Why You Should Have Your Eye On Florida

[Silvanus]

I would not have picked that particular phrasing out of the context of quoting someone though. Not that I think it's particularly inaccurate. Speaking of a person's immaterial true self, separable from their body, is mystical mumbo-jumbo.

There we go, then. So if you're going to take the simplistic/denigrating approach, don't kick a fuss if others refer to your sky wizard in similar terms.

If nothing else, I find it quite amusing that you were complaining very recently that other posters take a hostile tone with you... and then come out with this sneering shite.

 

[tstorm823]

That problem is that it seems to be built on a fundamentally unsound principle that men must feel like they are men because they are men. In a way, I guess you could argue in the greater picture that the ability to feel like they should be a woman is part of the rich diversity of ("biological") male thought. But it does not provide a remotely useful argument as to why society should refuse such ("biological") men's wish to be a woman when it is within society's power to enable.

The principle is not that men must feel they are men. The principle is that being a man is not a feeling. What does it feel like to be a man? There is no answer to that question. If I say that I feel as though I am a woman, that means nothing. It is a completely empty statement. I do not know how exactly anyone feels other than myself, how could I possibly suggest I can identify with an entire class of people?

You talk about enabling a man's wish to be a woman. It is perfectly reasonable to desire to be something even if you aren't that thing. That's not transgenderism. A trans woman is not a man who accepts they are a man but wishes to be a woman. A trans woman believes they already are a woman independent of their physical form. These are extremely different philosophical viewpoints. It's perfectly healthy to aspire to change to something different. It's problematic to consider part of yourself inherently wrong.

 

[tstorm823]

There we go, then. So if you're going to take the simplistic/denigrating approach, don't kick a fuss if others refer to your sky wizard in similar terms.

If nothing else, I find it quite amusing that you were complaining very recently that other posters take a hostile tone with you... and then come out with this sneering shite.

Honestly, at this point I can't help but suppose you agree with everything I'm saying.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Honestly, at this point I can't help but suppose you agree with everything I'm saying.

You can rest assured that at no point during your stay on these forums has that ever happened.

 

[Agema]

The principle is that being a man is not a feeling.

Being a "biological" man is not a feeling. But that's not the same as gender and one's identification with a sex, is it?

I do not know how exactly anyone feels other than myself, how could I possibly suggest I can identify with an entire class of people?

So how do you know you are male, if you cannot identify with a class of people?

A trans woman believes they already are a woman independent of their physical form.

A transwoman believes she has a gender identity different from her biological sex. Prior to medical intervention, I don't think (m?)any are deluding themselves that they have the physical form of a woman.

 

[Silvanus]

Honestly, at this point I can't help but suppose you agree with everything I'm saying.

It really is your most hilariously self-unaware trait-- declaring victory or that everyone secretly agrees with you when its so abundantly clear to everyone else in the room that you hold a fringe, unpopular opinion or have run out of things to say.

 

[Trunkage]

A transwoman believes she has a gender identity different from her biological sex. Prior to medical intervention, I don't think (m?)any are deluding themselves that they have the physical form of a woman.

You might be talking more about morphological sex here - the outside appearance of a particular sex

Biological is just whether you can produce gametes. Conservatives pretend biological sex also means assigned sex, but they can get fucked.

 

[Agema]

You might be talking more about morphological sex here - the outside appearance of a particular sex

Biological is just whether you can produce gametes. Conservatives pretend biological sex also means assigned sex, but they can get fucked.

I'm happy with the vagueness of biological sex in this context, which can represent chromosomes, gamete production, genitals, etc. Morphological form can be altered, but when people want to deny trans people with concepts of biological sex, they are reaching for more than morphology.

 

[tstorm823]

Being a "biological" man is not a feeling. But that's not the same as gender and one's identification with a sex, is it?

It isn't. It's a real thing. You are suggesting that subjective, unfalsifiable feelings supersede real things. That is a religious stance you're taking, one that aligns very directly with gnostic dualism.

So how do you know you are male, if you cannot identify with a class of people?

The penis, mostly.

