Are you Politically Correct?

[Gorbles]

@Akka

Nobody has ever denied that certain actions are harmful to (not just) trans folk, people are just arguing against having to do it because it apparently infringes on their free speech? I recommend sticking to the mirror thing.

@TheMeInTeam

You literally said you don't want to modify your free speech based on societal pressure. The rest of your post is going in such circles, as well as such transparent attempts at bait that whether I reply, or deign not to reply, you'll criticise it either way. You're asking questions that have been answered, only you don't like the answers. You never did get past the fact that your opinion of coherence doesn't dictate it, nomatter how many absurdist examples of proof you provide.

@red_elk

And if Cloud_Strife's post was that short a statement with absolutely nothing else in context, maybe you'd have a point. But it wasn't, and you know that

EDIT

@rah

You're conflating you with other people in the thread. Cloud wasn't replying to you, they didn't quote you, and when asked they still didn't refer to you specifically.

You're asking Cloud to be civil, in general, in a thread where people are treating things relevant to their person as a academic exercise. That is what is being objected to.

 

[red_elk]

And if Cloud_Strife's post was that short a statement with absolutely nothing else in context, maybe you'd have a point. But it wasn't, and you know that

You might have a point too, if response to his post contained nothing except pointing out fallacy.

 

[Lexicus]

It is extremely rare to get conclusions consistent with reality from reasoning with no basis in reality.

I think this is a big assumption that simply reflects your bias toward logic. People use intuition to derive accurate conclusions about reality all the time.

 

[Akka]

Why should I ever be civil with someone or anyone who thinks my right to exist should be up for debate?

Disagreeing with your definition of gender doesn't imply debating your right to exist. There is absolutely no link between either.

 

[Lexicus]

Disagreeing with your definition of gender doesn't imply debating your right to exist. There is absolutely no link between either.

Immediate questions occur to me. What is Cloud's "definition of gender" as you see it? What is your competing definition? Because if this is going where I think it is, "there are two genders corresponding to biological sex and this is simply fact" is absolutely implicitly denying that intersex/nonbinary people and trans people exist.

 

[Gorbles]

Disagreeing with your definition of gender doesn't imply debating your right to exist. There is absolutely no link between either.

Yeah I think proves you don't understand this particular discussion

"disagreeing with who you say you are is not debating who you say you are"

Their views on gender are directly related to their existence. If you don't believe in their views, that is literally saying you don't believe in who they say they are.

 

[Akka]

Immediate questions occur to me. What is Cloud's "definition of gender" as you see it? What is your competing definition?

From what I surmise (obviously can be wrong, as I'm not into Cloud's head), Cloud's definition of gender is "how I feel I am" while my definition is "how you biologically are".
(obviously, these are not only mine and Cloud's definition, many others subscribe to either, but that's for clarity's sake)

 

[Lexicus]

From what I surmise (obviously can be wrong, as I'm not into Cloud's head), Cloud's definition of gender is "how I feel I am" while my definition is "how you biologically are".

Oh okay, so yes, it is going where I thought it was going and your definition of gender actually does deny the existence of intersex, nonbinary and trans people.

And I mean, FFS, you just said you agree that deadnaming trans people is wrong...how on Earth do you square that with an assertion that gender is "what you biologically are"? You realize that there are substantial number of people in the US who believe that trans people should be forced to use the bathroom that corresponds to their biological sex at birth? This is a denial of who they are. There are substantial numbers of people who believe that trans people's birth certificates should display their biological gender at birth rather than their actual lived gender as well - this follows from your definition of gender and also absolutely amounts to a denial of trans people's existence. Both of these things are essentially identical to institutionalized deadnaming, which you claim is wrong, and both follow directly from your definition of gender.

 

[Akka]

Yeah I think proves you don't understand this particular discussion

"disagreeing with who you say you are is not debating who you say you are"

"I disagree with who you say you are" and "I disagree that you have a right to exist" are completely unrelated.

Their views on gender are directly related to their existence.

You might want to have a look at what "gender" and "existence" means. Someone who disagree with me over my name doesn't make me (or doesn't imply he wants me to) disappear or die. Conflicts about identity aren't conflict about existence.

If you don't believe in their views, that is literally saying you don't believe in who they say they are.

That means literally I disagree with their definition.

That you manage to mangle concepts this bad and are unable to see the fundamental differences between them might be the reason why you're so completely incapable to actually address any debate and are blindly stuck into repeating endlessly your affirmations as if they were conclusive arguments. In any case, it makes you a complete waste of time trying to communicate with, as you'll just twist what words means just so they can fit your narrative.

 

[Gorbles]

Again @Akka, you're phrasing this based on what you would do, how you would react. You have no idea what you're talking about, haha

The fact that you can't even tolerate being told you could be wrong without referring to me as incapable and using other similar pejoratives does prove that is going nowhere, admittedly. In that, we agree.

 

[Farm Boy]

I have never questioned your right to exist. If I did, please educate me where I did.

I dunno. I'm pretty lost. I agree with or at least attempt to restate usefully a bunch of premises and assertions I don't disagree with and am met with "Why do you gotta disagree with me" then reassertion of the things I agree with.

If I had to write a script for how to make somebody dislike conversing with somebody who holds a viewpoint that they agree with in almost totality, this would not be a bad way to go. Conversational points might be hard to keep track of now and again, but foe naming, that is simple straight and effective.

 

[Akka]

Oh okay, so yes, it is going where I thought it was going and your definition of gender actually does deny the existence of intersex, nonbinary and trans people.

No. It does deny their definition of gender. It's funny how you are able to handle very complex subtleties of concepts when it's convenient for you (all the race-based concepts systems jump to mind) but suddendly act like a dumb brick conflating everything into a single "take it or leave it" block when such nuances work against you.

"someone whose feelings about their gender mismatch their gender" is not the same concept nor the same definition than "gender". That's 6-years old level of conceptualization, the same than "a cake's taste" is not the same idea as "a cake". One if about perception of something, the other is about the something itself.

And I mean, FFS, you just said you agree that deadnaming trans people is wrong...how on Earth do you square that with an assertion that gender is "what you biologically are"?

I can recognize that something is hurtful to someone without recognizing that reality is altered by this pain. I can recognize the legitimacy of someone who suffer from being biologically of a gender while being psychologically of another without accepting a redefinition of what gender IS. I can recognize that civility requires that I don't deadname nor use pronouns painful to someone, without requiring me to accept their opinions about gender.

See, when you stop playing dumb and notice that the two concepts are different, there is no actual contradiction. The only problem is that you DON'T WANT to recognize this difference, and you willingly pretend it's the same thing.

 

[Lexicus]

"someone whose feelings about their gender mismatch their gender" is not the same concept nor the same definition than "gender". That's 6-years old level of conceptualization, the same than "a cake's taste" is not the same idea as "a cake". One if about perception of something, the other is about the something itself.

This is a circular argument given that my definition of gender is basically that someone's self-perceived gender is their gender.

I can recognize that something is hurtful to someone without recognizing that reality is altered by this pain. I can recognize the legitimacy of someone who suffer from being biologically of a gender while being psychologically of another without accepting a redefinition of what gender IS. I can recognize that civility requires that I don't deadname nor use pronouns painful to someone, without requiring me to accept their opinions about gender.

See, when you stop playing dumb and notice that the two concepts are different, there is no actual contradiction. The only problem is that you DON'T WANT to recognize this difference, and you willingly pretend it's the same thing.

So from your point of view, you're basically just indulging people who are engaged in a delusion? This amounts to saying you lack the courage of your convictions. And btw the first sentence makes no sense, their pain is part of reality.

 

[Patine]

"I disagree with who you say you are" and "I disagree that you have a right to exist" are completely unrelated.

You might want to have a look at what "gender" and "existence" means. Someone who disagree with me over my name doesn't make me (or doesn't imply he wants me to) disappear or die. Conflicts about identity aren't conflict about existence.

That means literally I disagree with their definition.

That you manage to mangle concepts this bad and are unable to see the fundamental differences between them might be the reason why you're so completely incapable to actually address any debate and are blindly stuck into repeating endlessly your affirmations as if they were conclusive arguments. In any case, it makes you a complete waste of time trying to communicate with, as you'll just twist what words means just so they can fit your narrative.

Again @Akka, you're phrasing this based on what you would do, how you would react. You have no idea what you're talking about, haha

The fact that you can't even tolerate being told you could be wrong without referring to me as incapable and using other similar pejoratives does prove that is going nowhere, admittedly. In that, we agree.

As much as I hate to agree with @Akka (I don't think I ever have before), by definition of terms, he is correct, and you are promoting dangerous conflation of terms that, in the same style of absolutist conflation, but in very different contexts, have been used by horrible theocracies and fascist regimes to ratchet up atrocity numbers. That whole way and style of thinking - Aristotlean logic, I believe it's been called in some circles - is a very toxic and dangerous way to think, and leads down some nasty social rabbit holes.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You literally said you don't want to modify your free speech based on societal pressure.

I said we need a good reason to listen some societal pressure over others, and absent said reason(s) it should be ignored. I have requested this reason multiple times. So far this is the answer:

The rest of your post is going in such circles, as well as such transparent attempts at bait that whether I reply, or deign not to reply, you'll criticise it either way.

False claim.

You're asking questions that have been answered, only you don't like the answers.

Where's the answer to the first two sentences in this post?

You never did get past the fact that your opinion of coherence

Coherence isn't a matter of opinion. I do hold that any answer to the question per above *must* be coherent in order for it to be given serious consideration. I also believe that coherent answers to it likely exist.

Oh okay, so yes, it is going where I thought it was going and your definition of gender actually does deny the existence of intersex, nonbinary and trans people.

I was under the impression that sex and gender are not interchangeable terms in modern usage, and that the former refers to the biological/physical description of a person while the latter does not and is instead a representation of the person's internalized self. Is that mistaken?

I think they used to be used interchangeably? The history is a little muddy for me in this regard. Regardless there can and should be a differentiation between biological sex and how someone internalizes/perceives self because it's undeniable that these do not always align. I don't care what particular word is used to define each, as long as people know what is meant when the word is said. If the above isn't correct, let me know so I can correct it.

I think this is a big assumption that simply reflects your bias toward logic. People use intuition to derive accurate conclusions about reality all the time.

Intuitions are a form of short-hand. Since it's burdensome to apply formal reasoning to absolutely everything, intuition and its use does carry logical basis. Sometimes intuitions are mistaken/wrong, but for common practices this is infrequent enough that using it is still more viable than the alternative.

But it's not a fruitful source of reasoning when debating a forum topic in many cases.

 

[Lexicus]

I was under the impression that sex and gender are not interchangeable terms in modern usage, and that the former refers to the biological/physical description of a person while the latter does not and is instead a representation of the person's internalized self. Is that mistaken?

No, that is accurate according to what I know. Notice that this definition differs significantly from Akka's.

 

[Akka]

This is a circular argument given that my definition of gender is basically that someone's self-perceived gender is their gender.

Yeah, I know, but the problems are :
- This is not what gender factually means.
- This is not how it's perceived by the majority, which is problematic when the purpose of a language is to convey a meaning that is understood by the recipient.
- This is a definition that is inconsistent (it simply doesn't work with the rest of the language and concepts that are related to it).
- This is a definition that has been handmade to fit a very specific social context, and the problem is that this social context relies on gender perception NOT being based on this definition of gender, but of biological gender.
That's a pretty big list of problems here.

So from your point of view, you're basically just indulging people who are engaged in a delusion? This amounts to saying you lack the courage of your convictions.

I would not say "delusion" but rather "mismatch", though I'm not sure you're going to get honest and notice the difference, though I'd enjoy to be proved wrong.

And btw the first sentence makes no sense, their pain is part of reality.

Stop purposely misinterpreting what is written, I'm pretty sure it's easily understandable if you're not actively trying not to.

 

[Gorbles]

As much as I hate to agree with @Akka (I don't think I ever have before), by definition of terms, he is correct, and you are promoting dangerous conflation of terms that, in the same style of absolutist conflation, but in very different contexts, have been used by horrible theocracies and fascist regimes to ratchet up atrocity numbers. That whole way and style of thinking - Aristotlean logic, I believe it's been called in some circles - is a very toxic and dangerous way to think, and leads down some nasty social rabbit holes.

In the context of gender identity, not recognising someone's gender is an attack on their identity; their psyche. It relates directly to their existence.

Less so for people that don't experience dysmorphia.

Akka's issue is reducing this to the logical base; removing context and talking in abstract terms. I mean, they have other issues in this thread, but that's someone else's discussion.

@TheMeInTeam

When you call something a false claim, that's simply a claim you are making. The same goes for your postulations on coherence.

When you ask for good reasons, you're being the arbiter of that. If you want me to rehash that in good faith, PM me. We both believe we've been through this enough times, right? I'm very happy to discuss our specific problems in how we're communicating through this. No sweat if you don't, but I'm not dragging it out when the thread has this much baggage.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I was under the impression that sex and gender are not interchangeable terms in modern usage, and that the former refers to the biological/physical description of a person while the latter does not and is instead a representation of the person's internalized self. Is that mistaken?

I think they used to be used interchangeably? The history is a little muddy for me in this regard.

For english speakers, in terms of describing a person as male or female, sex and gender were
interchangeable, albeit the term gender was more polite, the term sex being regarded as more vulgar.

That was not necessarily the same for other language speakers,
particularly for those languages that assign genders to all sorts of nouns.

 

[Akka]

No, that is accurate according to what I know. Notice that this definition differs significantly from Akka's.

I'm using a shortcut, as even the shortcut is still a pretty complex web. I'd like to point though that even if we go with the more generic version of "gender" that isn't strictly limited to biology, it's still not "whatever one defines oneself" but more "the social perception and difference between the sexes". There is an increasing adoption of the term to refer to a lot of identities, but the concepts they are all based still relies on the sexual dimorphisms and how they are perceived, and so, biology.