What does "identifies as" mean - Page 4

d4m10n · 28th July 2022, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Furthermore, once the reality of Dolezal's ancestry was discovered, their identity was rejected by everyone else.

Not quite everyone, though.

Remember the Hypatia transracialism controversy^WP? I, for one, found Tuvel's arguments relatively persuasive and at the very least worth taking seriously.

Emily's Cat · 28th July 2022, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I really would like to see your evidence of this breakthrough research!

So would I.

My understanding, which is necessarily armchair level, is that there is a region of the brain responsible for sexual response, and that in homosexual people, that region is observably activated by people of the same sex.

There has also been some limited research on people with clearly diagnosed gender identity disorder, showing activation in their brains of the region related to self-perception. It's the same area that is activated with other body dysmorphias like anorexia, body integrity identity disorder, and phantom limb syndrome. The challenge is that this type of study has only been done on small numbers of people who are male, attracted to males, and have persistent and severe gender dysphoria. So it's not extensible to other groups of people who identify as transgender.

d4m10n · 28th July 2022, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

It is easy, catholics and mormons identify as christians despite it being factually incorrect.

This is sarcasm, right?

Darat · 28th July 2022, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

This is sarcasm, right?

Not to my lot, they held the same opinion of the RCC as the RCC held of them, to put in in Vatican speak a deficient church.

One the leaders of NI - had this as his website: https://web.archive.org/web/20080628...y.org/main.asp

theprestige · 28th July 2022, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by bruto

I think that issues of how to address trans people are pretty new and uncomfortable for many, and it might be a little soon to get too particular about what "identifies as" really means.

I think it's the other way around: The sooner we settle on a common understanding of what "identifies as" means, the sooner we can eliminate the novelty and discomfort around trying to figure out how to address trans people.

theprestige · 28th July 2022, 10:28 AM

It's been a while, but last time I checked, the general protestant view was that Catholics were essentially Christian, but had accumulated a lot of heretical cruft around the central doctrine of salvation through Christ. The Mormons, however, were a non-Christian cult that claims to be Christian to gain more mainstream acceptance through gaslighting.

NOTE: I'm not at all interested in debating theology here. All I'm interested in here is how this question of "identifies as Christian" tells us about what "identifies as" means, and how it is actually relevant or important.

Mormons can tell each other they're Christians all they want, but that doesn't mean anything at all to Catholics or Protestants. If they want to "caucus" with other Christians, they have to convince those other Christians to identify them as Christians. They can't just claim the identity and have it be recognized and accommodated by others on the strength of the claim alone.

Thermal · 28th July 2022, 10:47 AM

"Identifies as Christian" is pretty subjective, though. Loosely, it would men something like "follows the teachings of Jesus, who is the Son of God". Lots of wiggle room in there.

"Identifies as a woman" is pretty cut and dry. A woman is an adult human female, and you have to do some convoluted jazz with "gender" to redefine that.

Isn't the answer to the OP question simply "you think you are X"?

Eta: Rachael Dozeal didn't really identify as black. She was simply lying, and knew it, and copped to it.

ponderingturtle · 28th July 2022, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

This is sarcasm, right?

Not at all, despite all the facts against it, catholics and mormons really do identify as christians. Some people have even gotten so far from jesus as to actually accept their self identifying as christians.

shuttlt · 28th July 2022, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Thermal

Eta: Rachael Dozeal didn't really identify as black. She was simply lying, and knew it, and copped to it.

In what sense is she not black if we are going via the same reasoning of saying these things are social constructs? For time beyond memory, "woman" meant adult human female.... but that wasn't inclusive, so now it's somebody who "identifies as a woman". Mutatis mutandis, what is different about Dolezal and identifying as black? If a bricklayer with a beard like they are part way through ingesting a bear, and a cock and balls, can identify as a woman, why can't Dolezal identify as black? This does not seem like a very inclusive definition of black if she is excluded from it.

wareyin · 28th July 2022, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If a bricklayer with a beard like they are part way through ingesting a bear, and a cock and balls, can identify as a woman, why can't Dolezal identify as black?

Yet another great argument! "If [thing that doesn't happen] can happen, then why can't [other thing that didn't happen either] happen?"

Man, you guys are on fire today!

theprestige · 28th July 2022, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Thermal

"Identifies as Christian" is pretty subjective, though. Loosely, it would men something like "follows the teachings of Jesus, who is the Son of God". Lots of wiggle room in there.

"Identifies as a woman" is pretty cut and dry. A woman is an adult human female, and you have to do some convoluted jazz with "gender" to redefine that.

Isn't the answer to the OP question simply "you think you are X"?

Eta: Rachael Dozeal didn't really identify as black. She was simply lying, and knew it, and copped to it.