It really is your most hilariously self-unaware trait-- declaring victory or that everyone secretly agrees with you when its so abundantly clear to everyone else in the room that you hold a fringe, unpopular opinion or have run out of things to say.

I haven't run out of things to say, you just didn't actually disagree with me. You certainly said that you disagree with me, but if you aren't acting verbalizing what that disagreement is, I have nothing to respond to. I can't argue with "you're simplistic and denigrating!", so unless you can explain how, I'm just going to assume you just want to disagree with me even though you can't find proper reason to.

 

[Agema]

It isn't. It's a real thing. You are suggesting that subjective, unfalsifiable feelings supersede real things. That is a religious stance you're taking, one that aligns very directly with gnostic dualism.

Say you prefer strawberries to raspberries. That would be a real thing. It is subjective, sure. But the subjective experience and lack of physical existence(*) of a "feeling" do not make the feeling any less real.

Your argument appears to boil down to the fact that gender does not exist, only biological sex. This seems like an exceptionally questionable position given the collective wealth of experience from billions of humans across many thousands of cultures and years.

* Of course it does sort of exist physically, in the form of neuronal activity.

 

[Silvanus]

I haven't run out of things to say, you just didn't actually disagree with me. You certainly said that you disagree with me, but if you aren't acting verbalizing what that disagreement is, I have nothing to respond to. I can't argue with "you're simplistic and denigrating!", so unless you can explain how, I'm just going to assume you just want to disagree with me even though you can't find proper reason to.

The thing is, you and I have already had this particular argument out. I've already given my issues with it, and we got nowhere last time, so I didn't see the benefit in revisiting the substance.

Instead, I think it's worthwhile bringing attention to the clear contempt you're displaying for the people you're talking about. If all you do is sling mud, then nobody is going to believe that your position is one you've reached through genuine consideration.

 

[Bedinsis]

Since we're talking about trans people I might as well share my own take:

I've for the longest time been a feminist, in the sense that I think discrimination based on gender is wrong. This argument after a while morphed into the argument that one shouldn't really consider gender to be important or ideally even acknowledge it since it often leads to sexism.

The existence of trans people spit in the face of that argument, since they are people who loudly proclaim that "Yes, gender IS important, otherwise I wouldn't want to change my biology.". That rubbed me the wrong way.

After giving it some thought I reached the conclusion that it was a bunch of baloney, since sex has a clear biological definition, and attributing sociological aspects to it would by necessity define sociological attributes to gender which would constitute sexism.

I then went about my day, satisfied with having reached a conclusion, until I suddenly stopped in my tracks, turned my head around, a sudden thought having entered my mind:

"Do I know any other words with a clear biological definition which also have a sociological definition which is not by necessity the same?"

I realized that Yes, I do: "mum" and "dad". That has a clear biological definition, but the fact that people get adopted means that the meaning is not always the same.

I then realized that when I called it baloney I did the equivalent of suggesting that a relationship between a parent and a child is lesser due to a lack of shared DNA, which made me feel bad, and reject my earlier assertion. I furthermore asked myself if my relationship with my parents would change if they suddenly called me up and told me that I am actually adopted. After some thought I realized that "No, nothing would change, I love my parents", which made me realize that in everyday speech it is the sociological definition we use independently of the biological one. Same thing with gender.

I've also found that not even bringing up a sexist subject for a fear of reinforcing it often works as a way from shielding people from hearing about sexist occurrences, which prevents progress.

 

[Agema]

I realized that Yes, I do: "mum" and "dad". That has a clear biological definition, but the fact that people get adopted means that the meaning is not always the same.

That's a good analogy. I too think that what really matters for parenting is the act of bringing up a child rather than happening to provide 50% of the child's DNA.

I also recall my mother very strictly telling me I was to buy her a card that said "Mothering Sunday" rather than "Mother's Day", because people should honour the person who mothers them: be that their father, older sibling, aunt, grandfather, foster parent, random kindly stranger or even, if they were abandoned in a forest, a wolf (who might admittedly not really appreciate the card). You don't need to honour bad parents, including where relevant the one that squeezed you out of her crotch.

