If DeSantis wins

[Silvanus]

You keep trying to change the discussion to something else. Even the Florida bill doesn't include those with sex ambiguity, your intersex person wouldn't even fall under it. Point is biological sex and sex at birth are essentially the same thing.

No, you're the one who claimed the success rate of sex assignment at birth is so high. You're the one who brought that up. An example that shows how flawed the methodology was leading to that apparent success rate is entirely relevant.

Biology is claiming the sex of someone. If you're male or female, that's what you are.

"Biology" doesn't claim anything. It's a field.

Biology provides descriptions for the biological sexes, based on a number of characteristics, most of which are changeable or not always required to count. Doctors, midwives and relatives then consider one or two of those characteristics (out of dozens) and assign which is the best descriptor of the child at birth. The characteristics on which they base that assignment are among the changeable ones so then may change later.

Everyone totally does have partial claim on everyone else's identity. Identity is the sum of things which distinguish you from others. The decisions and attributes of others define the ways in which one can be distinguished from them.

A reference point doesn't somehow gain some claim to define something that refers to it. That's absurd. That's like saying that if I call myself straight, women somehow gain a partial claim to declare me gay.

 

[tstorm823]

A reference point doesn't somehow gain some claim to define something that refers to it. That's absurd. That's like saying that if I call myself straight, women somehow gain a partial claim to declare me gay.

No, but the existence of women is what makes your identity as a man. Were there only one sex, sex would not be an identity. If you're in a place with only one political party, political party is not an identity. If more parties are created there, every one of them changes your identity as a member of the original one, each option available shifts the implication made by calling yourself a member of your party.

Groups of people adding or rejecting pronouns impacts the identity of everyone, not just those people, as "he" and "she" are no longer being treated as the categories they once were. You may consider that a change for the better, but that shift in categorization is absolutely laying partial claim to the identities of literally everyone.

 

[Silvanus]

No, but the existence of women is what makes your identity as a man. Were there only one sex, sex would not be an identity. If you're in a place with only one political party, political party is not an identity. If more parties are created there, every one of them changes your identity as a member of the original one, each option available shifts the implication made by calling yourself a member of your party.

I don't see how this could possibly be true. My existence as a human does not take on additional meaning every time they discover another species. The Earth's designation doesn't somehow shift and redefine when they locate another planet.

Groups of people adding or rejecting pronouns impacts the identity of everyone, not just those people, as "he" and "she" are no longer being treated as the categories they once were. You may consider that a change for the better, but that shift in categorization is absolutely laying partial claim to the identities of literally everyone.

Bollocks. Those people remain exactly as able to identify with the categories they did before. Not one iota has changed for them or their lives or sense of self.

Besides, we're not even necessarily talking about adding pronouns or identities-- we're talking about using the ones that already exist, just in ways that are less foolishly rigid than the Christian churches thought.

 

[Satinavian]

Don't know how your statement applies to homeschooling though.

Simple : By forbidding homeschooling the gouvernment can guarantee a minimum education for everyone via school.

No dropouts, no people pretending to be schooled at home, no children doing work instead of acquiring necessary basic skills.


Sure, it is not necessary for everyone, some pople would get a proper education at home or be able to balance early work with it. But it is necessary for some and it does no harm to the rest.

 

[tstorm823]

I don't see how this could possibly be true. My existence as a human does not take on additional meaning every time they discover another species. The Earth's designation doesn't somehow shift and redefine when they locate another planet.

If you are identifying the Earth by it's location, discovering other planets makes no difference to the Earth's identity. If you are identifying the Earth as "the blue planet", then discovering more blue planets weakens that identifier.

Bollocks. Those people remain exactly as able to identify with the categories they did before. Not one iota has changed for them or their lives or sense of self.

Sense of self and identity are slightly different concepts. Nothing has changed in those people's perception of their own characteristics, what has changed is how those characteristics are distinguished from those of others. I can know that I like peanuts, other people's experience of peanuts does not impact that, but that doesn't necessarily help me identify distinctions between myself and others (outside of people allergic to peanuts). Someone liking olives, however, is more likely to play a part in identity because there is distinction to be found. If you ask someone to describe themselves, they are going to name the things that make them distinguishable from others, hence liking olives is much more likely to come up than liking peanuts.

If the definitions for pronouns shift, it may not change a woman's self-perception as a woman, but it does change the identity, as identifying as a woman is now distinguishing yourself from people who previously were seen as women, and grouping yourself together with some previously categorized with men. That is what it means to identify as something, it is categorizing yourself with some people and separate from others. That's what identity is.

