ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


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.
Tags LGBT issues , transgender incidents , transgender issues

Reply
Old 3rd August 2017, 02:37 AM   #321
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,769
If you want me to call you 'he' or 'she' or Dave or Boris or them or whatever, I'll do it. Really, it's no effort and it might be something you go home and cry about, I don't know.

I call people by their preferred title because I'm not a ****.

I don't really worry about the penalty because anyone deliberately, repeatedly using a moniker that they have been asked not to is clearly a **** and a bully. Stuff them.

There may be other issues but simply using someones preferred form of address costs, literally, nothing. Not using it might cause them a world of emotional hurt you just don't know about.

Be nice. How difficult is that?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 02:39 AM   #322
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,769
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Be nice. How difficult is that?
What part of "this is not what the discussion is about" is so hard to understand?

Again, this is all a distraction to avoid discussing the factual basis of the claim.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 02:54 AM   #323
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,769
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
What part of "this is not what the discussion is about" is so hard to understand?

Again, this is all a distraction to avoid discussing the factual basis of the claim.


Crikey, really? I have to stay bang on the topic?

Which claim are you talking about?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 03:22 AM   #324
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,769
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Crikey, really? I have to stay bang on the topic?
How about you respond to what I actually posted?

Quote:
Which claim are you talking about?
Pretending not to have read the thread isn't a very good strategy.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 03:25 AM   #325
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,769
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
How about you respond to what I actually posted?



Pretending not to have read the thread isn't a very good strategy.

I skipped the long, boring middle bit.

Given that my comment was fairly well related to the OP and that I didn't quote any particular post so I wasn't actually responding to you or anyone else, I@m still sort of failing to see your point.


I genuinely would like to know to which question you are referring. Ho hum.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 03:37 AM   #326
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,769
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I skipped the long, boring middle bit.

Given that my comment was fairly well related to the OP and that I didn't quote any particular post so I wasn't actually responding to you or anyone else, I@m still sort of failing to see your point.


I genuinely would like to know to which question you are referring. Ho hum.
Ugh. The question is whether a person is of the gender they claim to be by the simple fact of the claim itself. It is _not_ whether it's rude or preferable to go around on the street, pointing to random stragers while shouting their gender and, once one objects that you got it wrong, insist that they're insane and hope they kill themselves to get your gold star.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 03:38 AM   #327
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,597
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
.... The truth or falsity would rest somewhere within behavior, culture or psychology. Now an academic definition would give us more specificity, but since we're not using those, and the dictionary has defined our term, the truth rests on there simply being some element within those three domains that is masculine....
I'm not sure I follow you here. Do you mean that only one behavioural, cultural or psychological trait is necessary to label someone a man? Is it like a one-drop rule for gender?
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:18 AM   #328
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,792
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
That's your problem, not mine.
But how else will I know if they pass a properly rigorous test of their sex? You seem to be opposed to any rigorous definition.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:20 AM   #329
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,769
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
But how else will I know if they pass a properly rigorous test of their sex? You seem to be opposed to any rigorous definition.
I think it's been well established at this point that how things seem to you have no relationship with reality.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:31 AM   #330
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,792
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Because men do not have babies. That's just an objective truth. Men who were born women do have babies, though. So that's the problem. It isn't reflective of reality to say that a transman is fully a man. Especially when they are pregnant.
The article about the OP clearly shows that men do have babies.
Quote:
Why? Her biology is clear cut. A surgeons knife does not alter her biology one whit. Why? A little snip on a tube doesn't change biology. Just as, in the present case, saying you are a man, living as a man and insisting you are a man does not change biology. Maybe in 50 years, little kids will grow up thinking that men can have babies.
And yet for millennia a little snip is all it took to turn a man into a eunuch.
Quote:
"Daddy, I'm a boy, can I have babies?"
"No."
"But Michael's daddy is a man and he can have babies."

I'm sure there will be some fun conversations in the future.
My wife keeps threatening to sue me for harassment. I just tell her it isn't harassment if you like it . . .
Yep just like men can only marry women of the same race. Women can't own property and so on.