At a meta level, all of these examples of "identifies as" are irrelevant for practical purposes. It all comes down to how other people identify you. And, in some cases, what you demand from other people based on your self-identification.

As a result, there are essentially two schools of thought, when it comes to answering the question, "what does 'identifies as' mean?"

One school of thought is that it means you are entitled to whatever privileges or accommodations are commonly associated with that identity, simply by claiming that identity, and disregarding whether anyone else identifies you that way.

The other school of thought is that it means nothing much, and that if you want to claim entitlement to certain privileges and accommodations, you have to qualify in some scrutable and cromulent way, that satisfies the people from whom you are claiming the entitlement. I.e., you have to convince them to identify you as such, according to their criteria, not yours.

In trans-inclusionism, for example, activists are trying to achieve the second by normalizing the first. Among theists, my impression is that there is more effort made on arguing for the second from a basis of agreement on certain foundational texts.

Emily's Cat · 28th July 2022, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by wareyin

Yet another great argument! "If [thing that doesn't happen] can happen, then why can't [other thing that didn't happen either] happen?"

Man, you guys are on fire today!

Never happens...

Nope, never ever happens...
https://www.tiktok.com/discover/Trans-woman-beard

Rolfe · 28th July 2022, 11:30 AM

Oh, there's worse than that around. But certainly our Alex is the easiest one to find. "Widening the bandwidth of woman" or something like that. He needs to realise the bandwidth he is widening is that of man, and more power to his elbow on that one.

wareyin · 28th July 2022, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Never happens...

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-st...ut-format=auto

Nope, never ever happens...
https://www.tiktok.com/discover/Trans-woman-beard

You got the "beard" part. Now find the rest of it.

Or you could accept that shuttit's hyperbole was simply a well poisoning tactic designed to make everyone think "trans" = "bricklayer/big masculine dude with a beard that reminds you of a bear (as opposed to the scruffy example you found, no offense) swinging his dick and balls around."

It's really not much different than theprestige's "they're either mentally ill or they're just doing it to force me to (checks notes) say "she" instead of "he" (the horrors!) so I can ignore them" well poisoning earlier.

Thermal · 28th July 2022, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

In what sense is she not black if we are going via the same reasoning of saying these things are social constructs? For time beyond memory, "woman" meant adult human female.... but that wasn't inclusive, so now it's somebody who "identifies as a woman". Mutatis mutandis, what is different about Dolezal and identifying as black? If a bricklayer with a beard like they are part way through ingesting a bear, and a cock and balls, can identify as a woman, why can't Dolezal identify as black? This does not seem like a very inclusive definition of black if she is excluded from it.

As theprestige says, there are two schools of thought. One where you make a bald assertion, and the other which is externally verifiable. Which, as skeptics, should we favor?

I identify as sexually irresistible, another social construct, and expect to be treated as such. Ladies, take a number and form a line, please. Not really any different than any other identification, is it?

ponderingturtle · 28th July 2022, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Never happens...

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-st...ut-format=auto

Nope, never ever happens...
https://www.tiktok.com/discover/Trans-woman-beard

Also not a woman apparently, because genitals don't matter if there is facial hair.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-37305050

theprestige · 28th July 2022, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Thermal

As theprestige says, there are two schools of thought. One where you make a bald assertion, and the other which is externally verifiable. Which, as skeptics, should we favor?

"As a skeptic", I wholeheartedly favor the former. People should be free and happy to self-identify however they want, without having to fear oppression or repression as a result.

Except where such self-identification is to be used as a basis for imposing obligations on others, of course. Then the others should be free to evaluate the claim for themselves, and decide whether it meets their own criteria for validity, before agreeing to be obliged by it.

"I'm a Democrat" is a good example. Please feel free to call yourself a Democrat all you want. Have all the usual "no true Democrat" debates your heart desires, with similarly debate-inclined folks.

But when you're running for office, suddenly how you identify yourself takes a back seat to the question of how voters identify you. (I acknowledge that for a lot of voters, just putting '(D)' next to your name is valid enough identification, but not all voters, and not all the time.)

Rolfe · 28th July 2022, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by wareyin

You got the "beard" part. Now find the rest of it.

Or you could accept that shuttit's hyperbole was simply a well poisoning tactic designed to make everyone think "trans" = "bricklayer/big masculine dude with a beard that reminds you of a bear (as opposed to the scruffy example you found, no offense) swinging his dick and balls around."

It's really not much different than theprestige's "they're either mentally ill or they're just doing it to force me to (checks notes) say "she" instead of "he" (the horrors!) so I can ignore them" well poisoning earlier.