 

[Silvanus]

If you are identifying the Earth by it's location, discovering other planets makes no difference to the Earth's identity. If you are identifying the Earth as "the blue planet", then discovering more blue planets weakens that identifier.

And if you're identifying earth in the way that everyone actually identifies earth, it makes no difference whatsoever.

Sense of self and identity are slightly different concepts. Nothing has changed in those people's perception of their own characteristics, what has changed is how those characteristics are distinguished from those of others. I can know that I like peanuts, other people's experience of peanuts does not impact that, but that doesn't necessarily help me identify distinctions between myself and others (outside of people allergic to peanuts). Someone liking olives, however, is more likely to play a part in identity because there is distinction to be found. If you ask someone to describe themselves, they are going to name the things that make them distinguishable from others, hence liking olives is much more likely to come up than liking peanuts.

So to use your analogy: once someone else forms an opinion on whether they like olives, they somehow gain partial claim over whether you like olives or not?

If the definitions for pronouns shift, it may not change a woman's self-perception as a woman, but it does change the identity, as identifying as a woman is now distinguishing yourself from people who previously were seen as women, and grouping yourself together with some previously categorized with men. That is what it means to identify as something, it is categorizing yourself with some people and separate from others. That's what identity is.

You seem to believe these things are solely determined by negative statements. They're not.

You also seem to believe that the meaning of a negative statement changes depending on how many instances exist outside of it. This is also nonsense.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

See, Florida is trying to ban people from using pronouns how they want to

No, they're not. Stop lying about what the bill does.

No, you're the one who claimed the success rate of sex assignment at birth is so high. You're the one who brought that up. An example that shows how flawed the methodology was leading to that apparent success rate is entirely relevant.



"Biology" doesn't claim anything. It's a field.

Biology provides descriptions for the biological sexes, based on a number of characteristics, most of which are changeable or not always required to count. Doctors, midwives and relatives then consider one or two of those characteristics (out of dozens) and assign which is the best descriptor of the child at birth. The characteristics on which they base that assignment are among the changeable ones so then may change later.

It is very high... Also, intersex people aren't even part of the Florida bill so why you keep pushing this?

Then whatever you wanna call it that claims race, claims sex as well. You can't change your race and you can't change your sex.

I don't see how this could possibly be true. My existence as a human does not take on additional meaning every time they discover another species. The Earth's designation doesn't somehow shift and redefine when they locate another planet.

If say Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is correct and rats and dolphins are smarter than humans, then that changes at least one thing that is an identifier for humans. Humans would no longer be the smartest species on the planet.

Simple : By forbidding homeschooling the gouvernment can guarantee a minimum education for everyone via school.

No dropouts, no people pretending to be schooled at home, no children doing work instead of acquiring necessary basic skills.


Sure, it is not necessary for everyone, some pople would get a proper education at home or be able to balance early work with it. But it is necessary for some and it does no harm to the rest.

You don't see how that could end up poorly? One of my friends that teach high school (he subbed for years until this year so quite a few different subjects he taught), he commonly talks about what he's teaching and half the time I'm like why are kids learning that instead necessary basic skills? This is why kids can be homeschooled.

 

[Satinavian]

You don't see how that could end up poorly? One of my friends that teach high school (he subbed for years until this year so quite a few different subjects he taught), he commonly talks about what he's teaching and half the time I'm like why are kids learning that instead necessary basic skills? This is why kids can be homeschooled.

Theoretically it can end up badly.

Practically "What is taught in school" is one of the most debated topics in most societies, constantly double checked and decided democratically. I generally trust those processes more than some parent deciding what is important or not based on their own ideas.
If you get a political majority for a bad curriculum you can be sure you would get the same and even worse in many households if you relied on homeschooling.

But yes, US schools have not the best reputation.

 

[Silvanus]

It is very high... Also, intersex people aren't even part of the Florida bill so why you keep pushing this?

I literally just told you why I mentioned it. You brought up the high success rate. It is directly relevant to point out the flawed methodology behind it.

Then whatever you wanna call it that claims race, claims sex as well. You can't change your race and you can't change your sex.

There's literally zero reason that what applies to one must apply to the other. They're different things, defined and determined completely differently.

If say Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is correct and rats and dolphins are smarter than humans, then that changes at least one thing that is an identifier for humans. Humans would no longer be the smartest species on the planet.

Is your identity as a male dependant on other specific people not being male?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I literally just told you why I mentioned it. You brought up the high success rate. It is directly relevant to point out the flawed methodology behind it.



There's literally zero reason that what applies to one must apply to the other. They're different things, defined and determined completely differently.



Is your identity as a male dependant on other specific people not being male?

