Total posts: 23
Posted in:
A hilarious example of an issue's political significance overwhelming the entire country far beyond its actual importance. I can sympathize with voters who just wanted to get it over with; Corbyn was inept at dealing with Brexit. Boris Johnson is human refuse, but god Labour's strategy was so bad.
Created:
The right is generally considered rational in the US because they embrace empiricism, in a sense. Naive empiricism, which can't bear to have any of its assumptions challenged (the old "common sense" appeals) or accept that interpretations of the data are inextricably intertwined with the facts in social sciences. That's how you get the weird situation in which the scientific consensus is that sex and gender are spectra, but the general populace considers authoritative male-female categories rational because "that's how it is, penis=boy and no penis=girl". Anything that challenges the "common sense" assumptions is "irrational", and the naive empiricist often can't even see that the assumptions could be other than what's accepted.
The left probably isn't less vulnerable to naive empiricism, but it's painfully visible in the right. Maybe some people on the left see the horrible legacy of naive empiricism and reject empiricism altogether. Maybe the left is driven to more refined ideas of empiricism because naive empiricism has traditionally been a weapon wielded by those in power against the other. I have no idea. But I think it's probably true that most people in the US embrace naive empiricism, so conformity with that = "rational".
Created:
Posted in:
I'm itching for a fight, so here's some ideas and the stances I would be willing to take.
The following topics were taken (with some modifications) from here.
To be art, something must have been created with artistic intent (Con)
Everything is art. (Pro)
Countries ought to engage in free trade. (Pro)
The French government's ban on Burqas is morally permissible. (Con)
The international community should adopt the legal doctrine of a “responsibility to protect.” (Pro)
Societies should emphasize protecting multiculturalism over encouraging assimilation. (Pro)
Within a functioning democracy, the use of violence to bring about political change is occasionally justified. (Pro)
In a democracy, felons ought to be able to regain their voting rights upon completion of their sentence (Pro).
In a democracy, no citizen ought to be deprived of their voting rights for any reason (Pro).
Checks and balances in a democratic system protect human rights. (Pro)
Access to food, water, and shelter ought to be guaranteed to all people. (Pro)
Schools ought to provide safe spaces for students. (Pro)
I would additionally be willing to debate LGBTQIA+ policies, but only with an opponent who respects our shared human dignity. I'm interested in the policy discussions, not how far your head is stuck up your ash.
I'm willing to accept debates within the following parameters:
Time for arguments- one day to two weeks
Time for arguments- one day to two weeks
Characters per argument- 1000 to 10000
Point system- winner selection
Before beginning the debate, we should work out mutually acceptable definitions of the words in the resolution, or change the resolution as needed.
I look forward to doing battle.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm bowing out from the echo chamber. I've made my case, most people are basically just reasserting the same few points, and after reflection, I'm satisfied that what I argued stands. Most of the critiques betray either willful ignorance of my points or else miss them entirely, and I am uninterested in being called delusional and so on by multiple people only to have the same bad arguments thrown at me. If anyone thinks they have an actual, well-thought out critique, challenge me to a debate or PM me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
They feel threatened because there are people pushing for laws that force them to use preferred pronouns. They feel threatened because biological males are being allowed into their daughter's bathrooms. Are some of them good people? Sure. Are some of them predators pretending to be transgender to gain access to women's bathrooms? You would have to be a fool to say no. It's not the existence of trans people that makes people feel threatened; it's the radical activism of a few trans people and leftists that threatens them.
Outlawing discrimination isn't radical, and "Trans people shouldn't have the right to pee in peace because cis people will abuse it" is the most backward logic in the world lmao.
Why does the fact that it isn't day mean that it's night? Why does the fact that an object has pages covered in words mean it's a book, magazine, or pamphlet? Why is a circle round? I say that it's possible for circles to be square; if you disagree, then why are you threatened by the existence of square circles?Concerning your discussion of intersex people, it is irrelevant for one simple reason (probably more than one, but one is all I need at the moment): intersex is reflected in biological reality, whereas [being transgender] is not. You may protest that transgender people's brains are similar to the opposite sex, but that proves nothing. When the brain disagrees with the body, the body isn't the one that's wrong.