 

[Casual Shinji]

That's a good analogy. I too think that what really matters for parenting is the act of bringing up a child rather than happening to provide 50% of the child's DNA.

I also recall my mother very strictly telling me I was to buy her a card that said "Mothering Sunday" rather than "Mother's Day", because people should honour the person who mothers them: be that their father, older sibling, aunt, grandfather, foster parent, random kindly stranger or even, if they were abandoned in a forest, a wolf (who might admittedly not really appreciate the card). You don't need to honour bad parents, including where relevant the one that squeezed you out of her crotch.

And this extends to same sex couples raising children as well. Not too long ago I had a hair dresser come by for a relative of mine and they were discussing a lesbian couple having a baby and raising it, and how abnormal it was, how it'll make the kid grow up weird, bla bla bla. And never during their conversation did they think about the thousands upon thousands of children whose straight, biological mother and father mentally and physically abuse them.

It's the whole sanctity of the male/female relationship, the sanctity of blood, the sanctity of birth. All that nonsense.

 

[tstorm823]

That's a good analogy. I too think that what really matters for parenting is the act of bringing up a child rather than happening to provide 50% of the child's DNA.

That's not a good analogy, because that only works by you assigning a concrete role. There is a role that you are describing with the word "mother". Feel free to define the roles of men or women in society. I don't think you're going to, because even if you found a standard that wasn't highly offensive, it still wouldn't allow for subjective determination of gender by virtue of being a standard. For the analogy to work, you'd have to accept not only non-biological mothers acting in the role of a mother, you'd also need to accept people who think watering their plants counts as mothering as equal in status to those who mother by your conception of the word.

It's not the same as asking someone's subjective opinion on the flavor of strawberries, rather it's asking people to invent their own subjective definition of strawberries. If someone says "personally, I prefer strawberries", that's fine, unless they are pointing to the raspberries as the one they like, and then you have to tell them they're in error.

Instead, I think it's worthwhile bringing attention to the clear contempt you're displaying for the people you're talking about. If all you do is sling mud, then nobody is going to believe that your position is one you've reached through genuine consideration.

So your plan is to sling mud until I seem to be hostile mirroring you, and then accuse me of hostility? There's a word for that sort of provocation.

 

[Silvanus]

So your plan is to sling mud until I seem to be hostile mirroring you, and then accuse me of hostility? There's a word for that sort of provocation.

Firstly, it's hardly "provocation" when you went first, and hardest.

Secondly, the only thing I've described in unflattering terms is your hostility. You've been using it for opponents' sense of identity. There's a sea of difference.

 

[dreng3]

I'm seeing a lot of references to biology, but where is the consideration of neurology? If the brain says "female" while the body says "male" who's to say which is right? Especially with modern science which allows us to align the body with the brain, but not the other way around.

 

[Agema]

That's not a good analogy

It is fine. The thing about analogies is that they are necessarily different to some extent from what they are being used to illustrate. To simply point at such a necessary difference and say "it's different" is nothing but petty truism designed to distract from the point of comparison.

Feel free to define the roles of men or women in society.

I do not particularly need to define the roles of men and women in society: it's merely a tedious task that accomplishes little except to distract and digress. That gender may be a social construction does not mean that it does not exist. (If you did want to argue that case, you may as well not believe in this conversation because language too is a social construction.)

I repeat: is it your contention that gender does not exist, only biological sex?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I'm seeing a lot of references to biology, but where is the consideration of neurology? If the brain says "female" while the body says "male" who's to say which is right? Especially with modern science which allows us to align the body with the brain, but not the other way around.

I mean, there's a reason a lot of anti-trans people want to keep conversion torture therapy around.

 

[Agema]

I'm seeing a lot of references to biology, but where is the consideration of neurology? If the brain says "female" while the body says "male" who's to say which is right? Especially with modern science which allows us to align the body with the brain, but not the other way around.

I'm deeply skeptical any of that "male" and "female" brain stuff is worth a damn. It's got more holes in than a sieve.