Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Acceptance of Gender Diversity

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 29th November 2019, 12:49 AM #321 Robin Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 11,072 Originally Posted by arthwollipot Yes! Now you're getting it. . I am puzzled as to why you could think I could be getting it, as opposed to being more confused by it all than ever. __________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
 29th November 2019, 12:58 AM #322 Robin Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 11,072 We have Category A which means nothing more than that a person has decided to adopt the label Category A. And Category B which means nothing else besides the fact that a person has decided to adopt the label Category B. How are Category A and Category B not interchangeable? __________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
 29th November 2019, 06:41 AM #324 Darat Lackey Administrator     Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 88,507 Originally Posted by arthwollipot You are saying that there are only two genders, then going on to explain that you actually think that there are more than two genders. Those two statements directly contradict each other - I can't see any way of interpreting them otherwise. From my point of view it looks like you are defending your right to acknowledge that there are more than two genders by saying "there are only two genders" and that doesn't make sense to me, so I must be severely misinterpreting what you're saying. Or there are two genders but how those are expressed and defined can vary. __________________ I wish I knew how to quit you
 29th November 2019, 08:31 AM #325 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 87,107 Originally Posted by arthwollipot Someone who is male will identify and/or express as male. Someone who is female will identify and/or express as female. That sounds very circular. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 29th November 2019, 08:37 AM #326 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 87,107 Originally Posted by arthwollipot Well here's the thing. You don't really need to know someone else's gender. You just need to know what pronouns they would like you to use, and the best way to find that out is to ask. Why would you need pronouns? When you talk to someone, you use "you" and the person's name. Or, alternatively, "hey". The third-person pronouns don't get much use there. Originally Posted by arthwollipot No, I strongly feel that I am male. How can you tell? Quote: It sounds to me like using they/them as a default would be a good policy for you to adopt unless you're sure. Or we could use the good old way of doing it and be correct 99.5% of the time. Works for me. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 29th November 2019, 09:12 AM #327 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 87,107 Originally Posted by Darat Or there are two genders but how those are expressed and defined can vary. That sounds way too reasonable. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 29th November 2019, 09:22 AM #328 MisAndreG New Blood   Join Date: Sep 2019 Posts: 3 Originally Posted by caveman1917 $P \wedge \neg P$ Sounds dodgy, being a contradiction and all. What does the P stuff mean?
 29th November 2019, 09:31 AM #329 sphenisc Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 4,982 Originally Posted by MisAndreG What does the P stuff mean? I think it means some pee standing up and some sit down to pee. __________________ "The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
 29th November 2019, 09:55 AM #330 Steve Philosopher     Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,139 Originally Posted by arthwollipot We're referring to third-person pronouns here. Thank you. Originally Posted by arthwollipot Yes you have. I've told you my pronouns. Anyway, your lack of experience of the problem is not evidence that it isn't a problem. Originally Posted by arthwollipot That's one reason I've proactively given you mine. I encourage people to offer their pronouns without being asked. But it doesn't always happen. I have not noticed your pronouns provided in a post. Perhaps I missed it. If so I apologize. I recall that you posted about pronouns in you sig, but I have sigs turned off. It is true that my lack of experience has nothing to do with it being a problem for some people and I did not present it as such. As an "outsider" and accepting that this is an important issue to some, I am curious about how extensive the problem is. I wonder, for example, if there are communities or groups of people where dealing with this issue is common. Is the issue important only within these groups? Is it an issue that all the complete strangers in the world do not notice and conform to an individual's gender ID, or does the issue apply only to a specific smaller group? It is not at all clear what the extent of the problem actually is. If two strangers pass me on the street and then start talking about how funny I look I have zero interest in them thinking I look funny and even less interest in the pronouns they use to refer to me. For me those persons do not exist once they are out of my line of sight. Would this situation be of any more interest to a person concerned about how their gender ID is perceived by strangers and which pronouns they subsequently use (assuming that strangers have any interest at all in discussing them)? I suspect not. Which finally brings me back to one of my main questions - when a person is concerned about people correctly understanding their gender ID exactly which people are they concerned about? Originally Posted by arthwollipot Very few people use unconventional pronouns. A lot of unconventional nongendered pronouns have been suggested over the years, and none of them have stuck enough to become universal, or even common. Today, three basic pronouns will get you by in almost all situations: he/him, she/her, and they/them. All of which are extremely easy to understand. This is confusing to me. The pronouns she/her are pronouns conventionally applied to female, especially for the vast population who spend no time learning the nuances of gender ID. If a person chooses to be identified by female pronouns is this not an indication that they identify as female? If not then presumably that would choose different pronouns. How