The whole reason sex at birth vs biological sex came up was because of you. I said you are the sex you are and that was your response... I don't care of the method, I care about what sex someone is. You keep avoiding my point of why can't someone use pronouns based on sex? If that's how they view pronouns and that is literally the definition of pronouns, then what's the problem? You said you can't see a reason why someone would use pronouns based on sex vs gender when it's super obvious that 2 different people would have different opinions on how to use pronouns. This right here is a microcosm on why everyone is so divided because they can't see the other person's point of view and act like they are the sole arbiter of such things.

Firstly, 'biological sex' is not the same thing as 'sex at birth'. You seem to be using the former to refer to the latter.

Are you not born as the race you are and are you not born as the sex you are?

Their wouldn't be male and female if the other one didn't exist. Just like if plants and animals had the same cell structure, there wouldn't be plant and animal cells, there'd just be cells.

 

[Silvanus]

The whole reason sex at birth vs biological sex came up was because of you. I said you are the sex you are and that was your response...

Yes, but you're the one who introduced the claim about the high success rate. Don't whine because it gets challenged.

I don't care of the method, I care about what sex someone is.

You obviously do care about the method, because you want us to 100% trust the method currently used to designate the sex.

You keep avoiding my point of why can't someone use pronouns based on sex? If that's how they view pronouns and that is literally the definition of pronouns, then what's the problem?

They can use them that way. For themselves. They only have any claim or ownership over the identity of themselves, though, not other people.

You're the one in favour of imposing one person's interpretation on others, here.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Yes, but you're the one who introduced the claim about the high success rate. Don't whine because it gets challenged.



You obviously do care about the method, because you want us to 100% trust the method currently used to designate the sex.



They can use them that way. For themselves. They only have any claim or ownership over the identity of themselves, though, not other people.

You're the one in favour of imposing one person's interpretation on others, here.

I just said both are the same thing, one method more accurate than the other but they are determining the same thing, sex.

The fast and simple method does have a very high success rate regardless of if there is an issue or not with the number I found (I don't really care). For those other cases, you can use the more accurate method. Also, as I've already said, the Florida bill isn't trying to categorize intersex people's pronouns anyway so it's a moot point.

Again, pronouns aren't about claiming them for yourself if you feel they are based on sex. You can't claim a sex other than the sex you are. You don't have ownership over your sex, thus you don't have ownership over your pronouns. I don't see how this is some wrong (or wacky or weird) way of thinking when it's literally the definition of said pronouns.

 

[Silvanus]

I just said both are the same thing, one method more accurate than the other but they are determining the same thing, sex.

....? That doesn't even make sense as a response. We're not considering two methods of determining sex.

The fast and simple method does have a very high success rate regardless of if there is an issue or not with the number I found (I don't really care). For those other cases, you can use the more accurate method.

High success rate of what? You're still using circular logic: assuming they're successful by simply ignoring or dismissing the people who say it doesn't fit them.

Again, pronouns aren't about claiming them for yourself if you feel they are based on sex. You can't claim a sex other than the sex you are. You don't have ownership over your sex, thus you don't have ownership over your pronouns.

Even though the characteristics used to determine sex at birth are mutable and changeable?

The pushers of a rigid, unchangeable sexual binary like to pretend they're standing for straightforward biology, but it's really scientific illiteracy. Biologists acknowledge a lot of grey area, and developmental psychologists acknowledge gender and aex don't always match.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

....? That doesn't even make sense as a response. We're not considering two methods of determining sex.



High success rate of what? You're still using circular logic: assuming they're successful by simply ignoring or dismissing the people who say it doesn't fit them.



Even though the characteristics used to determine sex at birth are mutable and changeable?

The pushers of a rigid, unchangeable sexual binary like to pretend they're standing for straightforward biology, but it's really scientific illiteracy. Biologists acknowledge a lot of grey area, and developmental psychologists acknowledge gender and aex don't always match.

They are both trying to find the same answer. You asked which I preferred and I don't really care, it wasn't any point that I cared about.

Are you trying to say sex at birth isn't highly accurate? It might not be quite the number I found, but it's highly accurate in determining sex for the vast vast vast vast vast majority of people. Are you talking about sex or gender?

Sex is more than just genitals as you already said and I didn't disagree on, it's just a really simple and quick way to determine sex that's highly accurate. If gender and sex don't match and someone uses pronouns based on sex (because, you know, that's the definition), how are pronouns then something anyone can choose in that logic?

 

[tstorm823]

So to use your analogy: once someone else forms an opinion on whether they like olives, they somehow gain partial claim over whether you like olives or not?