The Enlightenment called. They want their mind-body dualism back.
To the extent you believe this, you haven't paid attention to a word I've written and you have no idea what you're talking about. You are at odds with both basic biology and the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.
It is common knowledge that the suicide rates among trans people is abnormally high, and that many blame that rate on "transphobia" and discrimination. However, this is complete nonsense. The suicide rate among trasngender people is higher than that of blacks during slavery and Jews in the Holocaust. It is only comparable to people with mental illnesses. Can you explain this?
Here's a report on trans people and suicide. It's very limited in that it only records whether a person has or hasn't attempted suicide at some point in their life (i.e. when it was in relation to their transition isn't recorded, so this doesn't tell us if and how transition changed them). But the results show a dramatic correlation between discrimination and suicide attempts. The prevalence in the general trans population is 41%. Among trans people who have experienced various forms of housing discrimination, it's about 60%. Among those who lost close friends, 50%. Among those ostracized by their family, 57%. On the other hand, among those with strong family relationships, it's 33%.
That report also shows a distinct effect of mental illness. 67% of trans women who reported having a mental health disability attempted suicide at least once, compared to 37% of trans women who did not report that. The difference is similarly dramatic across the spectrum.
Again, this says nothing about the effect of medical intervention. A review of the literature found that "although the levels of psychopathology and psychiatric disorders in trans people attending services at the time of assessment are higher than in the cis population, they do improve following gender-confirming medical intervention, in many cases reaching normative values. The main Axis I psychiatric disorders were found to be depression and anxiety disorder. Other major psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, were rare and were no more prevalent than in the general population." Most other literature I've seen supports that as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
People sometimes find it difficult to argue against common sense.
True, because it's a meaningless phrase. It's just an assertion that "most people believe it, and it seems obvious to me, so it's true". In my circles, it is common sense that you're wrong lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I am male because I was born with a penis etc, that makes me a male. If you are saying you don't need a penis to be a male then what am I? If you are saying you can choose to be male or female, those terms are meaningless because they can be defined and redefined anyway anyone chooses.
You are what you are. Your internal sense of gender identity is presumably that you are male, which would make you a male. As far as choosing it... well, try choosing to feel female, or agender, or anything other than what you are, then report back on how that went lol.
Again if you want people to lie to you and call you female when they really don't believe it that's up to you to live that lie. A name is different and people should use your name.You have to decide if you want people to be real towards you or fake to appease you.[. . .]any artificial physical changes done to look like me and my kind doesn't make you one of us, no more than me changing the color of my skin makes me the race of which I look like. That's my opinion and I am and should be entitled to it shouldn't I?
To the extent that you or someone else doesn't believe me, you are incorrect. You have the right to be wrong, but "it's all just opinions" is an attempt to sweep important discussion under the rug.
I've provide customer service and care to transpeople in my job. I never try to treat anyone different and everyone the same. I'd like to think I've done a good job at doing that generally. Naturally how I'm treated does make a difference, I'm only human after all. No one should be treated unkindly or badly, most people anyway.A: Did Lucy take a turn?B: Yeah, Lucy built a castle.
I'm sure you don't harbor a grudge against trans people or anything like that. Let me ask you this: why do think using a trans person's chosen name is good, but not their pronouns?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It doesn't say ideally three. It frames being three and old enough to say what they want as equally viable choices.
Again, full quote: "Intersex advocacy groups have therefore argued that doctors and parents should at least wait [to perform surgery] until a child is old enough to communicate their gender identity, which typically manifests around the age of three, or old enough to decide whether they want surgery at all." In context this is saying that: 1) performing surgery on the genitals of intersex infants is extremely risky and may result in gender dysphoria down the line, and 2) therefore parents should wait before making that decision. And it further says that parents should wait at least until their child's gender identity is clear to make a decision for them, or ideally wait until the child is old enough to decide for their self (notably, not three).
