Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by rah, Aug 6, 2019.
Method of acquiring food?
What do you think the logical implication of all this talk about "what you biologically are" is?
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.
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. They are a man. They are a woman. They are what they identify as, and sometimes this can change as they better understand themselves. Their physiological aspects are irrelevant to this self-affirmation (though naturally can cause dysmorphia). The basic assumption, or constatation, that you're citing is your basic assumption based on your understanding of sex and gender (in that you seem to be treating them as far more related than they actually are). By claiming that being a man or a woman is not subject to self-ID, you're denying a trans person that affirmation, which does harm to their identity; their psyche. When you talked about them "being in pain"? You're making it worse.
Does this strike you as a good thing to be doing?
I'm not politically correct in the least. I loathe people who are offended by the slightest things.
He's saying that their self ID may or may not be consistent with their objective ID, but that the former does not change the latter. Sometimes this matters, other times it does not.
That isn't implied per above. It can and should stop someone who is physically male or female getting the wrong dosage of a drug though.
And actually, self-ID separate from one's physical body is a necessary part of defining the term "trans". It's a transition from something to something else. That the physical and mental are separate is a required concept.
It's the other way around. If you claim it's impossible to separate "being" from "feeling", you are denying the trans state. Technically the brain is a physical object doing the "feeling", but its preferences are not consistent with the physical body, hence the transition.
So what's their "objective ID"?
I don't even want to get into conflating being a man with being a "physically male" until you clarify the above.
Actually I think it just proves you don't understand English (or that you're just completely misrepresenting again). If you claim to be the Pope and I deny that you are, I'm not denying your existence am I? Nor am I debating your right to exist. I'm not even necessarily debating your right to claim to be something that I don't think you are, merely saying that I don't agree that you are this specific thing you are claiming. You have to play rather transparent semantic games to claim that the one thing is equivalent to the other.
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.
There's definitely something circular going on there, but I don't think it's his argument.
Wow this is some pretty binding Catch-22 stuff. If you express your opinion that you don't agree with someone, then you're being rude and insensitive and etc etc. But if you instead hold your tongue and be nice, you lack the courage of your convictions.
Interesting thread. Two things stand out for me:
Gender identity is important to folks as a way to keep thing orderly in their life.
The gender one chooses to identify with is otherwise not very important. Is the color one chooses to paint one's house an apt analogy?
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.
Okay, and so what? The goalposts have evidently been moved because the whole point of this discussion for me has been whether or not you should use people's preferred pronouns...if you agree that should be done then what, really, is the point of contention? Just need to bust your chops and demonstrate that your view of the world is more logical than other people who agree with you for all practical purposes?
Yes...it's so simple, every thing is the same as every other thing...why didn't I see it before
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.
Why does gender matter? The PC is world is pushing people to ignore gender roles & discouraging expressions like "be manly" or "be feminine". Frankly, I don't care much about that. All I care about is the biological sex of those I want to bang. If Eliza Dushku told me she wanted to now be referred to by he in the 2nd person, hey I'm still not kicking "him" out of bed (tho I wouldn't marry "him" in that case). Would that make me gay?
In a future uptopian society where being male or female didn't matter a lick would trans-issues even be a thing?
existence cant be accurately defined by just male and female
It is also possible, separate 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.
That is a very good point actually ! Do You think there is a world wide conspiracy on this Let's say something like "MKUltra" but more subtle, like manipulating the subconscius ?
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.
We're discussing all of existence now?
Separate names with a comma.