Then there is my favorite little girls who grow up to be men.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2...o-boys-aged-1/

Thank god they don't actually exist.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:32 AM   #331
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,792
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Lying requires a deliberate attempt to deceive. Someone who is wrong, deluded, misinformed, or whatever, is not lying. Some might be lying, I guess, but I would think that the overwhelming majority truly believe it. Hence the word: belief.
But like gay people they are simply wrong and biology tells us so.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:33 AM   #332
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,792
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
Who is making me use these terms? Gender activists are behind the movement if that's what you're asking. Have you not heard of these new pronouns? Here is a chart from one organization. There are many.
He/She/They seems to be what society is settling on.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:37 AM   #333
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,769
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Ugh. The question is whether a person is of the gender they claim to be by the simple fact of the claim itself. It is _not_ whether it's rude or preferable to go around on the street, pointing to random stragers while shouting their gender and, once one objects that you got it wrong, insist that they're insane and hope they kill themselves to get your gold star.

Thank you
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:40 AM   #334
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,792
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I think it's been well established at this point that how things seem to you have no relationship with reality.
You can't even explain your rigid perfect definition. It is all based on "those people are too small a group to matter in my definition". But in science small groups still matter to taxonomy. Which shows your contempt for actual science on these issues.

Able to fill the reproductive role of male or female is a great biological definition. It is clear and concise and everyone fits into it in some way as male, female or other. You don't need qualifications of "female but sterile because of X Y and Z" or any of that. If you are female it all fits then.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:43 AM   #335
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 16,958
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:44 AM   #336
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,769
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
But like gay people they are simply wrong and biology tells us so.
Are you done eating babies, yet?

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
You can't even explain your rigid perfect definition.
That's because I never claimed to have one. As usual I'm under no obligation to support your own delusions.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:44 AM   #337
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,480
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
No, a female is a member of the sex that produces egg cells.
So then we have "A woman would then be any adult human who exhibits the gender attributes (especially gender identity) traditionally associated with the sex that produces egg cells"

To me, I don't see any difference between that and "A woman is someone who has gender attributes of a woman".

To my way of thinking, a better definition would be "A woman is someone capable of creating egg cells, or of the same sex as someone who can." Now, we would have to define how we determine that someone is "of the same sex", but that's left as an exercise for the reader. Of course, my definition doesn't include transwomen or exclude transmen.

Then we also have the "gender attributes" clause. So, one of the most common attributes of the sex that produces egg cells is that they produce egg cells. Apparently, that particular attribute isn't all that significant. So, someone can have a whole lot of attributes associated with men, or associated with women, but really, none of them matter except for the identity.

And that is where we are today.

Some might say, "Well, language doesn't work that way..." If we have fuzzy, indistinct, concepts of something, we can't expect our language to correct that for us. Our language will be fuzzy and indistinct. So, the concept of "woman" is pretty fuzzy and indistinct.

It didn't use to be fuzzy and indistinct, and I'm not confident that its current fuzziness is a sign of progress.
__________________
On vacation.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:46 AM   #338
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,792
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
That's because I never claimed to have one. As usual I'm under no obligation to support your own delusions.
Or even support your own claims and positions.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:47 AM   #339
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,792
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
It didn't use to be fuzzy and indistinct, and I'm not confident that its current fuzziness is a sign of progress.
Exactly it is crazy like gay marriage. Who is the husband and who is the wife? Who is the one who can sign legal documents and who can't? Things are now all fuzzy and indistinct. We need to go back to the old days of clear and simple.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:48 AM   #340
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,769
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Or even support your own claims and positions.
Oh, I've supported my claims. I've just not supported your strawmen versions of them.

How about those delicious babies, turtle?
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:49 AM   #341
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,769
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Exactly it is crazy like gay marriage. Who is the husband and who is the wife? Who is the one who can sign legal documents and who can't? Things are now all fuzzy and indistinct. We need to go back to the old days of clear and simple.
You either have very little ability to understand concepts, or you are deliberately obtuse. Marriage is not a fuzzy word. You either define it as the union between a man and a woman, or between two consenting adults, or whatever. But whatever definition you use, it's pretty simple and easy to understand.

Not so simple with the definition of gender, or so we're told. Your analogy fails.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:06 AM   #342
Cavemonster
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,712
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
I'm not sure I follow you here. Do you mean that only one behavioural, cultural or psychological trait is necessary to label someone a man? Is it like a one-drop rule for gender?
Personally, I feel that there are robust frameworks from the fields of psychology, sociology or philosophy we could use to define whether someone is a man.

But Argumemnon has stated a lack of need for those sources and identified the dictionary as the authoritative source of definition. Since the dictionary definition was broad, without any further source for clarification we're left with a pretty broad definition. I'm mostly arguing the logical consistency of Argumemnon's definitions.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:10 AM   #343
Cavemonster
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,712
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I like both 2a and 2b. I just don't view it as meaning that a biological woman can have a male gender. Gender is the social expression of biological sex.
I'm afraid this is where you become very difficult to follow.