I'm not really sure what to say other than you're reading the sentence incorrectly. The phrase, "which typically manifests around the age of three," is a parenthetical clause describing gender identity. If we take out the parenthetical clause, the sentence becomes, "Intersex advocacy groups have therefore argued that doctors and parents should at least wait [to perform surgery] until a child is old enough to communicate their gender identity or old enough to decide whether they want surgery at all."
Sex and ten toes are normative. Normative:"establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behavior.". It is normal to have ten toes and be either male or female, and therefore sex is normative.Mutations and genetic defects can happen. They don't make you non-human, but they also don't create some new category of what humans are. A biology textbook will say we have ten toes. It shouldn't say that we can have any number of toes and that every number is equally valid.
You're using normal in the sense of "usual" or "typical". I repeat:
In other words, the categories we have for the sexes exist only to the extent that they are practical and don't reflect any underlying truth about the universe that everyone ought to conform to. For example, you mention the example of "humans have ten toes". But some humans do not have ten toes, and yet are still humans. Other animals have ten toes and yet are not humans. But yes, humans generally have ten toes. "Ten toes" is descriptive and not normative. Sex is descriptive and not normative. This is a major reason why gender identity, one's sense of self, should not be lumped together with one's sex, and why one's sex may appear to be one way while an individual nonetheless expresses an incongruous gender identity.I'll add that it's especially a reason why criticisms of trans people as "delusional," etc., are incoherent. To call it a delusion presumes you have an objective, external standard of what their gender is to compare with their internal conception of their gender. That's especially odd because my argument is that gender is this internal conception. Regardless, it's on you to provide that objective standard.
And sure, some people might think they are a gender they are not. If I thought that I was president Obama or an 80 year old potato, I would be incorrect. Sometimes your perception denies reality. That is the case with transgender folks.
Those aren't genders, and your conception of reality leaves much to be desired.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I've never seen people so vehemently and vitriolically argue against something that doesn't affect them in the slightest.
Welcome to life as a trans person, lol. People feel threatened by our existence, sometimes because they just don't know anything about us, sometimes because we're "easy" targets, sometimes even because they're repressing their gender identity themselves. So, I just try to be as visible as I can and show that I'm a normal, sane, competent human being. People do with that what they will, and hopefully something reaches their hearts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm more than happy to respond if/when you decide to actually make an argument and respond to my points.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
That article said you should wait until a kid is three "to communicate their gender identity". I highly doubt a three year old should be making a decision that will affect it for the rest of its life.
Full quote: "Intersex advocacy groups have therefore argued that doctors and parents should at least wait [to perform surgery] until a child is old enough to communicate their gender identity, which typically manifests around the age of three, or old enough to decide whether they want surgery at all." In context this is saying that: 1) performing surgery on the genitals of intersex infants is extremely risky and may result in gender dysphoria down the line, and 2) therefore parents should wait before making that decision. And it further says that parents should wait at least until their child's gender identity is clear to make a decision for them, or ideally wait until the child is old enough to decide for their self (notably, not three).
All I am seeing is mention of "intersex". If you are trying to argue for a third gender, I would say that a genetic defect shouldn't be considered a normal trait. If someone asked you how many toes a human has, the answer would obviously be 10. If someone asked you how many lungs a person has, the answer would be two. Just because some defects occur in a few people doesn't mean it is a human trait, which gender is. So, when you ask someone how many genders there are, it would be 2.
The point of my argument so far is that sex is not normative. In other words, the categories we have for the sexes exist only to the extent that they are practical and don't reflect any underlying truth about the universe that everyone ought to conform to. For example, you mention the example of "humans have ten toes". But some humans do not have ten toes, and yet are still humans. Other animals have ten toes and yet are not humans. But yes, humans generally have ten toes. "Ten toes" is descriptive and not normative. Sex is descriptive and not normative. This is a major reason why gender identity, one's sense of self, should not be lumped together with one's sex, and why one's sex may appear to be one way while an individual nonetheless expresses an incongruous gender identity.