You think Alex Drummond doesn't have a cock and balls? All the available evidence is that he has. Including photographs available online which leave little to the imagination. I think one of them involved a mankini.

wareyin · 28th July 2022, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

You think Alex Drummond doesn't have a cock and balls? All the available evidence is that he has. Including photographs available online which leave little to the imagination. I think one of them involved a mankini.

I honestly don't think about Alex Drummond at all.

theprestige · 28th July 2022, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by wareyin

I honestly don't think about Alex Drummond at all.

That explains why you thought stuff like that doesn't happen. It's like you're bringing a ~~knife~~ gummi worm to a gunfight. See what I mean about not having a coherent, rational argument for using self-ID to impose obligations on others?

wareyin · 28th July 2022, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

That explains why you thought stuff like that doesn't happen. It's like you're bringing a ~~knife~~ gummi worm to a gunfight. See what I mean about not having a coherent, rational argument for using self-ID to impose obligations on others?

Since you want to jump on the "that stuff does, too happen" bandwagon, do you think you could provide an example of a big, muscular bricklayer just saying he's a woman? So far this example you guys are all crowing about really doesn't cut the mustard.

Rolfe · 28th July 2022, 01:02 PM

Didn't you know, theprestige, if you can't produce an exact case of the hypothetical you used as an illustrative example, absolutely none of what you described has ever happened at all?

theprestige · 28th July 2022, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Didn't you know, theprestige, if you can't produce an exact case of the hypothetical you used as an illustrative example, absolutely none of what you described has ever happened at all?

Oh, well, I knew that! /s

I guess where I'm really struggling right now, though, is to see how wareyin's "argument" (such as it is) answers the question of what "identifies as" means, and whether wareyin believes "identifies as" is a valid basis for imposing obligations on others.

Emily's Cat · 28th July 2022, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cp...i035157726.jpg

Also not a woman apparently, because genitals don't matter if there is facial hair.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-37305050

Sure, sure, I can totally see your argument. Males with penises and testicles and male-typical facial hair growth are exactly the same as females with a medical condition!

Did you miss the fact that Drummond, as well as a ton of males on TikTok are all ACTUALLY FULLY MALE and all have male reproductive organs?

Do you even understand how insulting and denigrating it is to engage in your argument? You're basically saying "Well, if females with a medical condition get to be women, then perfectly average males can be women too!" You're implicitly arguing that some females aren't "female enough" for YOU to consider them women, because they don't fit YOUR stereotype of what a female is supposed to look like. YOUR argument is essentially that if a male doesn't behave and dress in a "manly enough" fashion, they are downgraded to "woman" status.

Your entire approach reinforces regressive and sexist stereotypes.

lionking · 28th July 2022, 02:11 PM

Some government forms in Australia include male, female and other options, but not all. I was required to use a form which simple said male and female, and the person concerned had to provide evidence.

I dealt with several transmen (no transwomen interestingly) and one non-binary. Despite the protests their drivers licences and passports were incorrect I had no option but to record sex as recorded. I pointed out to the two transwomen (the non-binary wasn’t too bothered at all) that they could get the ID changed. “Why should I?” was the response.

This I found very interesting (yes I know, small sample).

d4m10n · 28th July 2022, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Not to my lot, they held the same opinion of the RCC as the RCC held of them, to put in in Vatican speak a deficient church.

Okay, yeah, but taking a sort of skeptical outside view of religion, shouldn't "Christian" just be anyone who sincerely affirms Jesus was (in some sense) Christ?

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Not at all, despite all the facts against it, catholics and mormons really do identify as christians.

When you put it that way . . . still sounds like sarcasm.

Just let me know if you want to be serious at some point.

shuttlt · 28th July 2022, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Okay, yeah, but taking a sort of skeptical outside view of religion, shouldn't "Christian" just be anyone who sincerely affirms Jesus was (in some sense) Christ?.

Why would there be only one definition of the word? Maybe they are a Christian in one sense and not in another?

d4m10n · 28th July 2022, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Why would there be only one definition of the word?

I'm sure each sect gets to have their own take on what makes someone a TRUE CHRISTIAN, but again, I'm tryna take the outside view.

theprestige · 28th July 2022, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Okay, yeah, but taking a sort of skeptical outside view of religion, shouldn't "Christian" just be anyone who sincerely affirms Jesus was (in some sense) Christ?

I think that absent any practical applications for the outsider*, a properly skeptical outside view would have be devoutly agnostic. It's nothing to you how Christians define themselves among themselves, why bother to have any opinion one way or the other about that definition?

It's not like you're setting out to be the next Lewis or Chesterton. You're not trying to convince a bunch of rubes that you're a co-religionist and they should entrust their life's savings to your work.

And really, it should be that way for all self-identification. It doesn't really concern me how otherkin identify themselves and gatekeep their identity. As long as they're not claiming they get to board an airplane ahead of me by virtue of their identity, I don't care - and I don't have to care - what exactly qualifies them as otherkin.