Which definitions you "like" shouldn't have much impact on them. And the things you inject into 2b are not in the text.

You are asserting that your feelings constitute the truth.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:16 AM   #344
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,769
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I'm afraid this is where you become very difficult to follow.

Which definitions you "like" shouldn't have much impact on them. And the things you inject into 2b are not in the text.

You are asserting that your feelings constitute the truth.
What do feelings have to do with my argument? You're the one who brought up the word "like".

The definition 2b doesn't say that how people feel determines their gender, does it?
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:20 AM   #345
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,597
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
Personally, I feel that there are robust frameworks from the fields of psychology, sociology or philosophy we could use to define whether someone is a man.

But Argumemnon has stated a lack of need for those sources and identified the dictionary as the authoritative source of definition. Since the dictionary definition was broad, without any further source for clarification we're left with a pretty broad definition. I'm mostly arguing the logical consistency of Argumemnon's definitions.
Great. Now here's a question. Do you mean that only one behavioural, cultural or psychological trait is necessary to label someone a man? Is it like a one-drop rule for gender?
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:28 AM   #346
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,961
What a silly thread. Believing you are something does not make it true. A man is not biologically equipped to have a baby. Women have babies, duh.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:31 AM   #347
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,492
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I don't disagree with those reasons at all. But the question is at what point does liberalism evolve to the point where it does disagree? If you had asked the average liberal 40 years ago, what they thought of gay marriage, they probably would have laughed. Transgender in the military? It was a running joke on MASH that was a dodge to get out of the military.

Okay, so maybe the liberals don't go for the real predators, the guys raping babies. But they find someone like Mary Kay Letourneau. She got off extraordinarily light as it was; for her first conviction of having sex with a sixth-grader (one whom she was teaching) she got 6 months, 3 suspended. Second time around (with the same kid) she got 7-1/2 years, but served less than 6. And then after she got released, they were married (apparently separated since, but their marriage lasted 13 years, not bad by today's standards).

Those kinds of female teacher/male student caught having sex stories come up periodically. Around here the reaction mostly seems to be, lucky guy! So you start with the women. But then comes the fairness argument. Mary Kay had sex with her student who was 12, why is this guy in prison for 20 years having sex with a female student who was 13? And I assume there will be some gay cause celebre about a man who was after all only showing a youngster how to become comfortable with his own sexuality.
I find the statement "Around here the reaction mostly seems to be, lucky guy!" a less than convincing indicator the liberals in general approve of such relationships.

Quote:
The idea that liberals will cease trying to preen themselves for being more tolerant than their elders is patently absurd. Indeed, that is exactly what the person I was originally responding to was doing. His grandfather was racist. Mom was more tolerant but still homophobic. Him perfectly tolerant in every regard. I'm guessing his descendants will find his blind spot, whether it's pedophobia or something else that we all take for granted.
What some consider preening, others consider an acknowledgement of progress.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:37 AM   #348
Cavemonster
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,712
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
Great. Now here's a question. Do you mean that only one behavioural, cultural or psychological trait is necessary to label someone a man? Is it like a one-drop rule for gender?
I'm again sorry if I was unclear, but I'm afraid I'm not sure how to make it any clearer to you. Let me give it one more go

I do not subscribe personally to a belief that a single trait from those three categories is sufficient to define someone as a man.

In a conversation with a specific poster I have presented that definition as the logical conclusion from his assertions about how gender ought to be defined. That thread, addressed to that poster is an attempt to show why I don't believe that poster's argument to be valid or sound.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:40 AM   #349
Cavemonster
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,712
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
The definition 2b doesn't say that how people feel determines their gender, does it?
It also doesn't say that "Gender is the social expression of biological sex." So why do you insist on that meaning? You must be using some source outside of the dictionary for your definition, and since you have eschewed academic sources, where do you get your definition from?
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:41 AM   #350
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,792
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You either have very little ability to understand concepts, or you are deliberately obtuse. Marriage is not a fuzzy word. You either define it as the union between a man and a woman, or between two consenting adults, or whatever. But whatever definition you use, it's pretty simple and easy to understand.

Not so simple with the definition of gender, or so we're told. Your analogy fails.
It is simple with gender, people are what they claim to be. But you reject that simple easy definition and instead prefer incomplete ones you claim are scientific.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:45 AM   #351
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,792
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
What a silly thread. Believing you are something does not make it true. A man is not biologically equipped to have a baby. Women have babies, duh.
And the article in the beginning clearly shows this is wrong. A man had a baby.

Lets take a simple gender test, Beards. If you grow a beard you are a man if you don't you are a woman.

So a Sikh "woman" with a beard is a man. And a Native American who never needs to shave to keep a clean face is a woman no matter what their genitals same. Makes gender simple.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:45 AM   #352
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,492
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Well IF there's a law that says that you can't intentionally or repeatedly fail to use somene's prefered pronouns, and IF the list of pronouns goes well beyond "he" or "she" and into "xer" and others, then it stands to reason that you have to learn the list.
Transgender people in total are less than 1% of the adult population. Are you able to put a number on how many of them actually use any of those terms? As a function of population percentage, does that number round to something higher than zero?

I just want to know if I should join in sir drinks-a-lot's concern and start preparing flashcards to learn the list.

Last edited by johnny karate; 3rd August 2017 at 05:47 AM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:56 AM   #353
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,769
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
It also doesn't say that "Gender is the social expression of biological sex." So why do you insist on that meaning?
Perhaps you should read the definition again. It explicitly mentions sex.

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Transgender people in total are less than 1% of the adult population. Are you able to put a number on how many of them actually use any of those terms? As a function of population percentage, does that number round to something higher than zero?

I just want to know if I should join in sir drinks-a-lot's concern and start preparing flashcards to learn the list.
Well that's our point actually: the list is nonsense.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:57 AM   #354
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,597
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I'm again sorry if I was unclear, but I'm afraid I'm not sure how to make it any clearer to you. Let me give it one more go

I do not subscribe personally to a belief that a single trait from those three categories is sufficient to define someone as a man.

In a conversation with a specific poster I have presented that definition as the logical conclusion from his assertions about how gender ought to be defined. That thread, addressed to that poster is an attempt to show why I don't believe that poster's argument to be valid or sound.
Thanks that's clearer.
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 06:00 AM   #355
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,769
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
What a silly thread. Believing you are something does not make it true. A man is not biologically equipped to have a baby. Women have babies, duh.
I assume you're not working on:

Can have babies = Woman
Cannot have babies = Man.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 06:02 AM   #356
Cavemonster
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,712
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Perhaps you should read the definition again. It explicitly mentions sex.
.
Yes, but specifically it says that it refers to traits typically associated with sex.

It does not say that those traits are necessarily an expression of sex. You seem to be tossing out the words "typically" and "associated".
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 06:04 AM   #357
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,792
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I assume you're not working on:

Can have babies = Woman
Cannot have babies = Man.
And yet when I point out that this definition means that hysterectomies mean that they are no longer women it becomes crazy.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 06:06 AM   #358
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,961
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And the article in the beginning clearly shows this is wrong. A man had a baby.

Lets take a simple gender test, Beards. If you grow a beard you are a man if you don't you are a woman.

So a Sikh "woman" with a beard is a man. And a Native American who never needs to shave to keep a clean face is a woman no matter what their genitals same. Makes gender simple.
No, a woman had a baby. She still has all the woman parts as the article stated therefore she is a woman.


I don't have a clue as to what you posted after that has anything to do with anything.

From the article, my highlights.

Quote:
Trystan Reese, 34, and Biff Chaplow of Portland, Oregon, welcomed their first biological child, a son named Leo, two weeks ago
•Trystan, who was born female and still is, started taking hormones ten years ago to make herself more like a man, but kept his 'original parts' all the female bits, vagina, uterus, etc.- the defining parts that make her a woman.
•He stopped taking hormones in order to get pregnant, which was under the supervision of a doctor that obviously treated a woman as she became pregnant, something which men cannot do.
•Earlier, he suffered a miscarriage last year at six weeks, but the couple got to trying again right away
•The pair are already dads to two adopted children, Riley and Hailey, who are Biff's biological niece and nephew good for them, kids rock.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 06:07 AM   #359
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,769
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
Yes, but specifically it says that it refers to traits typically associated with sex.

It does not say that those traits are necessarily an expression of sex. You seem to be tossing out the words "typically" and "associated".
You know, ponderingturtle and yourself are quite fond of telling me what I "seem" to be doing. How about you stop doing that and just go with what I post, m'kay?
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 06:08 AM   #360
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,769
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
I don't have a clue as to what you posted after that has anything to do with anything.
Welcome to my world.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:15 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.