Your gender is not your sex, it is your gender identity. It is how you perceive yourself and how you want to be perceived by the world around you. When intersex people have surgery performed on them as infants, gender dysphoria may result where none may have otherwise existed, though their sex after surgery is more in line with the binary. This is because our senses of self and our brains are a part, and only a part, of our sex.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Brains I think is a whole different discussion as we are talking about the outward, visible physical traits.
To recap, my argument has been that categorizing sex as male or female is fine to the extent that it's useful. The extent to which it is useful, however, is far less than is commonly believed. "Male" and "female" do not reflect any underlying objective truth about the world, and there is no identifiable necessary condition to fit in either category. Chromosomes don't equal sex, as, for example, some people with xy nonetheless develop in a manner such that any reasonable person would call them female. Primary/secondary sex characteristics don't equal sex, as people can be born with both sets or a mixture and we have no leg to stand on to tell them who they "really" are.
So, let's talk about gender. You might have heard the distinction between sex and gender as something like "sex is biological, gender is society's attitude toward the sexes" or something like that, or you may never have heard the distinction at all. Rather than provide a definition outright, I'd like to explain where I'm coming from. I've gone through male puberty, my body produces normal male levels of testosterone and estrogen, and I have male primary and secondary sex characteristics. Growing up, I just accepted "yeah I'm a guy" and didn't think too hard about it, not that I even knew what being trans was. As I grew up and hit puberty, I became increasingly depressed. I had little interest in sex, body image issues that I did not connect to gender at the time, and I just generally didn't give a sh*t about myself or take care of myself. It was around this time that I first began to learn of trans people, but I never considered that I could be one. To me it seemed like being a trans woman was something other than being a woman. I didn't want to be trans, I just wanted to be a woman.
So, I sat on that for years. It's not like I hated myself the whole time or anything like that, I had a happy-ish existence. But there were always things on the peripheral that I couldn't quite grasp. The dam broke last year, when I met a trans friend who was not only happy but thriving and accepted. One thing led to another and I realized, "holy sh*t, I can just be a girl". I started socially transitioning immediately, went on hormones a few months later, and I've never looked back.
The relevance of brains: I feel very contented when people use my chosen name and refer to me with my pronouns. I've been so adamant about hormones that I had made a plan going into the doctor's that if he didn't give me a timeline I was happy with, I was going to threaten to buy them from overseas and DIY. I've never been that assertive about anything else in my life, ever. The physical changes make me happier; I look in the mirror and feel content with myself. My mental health has been better than ever before, and I have better reasons to groom myself and take good care of my body now. Because of transition, my body and my friendships both better reflect who I feel I am/should be.
When I ask someone to refer to me as she/her and use my chosen name, I'm not asking them to deny anything about my body. I know what my chromosomes are. I'm just a girl regardless, and for me, transition is how I bring the rest of my life in line with my brain.
This isn't a universal experience, btw. Other people go through different things, feel different things, and are... well, different people lol. It's just mine.
(2/2)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
from what I remember, there are either hormone levels or some other kind of testing along with physical presentation to determine which one is more, in other words these people are not 50% both sexes, they are more one than the other.
Yes and no. It is true that most people assigned female at birth have lots of estrogen and a little testosterone, and most people assigned male at birth have lots of testosterone and a little estrogen. But in terms of determining whether one is "more" male or female, there's too much complexity at work here. One of the articles I linked earlier mentioned cases like people with XY chromosomes having just enough mosaicism in their genes to conceive and carry to term a pregnancy, and an elderly man who had fathered a child and only found out late in life that he had a womb. Do we fabricate some kind of points system to decide in those cases?
side note but this was interesting https://youtu.be/C1roM98Dass
Agreed, interesting. I'm not going to comment on cancel culture here because that's a whole thread by itself lol, but here's some of my other thoughts. The optics in this encounter are awful. A cis male speaking for the non-binary, opposed to a truscum trans woman. Truscum is a word that refers to trans people that delegitimize other trans people, for instance by saying that you need gender dysphoria to be trans or that nonbinary people are essentially fake news.