---
*Such as counter-proselytization or debunking certain theist claims.

shuttlt · 28th July 2022, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I'm sure each sect gets to have their own take on what makes someone a TRUE CHRISTIAN, but again, I'm tryna take the outside view.

Why would there be one outside view? It feels like a deep concept for which there could be multiple legitimate takes on what makes a Christian.

d4m10n · 28th July 2022, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think that absent any practical applications for the outsider, a properly skeptical outside view would have be devoutly agnostic. It's nothing to you how Christians define themselves among themselves, why bother to have any opinion one way or the other about that definition?

Basically, because all of the various religious movements growing out of 1st c. Judæa have something in common and it helps to have a collective label for them all.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Why would there be one outside view?

Because there is only one thing all the aforementioned religious movements have in common.

Mojo · 28th July 2022, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Umm, a person either is an Australian citizen, or they are not. They are either a policeman, or they are not.

These are both facts that are independent of whether they "identify" as such or not.

“Facts”?

Mojo · 28th July 2022, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Which brings us back to the elephant in the room: Either certain claimants are mentally ill, in which case they should be diagnosed, and treatment should be prescribed, and tolerance and accommodation should follow from those facts. Or those claimants are not mentally ill, in which case we need do nothing more for them than we do for otherkin or Rachel Dolezal.

It’s not that long ago that homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness.

theprestige · 28th July 2022, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

It’s not that long ago that homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness.

Homosexuality and gender dysphoria are not analogous. This has been addressed repeatedly and at length in the Other Thread. Feel free to head over there if you'd like another go at that particular windmill.

ETA: For now, I'll say this: Homosexuality, as a self-identity, asks little more of others than to be left alone to do as they please, in the privacy of their own bedrooms, with like-minded and consenting adults. So it conforms very neatly to my rather black-and-white rubric of "either mental illness, or rightly ignored".

(Gay marriage is a related issue and a can of worms I'm not interested in opening here. Start a new thread if you want to talk about that.)

Mojo · 28th July 2022, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Homosexuality and gender dysphoria are not analogous. This has been addressed repeatedly and at length in the Other Thread. Feel free to head over there if you'd like another go at that particular windmill.

No way am I getting involved in that sort of **** storm.

Quote:

ETA: For now, I'll say this: Homosexuality, as a self-identity, asks little more of others than to be left alone to do as they please, in the privacy of their own bedrooms, with like-minded and consenting adults. So it conforms very neatly to my rather black-and-white rubric of "either mental illness, or rightly ignored".

Bollocks. You’re trying to say that certain relationships don’t deserve the same respect as others.

No, you are actually saying it.

Emily's Cat · 28th July 2022, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Bollocks. You’re trying to say that certain relationships don’t deserve the same respect as others.

No, you are actually saying it.

I very strongly suggest that you don't make assumptions on this. I'm like 99.998% certain you are completely wrong here.

Venom · 28th July 2022, 04:15 PM

"Black" is so inclusive in the U.S., Rachel Dolezal was able to put on a little makeup and curl her hair and get away with it.

Classic.

Mojo · 28th July 2022, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I very strongly suggest that you don't make assumptions on this. I'm like 99.998% certain you are completely wrong here.

The expression “the love that dare not speak its name” is fortunately obsolete in civilised countries.

theprestige · 28th July 2022, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

No way am I getting involved in that sort of **** storm.

And yet here you are, stirring it up.

Quote:

Bollocks. You’re trying to say that certain relationships don’t deserve the same respect as others.

No, you are actually saying it.

I am, in fact, saying the exact opposite. All relationships deserve the same respect.

All relationships are if not actually mental illness, entirely in the heads of those in the relationship, and can and should be ignored by everyone else. The only time a relationship becomes anyone else's business, or calls for anyone else's attention, is when those in the relationship decide it imposes obligations on other people.

But we're not actually talking about relationships. We're talking about self-identity. Homosexuality, as a self-identity, requires nothing of anyone else. Even as a relationship, it doesn't require anything of anyone else except perhaps someone who has entered into a relationship commitment with a self-identified homosexual.

p0lka · 28th July 2022, 04:49 PM

'Identifies as' seems to me to equate to 'ooh here's a label, I shall define myself by that label, that will fulfil me'.

Don't be a label, be yourself.

28th July 2022, 09:43 AM	#121
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 9,193	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Furthermore, once the reality of Dolezal's ancestry was discovered, their identity was rejected by everyone else. Not quite everyone, though. Remember the Hypatia transracialism controversy^WP? I, for one, found Tuvel's arguments relatively persuasive and at the very least worth taking seriously.
	__________________ Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it. Last edited by d4m10n; 28th July 2022 at 09:44 AM.

