I completely own the logical implications of what I said, but only of what I said.
Being a man or a woman is not subject to self-identity, it's a biological constatation.
Feeling like you are a man or a woman is a different, though very strongly correlated, aspect.
Being in pain because how you feel is mismatched with what you are is certainly a reality.
Said pain still doesn't change what you biologically are (that's the same concept, though obviously orders of magnitude worse and more complex, as the simplistic example of height).
All the implications are spelled out in the message from which you get these quotes. Provided you don't, again, try to mix up different concepts as if they were the same just so you can claim I'm an evil man, that's pretty clear-cut.What do you think the logical implication of all this talk about "what you biologically are" is?
So when you say "being a man or a woman is not subject to self-identity", @Akka, you're not conflating gender and sex, and you're not telling people they can't self-ID?
Because uh, word for word, that reads like you are doing both of those things. By separating out "being a man" and "feeling like you are a man", you are dismissing a trans person's right to self-ID.
By claiming that being a man or a woman is not subject to self-ID, you're denying a trans person that affirmation
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.
This is a circular argument given that my definition of gender is basically that someone's self-perceived gender is their gender.
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.
All the implications are spelled out in the message from which you get these quotes. Provided you don't, again, try to mix up different concepts as if they were the same just so you can claim I'm an evil man, that's pretty clear-cut.
What one is biologically, is simply a constatation. I'm of a certain species. I'm of a certain sex. My hair have such colour. I have this size. All these are simple physical facts, which don't change regardless of how I feel about them, even if how I feel about them is also a fact that exists. I don't see any hidden consequence that would suddenly make these factual constatations false.
Possibly. But if you paint your house blue and say that it's red, then anyone who openly disagrees with you is saying that your house doesn't exist. Whereas if they think it's blue in their own head, but tell you they think it's red too, then they lack the courage of their convictions, which is just as bad or possibly worse. The only correct response is to agree that it's red and also genuinely believe that it is red too. Which is of course an entirely reasonable thing to expect of someone.
My point is that I choose to paint my house and I can do so for my pleasure alone or in a fashion that I think the neighborhood would approve of. If an opportunity arises and you want to have a conversation about whether my house is lemon, sunshine, golden sand, or yellow, then we can have that conversation and you can tell me it's really blue. But it doesn't matter, because I have the leftover cans in my garage.Possibly. But if you paint your house blue and say that it's red, then anyone who openly disagrees with you is saying that your house doesn't exist. Whereas if they think it's blue in their own head, but tell you they think it's red too, then they lack the courage of their convictions, which is just as bad or possibly worse. The only correct response is to agree that it's red and also genuinely believe that it is red too. Which is of course an entirely reasonable thing to expect of someone.
Just a quick point. I think more than a few of you are conflating being biologically male or female with gender dysphoria. It IS possible to be biologically male and identify as something else, but just because you self identify as female, for instance, does not make your basic physiology different from a male. You are merely satisfying the need to solve your dysphoria problem. Now, if a male fully transitions into being a woman by SRS for example, that person is objectively a woman to outward appearances and society, and should be treated as such. However, this does not change the fact that the basic physiology of that person is still male. They possess the XY chromosome trait, hence the need for continuous female hormone therapy.
You can self identify all you want, but that is primarily a societal construct. However, the underlying medical physiology doesn't change just because you say it does.
I am not at all politically correct.
Political correctness in vocabulary starts from the concept that some supposedly enlightened group
may dictate the terminology to be used or forbidden and that any deviation from this is politically incorrect
and to be sanctioned. It is all about controlling peoples' thinking by first controlling their use of language.
Agreed. I was using XX and XY as a simplified example. Chromosome makeup is not essential to the point that I was making which is no matter how you identify, you can't escape your biology. Self identity is a social construct, not a medical one, unless we are talking about psychology. Then it is a medical issue in the sense that there is a potential mental health issue involved. But medically speaking? It's simple biology.It is also possible, desperate from transgenderedness, to present as anatomically male despite being XX, and as anatomically female while being XY. Staking your "sex is objective" flag on chromosomes would not really be viable.
We're discussing all of existence now?existence cant be accurately defined by just male and female