I have major issues with India Willoughby (the trans woman in the video). I appreciate that she has blazed a trail in the media, and god knows the stress from all that visibility takes a toll on a person. But I find her views completely wrong and abhorrent. To summarize some of her views: drag is offensive and comparable to blackface, transition is a process by which you become trans, and people are choosing one of a billion genders just because they feel like it. When it comes to drag... just... no lol. Drag has a rich history and has not been used to marginalize women or trans people in any way nearly comparable to blackface. There are certainly transphobes in the drag world, but... there are transphobes everywhere.
As for her views on dysphoria and nonbinary people, you might notice a striking similarity between her views and the views of decidedly anti-trans people. Some people think truscum adopt positions like this because throwing others under the bus makes them more palatable to those who otherwise wouldn't accept them. I don't make any claim to see inside her head.
I think that's debatable, but again if someone wants to risk it, that's up to them so long as it doesn't affect me which includes my tax money
Idk, I think the mental health benefits are well worth the minor/rare side effects. As for tax money, transition-related care is mental health care, and to the extent that we use tax money for health care, it also ought to be used for transition-related care. But a debate on whether and to what extent we should use tax money to provide healthcare generally is probably beyond the scope of this thread.
shared traits or similar ones are what we use to differentiate and define.cars and trucks have many similarities but are vastly different, I'd say more different than similar.
Another way to look at it is the spectrum of visible light. Say the archetypal male is the color red and the archetypal female is the color purple. Even though orange is close as a color to red, they're still distinct colors. An either/or between male and female erases these distinctions, and so cannot be said to reflect any fundamental truth about the universe. But we use the terms male and female because they are useful. Red blends seamlessly into orange, then into yellow, then into green, then into blue, and then into purple, but it helps to have dividing lines somewhere when it comes to issues like breast and prostate cancer and other medical risks that differ between the ends of the spectrum. Most people fall on the ends, and so the ends are the most sensible reference points. I can't make any claim to know the history of how we got to this point and how the cultural expectations for the genders developed (several cultures have more than two genders), but this is where we're at now.
if xy and xx are not male and female chromosomes what are they? what else can they be?
"Male and female chromosomes" are terms we use because they're practical, so I don't have an issue with the terms being used. I just think it's important to note that they come with a whole host of problems. People attach weird metaphysical significance to them where they have none. Hopefully the relevance of our conversation will become clear when we transition (heh) from talking about sex to talking about gender.
(1/2)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Probably because that is the entire role of the 23rd pair of chromosomes.That is like asking "why does DNA determine our species?".
So, is it fair to say your argument is that sex and gender are defined by chromosomes because chromosomes define sex and gender? I'll direct you to this scientific article about sex. It explains how and why the scientific thinking on this point has shifted, and provides pretty clear evidence that chromosomes do not define sex.
The species discussion is a crazy interesting one I'd love to have at some point, but I'd need to read up on it first. I find the ways in which we attempt to order the world and stuff things into categories fascinating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Sorry, the question was about people who are intersex, people born with sex characteristics outside the binary, like someone born with both sets of sex organs. What sex are they born as, and why? Or is it not possible to say?so the "perception" is someone doesn't think they are the sex they were born with, yes that would be an issue/abnormal, try to "fix" them, people can choose to do whatever they want imo, generally, but I'm not paying for it.
can you give me an example of when talking to a person you'd refer to them with a pronoun vs their name? Like the conversation we are having, I can't imagine an instance where I would use a pronoun directed at you, that's just not how language works.
Sure! Pronouns are just an easy way to tell how someone wants to be referred to. I use she/her. When I play board games with my friends, a conversation might go
A: Did Lucy take her turn?
B: Yeah, she built a castle.
A: Did Lucy take her turn?
B: Yeah, she built a castle.
