think should be made transparent and culturally emphasized is actually an ideological position. If I published my full name and address on this site, it would be a more transparent expression of the truth, and the fact that I use an anonymous profile means I am obfuscating that truth. If we all walked around naked we would know the truth about each other more than if we wear clothes. A culture's distance from the brute facts of biology measures its level of advancement in civilization.

But it does, because the term "women" for the entirety of linguistic history, has been grounded in biology, and redefining it without a good reason (or even a definition you can provide) is counter productive. 
Notwithstanding the edge cases and wedge issues emphasized by conservatives (e.g. being "forced" to use someone's preferred pronouns) the trans issue really is an issue of freedom of expression. It is about the freedom of expression of trans people, to treat their identity as a form of art, as self-expression, and that is the "good reason" to innovate upon linguistic history.

Also, I'm not sure your claim that trans women aren't aware they aren't actual women is true. They want to compete in women's sports, be legally women, enter women's facilities and demand you are transphobic if you don't date them purely on the grounds that they a trans. 
I didn't say that, and in fact I said that the statement that "trans women aren't actual women" is ideological, along with the idea that their biological sex should dictate their external behaviors and expression.
#297
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@rbelivb
I want to be clear that if this isn't an intentional strawman, this is not my view at all. My view isn't that words can't change or evolve, my view is that when we do decide to change terms, we ought to do so because the new term is better, not because it makes some people happy. 
But in any case, where you use the language in a new way, someone who thinks your use is worse could muddy the water by calling your statement "false" according to their previous definition, making it appear that you are confused about the underlying reality.
The only thing which is "muddying the water" is when you use a term traditionally defined by science and spin it into a mere label for someone's thoughts. Why don't you go on make up your own word instead of piggybacking on the prominence of "women", whilst completely stripping it of its meaning to suit your agenda. 

Also, your position might allow for changes in definition, but it does not seem to allow for changes in syntax or grammar, since you believe that all nouns should be definable in a particular way that you prefer.
Changes in "syntax and grammar" is fine so long as it can be established that the change is beneficial and conforming to truth. You saying I believe "all nouns should be definable in a particular way that you believe" seems to ostensibly paint my position as narrow minded and egoistic, but all I am asking is that you define a noun in non circular terms. That is, of course, only the case if you cannot provide for me another example of a noun which is internally contradictory and meaningless. 

Even if their language is "meaningless" according to your standard, that doesn't necessarily make it "wrong" - just as a lot of art would also be considered meaningless in terms of a strict semantic definition of meaning as reference to an object. Yet it functions as a legitimate vehicle for self-expression.
The language itself is not "meaningless", but the switch is indeed meaningless, confusing, obfuscating and unnecessary. 

Autonomy? Are you denying their sense of self and desired expression?
Yes.
Well this seems very "ajephobe", the same way one could label a trans critical thinker as "transphobe". Notice how you deny sense of self in terms of age, but don't for gender? 

Also again I could make a shift then to, instead of describing age, to use species as an example. 

  • Gender is the way one feels in relation to their sex 
  • Speeses is the way in which one feels in relation to their species.  
Ought we now take "speeses" over "species"? Under your view, it would seem so. 
I don't know why, every time I answer this you seem to just ask the same question again, or switch to another of the three examples. You haven't actually shown what is wrong with the answers I have given.
It's because you prevaricate the question. Your so called "answers" have been a collection of  

I don't believe such a usage would be popular

age relates to personal expression and identityin a fundamentally different way from gender.

Two things are not identical just because they share one feature in common.

The first was refuted swiftly - it's an appeal to incredulity. The second is vague and imprecise - it's akin to me saying "ah well the fundamentals are complicated and you are misunderstanding", instead of showing a fault in the error,  and the third was refuted when I outlined the fact that the two things I am comparing are completely analogous: 

  • Gender ideologists created the word "gender" which is the way in which one feels in relation to their sex. Sex is biological, it is a part of who you are. Gender is the way I feel about sex, the way I wish to be recognised. 
  • Aje ideologists created the word "aje" which is the way in which one feels in relation to their age. Age is biological, it is a part of who you are. Aje is the way I feel about sex, the way I wish to be recognised. 
You are yet to tell me what the issue is here. Why can't I be 8? Or 80? 

But how we use language can obfuscates and covers truth. If we I take the terms "1+1" and redefine them so that technically, what I mean when referencing "1+1" is different to you, I'm obviously muddying the waters. 
But which truths you think should be made transparent and culturally emphasized is actually an ideological position.
I guess this is just a fundamental difference between the two of us. My view is testable, scrutinizable and confirmable through the scientific matter. Like I said, archeologists can dig up Cleopatra and not know what self delusions she may or may not have had, but they can know exactly what sex she is. 

In my world view, "women" is a confirmable and observable characteristic of an individual. In yours, it is a circular and incoherent costume to be worn. 


But it does, because the term "women" for the entirety of linguistic history, has been grounded in biology, and redefining it without a good reason (or even a definition you can provide) is counter productive. 
Notwithstanding the edge cases and wedge issues emphasized by conservatives (e.g. being "forced" to use someone's preferred pronouns)
If Peterson didn't have his public following, he would have been booted. 

the trans issue really is an issue of freedom of expression.
I'm fine with people expressing how they want to, but don't expect anyone else to buy into it, and don't expect people to be legally penalised and banned from platforms for not conforming to it. 

As this is going around in circles, would you like to have a debate on this topic? I propose "THBT: We ought to define "women" in terms of sex, as opposed to gender". 
Topic's author
#298
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Bones
As this is going around in circles, would you like to have a debate on this topic? I propose "THBT: We ought to define "women" in terms of sex, as opposed to gender". 
Sure, it sounds good.

#299
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
As this is going around in circles, would you like to have a debate on this topic? I propose "THBT: We ought to define "women" in terms of sex, as opposed to gender". 
I'm sorry why do you need to find women at all, swinging dick?
#300
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@rbelivb
Will get it sorted within the next 2 days.