can it be that a person does not identify as female but still chooses to identify using female pronouns? They would then be satisfied with people identifying them as something they are expressly saying they are not. Originally Posted by arthwollipot The problem with using the pronouns that match outward appearance is that pronouns do not always match outward appearance. There are women who present as men, but use she/her. And there are people who don't strongly present as male or female at all. This is Dr Meg-John Barker. What pronouns would you use for this person? Situation dependent. If I was walking down the street with a friend and Dr Barker, a stranger, was passing in the other direction I would might say something like "I like that dude's hat". If I had heard Dr. Barker speak and taken vocal cues then I might, to a third party, say something like "She is an interesting person". (If, in fact, her voice had female characteristics - I just don't know) Having read the linked article I know Dr. Barker's preferred pronouns and I would likely use them in talking to a third person who also knew the preferred pronouns. The pronouns them/they/their can be rather awkward when used as singular in casual conversation particularly to a person who has no idea why they are being used. I would probably find it most convenient to use the name Dr. Barker. Originally Posted by arthwollipot In most cases you won't get into any trouble by assuming pronouns. In most cases. But misgendering someone can cause real distress, and it is better not to. Most people who care about pronouns will thank you for asking. If I was having a private discussion about a third person, that third person would never know the pronouns I used and no distress would be caused. Besides, an incorrect pronoun is rather inoffensive compared to referring to the person as "that asshat", which is also not uncommon when discussing a third party . __________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
 29th November 2019, 09:57 AM #331 Steve Philosopher     Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,139 Originally Posted by Darat Or there are two genders but how those are expressed and defined can vary. Originally Posted by Belz... That sounds way too reasonable. __________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
 29th November 2019, 11:28 AM #332 MisAndreG New Blood   Join Date: Sep 2019 Posts: 3 Originally Posted by sphenisc I think it means some pee standing up and some sit down to pee. It’s a logical notation but I don’t know what he is saying. P and not P to answer “what you think your gender is?”...
 29th November 2019, 11:30 AM #333 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 87,107 Originally Posted by MisAndreG It’s a logical notation but I don’t know what he is saying. P and not P to answer “what you think your gender is?”... I think he's just saying that it's either one or the other. In other words, a binary. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 29th November 2019, 12:31 PM #334 caveman1917 Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 6,850 $P \vee \neg P$ is a logical axiom/theorem (the law of the excluded middle) therefor its negation $P \wedge \neg P$ is a logical contradiction. I was pointing out the meaninglessness of defining "gender" as "your gender is whatever you think it is" by making my "gender" a logical contradiction. __________________ "Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos "We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin Last edited by caveman1917; 29th November 2019 at 12:34 PM.
 29th November 2019, 12:40 PM #335 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 87,107 Originally Posted by caveman1917 $P \vee \neg P$ is a logical axiom/theorem (the law of the excluded middle) therefor its negation $P \wedge \neg P$ is a logical contradiction. I was pointing out the meaninglessness of defining "gender" as "your gender is whatever you think it is" by making my "gender" a logical contradiction. Well, I got it wrong. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 29th November 2019, 12:58 PM #336 caveman1917 Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 6,850 Originally Posted by Belz... Well, I got it wrong. Sorry, I thought it was rather obvious. __________________ "Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos "We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
 29th November 2019, 01:13 PM #337 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 87,107 Originally Posted by caveman1917 Sorry, I thought it was rather obvious. Maybe to smart people, but I'm an idiot. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 29th November 2019, 01:14 PM #338 MisAndreG New Blood   Join Date: Sep 2019 Posts: 3 Originally Posted by caveman1917 $P \vee \neg P$ is a logical axiom/theorem (the law of the excluded middle) therefor its negation $P \wedge \neg P$ is a logical contradiction. I was pointing out the meaninglessness of defining "gender" as "your gender is whatever you think it is" by making my "gender" a logical contradiction. Ahh, thank you.
 29th November 2019, 02:05 PM #339 Thor 2 Philosopher     Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 5,717 Originally Posted by caveman1917 $P \wedge \neg P$ Sounds dodgy, being a contradiction and all. Originally Posted by MisAndreG What does the P stuff mean? Originally Posted by sphenisc I think it means some pee standing up and some sit down to pee. Originally Posted by caveman1917 $P \vee \neg P$ is a logical axiom/theorem (the law of the excluded middle) therefor its negation $P \wedge \neg P$ is a logical contradiction. I was pointing out the meaninglessness of defining "gender" as "your gender is whatever you think it is" by making my "gender" a logical contradiction. I liked sphenisc's explanation best. __________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.
 29th November 2019, 03:11 PM #340 p0lka Graduate Poster   Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,697 Originally Posted by Belz... Well, I got it wrong. you didn't, it literally translates to 'p or not p', a binary choice. Their point was that it excluded the middle. They're correct, 'p or not p' versus 'p or not p' doesn't make a lot of logical sense when there's a middle that isn't p. EDIT: damn, i missed the 'and', sorry. Last edited by p0lka; 29th November 2019 at 03:25 PM.

International Skeptics Forum