The vast majority of English-speaking trans people use she/her, he/him, or they/them, or a combination of those (e.g. she/her and they/them). A minority use other pronouns like ze/hir, which for most people were used to distinguish from she/her and he/him, but they've generally fallen out of favor as the singular they, as in, "I talked with Robin, and they said they went to the market already," has become more widely accepted and used in the English language.
yeah typos happen, I'm not a geneticist but until recently that is how it's been, it is binary, as are the chromosomes, barring abnormalities.
No worries. That is how it has been, but here's an extremely interesting article that describes how and why this has shifted, in light of the evidence.
you can "perform" the role w/o surgery, dangerous hormones etc, so if that's something someone wants to do, do it. All animals afaik we've identified as male/female in some species the females is dominant and the leader so roles doesn't really mean much to me, however it is binary as there are only males and females normally. Animals are classified male/female based on physical and genetic characteristics.
I agree 100% that you don't need to take hormones or undergo surgery to be the gender you identify as. It's worth noting that hormone replacement therapy for trans people is safe and effective, about as safe as medication can get. Basically, I can't eat a million bananas (potassium), I pee more often, and I have increased risk of breast cancer (though not as high as the risk for cisgender women). This article explains the process for trans women, other articles on the site cover the process for trans men and gender nonconforming people.
The sex of many animals is similar to a binary in the sense that the spectrum ranges from male to female--e.g. intersex people have some parts that are considered male and others considered female. But there's a big difference between saying that sex is an either/or, that you are male or you are female, and saying that sex is a spectrum with male and female on either end. This is especially important in light of the likely fact that the average brains of transgender people differ from the average brains of other people in the gender they are assigned to, and in light of the fact that undergoing hormone therapy causes one to develop the secondary sex characteristics associated with the gender they identify as.
The sex of many animals is similar to a binary in the sense that the spectrum ranges from male to female--e.g. intersex people have some parts that are considered male and others considered female. But there's a big difference between saying that sex is an either/or, that you are male or you are female, and saying that sex is a spectrum with male and female on either end. This is especially important in light of the likely fact that the average brains of transgender people differ from the average brains of other people in the gender they are assigned to, and in light of the fact that undergoing hormone therapy causes one to develop the secondary sex characteristics associated with the gender they identify as.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Basic physiology determines gender, and the uncorrupted definition of gender is simply "either of the two sexes, male or female".
What's "basic physiology"? Going by the consensus of the scientific community, which is as basic as it gets, gender and sex are both widely recognized as a spectrum. Does basic physiology mean, "what I think physiology should mean, as my definition is superior to the one of those who actually study it?" If so, why? If your answer is something about scientific bias, back that up.
And yes, very rarely physiological abnormalities can occur during foetal development.Though, the current social preponderance regarding gender issues, is not about developmental abnormalities but rather about postnatal socio-psychological issues.
One point I've been trying to make is that these "abnormalities" betray problems with the categories themselves. It's not enough to say "there's male and female, and anyone else... eh." What gives the binary categories of male and female any force? They don't accurately reflect at least 1% of the population (common estimate of how many people are intersex), and that's without considering the other ways in which sex and gender are messy concepts. Yes, 1% sounds like a small number. But that's 3 million Americans. Any theory of sex or gender that wants to reflect the world has to account for this, and it's not enough to say, "everyone's male or female except for a few people that aren't". It's not enough because it papers over the flaws in the categories that are exposed. People are attempting to give the layperson view of male and female normative force, and it's odd to elevate to a universal a principle that is obviously not universal.
The common view has its places, as people in the male and female binary are more common, and overwhelmingly more visible, and the categories of male and female are useful in some contexts. But it's nowhere near the end of the conversation.
Nonetheless, all of this is a secondary discussion which has developed from a simple premise. Whereby the oftentimes hypocritical and nonsensical nature of ultra right wing liberal, so called "transgender" justification, becomes patently obvious.
It's not a secondary discussion, and hopefully that becomes more clear as this conversation develops. I still have yet to see hypocrisy or nonsense.
I would suggest though, that it would be far better if such people quit bombarding the rest with hypocritical and nonsensical justifications and got on with their sexual and bodily preoccupations in private.
