-->
@Lemming
The point is that Mike Tyson would have to actually 'be bantam weight,
that's why all professional boxing matches require a formal "weigh in"
Pronouns
Posts
Total:
327
-->
@3RU7AL
I currently decline to look up a legal case study for this example I consider such basic common sense.
You think sports has a hard time of separating classes by sex?
-->
@Lemming
Than they are by people who 'normalize sex changes for 'normal people.
why does this "bother" anyone ?
it's like the people against gay marriage
if you don't like it, don't do it
otherwise, it has nothing to do with you
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't want to live in a society that normalizes pedophilia or bestiality, meth use,
And claims that such actions are 'good, normal, beneficial.
It doesn't matter if they don't happen to me.
I still wouldn't 'like it, if it developed in a 'different society,
But if it happens in 'MY society,
I've a stronger obligation to oppose it.
-->
@Lemming
In the cases above, you are pressumably under no statutory or contractual obligation to warn anyone of the weaknesses of the bridge or of the risk of rock sildes (unless you are a police officer, forest ranger, etc.), and you did not create the risk (i. e., you did not weaken the bridge or broke the sign), so you would not be held liable, under Spanish law. [**]
-->
@3RU7AL
If I ask you if the bridge is safe to cross,
You say yes,
And you 'know that it isn't,
I would hold you accountable.
It's a 'basic example of obligated speech.
-->
@Lemming
I don't want to live in a society that normalizes pedophilia or bestiality, meth use,
methamphetamine usage was "normalized" in the 1930s (benzedrine, phentermine, adderall)
and comparing someone who wishes to wear different clothes and or receive elective surgery to either of the your other two examples is quite a leap in logic
would you advocate making certain hairstyles (mohawk) and or unnatural hair colors illegal because they make some people feel uncomfortable ?
-->
@Lemming
It's a 'basic example of obligated speech.
ok, i somehow thought you meant "legally obligated"
-->
@Lemming
You think sports has a hard time of separating classes by sex?
do you know what an epistemological limit is ?
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm sure you realize I'm talking about recreation street drug meth.
Advocating hormone injections and sex changes in children is 'not normal,
I had a male coworker who wore a kilt to work a number of times, I thought bit weird in this cultural context, but I don't really care.
Eh, if I was a jury member, I'd vote to convict a person of 'something, if they intentionally lied to lead another to their death.
So 'legally 'is the intended sense,
Grays though.
I'm aware there are limits to knowledge,
Most of us don't need to go patting around women's crotches like Goku,
It's not about the limits of knowledge,
Many parts of life don't have perfect knowledge,
My family could have been replaced by clones, how would I know,
But such an absurdity of lack knowledge doesn't need to be addressed.
-->
@3RU7AL
If people are going to be whatever they 'feel like,
Then one might as well remove all separations,
Remove separations in sports of age, sex, weight,
Simply merge all sex separated lavatories, bath houses, changing rooms, living spaces in dorms and military barracks.
On other view though,
There are individuals who have finished college, or gone to war at a young age.
But even that's not much of an argument, we don't define soldier or college student by age 'quite,
Sure we have commonheld expectations of age in college, school, and sometimes advance or delay individuals based on their ability, though there's also the aspect of lack maturity in regard to older peers, easier to manipulate and question of their 'own will in the matter or understanding, socialization possibly suffering if too far advanced.
Sure we have commonheld expectations of age of soldiers, due to having enough breathing room militarily speaking to not 'need more soldiers, war often being stress-full damaging even to mature individuals, again aspect of lack maturity in regard to older peers, easier to manipulate and question of their 'own will in the matter or understanding, socialization possibly suffering if too far advanced.
Hm, probably other things I've not mentioned,
People are 'born to their sex however,
Unlike roles one takes,
Though sure one can argue that behavior, perception, body can be altered to degrees.
I'm not much convinced of trans arguments myself,
Though my disagreement is admittedly more at the far ends,
Disagreement of the law being used to force pronouns out of me,
Disagreement of the law being used to force me to claim X as normal, true, or desirable,
Disagreement of the law allowing normal children to be operated upon.
Though I'd also be in disagreement of,
Government being used to force people into treatment, ex Alan Turing - Wikipedia
Government placing giving individuals public badges, Jewish Badge: During the Nazi Era | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)
Government denying individuals a voice to speak their cause or beliefs.
-->
@Lemming
Disagreement of the law being used to force pronouns out of me,
i'm 100% in agreement with you on the "compelled speech" issue
-->
@Lemming
Disagreement of the law being used to force me to claim X as normal, true, or desirable,
there is no such law
-->
@Lemming
Disagreement of the law allowing normal children to be operated upon.
nobody (and i mean nobody) is advocating for sex-change surgery for anyone under the age of 18
-->
@Lemming
Simply merge all sex separated lavatories, bath houses, changing rooms, living spaces in dorms and military barracks.
that's basically what you're already advocating for
you're asking the gay man, with breast implants and wearing an evening gown to only use the men's public washroom
-->
@3RU7AL
If refusing to use a person's pronoun is considered hate speech,
The implication is that their pronoun is 'true/normal,
Implication is that individual will be punished for not pretending to believe in same ideals as pronoun pushers.
If you can use the odd example for abortion and murder. . .
Though I've not looked into these sources in depth, and don't care for the first two websites, of the third I don't know anything of,
I'll admit my view is more hearsay, than fact.
But I'm doubtful that 'nobody is advocating for sex change in kids.
Gay man with breast implants and an evening gown. . .
So do they like women or men?
Wouldn't they only be gay if they like women? If they truly 'were a woman?
But they're 'not a woman, as you put it, they're,
a "man with breast implants and an evening gown."
It's a bizarre circumstance, but a man's a man.
Probably be best if they use a third bathroom,
People make choices,
-->
@3RU7AL
I agree - there is absolutely no way the law should be able to compel you to certain speech, especially if the speech is demonstrably false.which means you agree that nobody should be forced to call themselves "male" or "female" based on anything except their personal preference
So you would also agree then, on that note, that a 40 year old who's personal preference is that they are eight should be able to go to childcare then?
-->
@rbelivb
Okay so if we consider pronouns as names, this brings a whole plethora of problems. Consider the name David" - I'm sure any Davids connection with their name is one of pure nostalgia - were all the Davis in the world to have been born "Jim", they wouldn't likely be saying "Damn I wish my name was David". You may refute this by saying "well why do people change their names? What is the reason? To which I will say that one changes their name because they like the ideas that the name resonates - whether it be for the etymology or purely phonetic appeal, they change their name because they like the properties of the new name.I agree that there is reason behind it
What the reason trans people want to be referred to as the opposite sex? It must be because of what the definition of "man" resonates. Are you conceding that there is no definition of man you can propose?
As I previously mentioned, I think words like the or and are good examples, since we all agree that they are useful, yet they are incapable of the kind of definition you are talking about, the definitions provided in dictionaries are simply grammatical descriptors of their use in language; e.g. the is defined as, "denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge."
I think you've seen that there is no definition of "man" which works in your favour, so you've just said that definitions aren't necessary. Your argument can be used to justify the abolition of any objective standard which we have - I can say "well there's no definition of age so it must be like the word the". Obviously, since we do have a definition for age, just like how we have a definition for sex, why ought we not just use them instead of acting oblivious?
Like you say, we might choose a name because of the way that this name resonates, and this resonance may provide the meaning which causes us to choose one label over another, but this resonance does not constitute a direct definition. Therefore, if we are asking about the resonance of the term man, we are asking about its cultural instantiations, its historical meaning, its context and the connotations it has.
What is it's historical meaning?
-->
@Bones
I think you've seen that there is no definition of "man" which works in your favour, so you've just said that definitions aren't necessary. Your argument can be used to justify the abolition of any objective standard which we have - I can say "well there's no definition of age so it must be like the word the". Obviously, since we do have a definition for age, just like how we have a definition for sex, why ought we not just use them instead of acting oblivious?
The progressive side can be seen as proposing a change to our use of language - although in fact, we could say that they have already succeeded because the actual dictionaries and encyclopedias now reflect my understanding and not yours. This change would not be reasonable in every case; just because we allow gender to become like a label that people can choose does not mean we need to do that for every word. We can choose to accept this because gender is so personal to the individual and because this way of using the word better reflects how trans people feel about their gender.
As I described before, there are two parts to the definition: one that relates to biological sex, and one that is the gender identity with which people can identify. Your objection that that these are "contrapositive options selected from a binary sample" does not in fact invalidate the definition, it merely means that they are complementary parts of one concept, that males are people who identify as male, where some (or most) were also born with biological traits associated with the word male (not as its definition, but culturally and historically). Your other objection, that it is "circular," does not invalidate the definition either, because as I have described there are many parts of language with such "circular" definitions that still function and make sense.
As for what people are identifying with when they change their gender, I would again make the comparison to names. Someone can change their name from "James" to "David" and their reason for that is whatever psychological motivation they had for doing so. It doesn't need to be about the definition.
-->
@rbelivb
I think you've seen that there is no definition of "man" which works in your favour, so you've just said that definitions aren't necessary. Your argument can be used to justify the abolition of any objective standard which we have - I can say "well there's no definition of age so it must be like the word the". Obviously, since we do have a definition for age, just like how we have a definition for sex, why ought we not just use them instead of acting oblivious?The progressive side can be seen as proposing a change to our use of language - although in fact, we could say that they have already succeeded because the actual dictionaries and encyclopedias now reflect my understanding and not yours.
The fact that certain organisations take a liberal stance on this matter does not change the fact that you are incorrect. To inspect the first source,
Definition of male
(Entry 1 of 2)
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a
Notice how the first entry is that which is grounded in biology and objectivity. I'm fine with all of the definitions proposed so I'm not sure what you are talking about here.
Your second source stipulates
gender identity, an individual’s self-conception as a man or woman or as a boy or girl or as some combination of man/boy and woman/girl or as someone fluctuating between man/boy and woman/girl or as someone outside those categories altogether.
is merely referring to one's conception of whether they are a boy or a girl. I don't mind this either. There is no doubt that some people think they are boys when they are actually girls - the problem is how we as a society understand such occurrences.
As I described before, there are two parts to the definition: one that relates to biological sex, and one that is the gender identity with which people can identify. Your objection that that these are "contrapositive options selected from a binary sample" does not in fact invalidate the definition, it merely means that they are complementary parts of one concept, that males are people who identify as male, where some (or most) were also born with biological traits associated with the word male (not as its definition, but culturally and historically).
Your other objection, that it is "circular," does not invalidate the definition either, because as I have described there are many parts of language with such "circular" definitions that still function and make sense.
Circularity is a literal fallacy. The kind of so called "circularity" are completely different to what is being discussed here, you are getting the epistemic limitations of language as a whole. That would be akin to me arguing "well as stipulated by Hume, induction doesn't work so I have no reason to believe any of your findings". We hold certain axioms as true, and one is that language functions.
And even if you were right, the term "man" is a noun, not a contraction or a determiner - a noun by definition refers to something. "Cat", refers to some animal. "Apple", to some fruit. Could you tell me a single noun (don't bring up names they are pure aesthetic proper nouns) which is circular in definition?
I ask again, as you speak of transgendered men being men, what do you mean by this? In what sense of the word "man" do they conform to?
As for what people are identifying with when they change their gender, I would again make the comparison to names. Someone can change their name from "James" to "David" and their reason for that is whatever psychological motivation they had for doing so.
There reason is
- Etymological
- Because of the resonance.
Further, if you are really willing to take this down the path of "it's okay that words can be circular" and "the term man doesn't need a definition" then why are trans people going through all this surgery? It doesn't seem like just a label, it seems like there is some further model, some definition which they are attempting to be. It seems like they have first conjured this meaningless word, and then accepted, they adopt the scientific term and attempt to look as much as the opposing sex. I can easily accept your argument and say "ok, the term man is just a label like a name", but then you would have no grounds for allowing any surgery. I could say " ok I will now refer you as a man as per your definition of it (an empty and vacuous definition). But hey, it just so happens that you are going through surgery to look like the a man in the biological sense". It's a clear switch and bait. Transgendered men obviously want to be a biological man, this is a non controversial assertion, so you create some meaningless label of man, and when excepted as that definition, switch it to the scientific one.
I also wish to ask again, can I create the term "aje" which refers to one's relation to their age and identify as it? Do you not see how the term "aje", such an obscure concept created for the benefit of those delusional, would be much better off replaced by the term "age"? Why ought we change our vocabulary for the peculiar <%1? Age works - it may not work for some certain individuals, but it works on balance.
-->
@rbelivb
Changing from "David" to "James" is a truly a switch of ones label, not identity. When "David" turns into "James", nothing else changes. Yet when women identify as "men" (using the circular definition), they don't just expect to be called men, they then hold up the biological definition of "men" and attempt to become that.
Manhood and womanhood are things which one ought be proud of - they are intrinsic and to the core of one's essence (refer to my Cleopatra example). Manhood is not merely the absence of breast, it means a lot more, and womanhood is not merely the absence of a certain testosterone level, it is something much more. Manhood and womanhood shouldn't be costumes which can be worn.
I'm fine with all of the definitions proposed so I'm not sure what you are talking about here.
