If DeSantis wins

[Ag3ma]

Now, what is a man and what is a woman? It's not just a trick question, it's the most important part. We can change words to mean whatever we want them to, but if they're going to be people's identities, they need to mean something.

Sure. What, then, is all the current discussion about if not this fundamental question?

Let's start with sex. Sex is biological, and essentially constant throughout our species's existence. However, we have complex societies and sex has caused differentiation of people's societal status and roles, varying across times and different cultures. In that sense sex has been not just biological, but its consequences have passed into the sphere of the social. Is that biological definition adequate to explain this social component? Quick answer, no.

Hence, gender: a way to try to separate out the social differences caused by our different sexes, which "sex" is hopelessly unable to address.

 

[Silvanus]

Context shows us that Phoenix was talking about people using pronouns to mean something different than you would intend, which is the case with lots of words.

Indeed-- specifically he was talking about one person attributing them to someone else, making a judgement/ decision about that other person's identity that overrides their own.

If there is anything wrong in this, other than you making up what other people think, it's that the person saying words doesn't have equal control over those words, they have 100% control over those words.

Really? The speaker has absolute control over the /meaning/ of the words they use, do they, as well as how accurate or applicable they are to the subject?

Feel free to quote yourself.

Sure thing!

There's this post here:

I am not suggesting anyone has 'control' over their own gender identity, in the sense that they can just switch it on a mere whim. What I'm doing is acknowledging that A) it can be fluid; and B) The best person to judge it is the individual person. That's not the same thing.

There I am saying they can't just switch it, but they are a better arbiter. Huh-- and there I am also saying that these things can be fluid, which you later implied I was denying.

 

[Silvanus]

But what is the cutoff for "they're not from..." because then anyone born in America is then just American. Can you not call a Chinese person born in America Asian?

If they weren't born in China, then no, it wouldn't be generally accurate to say that they were 'Chinese'. You could say they were of Chinese /descent/.

Once again: race is not a formal biological classification in any way at all.

Just Google the polls...

I have. I've not found a single poll that endorses your strange, superficial approach, which ignores both sex and gender in favour of pure image.

If 2 contradictory definitions exist, why would using one or the other be an issue?

Using either one personally is fine. Pushing it on other people, making judgements about the identities of other people, is the problem.

Thus, can you leave those of us alone that use pronouns based on what you are (vs what you identify as) and agree both interpretations are correct?

Sure! If you agree not to use your interpretation to push pronouns onto other people who do not ascribe to them.

 

[Elijin]

Surrounded by communists!
(There are like, 2?)

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Surrounded by communists!
(There are like, 2?)

Well, remember, on the American political spectrum, anything left of Machiavelli is Marx.

 

[tstorm823]

In that sense sex has been not just biological, but its consequences have passed into the sphere of the social. Is that biological definition adequate to explain this social component? Quick answer, no.

Hence, gender: a way to try to separate out the social differences caused by our different sexes, which "sex" is hopelessly unable to address.

So we analyze concepts of gender to understand these social factors, ok. But then if you begin enforcing these genders, is that not just codifying the issues? If gender identities are the culmination of sex-related baggage, factors which may be good, bad, or otherwise but which seem problematic to have unnecessarily tied to sex, why would you want to tie those factors all to each other at all? Does that not just make gender have nearly all the same issues as gendered concepts tied to sex while introducing more?

 

[Silvanus]

So we analyze concepts of gender to understand these social factors, ok. But then if you begin enforcing these genders, is that not just codifying the issues?

Hence why gender non-conformists /don't/ want to enforce them. That's pretty much the opposite of the aim.

 

[tstorm823]

Indeed-- specifically he was talking about one person attributing them to someone else, making a judgement/ decision about that other person's identity that overrides their own.

No, just using the word differently.

Really? The speaker has absolute control over the /meaning/ of the words they use, do they, as well as how accurate or applicable they are to the subject?

The choice of words. Control over the choice of words.

Sure thing!

There's this post here:

Hmmmm... I seem to be missing where you " stated over and over again that comparisons and context exist ".

Looking back through, the only time you even said the word context between me entering the conversation and you getting defensive yesterday was to say:

"Identity" does not simply mean "what distinguishes you from others in your immediate vicinity or context"-- Else where someone is standing or what they're wearing would be their identity.

And then not at all mentioned again until you started talking about how context mattering was so obviously implied by your posts.

Hence why gender non-conformists /don't/ want to enforce them. That's pretty much the opposite of the aim.

"You must use the pronouns I choose in the way that I choose them to refer to me, because that is my identity!"

"We don't want to enforce anything, what are you even talking about!?"

 

[tstorm823]

Surrounded by communists!
(There are like, 2?)

It's 4 or 5 depending on whether two users are actually just the same person, which still outweighs the number of users anywhere right of center.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

If they weren't born in China, then no, it wouldn't be generally accurate to say that they were 'Chinese'. You could say they were of Chinese /descent/.

Once again: race is not a formal biological classification in any way at all.



I have. I've not found a single poll that endorses your strange, superficial approach, which ignores both sex and gender in favour of pure image.



Using either one personally is fine. Pushing it on other people, making judgements about the identities of other people, is the problem.



Sure! If you agree not to use your interpretation to push pronouns onto other people who do not ascribe to them.

Once again, people refer themselves and others what they are based on unique physical attributes associated with race. An Asian born in America is an Asian or else people are lying on tons of official documents.


In essence, people use sex over gender:
A majority of Americans favor protecting transgender people from discrimination, but a rising share say a person's gender is determined by their sex assigned at birth...60% say a person's gender is determined at birth

New poll sheds light on how Americans feel about transgender rights

A majority of survey respondents back transgender sports bans, while also supporting nondiscrimination protections for trans people in jobs, housing and public spaces.

www.nbcnews.com

You're not getting it. If someone uses pronouns based on sex, they aren't pushing pronouns onto anyone that doesn't ascribe to them because you can't ascribe to any pronoun since it's based on sex. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Elijin]

It's 4 or 5 depending on whether two users are actually just the same person, which still outweighs the number of users anywhere right of center.

List them.
Actually makes a great activity in a scuffle about identity, you (likely) falsely attributing such things.

Plus it includes your favourite passtime! Telling everyone else you understand our values better than we do!

 

[Phoenixmgs]

List them.
Actually makes a great activity in a scuffle about identity, you (likely) falsely attributing such things.

Plus it includes your favourite passtime! Telling everyone else you understand our values better than we do!

Based on the amount of people here (at least that post regularly in Current Events), there's quite a few that don't like capitalism per the thread so they're either socialists or communists.

 

[Bedinsis]

Based on the amount of people here (at least that post regularly in Current Events), there's quite a few that don't like capitalism per the thread so they're either socialists or communists.

One can be critical of capitalist practises while still on average considering it a positive. Or at least better than the way communist countries have been run.

It wouldn't surprise me if there are people that are critical of how democracy is working while still not favoring a dictatorship.

 

[Silvanus]

No, just using the word differently.

If you're attributing pronouns of your choice to someone else, then you're unavoidably making a judgement about that person's identity.

The choice of words. Control over the choice of words.

Assigning pronouns to someone else goes well beyond merely choosing the words to use. Words have meaning. In this case that meaning involves their identity.

Hmmmm... I seem to be missing where you " stated over and over again that comparisons and context exist ".

OK, so in this post, I said the process of identification requires an observer and their interpretation.

Then in this post, I said identity requires observation and comparison to exist.

Are you done strawmanning now?

"You must use the pronouns I choose in the way that I choose them to refer to me, because that is my identity!"

"We don't want to enforce anything, what are you even talking about!?"

So your notion of 'enforcing' something on someone else is... preferring if others don't enforce their own notion of identity on me?

 

[Elijin]

Based on the amount of people here (at least that post regularly in Current Events), there's quite a few that don't like capitalism per the thread so they're either socialists or communists.

Oh my God shut the fuck up.

 

[Silvanus]

Once again, people refer themselves and others what they are based on unique physical attributes associated with race. An Asian born in America is an Asian or else people are lying on tons of official documents.

Native Americans are not deemed 'Asian' on any official documents, as a practice. Descent is not race, and race is not a formal category in biology.

In essence, people use sex over gender

....which isn't how you use them. You said people use them how you use them. So that's not based on sex or gender, but purely on appearance, even if that contradicts sex and gender.

You're not getting it. If someone uses pronouns based on sex, they aren't pushing pronouns onto anyone that doesn't ascribe to them because you can't ascribe to any pronoun since it's based on sex.

And if they've changed their sex?

Regardless of how you try to avoid admitting it, insisting pronouns of your choice apply to people that aren't you is enforcing your notions of identity on them.

 

[tstorm823]

List them.
Actually makes a great activity in a scuffle about identity, you (likely) falsely attributing such things.

Plus it includes your favourite passtime! Telling everyone else you understand our values better than we do!

You know how that ends.

 

[tstorm823]

OK, so in this post, I said the process of identification requires an observer and their interpretation.

Then in this post, I said identity requires observation and comparison to exist.

Are you done strawmanning now?

The first one is a totally different statement. The second seemed like a strategic concession once you understood the situation, but then you went immediately back to denying the role of external context on the same page anyway.

I'd be happy to accept a "that's not what I meant" from most people in most contexts, but from you I know you're going to double down again later so it has to be hashed out all the way.

So your notion of 'enforcing' something on someone else is... preferring if others don't enforce their own notion of identity on me?

A) Has anyone told you that you're not allowed to call yourself things?
B) Now you're saying others do have the power to control your identity through falsehoods? Is that not exactly what you were upset about me (not actually) saying? You think if I call you something it enforces that identity on you?

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

You know how that ends.

With you being proven absolutely wrong, pretending you weren't and declaring yourself the winner of the argument?

 

[Elijin]

You know how that ends.

I can say for certain the ones on here I can identify wouldn't shy away, and openly own the label.

Sounds like a cop out so you can keep claiming bogeymen under the bed without having to back it up.