Sexuality and gender are different things. Trans people can be gay, straight, bi, ace, or any other sexual orientation.
As far as privacy goes, there are a multitude of reasons why these conversations need to be had. Here's a few:
- Historically, portrayal of trans people in the media has been so bad that it has gotten people killed. The common narrative of "traps" is directly harmful to me and other trans people, and so we're taking our part in the conversation, to show that we're not fetishists, we're not crazy, we're just people.
- The rights of trans people to live their lives in peace, to "get on" with their lives, are violated in numerous ways. There have been laws passed and harsh debate about our right to use the bathroom without getting harassed. Disproportionately high numbers of trans youth are homeless. Employers can discriminate against trans people without much fear of reprisal. Conversion therapy increases the suicide rate, while acceptance and access to medical care substantially reduce it. Trans people are far more likely to be sexually assaulted in prison. They are victimized in various crimes at far higher rates, are generally more impoverished, and some are forced into sex work to survive (source).
- Few people take the time to refine and think about what sex and gender mean, and the conversation ought to be lifted from intellectual bankruptcy, because there's lots of interesting stuff to talk about. Challenging people's assumptions is healthy and keeps us honest. Even if I don't agree with a single critique in this thread, I still have to refine and think through my views to talk about them, and others have to do the same to engage with me. Assumptions about sex and gender are deeply rooted, and so are extremely interesting to talk about.
tl;dr we talk about this stuff because we have to; it's the only way our lives and world are going to improve.
And furthermore, the actual person that was referred to in the first place was unequivocally a woman, gender female. As proven by their obvious physiological ability to conceive and give birth.
Why does that denote that one is female? It's no answer to say "sex and gender are your parts, ability to give birth means you're female," as that's circular and provides no justification at all. And I presume you would not consider infertile women to be men, correct?
Maybe you want to say that the ability to give birth is sufficient but not necessary to be female. But then, what makes an infertile woman a woman? How would we define what conditions are sufficient to be male or female? At some point, to make this argument, you've got to draw a line, and my contention is that any line you draw outside of "identifies as a woman" will exclude people who most would agree are women, whether that line is chromosomes or primary/secondary sex characteristics or anything else. If a definition excludes women who all reasonable people would agree are women, that definition is clearly not a universal and has no normative force. The end point I hope to reach, after much conversation, is that the reader is placed in a situation where they must accept that identifying as x gender is necessary and sufficient to be x gender, or to make thoughtful revisions to how they conceive of sex and gender to address the objections I'm raising.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
If you have no y chromosomes, you are a woman. If you have any y chromosomes, you are a man. End of story.
One major question raised by my posts thus far: why do chromosomes determine your sex or your gender?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You've touched on an interesting point here. That is, that people who are born intersex are not "normal". Does this mean people who are born that way have bodies that are wrong and we should try to "fix" them? Here's an article that talks about the horrific practice of performing surgeries on intersex children, essentially mutilating their bodies so that they fit in the binary male/female categories.those are abnormalities, birth or other defects so....if you'd like to say trans people are abnormal I would agree with that . . .
What gives these strict categories of male/female normative force? It is clearly not because they are ideal forms, and they don't even describe the world accurately, as we've seen they can't account for the "abnormalities".
If an intersex person identified as female and asked you to use she/her pronouns, and she had both sets of sex organs, what would you do?
And here's the punchline: while there's still lots more research to do, studies suggest that the brains of transgender individuals on average tend to resemble an average brain of the gender with which they identify.
do you deny that xx chromosome is a male? you can't change that. again trying to alter physical appearances doesn't make you what you have attempted to emulate, it's fake.
Well, xy is what is generally correlated with assigning someone as male. Here's another question: in light of the fact that chromosomes do not necessarily decide secondary or even primary sex characteristics, why do chromosomes determine one's gender as male or female?
You are free to play whatever role you wish, I don't really care, but it is a role just like an actor pretending to be something or someone they are not. If that makes you happy, good for you, but don't expect or demand I accept the charades.