I was referring to 1.b: having a gender identity that is the opposite of female.
And even if you were right, the term "man" is a noun, not a contraction or a determiner - a noun by definition refers to something. "Cat", refers to some animal. "Apple", to some fruit. Could you tell me a single noun (don't bring up names they are pure aesthetic proper nouns) which is circular in definition?
If someone speaks in a way that doesn't follow the conventional rules of grammar, to call their statement "false" on those grounds is actually itself grammatically and logically incorrect. There is a difference between a false statement and a sentence with an unconventional grammatical structure.
What male refers to is a person who identifies as male.
It doesn't seem like just a label, it seems like there is some further model, some definition which they are attempting to be.
Yes, because whatever reason, they identify with the label "female" and also with other things associated with the label. However, just because they want to have long hair and breasts, for example, doesn't mean that those things are part of the definition of female because there are even biological females without those things.
I also wish to ask again, can I create the term "aje" which refers to one's relation to their age and identify as it? Do you not see how the term "aje", such an obscure concept created for the benefit of those delusional, would be much better off replaced by the term "age"? Why ought we change our vocabulary for the peculiar <%1? Age works - it may not work for some certain individuals, but it works on balance.
I don't believe such a usage would be popular, as I mentioned, because of the ethical problems with blurring the line between child and adult. I also think age relates to personal expression and identity in a fundamentally different way from gender.
Manhood and womanhood are things which one ought be proud of - they are intrinsic and to the core of one's essence (refer to my Cleopatra example). Manhood is not merely the absence of breast, it means a lot more, and womanhood is not merely the absence of a certain testosterone level, it is something much more. Manhood and womanhood shouldn't be costumes which can be worn.
As for womanhood being an "essence" which is being trivialized by being treated like a costume. I do not think it is merely womanhood that is being trivialized by the "woke agenda" college students, or anything similar. Instead, it is that the "essence" of things that was held in place by the literary systems (e.g. the printing press, official institutions, dictionaries, newspapers, etc.) of the nation state, is being replaced by the global information economy based on digital technologies. You cannot fix things like definitions in place when the use of language is grounded on these technologies because the territory and scope of their application is not circumscribed in advance. New norms can be established by means of consensus or common usage. The divisions e.g. between male and female, racial categories, etc., which still maintain themselves, do not do so from the "ground up" as rooted in communication, but instead because of the artificial divisions created by national boundaries which limit the degree of interference upon previous categories established in the 17th to 19th century. These boundaries are maintained by force, through control of the supply chains, and so any sense that they reflect a natural "essence" is actually illusory.
-->
@rbelivb
I'm fine with all of the definitions proposed so I'm not sure what you are talking about here.I was referring to 1.b: having a gender identity that is the opposite of female.
Gender identity is
- : a person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female
Why bother with "internal sense" when external science can determine whether you are male or female?
If someone speaks in a way that doesn't follow the conventional rules of grammar, to call their statement "false" on those grounds is actually itself grammatically and logically incorrect. There is a difference between a false statement and a sentence with an unconventional grammatical structure.
You are not only speaking nonconformatively, but in a vacuous way. Watering it down as merely "unconventional" doesn't help the case either. The fact is, man is a noun. It refers to a thing. I assume you don't have an inherently circular noun which you can propose to me, which is no surprise because that would be wholly illogical. Like I stated, I can define a "cat" with ease. I can define an "apple" with ease. I can define a "human" with ease. I can define "caucasian" with ease. And I can also define "man" with ease and I truly don't understand why you can't either.
What male refers to is a person who identifies as male.
If I said, "a cat is that which is a cat", how would you respond?
It doesn't seem like just a label, it seems like there is some further model, some definition which they are attempting to be.Yes, because whatever reason, they identify with the label "female" and also with other things associated with the label.
So you admit that there is baggage with the term "female". So then it's not just a pure name like label then, because names don't carry sets of necessary or even normative actions thus the constant comparison is false.
I also wish to ask again, can I create the term "aje" which refers to one's relation to their age and identify as it? Do you not see how the term "aje", such an obscure concept created for the benefit of those delusional, would be much better off replaced by the term "age"? Why ought we change our vocabulary for the peculiar <%1? Age works - it may not work for some certain individuals, but it works on balance.I don't believe such a usage would be popular
So if it were popular you would be open to it?
as I mentioned, because of the ethical problems with blurring the line between child and adult.
Why can't a perfectly law abiding person identify as 8?
I also think age relates to personal expression and identity in a fundamentally different way from gender.
Well gender is purely one's relationship to their sex, and aje is also defined as such so any problem you have is a problem with gender. The models are identical.
These boundaries are maintained by force, through control of the supply chains, and so any sense that they reflect a natural "essence" is actually illusory.
Perhaps my use of the term "essense" is short sighted, but what I mean by it is what is objectively true, that is, outside of one's self perceptions, what is really the case. Using "thought" or "self identification" is quite a bad way to go about finding the objectively true - people with apotemnophilia wish to cut of their limbs, yet I think the most ethical action to take isn't to give them a saw, but rather to show them that they are wrong.
-->
@Bones
Why bother with "internal sense" when external science can determine whether you are male or female?
That is your opinion, and I could just as easily ask why bother with external science when people can use their internal sense to decide if they are male or female.
You are not only speaking nonconformatively, but in a vacuous way.
Whether or not you consider it vacuous, it is a language game that functions well enough for the people involved to understand who and what is being referred to.
If I said, "a cat is that which is a cat", how would you respond?
You drink water, but not bleach, even though both are liquids. We don't need to apply the same behavior to every other example that has some superficial similarity to it. Just because we decide to use one noun like a label, doesn't mean we need to do it with every noun.
So you admit that there is baggage with the term "female". So then it's not just a pure name like label then, because names don't carry sets of necessary or even normative actions thus the constant comparison is false.
There is a difference between the definition, and all the connotations which a concept has. In any case, someone identifies as female because of some of that "baggage," but we can't pin down exactly what the criteria for that are because it might be different in each case. We can treat it as simply a self-elected label, in terms of the criteria of using the term, even though the psychological reasons for its use are more complex.
Well gender is purely one's relationship to their sex, and aje is also defined as such so any problem you have is a problem with gender. The models are identical.
Two things are not identical just because they share one feature in common. I sleep on a bed, but I don't sleep on the floor, even though they are both flat surfaces. I eat chicken, but I don't each bugs and insects, even though they are both animals. We can treat gender as a self-elected label, but not age, even though they are both words. We can assess a group's request or claim to adjust the use of language in each case, based on the merits of that claim. We need the distinction between children and adults to retain its relationship to biology, to prevent people without full autonomy from being exploited.
Perhaps my use of the term "essense" is short sighted, but what I mean by it is what is objectively true, that is, outside of one's self perceptions, what is really the case. Using "thought" or "self identification" is quite a bad way to go about finding the objectively true - people with apotemnophilia wish to cut of their limbs, yet I think the most ethical action to take isn't to give them a saw, but rather to show them that they are wrong.
That is based on your definition of gender. In their definition, it is true that a trans male does identify as male. Even if you consider it "vacuous" that is also different from being false. Even if you view the trans movement as removing all meaning from the terms "female" and "male" and using a bunch of vacuous terminology to refer to each other, there is nothing objectively false or even logically inconsistent about that. Your objection would need to be about its social consequences, not its internal consistency or objective truth.
-->
@rbelivb
Why bother with "internal sense" when external science can determine whether you are male or female?That is your opinion, and I could just as easily ask why bother with external science when people can use their internal sense to decide if they are male or female.
Because we ought to value that which is "objectively" true. As a society if we have a tool which can determine whether you are a male or female is so accurately that dead people from 2000 years ago can be identified, we ought to use that, instead of what people "feel".
If you deny this, then there is simply no point with this conversation as we hold fundamentally different values. I value what is true, what can be measurable. You value satisfying people, where "truth" is a mere compliment.
You are not only speaking nonconformatively, but in a vacuous way.Whether or not you consider it vacuous,
It's not "whether or not", the way you have defined it is vacuous and meaningless. A man is a man is the epitome of circularity.
If I said, "a cat is that which is a cat", how would you respond?You drink water, but not bleach, even though both are liquids.
Yes, because by the definitions of the two, I can determine which is harmful. If we were in a world in which people answer "water is water and bleach is bleach", half of us would be dead.
We don't need to apply the same behavior to every other example that has some superficial similarity to it.
But it should show that your position is an anomaly. Sure, just because everything else is like something, doesn't mean it's right, but it should give you a pause to consider whether you are sure you are right. The comparison with cats, homo sapiens and apples is valid - all are nouns, all have non circular definitions. You are yet to give me a single noun which we accept and contains with it a logical circularity.
So you admit that there is baggage with the term "female". So then it's not just a pure name like label then, because names don't carry sets of necessary or even normative actions thus the constant comparison is false.There is a difference between the definition, and all the connotations which a concept has. In any case, someone identifies as female because of some of that "baggage," but we can't pin down exactly what the criteria for that are because it might be different in each case.
So when someone identifies as female, they do so because they want to be connotated with some of that "baggage". What is that baggage? If it's "femininity", that doesn't do it, because I can just say, "well you can be a man who is feminine without any issues". See, any "baggage" you stipulate will not work. Let's say, they want the visual aesthetics - this won't do it, because then you can be a man with long hair, long nails etc. Furthermore, people constantly dress as things they are not (cosplay, furries) yet understand the distinction between a costume and their identity.
Well gender is purely one's relationship to their sex, and aje is also defined as such so any problem you have is a problem with gender. The models are identical.Two things are not identical just because they share one feature in common. I sleep on a bed, but I don't sleep on the floor, even though they are both flat surfaces. I eat chicken, but I don't each bugs and insects, even though they are both animals. We can treat gender as a self-elected label, but not age, even though they are both words.
But what I'm doing is exactly the same as what gender ideologists do. I'll outline it more clearly.
- 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.
In what way is this false? Both take an objective fact about you and create a term which refers to how you feel in relation to that fact. If you are willing to use gender, as opposed to the scientifically sound "sex" you are compelled to use "aje".
Perhaps my use of the term "essense" is short sighted, but what I mean by it is what is objectively true, that is, outside of one's self perceptions, what is really the case. Using "thought" or "self identification" is quite a bad way to go about finding the objectively true - people with apotemnophilia wish to cut of their limbs, yet I think the most ethical action to take isn't to give them a saw, but rather to show them that they are wrong.That is based on your definition of gender.
It's literally your definition. You said a man is that who identifies as a man i.e self identifies. In my view, all this is completely avoided.
In their definition, it is true that a trans male does identify as male. Even if you consider it "vacuous" that is also different from being false.
If I told you I identify as "gluglu", and you ask what that is, and I say "what people who identify as gluglu identify as", this would be absurd, yet it's literally exactly what you are doing.
Even if you view the trans movement as removing all meaning from the terms "female" and "male" and using a bunch of vacuous terminology to refer to each other, there is nothing objectively false or even logically inconsistent about that.
Well I can just use occam's razor and just say "we have this term sex which perfectly explains our biology, and thus gender is an ontological burden and unnecessary". Just like how creating the term "aje" is unnecessary because "age" is a perfectly good concept, so to is creating gender. Gender serves no explanatory power, except to post hoc aid the gender ideologist.
Your objection would need to be about its social consequences, not its internal consistency or objective truth.
Even if the "social consequence" were that everyone were happy, this wouldn't make it right. If killing your 2nd born child guaranteed you prosperity, there may be a benefit for doing it, but that would not mean that it is good, or an ought.
Also, what do you think about apotemnophilia - they, just like gender, have a burning need to edit their body to fit their self identification.
Also also, if you are comfortable answering, are you trans?
-->
@Bones
If you deny this, then there is simply no point with this conversation as we hold fundamentally different values. I value what is true, what can be measurable. You value satisfying people, where "truth" is a mere compliment.
You say that you value objective truth and logic over feelings, yet it seems like when I make an argument you reject it and revert to the same perspective, because of your underlying feeling that changing the definition of gender is wrong, vacuous or repugnant. The statement that it is "objectively false" that trans women are women is an ideological statement of preference masquerading as a statement of objective fact.
So when someone identifies as female, they do so because they want to be connotated with some of that "baggage". What is that baggage? If it's "femininity", that doesn't do it, because I can just say, "well you can be a man who is feminine without any issues". See, any "baggage" you stipulate will not work. Let's say, they want the visual aesthetics - this won't do it, because then you can be a man with long hair, long nails etc. Furthermore, people constantly dress as things they are not (cosplay, furries) yet understand the distinction between a costume and their identity.
They want to, e.g. have long hair and nails, and adopt the label of "female" because they want to inhabit the social role associated with that label. This is different from the definition.
- 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.
In what way is this false?
If you said that you are 20 but your "aje" is 50 because you feel very old, and I said "It is objectively false that your aje is 50" I would be wrong, because aje is a constructed term that you have defined as one's feeling about their age. It's not that it's false, but I don't support the use of this constructed term because it would obfuscate the distinction between biological adults and biological children. In the case of gender, you are the one claiming that it's objectively false, and my claim is that you would need to oppose it on the grounds of its social consequences because calling it objectively false doesn't make sense.
If I told you I identify as "gluglu", and you ask what that is, and I say "what people who identify as gluglu identify as", this would be absurd, yet it's literally exactly what you are doing.
It would be a label that people could apply to themselves. If I said "It is false that you are gluglu and you are delusional for thinking you are gluglu," that wouldn't work because by your own definition you actually are gluglu. I just might not find this a useful term, for the same reason that constructed languages like Esperanto rarely gain widespread usage.
Well I can just use occam's razor and just say "we have this term sex which perfectly explains our biology, and thus gender is an ontological burden and unnecessary". Just like how creating the term "aje" is unnecessary because "age" is a perfectly good concept, so to is creating gender. Gender serves no explanatory power, except to post hoc aid the gender ideologist.
It allows us to know how trans people prefer to identify themselves.
Even if the "social consequence" were that everyone were happy, this wouldn't make it right. If killing your 2nd born child guaranteed you prosperity, there may be a benefit for doing it, but that would not mean that it is good, or an ought.
You could make that kind of moral claim too. That's still different from saying that it's "false" which muddies the water for the entire discussion.
Also, what do you think about apotemnophilia - they, just like gender, have a burning need to edit their body to fit their self identification.
Even in the case of trans, I would be conservative about any drastic medical changes people decide to make to themselves. I think they should err on the side of being comfortable in their body as it is, and expressing themselves how they want to without the medical procedure. That said, I don't take a strong stance on it because I don't understand it. Whether things like what you mentioned should be legal is a complicated question.
Also also, if you are comfortable answering, are you trans?
No.
-->
@rbelivb
If you deny this, then there is simply no point with this conversation as we hold fundamentally different values. I value what is true, what can be measurable. You value satisfying people, where "truth" is a mere compliment.You say that you value objective truth and logic over feelings, yet it seems like when I make an argument you reject it and revert to the same perspective, because of your underlying feeling that changing the definition of gender is wrong, vacuous or repugnant.
Not only are those far fetched and unfounded opinions, but I have responded to all the arguments that you have made. I can say the same for you, when I make an argument, you reject it and revert to the same perspective.
I don't want to change to the definition of gender because there is no need, just as how we don't need aje, we don't need gender. Is this not a logical position?
The statement that it is "objectively false" that trans women are women is an ideological statement of preference masquerading as a statement of objective fact.
It is not ideological. If a person with gender dysphoria were to be buried and dug in 2000 years later, no matter how much they thought they were women, they will come up on every test as men. This is scientific.
So when someone identifies as female, they do so because they want to be connotated with some of that "baggage". What is that baggage? If it's "femininity", that doesn't do it, because I can just say, "well you can be a man who is feminine without any issues". See, any "baggage" you stipulate will not work. Let's say, they want the visual aesthetics - this won't do it, because then you can be a man with long hair, long nails etc. Furthermore, people constantly dress as things they are not (cosplay, furries) yet understand the distinction between a costume and their identity.They want to, e.g. have long hair and nails, and adopt the label of "female" because they want to inhabit the social role associated with that label. This is different from the definition.
So they want to be feminine? (feminine is literally having qualities or an appearance traditionally associated with women) What you have described is not a women, but a feminine man.
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.In what way is this false?If you said that you are 20 but your "aje" is 50 because you feel very old, and I said "It is objectively false that your aje is 50" I would be wrong, because aje is a constructed term that you have defined as one's feeling about their age. It's not that it's false, but I don't support the use of this constructed term because it would obfuscate the distinction between biological adults and biological children.
I agree completely. What you think about aje, I think about gender. I don't support gender because I precisely think it would obfuscate the distinction between biological men and biological women and cause much confusion.
In the case of gender, you are the one claiming that it's objectively false, and my claim is that you would need to oppose it on the grounds of its social consequences because calling it objectively false doesn't make sense.
I am rejecting it just like how you reject aje - on the grounds that it is an unnecessary fantastical term.
If I told you I identify as "gluglu", and you ask what that is, and I say "what people who identify as gluglu identify as", this would be absurd, yet it's literally exactly what you are doing.It would be a label that people could apply to themselves. If I said "It is false that you are gluglu and you are delusional for thinking you are gluglu," that wouldn't work because by your own definition you actually are gluglu.
This is true, but if you wish to draw a comparison with gender, you've made a huge intellectual forfeit. Gluglu here means nothing, it is circular. It has no resonance, no meaning - nothing. If you wish to say that for gender, then gender too will become vacuous. Sure, I can't say "your gender is not women", but that would be on the grounds as me not being able to say "you are not gluglu", which is like me not being able to say "you are not kajsdhfkdsjfh". It is meaningless. I might as well say nothing.
Well I can just use occam's razor and just say "we have this term sex which perfectly explains our biology, and thus gender is an ontological burden and unnecessary". Just like how creating the term "aje" is unnecessary because "age" is a perfectly good concept, so to is creating gender. Gender serves no explanatory power, except to post hoc aid the gender ideologist.It allows us to know how trans people prefer to identify themselves.
So it was created post hoc purely for the sake of saving gender ideology. This is like what creationists do - making up a new bit of your theory to make it indefensible. Real science is such that a certain conclusion is not presupposed in the hypothesis. I do not say "ok I want to make a case for trans people so I'll make a term", they say, "ok trans people exist, let's find out why".
Even if the "social consequence" were that everyone were happy, this wouldn't make it right. If killing your 2nd born child guaranteed you prosperity, there may be a benefit for doing it, but that would not mean that it is good, or an ought.You could make that kind of moral claim too. That's still different from saying that it's "false" which muddies the water for the entire discussion.
No it would could still be false - that is, if what trans ideologist claim as true is contrary to what we know.
-->
@Bones
I agree completely.
Sure, I can't say "your gender is not women"
I'm glad you have acknowledged this because that has been my main contention from the beginning.
I don't support gender because I precisely think it would obfuscate the distinction between biological men and biological women and cause much confusion.
I understand that is your perspective, but as you acknowledged, the claim that "it is objectively false" that trans women are women is still wrong.
-->
@rbelivb
I agree completely.
I did mention
What you think about aje, I think about gender. I don't support gender because I precisely think it would obfuscate the distinction between biological men and biological women and cause much confusion.
So your agreement is a denial of your position.
Sure, I can't say "your gender is not women"I'm glad you have acknowledged this because that has been my main contention from the beginning.
But that's the same as saying "ok I'll give a new definition of species which is made up and i'll therefore say I'm not a human". It's silly. There's no point of it. You haven't achieved anything by creating a new word. That's like me saying "God as defined as that which is me" exists. You haven't done anything meaningful. You haven't argued why your definition is good, why it is necessary, or why it helps in any way.
I don't support gender because I precisely think it would obfuscate the distinction between biological men and biological women and cause much confusion.I understand that is your perspective, but as you acknowledged, the claim that "it is objectively false" that trans women are women is still wrong.
But I can say that about aje and then force you into believing it? How would you feel if tomorrow, clearly homo sapien beings were being called cats.
-->
@Bones
But that's the same as saying "ok I'll give a new definition of species which is made up and i'll therefore say I'm not a human". It's silly. There's no point of it. You haven't achieved anything by creating a new word. That's like me saying "God as defined as that which is me" exists. You haven't done anything meaningful. You haven't argued why your definition is good, why it is necessary, or why it helps in any way.
But at least we have established the terms of the disagreement. We seem to agree that the statement that "trans women aren't women" or that they are "delusional" is a piece of empty rhetoric, and wrong.
Then, we agree that the debate is really about whether the changes to language proposed by trans are good for society, useful, helpful, etc. Which is different from debating whether their claims are biologically incorrect or delusional.
You say that you value the biological difference between sexes, that you don't want it obscured. That is what you value, but that needs to be weighed against the reasons on the opposite side. One reason for the new language would be that there are a large enough minority of people who simply want to identify that way, that they prefer or enjoy it. We would be keeping that language in lieu of the biological emphasis to allow the freedom to that group of people to express themselves as they choose to. You might think that it is a trivial reason, but it depends if the reasons against are negligible enough. Personally I don't care much about the biological differences between sexes being culturally emphasized, and I value the freedom of expression over the public signaling of biological traits.
So it was created post hoc purely for the sake of saving gender ideology. This is like what creationists do - making up a new bit of your theory to make it indefensible. Real science is such that a certain conclusion is not presupposed in the hypothesis. I do not say "ok I want to make a case for trans people so I'll make a term", they say, "ok trans people exist, let's find out why".
Also, I disagree with your framing of this as a scientific question. Imagine I said "you are lying that your name is Bones, it's because you're delusional and ashamed of your real name." Obviously, I would be ignoring the distinction between your actual name and your username. It would not make sense to make the case by saying, that your name is scientifically, legally, your real name. Your username is your chosen username, and there is nothing scientific about it other than verifying what your chosen username is. Does that make your username completely meaningless, because it has no basis in scientific or legal reality? No, because it provides you with the freedom of expression to identify yourself that way.