Then what very general system would they be for?
It's just like Silvanus again... Because people use pronouns based on biological sex, sex at birth is a super accurate way to determine biological sex, hence why the law dictates sex at birth (because it's super accurate and on official documents). There's tons of other features that people can identify biological sex with so they don't need to check your genitals (or birth certificate) before using a pronoun.
I don't know and I prefer not to speculate on other people's politics. Ask them. Maybe whatever version of society that comes after capitalism?
Neither of which are used to determine sex. These are just characteristics that have a relatively weak correlation.
You can quite effectively change most physical characteristics of sex. I find no issue agreeing that someone can change their sex-- and plenty of legal systems and medical institutions agree.
You said I had held a certain position. I said I hadn't.
Those are the 3 systems unless they invented their own somehow.
Again, tons of things are used to determine sex in real life. You aren't looking in someone's pants before you use "he/she".
I get the feeling from your posts of someone who is arguing without even knowing what he's trying to argue.
Indeed. And all the ones that you use can be changed.
And for the 100th time, you can use pronouns however you want. So long as you don't start ascribing them to other people, overriding their sense of their own identity.
Nope.
Cool argument.
A pronoun is an expression of identification. It's unavoidable that ascribing one to someone is making a judgement about their identity.
You provided quotes that half-suggested what you are saying now, after I already quoted you multiple times saying things much more strongly suggestive of the inverse. If the inverse is not what you meant, so be it, but requiring further communication to clarify seemingly contradictory statements in not a strawman. The way you've represented me clearly is. You don't need me to tell you that observation doesn't transform people, you just wanted to ascribe a stupid position to me.
Let me put it this way: you told Pheonixmgs that people have no claim over each other's identity. So if Phoenix identifies as left-wing, how would you respond to that?
en.wikipedia.org
Do progressives want the US to disengage from the world?
At which point the US suddenly isn't disengaged with the world, and the country responsible, and one or two others, suddenly stops being a country.
Also seems unlikely, wars for land haven't proven useful for developed countries for quite some time, and your scenario also relies on everyone else not approaching the problem.
I never once said anything indicating that observation/context play zero role whatsoever. And when I asked you to provide a quote showing the position you ascribed to me, you couldn't.
Phoenixmgs does identify as left-wing, as far as i know. I don't really know enough about him-- an essential stranger on the Internet-- to gainsay that.
"Anyone with a different approach to me must be lying"
Broadly, I'm inclined to agree. The USA's retirement from the world stage will ultimately only result in its stagnation and increasing economic, political and military diminution, which could even pose a long-term threat to the USA. However, should the USA retire from global interaction, all those hostile powers you refer to like North Korea would see little reason to attack it or its citizens: they'll be busy aiming their guns and bombs at the new global powers that rush to fill the gap vacated by the USA and start squeezing them instead. There may be a great deal of legacy distaste towards the USA across much of the world for its past actions in such a future, but it would pale into insignificance compared to a contemporary threat.
To summarize things you've said: observers matter, context matters, interpretation matters, and should that observer see a dissonance between the individual's stated identity and their actual characteristics or behavior, they may question the validity of that identity.
What I'm getting from this is that you fail to comprehend the obvious differences between actions demonstrating an individual's principles and appearance demonstrating an individual's gender identity. Would have thought the differences were clear as day.