No, they don't get claim over whether you like olives. They partially determine the significance of you liking olives. If everyone likes olives, that is no longer something you can claim as an identity.

Think of the things that would be put on a form of identification for you: your name is different than nearly everyone else's, your height is different than nearly everyone else's, birthdate, eye color, hair color, a picture of your face, etc. These are not simply lists of things you happen to be, they are lists of things which can be used to distinguish you from others. That's identity.

When you rewrite the social significance of words, you actually redefine the social position of every person who identifies with those words. I know you know this happens, I'm sure you believe it to be a good thing that the social ideas of men and women are being moved, so stop pretending that there is anyone unaffected.

 

[Silvanus]

They are both trying to find the same answer. You asked which I preferred and I don't really care, it wasn't any point that I cared about.

Both what?! I don't even know what you're talking about here.

Are you trying to say sex at birth isn't highly accurate? It might not be quite the number I found, but it's highly accurate in determining sex for the vast vast vast vast vast majority of people. Are you talking about sex or gender?

Determining biological sex at birth is highly accurate, though not as accurate as was believed. The biological sex of somebody later in their life may not match their sex at birth, since the characteristics that define it are either mutable (genitalia, body morphology, hormones) and/or not required (functioning reproductive organs, chromosomes).

Sex is more than just genitals as you already said and I didn't disagree on, it's just a really simple and quick way to determine sex that's highly accurate. If gender and sex don't match and someone uses pronouns based on sex (because, you know, that's the definition), how are pronouns then something anyone can choose in that logic?

Based on your logic. Which I don't accept, since I do not believe pronouns are immutably determined by biological sex or sex at birth.

 

[Silvanus]

No, they don't get claim over whether you like olives. They partially determine the significance of you liking olives. If everyone likes olives, that is no longer something you can claim as an identity.

Ah, so it would only have relevance if everybody was the same sex.

Thankfully, there's absolutely zero chance of that ever happening, so this gripe is immaterial. +1 person of the opposite sex makes zero impact on your sense of your own gender identity.

Think of the things that would be put on a form of identification for you: your name is different than nearly everyone else's, your height is different than nearly everyone else's, birthdate, eye color, hair color, a picture of your face, etc. These are not simply lists of things you happen to be, they are lists of things which can be used to distinguish you from others. That's identity.

Indeed. Notice how many of those characteristics are listed at birth... and then change later in life.

When you rewrite the social significance of words, you actually redefine the social position of every person who identifies with those words. I know you know this happens, I'm sure you believe it to be a good thing that the social ideas of men and women are being moved, so stop pretending that there is anyone unaffected.

You are unaffected by someone else being male or female. Stop pretending your life is in any way impacted by the gender of people you'll never meet or know. It's absolutely bonkers.

 

[tstorm823]

You are unaffected by someone else being male or female.

You are not an island.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Both what?! I don't even know what you're talking about here.



Determining biological sex at birth is highly accurate, though not as accurate as was believed. The biological sex of somebody later in their life may not match their sex at birth, since the characteristics that define it are either mutable (genitalia, body morphology, hormones) and/or not required (functioning reproductive organs, chromosomes).



Based on your logic. Which I don't accept, since I do not believe pronouns are immutably determined by biological sex or sex at birth.

I don't believe you can change everything about your sex to become the opposite sex completely. But as I've already said, if you've done a good deal of that stuff, I don't have a problem switching pronouns. But if it's some dude that looks like the most cliched manly man (say a stereotypical lumberjack in flannel), I'm not calling him a she. Same goes with non-binary, I'm not calling someone a they (again, unless like an alien symbiotic is attached to you or you're an AI like Legion from Mass Effect or the chick from Malignant or something akin to that where your person is a plural).

----

Ok, I don't think you're getting my point at all...

So we have the following 2 stances:
-Stance_1; You feel pronouns are gender-based and since you can identify as whatever gender you want, you are in control of your pronouns and what pronouns people use for you.
-Stance_2; You feel pronouns are sex-based (since that's the definition) and you use pronouns based on the sex someone is; thus, nobody is in control of their pronouns much like you are not in control of your race.

I'm not trying to sway you to Stance_2. I don't care what you think is the right stance, it's your choice. What I care about is you understanding why someone would believe Stance_2 is a valid way to use pronouns, not that you have to agree with them, but just understand their point of view. Because if you can't do that, you are then making yourself the arbiter of what is right and wrong, and that's a massive problem. Pronoun use isn't some black and white thing where one way is unequivocally right, both uses of pronouns are valid. This isn't like a straight fact where there's just one correct and known answer.

 

[Cheetodust]

So if a trans woman wears flannel she's no longer a trans woman? This thread is going well.