28th July 2022, 09:44 AM	#122
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 18,265	Originally Posted by Darat I really would like to see your evidence of this breakthrough research! So would I. My understanding, which is necessarily armchair level, is that there is a region of the brain responsible for sexual response, and that in homosexual people, that region is observably activated by people of the same sex. There has also been some limited research on people with clearly diagnosed gender identity disorder, showing activation in their brains of the region related to self-perception. It's the same area that is activated with other body dysmorphias like anorexia, body integrity identity disorder, and phantom limb syndrome. The challenge is that this type of study has only been done on small numbers of people who are male, attracted to males, and have persistent and severe gender dysphoria. So it's not extensible to other groups of people who identify as transgender.
	__________________ The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian

28th July 2022, 09:45 AM	#123
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 9,193	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle It is easy, catholics and mormons identify as christians despite it being factually incorrect. This is sarcasm, right?
	__________________ Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

28th July 2022, 09:58 AM	#124
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 103,182	Originally Posted by d4m10n This is sarcasm, right? Not to my lot, they held the same opinion of the RCC as the RCC held of them, to put in in Vatican speak a deficient church. One the leaders of NI - had this as his website: https://web.archive.org/web/20080628...y.org/main.asp
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

28th July 2022, 10:13 AM	#125
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 60,243	Originally Posted by bruto I think that issues of how to address trans people are pretty new and uncomfortable for many, and it might be a little soon to get too particular about what "identifies as" really means. I think it's the other way around: The sooner we settle on a common understanding of what "identifies as" means, the sooner we can eliminate the novelty and discomfort around trying to figure out how to address trans people.
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division.

28th July 2022, 10:28 AM	#126
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 60,243	It's been a while, but last time I checked, the general protestant view was that Catholics were essentially Christian, but had accumulated a lot of heretical cruft around the central doctrine of salvation through Christ. The Mormons, however, were a non-Christian cult that claims to be Christian to gain more mainstream acceptance through gaslighting. NOTE: I'm not at all interested in debating theology here. All I'm interested in here is how this question of "identifies as Christian" tells us about what "identifies as" means, and how it is actually relevant or important. Mormons can tell each other they're Christians all they want, but that doesn't mean anything at all to Catholics or Protestants. If they want to "caucus" with other Christians, they have to convince those other Christians to identify them as Christians. They can't just claim the identity and have it be recognized and accommodated by others on the strength of the claim alone.
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division.

28th July 2022, 10:47 AM	#127
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: East Coast USA (in the Troll Ignoring Section) Posts: 19,526	"Identifies as Christian" is pretty subjective, though. Loosely, it would men something like "follows the teachings of Jesus, who is the Son of God". Lots of wiggle room in there. "Identifies as a woman" is pretty cut and dry. A woman is an adult human female, and you have to do some convoluted jazz with "gender" to redefine that. Isn't the answer to the OP question simply "you think you are X"? Eta: Rachael Dozeal didn't really identify as black. She was simply lying, and knew it, and copped to it.
	__________________ We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain Last edited by Thermal; 28th July 2022 at 10:49 AM.

28th July 2022, 10:48 AM	#128
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,747	Originally Posted by d4m10n This is sarcasm, right? Not at all, despite all the facts against it, catholics and mormons really do identify as christians. Some people have even gotten so far from jesus as to actually accept their self identifying as christians.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

28th July 2022, 11:00 AM	#129
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 9,483	Originally Posted by Thermal Eta: Rachael Dozeal didn't really identify as black. She was simply lying, and knew it, and copped to it. In what sense is she not black if we are going via the same reasoning of saying these things are social constructs? For time beyond memory, "woman" meant adult human female.... but that wasn't inclusive, so now it's somebody who "identifies as a woman". Mutatis mutandis, what is different about Dolezal and identifying as black? If a bricklayer with a beard like they are part way through ingesting a bear, and a cock and balls, can identify as a woman, why can't Dolezal identify as black? This does not seem like a very inclusive definition of black if she is excluded from it.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 9,483	Last edited by shuttlt; 28th July 2022 at 11:02 AM.

28th July 2022, 11:09 AM	#130
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 9,939	Originally Posted by shuttlt If a bricklayer with a beard like they are part way through ingesting a bear, and a cock and balls, can identify as a woman, why can't Dolezal identify as black? Yet another great argument! "If [thing that doesn't happen] can happen, then why can't [other thing that didn't happen either] happen?" Man, you guys are on fire today!

28th July 2022, 11:16 AM	#131
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 60,243	Originally Posted by Thermal "Identifies as Christian" is pretty subjective, though. Loosely, it would men something like "follows the teachings of Jesus, who is the Son of God". Lots of wiggle room in there. "Identifies as a woman" is pretty cut and dry. A woman is an adult human female, and you have to do some convoluted jazz with "gender" to redefine that. Isn't the answer to the OP question simply "you think you are X"? Eta: Rachael Dozeal didn't really identify as black. She was simply lying, and knew it, and copped to it. At a meta level, all of these examples of "identifies as" are irrelevant for practical purposes. It all comes down to how other people identify you. And, in some cases, what you demand from other people based on your self-identification. As a result, there are essentially two schools of thought, when it comes to answering the question, "what does 'identifies as' mean?" One school of thought is that it means you are entitled to whatever privileges or accommodations are commonly associated with that identity, simply by claiming that identity, and disregarding whether anyone else identifies you that way. The other school of thought is that it means nothing much, and that if you want to claim entitlement to certain privileges and accommodations, you have to qualify in some scrutable and cromulent way, that satisfies the people from whom you are claiming the entitlement. I.e., you have to convince them to identify you as such, according to their criteria, not yours. In trans-inclusionism, for example, activists are trying to achieve the second by normalizing the first. Among theists, my impression is that there is more effort made on arguing for the second from a basis of agreement on certain foundational texts.
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division. Last edited by theprestige; 28th July 2022 at 11:17 AM.

28th July 2022, 11:28 AM	#132
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 18,265	Originally Posted by wareyin Yet another great argument! "If [thing that doesn't happen] can happen, then why can't [other thing that didn't happen either] happen?" Man, you guys are on fire today! Never happens... Nope, never ever happens... https://www.tiktok.com/discover/Trans-woman-beard
	__________________ The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian Last edited by Emily's Cat; 28th July 2022 at 11:31 AM.

28th July 2022, 11:30 AM	#133
Rolfe Adult human female Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 48,677	Oh, there's worse than that around. But certainly our Alex is the easiest one to find. "Widening the bandwidth of woman" or something like that. He needs to realise the bandwidth he is widening is that of man, and more power to his elbow on that one.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

28th July 2022, 11:47 AM	#134
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 9,939	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Never happens... https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-st...ut-format=auto Nope, never ever happens... https://www.tiktok.com/discover/Trans-woman-beard You got the "beard" part. Now find the rest of it. Or you could accept that shuttit's hyperbole was simply a well poisoning tactic designed to make everyone think "trans" = "bricklayer/big masculine dude with a beard that reminds you of a bear (as opposed to the scruffy example you found, no offense) swinging his dick and balls around." It's really not much different than theprestige's "they're either mentally ill or they're just doing it to force me to (checks notes) say "she" instead of "he" (the horrors!) so I can ignore them" well poisoning earlier.

28th July 2022, 11:49 AM	#135
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: East Coast USA (in the Troll Ignoring Section) Posts: 19,526	Originally Posted by shuttlt In what sense is she not black if we are going via the same reasoning of saying these things are social constructs? For time beyond memory, "woman" meant adult human female.... but that wasn't inclusive, so now it's somebody who "identifies as a woman". Mutatis mutandis, what is different about Dolezal and identifying as black? If a bricklayer with a beard like they are part way through ingesting a bear, and a cock and balls, can identify as a woman, why can't Dolezal identify as black? This does not seem like a very inclusive definition of black if she is excluded from it. As theprestige says, there are two schools of thought. One where you make a bald assertion, and the other which is externally verifiable. Which, as skeptics, should we favor? I identify as sexually irresistible, another social construct, and expect to be treated as such. Ladies, take a number and form a line, please. Not really any different than any other identification, is it?
	__________________ We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

28th July 2022, 11:56 AM	#136
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,747	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Never happens... https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-st...ut-format=auto Nope, never ever happens... https://www.tiktok.com/discover/Trans-woman-beard Also not a woman apparently, because genitals don't matter if there is facial hair. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-37305050
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

28th July 2022, 12:03 PM	#137
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 60,243	Originally Posted by Thermal As theprestige says, there are two schools of thought. One where you make a bald assertion, and the other which is externally verifiable. Which, as skeptics, should we favor? "As a skeptic", I wholeheartedly favor the former. People should be free and happy to self-identify however they want, without having to fear oppression or repression as a result. Except where such self-identification is to be used as a basis for imposing obligations on others, of course. Then the others should be free to evaluate the claim for themselves, and decide whether it meets their own criteria for validity, before agreeing to be obliged by it. "I'm a Democrat" is a good example. Please feel free to call yourself a Democrat all you want. Have all the usual "no true Democrat" debates your heart desires, with similarly debate-inclined folks. But when you're running for office, suddenly how you identify yourself takes a back seat to the question of how voters identify you. (I acknowledge that for a lot of voters, just putting '(D)' next to your name is valid enough identification, but not all voters, and not all the time.)
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division.

28th July 2022, 12:31 PM	#138
Rolfe Adult human female Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 48,677	Originally Posted by wareyin You got the "beard" part. Now find the rest of it. Or you could accept that shuttit's hyperbole was simply a well poisoning tactic designed to make everyone think "trans" = "bricklayer/big masculine dude with a beard that reminds you of a bear (as opposed to the scruffy example you found, no offense) swinging his dick and balls around." It's really not much different than theprestige's "they're either mentally ill or they're just doing it to force me to (checks notes) say "she" instead of "he" (the horrors!) so I can ignore them" well poisoning earlier. You think Alex Drummond doesn't have a cock and balls? All the available evidence is that he has. Including photographs available online which leave little to the imagination. I think one of them involved a mankini.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

28th July 2022, 12:35 PM	#139
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 9,939	Originally Posted by Rolfe You think Alex Drummond doesn't have a cock and balls? All the available evidence is that he has. Including photographs available online which leave little to the imagination. I think one of them involved a mankini. I honestly don't think about Alex Drummond at all.

28th July 2022, 12:44 PM	#140
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 60,243	Originally Posted by wareyin I honestly don't think about Alex Drummond at all. That explains why you thought stuff like that doesn't happen. It's like you're bringing a ~~knife~~ gummi worm to a gunfight. See what I mean about not having a coherent, rational argument for using self-ID to impose obligations on others?
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division. Last edited by theprestige; 28th July 2022 at 12:45 PM.

28th July 2022, 12:56 PM	#141
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 9,939	Originally Posted by theprestige That explains why you thought stuff like that doesn't happen. It's like you're bringing a ~~knife~~ gummi worm to a gunfight. See what I mean about not having a coherent, rational argument for using self-ID to impose obligations on others? Since you want to jump on the "that stuff does, too happen" bandwagon, do you think you could provide an example of a big, muscular bricklayer just saying he's a woman? So far this example you guys are all crowing about really doesn't cut the mustard.

28th July 2022, 01:02 PM	#142
Rolfe Adult human female Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 48,677	Didn't you know, theprestige, if you can't produce an exact case of the hypothetical you used as an illustrative example, absolutely none of what you described has ever happened at all?
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

28th July 2022, 01:30 PM	#143
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 60,243	Originally Posted by Rolfe Didn't you know, theprestige, if you can't produce an exact case of the hypothetical you used as an illustrative example, absolutely none of what you described has ever happened at all? Oh, well, I knew that! /s I guess where I'm really struggling right now, though, is to see how wareyin's "argument" (such as it is) answers the question of what "identifies as" means, and whether wareyin believes "identifies as" is a valid basis for imposing obligations on others.
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division.

28th July 2022, 02:06 PM	#144
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 18,265	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cp...i035157726.jpg Also not a woman apparently, because genitals don't matter if there is facial hair. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-37305050 Sure, sure, I can totally see your argument. Males with penises and testicles and male-typical facial hair growth are exactly the same as females with a medical condition! Did you miss the fact that Drummond, as well as a ton of males on TikTok are all ACTUALLY FULLY MALE and all have male reproductive organs? Do you even understand how insulting and denigrating it is to engage in your argument? You're basically saying "Well, if females with a medical condition get to be women, then perfectly average males can be women too!" You're implicitly arguing that some females aren't "female enough" for YOU to consider them women, because they don't fit YOUR stereotype of what a female is supposed to look like. YOUR argument is essentially that if a male doesn't behave and dress in a "manly enough" fashion, they are downgraded to "woman" status. Your entire approach reinforces regressive and sexist stereotypes.
	__________________ The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian

28th July 2022, 02:11 PM	#145
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 50,557	Some government forms in Australia include male, female and other options, but not all. I was required to use a form which simple said male and female, and the person concerned had to provide evidence. I dealt with several transmen (no transwomen interestingly) and one non-binary. Despite the protests their drivers licences and passports were incorrect I had no option but to record sex as recorded. I pointed out to the two transwomen (the non-binary wasn’t too bothered at all) that they could get the ID changed. “Why should I?” was the response. This I found very interesting (yes I know, small sample).
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

28th July 2022, 02:16 PM	#146
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 9,193	Originally Posted by Darat Not to my lot, they held the same opinion of the RCC as the RCC held of them, to put in in Vatican speak a deficient church. Okay, yeah, but taking a sort of skeptical outside view of religion, shouldn't "Christian" just be anyone who sincerely affirms Jesus was (in some sense) Christ? Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Not at all, despite all the facts against it, catholics and mormons really do identify as christians. When you put it that way . . . still sounds like sarcasm. Just let me know if you want to be serious at some point.
	__________________ Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it. Last edited by d4m10n; 28th July 2022 at 02:18 PM.

28th July 2022, 02:37 PM	#147
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 9,483	Originally Posted by d4m10n Okay, yeah, but taking a sort of skeptical outside view of religion, shouldn't "Christian" just be anyone who sincerely affirms Jesus was (in some sense) Christ?. Why would there be only one definition of the word? Maybe they are a Christian in one sense and not in another?
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 9,483

28th July 2022, 02:47 PM	#148
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 9,193	Originally Posted by shuttlt Why would there be only one definition of the word? I'm sure each sect gets to have their own take on what makes someone a TRUE CHRISTIAN, but again, I'm tryna take the outside view.
	__________________ Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

28th July 2022, 02:48 PM	#149
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 60,243	Originally Posted by d4m10n Okay, yeah, but taking a sort of skeptical outside view of religion, shouldn't "Christian" just be anyone who sincerely affirms Jesus was (in some sense) Christ? I think that absent any practical applications for the outsider, a properly skeptical outside view would have be devoutly agnostic. It's nothing to you how Christians define themselves among themselves, why bother to have any opinion one way or the other about that definition? It's not like you're setting out to be the next Lewis or Chesterton. You're not trying to convince a bunch of rubes that you're a co-religionist and they should entrust their life's savings to your work. And really, it should be that way for all self-identification. It doesn't really concern me how otherkin identify themselves and gatekeep their identity. As long as they're not claiming they get to board an airplane ahead of me by virtue of their identity, I don't care - and I don't have to care - what exactly qualifies them as otherkin. --- Such as counter-proselytization or debunking certain theist claims.
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division.

28th July 2022, 03:25 PM	#150
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 9,483	Originally Posted by d4m10n I'm sure each sect gets to have their own take on what makes someone a TRUE CHRISTIAN, but again, I'm tryna take the outside view. Why would there be one outside view? It feels like a deep concept for which there could be multiple legitimate takes on what makes a Christian.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 9,483

28th July 2022, 03:47 PM	#151
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 9,193	Originally Posted by theprestige I think that absent any practical applications for the outsider, a properly skeptical outside view would have be devoutly agnostic. It's nothing to you how Christians define themselves among themselves, why bother to have any opinion one way or the other about that definition? Basically, because all of the various religious movements growing out of 1st c. Judæa have something in common and it helps to have a collective label for them all. Originally Posted by shuttlt Why would there be one outside view? Because there is only one thing all the aforementioned religious movements have in common.
	__________________ Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it. Last edited by d4m10n; 28th July 2022 at 03:49 PM.

28th July 2022, 03:56 PM	#152
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 36,197	Originally Posted by Puppycow Umm, a person either is an Australian citizen, or they are not. They are either a policeman, or they are not. These are both facts that are independent of whether they "identify" as such or not. “Facts”?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

28th July 2022, 04:01 PM	#153
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 36,197	Originally Posted by theprestige Which brings us back to the elephant in the room: Either certain claimants are mentally ill, in which case they should be diagnosed, and treatment should be prescribed, and tolerance and accommodation should follow from those facts. Or those claimants are not mentally ill, in which case we need do nothing more for them than we do for otherkin or Rachel Dolezal. It’s not that long ago that homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

28th July 2022, 04:04 PM	#154
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 60,243	Originally Posted by Mojo It’s not that long ago that homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness. Homosexuality and gender dysphoria are not analogous. This has been addressed repeatedly and at length in the Other Thread. Feel free to head over there if you'd like another go at that particular windmill. ETA: For now, I'll say this: Homosexuality, as a self-identity, asks little more of others than to be left alone to do as they please, in the privacy of their own bedrooms, with like-minded and consenting adults. So it conforms very neatly to my rather black-and-white rubric of "either mental illness, or rightly ignored". (Gay marriage is a related issue and a can of worms I'm not interested in opening here. Start a new thread if you want to talk about that.)
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division. Last edited by theprestige; 28th July 2022 at 04:06 PM.

28th July 2022, 04:12 PM	#155
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 36,197	Originally Posted by theprestige Homosexuality and gender dysphoria are not analogous. This has been addressed repeatedly and at length in the Other Thread. Feel free to head over there if you'd like another go at that particular windmill. No way am I getting involved in that sort of **** storm. Quote: ETA: For now, I'll say this: Homosexuality, as a self-identity, asks little more of others than to be left alone to do as they please, in the privacy of their own bedrooms, with like-minded and consenting adults. So it conforms very neatly to my rather black-and-white rubric of "either mental illness, or rightly ignored". Bollocks. You’re trying to say that certain relationships don’t deserve the same respect as others. No, you are actually saying it.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky