|
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. |
2nd August 2017, 03:17 AM | #121 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd August 2017, 03:21 AM | #122 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd August 2017, 03:23 AM | #123 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
But the only proper response to someone say wishing you a merry christmass is to point out how first the story was clearly not set in december near the winter solstice, and second was apocryphal to get Jesus to meet prophesy. Anything else would be denying objective reality.
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd August 2017, 03:25 AM | #124 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd August 2017, 03:26 AM | #125 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd August 2017, 03:27 AM | #126 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd August 2017, 03:29 AM | #127 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd August 2017, 03:37 AM | #128 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
|
2nd August 2017, 03:39 AM | #129 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,950
|
You might have a point, but phrasing it like that is never going to convince or even engage someone who believes they are being perfectly objective and scientific.
Anyway, I think you are correct in your assertion that it is more about preconceptions and feelings than some posters might realize or admit. Reducing the science of gender, sex and identity to clear-cut divisions by chromosomes and genitalia sounds like a scientific sounding justification for existing viewpoints without addressing the complexity of the matter. The 'my opinion is more scientific than yours' line of argument often appears like cherry picking to me. Like people used to argue that being gay was unnatural, or that there were scientific reasons to view blacks as inferior. (Note that I'm not accusing our posters of those views, don't want to derail the thread). Biology is complex. The mind is complex. Sometimes nature ***** up, and all we can do is deal with it. If that means addressing people who have been dealt certain cards differently than I might initially expect, that's a very small price to pay for not making someone who already has more to deal with than the average person uncomfortable. |
2nd August 2017, 03:39 AM | #130 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
2nd August 2017, 03:46 AM | #131 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
I spent decades wanting and not wanting tons of things. The question is whether reality fits the desire. You wouldn't indugle someone claiming to be Napoleon Bonaparte by giving them the first French empire. Similarily, I wouldn't call a biological male a woman unless they went through most of the transition.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
2nd August 2017, 03:47 AM | #132 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
2nd August 2017, 03:53 AM | #133 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
Thee is always inherent bias, some positive some negative. If one start to state human are bipedial, and you object saying some are born without leg, some lose them later in life, some are in rollchair, you missed utterly the point. Biologically human are bipedial mammals, and as with all mammals have two sexes. There may be uneasy cases but they are all pathological. That is an important point.
You want to bring more to the conversation, like gender identity, and feel free to this, but sex is far more clear cut. The individual in the op, was pregnant, and gave birth. There is nothing more clear cut than that. Now by CHOICE they may chose the GI of male and by choice we may chose to call use man, he, his, but there is nothing mor eclear cut in this case they are born biologically female. There may be bias against TG for various reason, but keep in mind you bring your own bias the othee way around when you refuse to admit that people may have a point that she is a surgically changed female a (TG) man. Note how the first part of the sentence is about sex, the second GI. And no, bringing pathological cases like kilfner syndrom does not make a better case that sex is murky like gender.it only serves to illustrate thatthose cases are pathological, contrary to the case inop which is pretty clear : the person ws born a fertile female and changed it surgically. Pretending that peoplehave "bias" or as i sawin other thread "phobia""icky factor" only illustrate your own prejudice. Thatsaid would i be before that person would i call her"he"? no,politesse i would use "she" etc...but in common conversation talking about the case, i have no qualm saying it was a female, a pregnant female. |
2nd August 2017, 03:56 AM | #134 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd August 2017, 03:57 AM | #135 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd August 2017, 03:59 AM | #136 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,423
|
I have a solution to this "problem".
When you are faced with a situation in which someone you are sure is a man biologically asks to be referred to with a female pronoun, just remember this simple abbreviation: DBAD Don't Be A Dick. That's all. |
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 |
|
2nd August 2017, 03:59 AM | #137 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd August 2017, 04:00 AM | #138 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd August 2017, 04:04 AM | #139 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd August 2017, 04:04 AM | #140 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,950
|
Sure. The problem is that we have two words for a whole lot of related and interdependent but separate concepts. Sex, gender, gender roles. We use man and woman for all of those.
Sometimes one word applied in one context, and the other in another. Sometimes the distinction isn't that clear-cut. Of course the person in the OP has to have a female anatomy in order to give birth. And of course we'd expect medical and scientific literature to use the terminology that is most appropriate. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we let 'feelings' dictate reality, and that we should ignore science because it might hurt someone's feelings. And yes, transgender and intersex people are a tiny minority, and from a purely clinical standpoint their conditions can be called pathological. But if we use those words outside of a purely clinical context, they carry certain value judgments. The OP asked why he should call the person described in the article a man. The answer is politeness. Being polite in a social context does not preclude being truthful or conscious or thorough in a scientific or clinical context. It isn't all black and white, pure fact versus pure feeling. |
2nd August 2017, 04:06 AM | #141 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd August 2017, 04:06 AM | #142 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
Again, read ,you use gender indifferentely for both gender and sex. I do not.
Homo sapiens has only two sex, female and male. Patholigical cases may require look at the context, but there is no third sex. Gender (gender identity) is another thing, and you keep missing the point i am making. |
2nd August 2017, 04:23 AM | #143 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
|
|
2nd August 2017, 04:24 AM | #144 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
|
|
2nd August 2017, 04:29 AM | #146 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
Pixie dust, I'm sure.
|
2nd August 2017, 04:37 AM | #147 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
It's quite funny that some people can only see two sides to this issue; the moral victors and the enemy, instead of the great range of views that exist on this topic, and in so doing antagonise those who would normally be their allies in the fight for civil rights, while at the same time chastising those same potential allies for seeing gender as a binary rather than a spectrum.
|
2nd August 2017, 04:45 AM | #148 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
No, but there are certain visual cues which, if you happen to be sharing a locker room with someone, are extremely good indicators of sex.
(I might add that the same goes for maternity wards.) And this is where, some years ago, I parted company with the orthodox transgender rights supporters. I'm all about being liberal and allowing people to live their lives the way they wish to live them. I supported the rights of people to present themselves as females even if they weren't really females. No problem. Takes all kinds to make a world. However, reading about the phenomenon right here on these pages, I realized that wasn't enough for the hard liners. They insisted that that person who was clearly a biological male, really was actually a woman. She wasn't someone who thought she was a woman. She wasn't someone who felt like a woman. She wasn't someone who identified as a woman. By gum, she was, really and truly a woman, and must be treated by society as such in every way. And most of the time, even that doesn't really cause problems, but there is a certain point where there has to be some reality that sets in. There are certain situations where it is unreasonable for everyone else to ignore the reality of what they see and instead treat someone based on their own psychological state. There have been many, many threads on those subjects, so I won't rehash them here. Anyone interested has seen them before. For the purposes of this thread, at least for now, I will simply say that the person who gave birth in Oregon the other day was a woman, regardless of how she felt about herself or how she lives most of her life. To say otherwise is to say that the word "woman" has no real meaning. |
2nd August 2017, 04:59 AM | #149 |
Poisoned Waffles
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 68,744
|
Reminds me of arguments with my grandpa, trying to convince him that Russians can be consdered white. He thinks that because of Genghis Khan and miscegenation that Russians are all Chinamen. He knows this. From science. And anyone who thinks differently is in league against him, with sinister intent (possibly a global syndicate headed by Dr Fu Manchu) preparing for the upcoming race war.
That other people just have a looser definition of "white" (and "Chinaman") and no motives beyond living and let live does not register with him. He knows what he knows, damn it, and telling him different is proof of pernicious Catholic influence inherited from my grandmother. |
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara. |
|
2nd August 2017, 05:01 AM | #150 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
2nd August 2017, 05:34 AM | #151 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
Exactly there are a lot of people who are neither biologically male or female. A hysterectomy for example would mean that you should not longer refer to them as women in the work place.
The thing is that the only ones who care about sex are a persons doctors. None of the people objecting here are doctors they want to be able to pretend that transgender people don't exist. They want to be able to harass transgender coworkers freely. That is what they are arguing for. And you are agreeing with them. |
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd August 2017, 05:36 AM | #152 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
2nd August 2017, 05:37 AM | #153 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
All non-sequiturs aside, the thing is that you don't have a "looser definition" of "woman" that excludes the fellow who just gave birth. You have no definition at all.
Give it a shot. Provide a definition of "woman" that meets the following conditions. 1. Includes transwomen 2. excludes transmen 3. Is not circular |
2nd August 2017, 05:42 AM | #154 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd August 2017, 05:42 AM | #155 |
Insert something funny here
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 10,816
|
|
2nd August 2017, 05:43 AM | #156 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd August 2017, 05:44 AM | #157 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
The insignificance I'm referring to is in the effort and impact on ones life to refer to a transgender person by their preferred gender. You may not agree with it or even understand it, but it literally costs you nothing. So why make an issue of it?
It's the exact same insignificance of effort and impact for a non-black person to not use the N-word. So when I see someone arguing so vehemently against something that is ultimately inconsequential to their lives, I have to wonder about their underlying motives. |
2nd August 2017, 05:45 AM | #158 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd August 2017, 05:46 AM | #159 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd August 2017, 06:20 AM | #160 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|