This isn't an uncommon view in most of the world. I appreciate that you respect my personal liberties despite a quite fundamental difference in how we both see me.
Here's another interesting thought, this idea about playing a role. Gender has some element of performance to it. The idea that "boys should like blue and pirates, girls should like pink and princesses" is probably familiar to you. There's all sorts of expectations, from the way we dress to the way we speak to how we handle relationships. These ideas are everywhere. In fact, it's not uncommon for trans women to go hyper-masculine before coming to terms with their female gender and transitioning, and for trans men to go hyper-feminine. The rationale behind that is generally something like "maybe I'm just not a manly enough man yet, and if I were just more masculine I'd be okay with it." This is the case for many trans women who've gone into the armed forces only to later transition.
It seems to me that in a case like the above, it's acting like the gender that you're assigned at birth that's a charade.
It seems to me that in a case like the above, it's acting like the gender that you're assigned at birth that's a charade.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@zedvictor4
@Dr.Franklin
Hello, trans woman here.
A man giving birth is neither stupidity nor hypocrisy nor comedy. It's not stupidity: ask any trans person, we are painfully aware of the gender assigned to us at birth. It's not hypocrisy: gender is a spectrum. And it's not comedy: it's just someone living their life.
I've been on a dialectics kick, so let's start with the idea that
A man giving birth is neither stupidity nor hypocrisy nor comedy. It's not stupidity: ask any trans person, we are painfully aware of the gender assigned to us at birth. It's not hypocrisy: gender is a spectrum. And it's not comedy: it's just someone living their life.
I've been on a dialectics kick, so let's start with the idea that
basic biology says males produce sperm, females eggs, both together = conception. the end.
I am sure that you agree that because some people are infertile, some males do not produce sperm, and some females do not produce eggs. The alternative would be to argue that infertile males and females are different sexes or genders from fertile males and females, which is probably not a fertile plain of argument.
So, what exactly delineates a sex or a gender? I'll anticipate one probable response:
basic biology says males have xy chromosomes and females have xx chromosomes
The problem now is that these categories don't contain all humans. There are 1) humans with extra chromosomes, 2) humans with both chromosomes, and so on. On top of that, there are 3) humans who have the chromosomes associated with one sex but the secondary sex characteristics of the other sex. So, this definition is clearly inadequate as well. How would you account for the three examples I've listed in a definition of sex or gender?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
So, I put my question to you now. Can morality and perfection coexist?
To answer the question out of context: Morality and perfection can coexist. Something like the completion of Hegel's system, the universal Idea being recognized and othered and then coming back to itself. Granted, in a system like that, it would be impossible to not know why what you're doing is right.
More related to your post: the premise of the question requires you accept the existence of morality. A world can't be perfect as you've defined without morality; there would be no "right" decisions to make. You've said about as much, and your way out was to say that a perfect world is not perfectly moral. If not moral, then what does it mean to be perfect, and what does it mean to be right?
More related to your post: the premise of the question requires you accept the existence of morality. A world can't be perfect as you've defined without morality; there would be no "right" decisions to make. You've said about as much, and your way out was to say that a perfect world is not perfectly moral. If not moral, then what does it mean to be perfect, and what does it mean to be right?
Action-guiding precepts: Morality is not just the system of obligations. It includes justifications. We intuit that someone who does a good action selflessly and someone who does a good action because it will benefit them are not morally equivalent, even if the scenario plays out the exact same way and produces the same consequences.
Or, slightly different, morality might include an obligation to have right intentions and you can't just blindly stumble into it.
Or, slightly different, morality might include an obligation to have right intentions and you can't just blindly stumble into it.
could a perfect world exist without morality?
A perfect world might not need morality in the sense that it doesn't need philosophers agonizing and preachers proselytizing, Whether or not morality exists doesn't depend on whether or not we "need it" telling us what to do, a proposition that itself appears to be a moral claim. By definition, I'm not sure how a world could be "perfect" without morality. And what does it mean for a world to exist with or without morality? Unless there are particles out there in the world giving morality force, what differentiates a moral and an amoral world?
Created: