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 transgender incidents , transgender issues , transgender rights

Reply
Old 24th June 2020, 06:17 AM   #281
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Simply repeating that you've stated something does not demonstrate that the statement is correct.

If you think intersex people are not one or the other, you have been misinformed.



No one said that. My point is that you are confusing the two with your argument. As I've already stated.

Furthermore, the distinction between sex and gender was minimal until very recently. Changing a definition does not change the reality of what the word represents.



I think we agree that the answer to that is "whatever trans individual want", up to a reasonable degree.



Only if you define "gender" as "gender identity", which is silly.



Your explanation was incorrect. That's what you refuse to understand.
Someone who is “intersex” is male or female? Really? The term is a lie? Or are you somehow putting the cart before the horse and beginning with the presumption that someone has to be binary male or female and must be assigned one way or another based on a smidgen, the slightest nudge, in the balance of their phenotypes toward male or female?

As I’ve repeatedly brought up I think the “sex is gametes” argument is a meaningless and very flawed attempt to distract from the key issue of gender and society. It doesn’t reflect what is crucial to trans people’s lives or the debates as to their place in society. It also represents a huge face plant when trying to define sex for prepubescent children, sterile adults, and post menopausal women. Do we really view these people as having no sex? When a baby is born do we say, “It’s a boy!” or do we wait for 12 years until we are willing to hazard a guess after a semen analysis?


As to your second highlighted statement: fine I’m happy. with that. I began here discussing the broader issue of gender, but was told that is not the point under discussion. If thread has become a narrow debate of if trans women make sperm or not it seems silly to me and I have little interest in participating.

Last edited by Giordano; 24th June 2020 at 06:19 AM.
Giordano 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 24th June 2020, 06:21 AM   #282
JoeMorgue
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,662
We're dumping too many topics into the cart and not keeping them straight.

Intersex is an actual medical condition (or collection of conditions to be more accurate) that has actual objective criteria applied to, it's not a term you can just apply to yourself.

Transgender and gender identity are very different things.

"Some people (in extreme outlier cases making up less 1% of individuals) don't meet the biological definition of male or female... therefore gender is a personally applied identity" is a bit of jump.

Again there's a difference between being short and having Achondroplasia. And neither of those is being Shaq height and going "I'm tall but identify as short" or going "My height sex is 7'1" but my height gender is 4'3""

And height actually is fuzzy edged with no clear demarcation between short and tall.t

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 24th June 2020 at 06:24 AM.
JoeMorgue 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 24th June 2020, 06:21 AM   #283
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You picked a strange example for this discussion. What sort of accident to you imagine can turn a man into a woman, or vice versa?

I also wasn't aware of exclusive "short spaces" that tall people were trying to gain access to. But I guess there's a kink for everything.
Castration by the gamete definition of sex.
Giordano 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 24th June 2020, 06:22 AM   #284
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,202
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Oh, well, I guess you're wholly justified in hand-waving away the deconstruction of it and pretending like everything Rowling said was entirely accurate and fair. That's some rigorous critical thinking, right there.
I have not done that. To the contrary, I've asked for specific examples of where she got something wrong.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n 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 24th June 2020, 06:23 AM   #285
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,195
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Castration by the gamete definition of sex.
Are you claiming that castrated males start producing ova?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 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 24th June 2020, 06:24 AM   #286
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,195
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Someone who is “intersex” is male or female? Really? The term is a lie? Or are you somehow putting the cart before the horse and beginning with the presumption that someone has to be binary male or female and must be assigned one way or another based on a smidgen, the slightest nudge, in the balance of their phenotypes toward male or female?

As I’ve repeatedly brought up I think the “sex is gametes” argument is a meaningless and very flawed attempt to distract from the key issue of gender and society. It doesn’t reflect what is crucial to trans people’s lives or the debates as to their place in society. It also represents a huge face plant when trying to define sex for prepubescent children, sterile adults, and post menopausal women. Do we really view these people as having no sex? When a baby is born do we say, “It’s a boy!” or do we wait for 12 years until we are willing to hazard a guess after a semen analysis?


As to your second highlighted statement: fine I’m happy. with that. I began here discussing the broader issue of gender, but was told that is not the point under discussion. If thread has become a narrow debate of if trans women make sperm or not it seems silly to me and I have little interest in participating.
If you didn't want your claim of biological sex not being binary to be challenged then you shouldn't have made it.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 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 24th June 2020, 06:26 AM   #287
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
We're dumping too many topics into the cart and not keeping them straight.

Intersex is an actual medical condition that has actual objective criteria applied to, it's not a term you can just apply to yourself.

Transgender and gender identity are very different things.

"Some people (in extreme outlier cases making up less 1% of individuals) don't meet the biological definition of male or female... therefore gender is a personally applied identity" is a bit of jump.

It is important to avoid confusion. My point from intersex individuals is only that gender is not binary. And notably a number of trans-sexual did begin from some intersex start.
Giordano 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 24th June 2020, 06:31 AM   #288
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,202
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
My point from intersex individuals is only that gender is not binary.
Even if no intersex individuals existed, we'd still have people who identify as gender nonbinary.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n 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 24th June 2020, 06:34 AM   #289
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 56,020
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You picked a strange example for this discussion.
I didn't pick it, someone else did. This forum has a problem with overusing analogies. And, apparently, also a problem with reading all of a post before responding to it.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 24th June 2020, 06:53 AM   #290
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,375
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I didn't pick it, someone else did.
You picked losing legs in an accident.

Quote:
This forum has a problem with overusing analogies.
I agree. I wanted to think of an analogy for this, but I couldn't think of a good one and it would be beating a dead horse anyways.

Quote:
And, apparently, also a problem with reading all of a post before responding to it.
I read all of it. My comment stands.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 24th June 2020, 07:02 AM   #291
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,957
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Then can you rephrase the following to make it inclusive of infertile people?
I could, but that would miss the point.

But I followed the comment back to the origin, and the point, of either my post or the post I was replying to, was kind of difficult to follow anyway. I don't think I'm going to try and salvage it.

It will come back around. This conversation always does. Maybe it will be more coherent next time.
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 24th June 2020, 07:03 AM   #292
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 56,020
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You picked losing legs in an accident.
Well, better to lose the legs than the arms, don't you think? Unless you're a professional Irish dancer, then you might choose the other way around.

Quote:
I agree. I wanted to think of an analogy for this, but I couldn't think of a good one and it would be beating a dead horse anyways.
You admit you privilege living vs unliving equines? That's pretty racist. And totally indefensible until you can present an utterly watertight philosophical argument explaining exactly what life actually is, because we can't decide how to treat anybody unless we have all the background worked out completely.

Quote:
I read all of it. My comment stands.
Stands?! In a post about leglessness?! How dare you, sir? How very dare you! You're as unfeeling as someone who lost all their nerves in an accident and then got barred from a nerveless-only airport lounge!
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 24th June 2020, 07:29 AM   #293
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Even if no intersex individuals existed, we'd still have people who identify as gender nonbinary.
And if my uncle was my aunt... Oh, strangely appropriate here

Probably in terms of physically observable intersex, but the people who identify as gender non binary do so ultimately for biological reasons. How they think of themselves is wired into the synapses and action potentials of their brains. Possibly due in part by hormones, or by genetics we don’t yet fully understand, or by experiences. But our thoughts and views all have a basis in terms of how our brain physically functions. So if the definition of intersex relates to physical properties beyond gametes, then gender non binary probably itself is a form of intersex - intersex related to brain properties.
Giordano 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 24th June 2020, 07:37 AM   #294
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,758
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Someone who is “intersex” is male or female? Really? The term is a lie? Or are you somehow putting the cart before the horse and beginning with the presumption that someone has to be binary male or female and must be assigned one way or another based on a smidgen, the slightest nudge, in the balance of their phenotypes toward male or female?
I'm suggesting that you are misinformed. The next step for you would be to inform yourself, not to act incredulous as if this is somehow an argument.

Quote:
As I’ve repeatedly brought up I think the “sex is gametes” argument is a meaningless and very flawed attempt to distract from the key issue of gender and society. It doesn’t reflect what is crucial to trans people’s lives or the debates as to their place in society.
This sounds like you want to define it in a way that supports your conclusion; something that in your own words would be "putting the cart before the horse".

Quote:
It also represents a huge face plant when trying to define sex for prepubescent children, sterile adults, and post menopausal women.
Take it up with the people who brought up this definition, not me.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 24th June 2020, 07:44 AM   #295
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,758
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
My point from intersex individuals is only that gender is not binary. And notably a number of trans-sexual did begin from some intersex start.
For heaven's sake, man, you're still using sex and gender interchangeably. Are they the same thing or not?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 24th June 2020, 07:50 AM   #296
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
If you didn't want your claim of biological sex not being binary to be challenged then you shouldn't have made it.
It wasn’t that I didn’t want it to be challenged but that I was surprised it was challenged. I continue to explain why it is deeply flawed. But how many times I want to repeat my rebuttals of that one point are very limited by how narrow and irrelevant I see it to be. If this is an argument only about sperm and ova production then it is boring to me. Except for what little thrill I obtain by bringing up cis males and females who don’t make gametes at all, or “the wrong ones.”
Giordano 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 24th June 2020, 08:08 AM   #297
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
For heaven's sake, man, you're still using sex and gender interchangeably. Are they the same thing or not?
I was responding to a post using the term “gender.”

Intersex is a real, common used term, as is trans-sexual.

And I’ve explained multiple times why I refuse to narrow my discussion to “sex” rather than gender. Again if this thread has become a sperm vs. ovo debate, I’m out. That seems to me to be a silly attempt to find some one property to allow cis people to be the only ones who are “real” men and “real” women. And that is deeply flawed as well for the reasons I don’t feel I needlessly need to repeat.

I don’t feel I need to be limited to discussing this definition. Or I may just check out.

Last edited by Giordano; 24th June 2020 at 08:12 AM.
Giordano 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 24th June 2020, 08:12 AM   #298
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,202
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
...people who identify as gender non binary do so ultimately for biological reasons. How they think of themselves is wired into the synapses and action potentials of their brains. Possibly due in part by hormones, or by genetics we don’t yet fully understand, or by experiences.
I think that about covers the space of possibilities.

Experiences may be a crucial factor here, though, e.g. the experience of being told you don't have to identify with or express yourself as either the feminine or masculine gender. This strikes me as a fairly positive experience, though my white evangelical relatives would likely disagree.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n 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 24th June 2020, 08:13 AM   #299
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I'm suggesting that you are misinformed. The next step for you would be to inform yourself, not to act incredulous as if this is somehow an argument.



This sounds like you want to define it in a way that supports your conclusion; something that in your own words would be "putting the cart before the horse".



Take it up with the people who brought up this definition, not me.
I have. But you seem to have adopted it too.
Giordano 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 24th June 2020, 08:18 AM   #300
JoeMorgue
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,662
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
For heaven's sake, man, you're still using sex and gender interchangeably. Are they the same thing or not?
Yes. No. Maybe.
JoeMorgue 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 24th June 2020, 08:19 AM   #301
Joe Random
Master Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,428
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I was responding to a post using the term “gender.”

Intersex is a real, common used term, as is trans-sexual.

And I’ve explained multiple times why I refuse to narrow my discussion to “sex” rather than gender. Again if this thread has eco me a sperm vs. ovo debate, I’m out. That seems to me to be a silly attempt to find some one property to allow cis people to be the only ones who are “real” men and “real” women. And that is deeply flawed as well for the reasons I don’t feel I needlessly need to repeat.

I don’t feel I need to be limited to discussing this definition. Or I may just check out.

Genuine question : can you give a definition of 'man' or 'woman' from a gender point of view which isn't circular (e.g. 'someone who identifies as') and carries external utility? For example, in the 'man gives birth' thread a while back, the definition of 'man' was so open ended it was utterly useless.

The contrast I've used in the past is hetero- vs homosexual. I'm hetero, so I'm sexually attracted to women. If I were homosexual I'd have the same feelings, but toward men. Apply that to the gender issue. "I identify as a woman, therefore <x>, and if I identified as a man I would <y> instead.". None of the answers I've seen are anything which would have an external impact, and were only internal feelings or the like. Which is fine, but doesn't mean the world now treats you differently.

It's totally cool if an intact biological male wants to wear dresses, but that doesn't mean they're now allowed on the women's track team because they 'feel like a woman'. And it doesn't make a lesbian a bigot if she's not into going down on your ladypenis.
Joe Random 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 24th June 2020, 08:27 AM   #302
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 28,915
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Not at all, if it is clear from context that the author meant "philosophical belief" in the usual rather than legal sense.

Again, here is what Rowling wrote:
"Forstater...took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law."

Now let's substitute in either the usual or the legal interpretation of the phrase.

"Forstater...took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief (in the sense protected under British law) that sex is determined by biology is protected in law."

"Forstater...took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief (in the general sense of the phrase) that sex is determined by biology is protected in law."

Only one of these interpretations makes any sense, the other is hopelessly tautological. You are deliberately choosing the wrong one in order to make Rowling seem malicious or incompetent.
I like how you can see that what Rowling said was wrong, and are using that to conclude that my opinion that Rowling was wrong is wrong.

I have more than once offered up the possibility that Rowling's equivocation was the result of not understanding what the words she was using meant in the context in which she was using them. That's the second option you've outlined there - that she used a legal term in a legal context, referring to a legal ruling that is clear about what that legal term means, without herself realising that that legal term has a precise legal meaning. And her using a term in a colloquial sense when referencing something that uses it in a technical sense is practically the textbook definition of equivocation. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise - particularly if it's then followed by outlining exactly how it's equivocation.

I suppose the question you need to consider is why did she use the term "philosophical belief" at all? That's not the usual way to phrase that, except in the legal sense (and, indeed, if you google the phrase the only thing that comes up is the legal term). She's not referring to any particular school of philosophical thought, nor to any works of noted philosophers.

Do you think it's pure coincidence that she happened to use the very same legal phrase that was in the judgement she was referencing, and which the person she was advocating for described her opinion as being? She just independently came up with it and didn't realise that it was a legal term? Or did she understand that it was a legal term and deliberately chose to use it colloquially? Simply saying "a belief" or "a philosophy" would be a more usual phrasing.

I lean towards believing that an author, in an essay ostensibly about why it's important to use specific words, is likely to have taken some care with what words she used. But, again, I remain open to the possibility that she simply didn't know what the term she was using meant.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 24th June 2020, 08:29 AM   #303
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 28,915
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I have not done that. To the contrary, I've asked for specific examples of where she got something wrong.
And have hand-waved a thread full of them by choosing to redefine the word equivocation.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 24th June 2020, 08:34 AM   #304
JoeMorgue
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,662
We could say this about anything with the same passive voice of disdain.

"Oh so you're saying only people who predominantly use their right hands for task are real right handed people!?"

YES! Words mean things. Definitions are not sinister concepts.
JoeMorgue 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 24th June 2020, 08:37 AM   #305
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,202
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
But, again, I remain open to the possibility that she simply didn't know what the term she was using meant.
Are you open to the possibility that "philosophical belief" has a colloquial meaning that an author might reasonably expect laypeople to take from it when they encounter the phrase?

Look, you can keep on slamming Rowling for using the phrase in the sense that it has been used throughout the history of the English language rather than using it in the narrow legal sense.

Seems like a bit of a quibble, but hey whatevs.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n 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 24th June 2020, 08:40 AM   #306
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 28,915
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Intersex is a real, common used term, as is trans-sexual.
"Transgender" is usually preferred these days over "transsexual", although it's not something that is set in stone.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 24th June 2020, 08:42 AM   #307
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,202
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
And have hand-waved a thread full of them by choosing to redefine the word equivocation.
The first three examples were awful, it's not incumbent upon me to review the entire thread one by one.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n 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 24th June 2020, 08:43 AM   #308
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
What if this can be extended in the future so that trans-women can produce ova do to an ovary transplant?

https://www.infertile.com/woman-give...ant-operation/

Obviously tricky: the hormones would need to be carefully balanced and to give birth they would also need a uterus, etc, transplant. But wouldn’t that completely resolve the issue of if their “sex” was now female even by the gamete test?
Giordano 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 24th June 2020, 08:47 AM   #309
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,758
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I was responding to a post using the term “gender.”

Intersex is a real, common used term, as is trans-sexual.
You're still not understanding: Intersex is not a term that relates to gender!

Unless, that is, you consider that sex and gender and interchangeable terms. So which is it?

Quote:
And I’ve explained multiple times why I refuse to narrow my discussion to “sex” rather than gender.
I'm not asking you to. You seem to be knee-jerk responding to my posts because you keep missing the point even though I've written that point explicitly in my posts.

Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I have. But you seem to have adopted it too.
Quote me, or keep your posters straight. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I agree with anyone else.

Now, are you going to look up the word "intersex" as I suggested?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 24th June 2020 at 08:50 AM.
Belz... 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 24th June 2020, 08:53 AM   #310
JoeMorgue
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,662
If anything things like gender reassignment surgery, hormone treatments, and future possible technologies like womb or ova transplants prove the point, or at least make an entirely different one, that your sex is not a matter of your 'identity' but actual objective factors.

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 24th June 2020 at 09:42 AM.
JoeMorgue 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 24th June 2020, 08:58 AM   #311
JoeMorgue
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,662
A person going "I'm a biological male but I identify as a woman.... therefore I am going to make actual objective physical changes (gender reassignment surgery, hormone treatments, etc) to my body in order to achieve that identity or at least get closer to it (since we can't yet like... change chromosomes to my knowledge)" makes a lot more sense to me then "I'm a biological male, but I identity as a woman, therefore as of this moment I am a woman by fiat because I say so."
JoeMorgue 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 24th June 2020, 09:06 AM   #312
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,130
That One Crazy Person: You're not a woman without a fully developed vagina.

Cisnormative Society: Actually it's okay to be a woman without a fully developed vagina.

Transsexual: Actually I won't really feel okay about being a woman until I've gotten a reasonable facsimile of a fully developed vagina.

That Other Crazy Person: Actually it's not okay for you to think of me as a man now that I've told you I'm a woman. Yes, these are my testes, and yes I'm keeping them. Why do you ask?
theprestige 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 24th June 2020, 09:12 AM   #313
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,195
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
It wasn’t that I didn’t want it to be challenged but that I was surprised it was challenged. I continue to explain why it is deeply flawed. But how many times I want to repeat my rebuttals of that one point are very limited by how narrow and irrelevant I see it to be. If this is an argument only about sperm and ova production then it is boring to me.
Well none of your explanations or rebuttals have amounted to a cogent, let alone sound, argument for your claim that biological sex is not binary. If all you have left is to argue that, if only you use your own personal specially-chosen definitions of words, you can still make the proposition true then sure, I agree this is extremely boring. Heck, you haven't even given any definition of sex such that it would not be binary in the first place.

Quote:
Except for what little thrill I obtain by bringing up cis males and females who don’t make gametes at all, or “the wrong ones.”
Why would that give you a little thrill? And why do you think it's even possible for an organism to produce "the wrong types of gamete" - what does it mean to produce the "wrong" type of gamete? Wrong according to whom?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 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 24th June 2020, 09:23 AM   #314
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,195
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
What if this can be extended in the future so that trans-women can produce ova do to an ovary transplant?

https://www.infertile.com/woman-give...ant-operation/

Obviously tricky: the hormones would need to be carefully balanced and to give birth they would also need a uterus, etc, transplant. But wouldn’t that completely resolve the issue of if their “sex” was now female even by the gamete test?
Then that would make said individuals either "female" or "both" (depending on retention of sperm production) under the gamete definition, or such individuals would remain "male" under the SRY+androgen definition. No idea why you seem to have such difficulty applying simple definitions to simple examples.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 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 24th June 2020, 10:56 AM   #315
JoeMorgue
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,662
Okay brass tacks time, yet again in this discussion.

Biological factors. Genital structure, chromosomes, etc. These objective facts not open for debate or discussion or "personal identity." You can not identify as a person with a penis all you want, your schlong is still there regardless of your opinion on the matter.

These is binary* and not a matter of chosen personal identity anymore than your blood type is or your eye color. These exist and are not up for debate.

*Yes edge cases of actual medical conditions causing intersexed individuals are a thing, but for 99% of the population genital structure and chromosomes and the like are a consistent binary X or Y thing.

Social factors. Society puts expectations us due to our biological factors. Men are expected to do this, Women are expected to do this. This factors are very often at best arbitrary, at worse downright discriminatory or unfair and people have every right to fight against these unwanted expectations.

These shouldn't exist. They are not actual real world objective factors, they are ones created by societies. Mens wear this, women wear this. Men act this way, women act this way. Men hold these jobs, women hold these jobs.

Which one of those is "sex" and which one is "gender" I'm so completely over caring because the more people harp on about the difference being there the less they all seem in explaining that difference. So whatever. One is sex and one is gender. Or the other one is sex and the other one is gender. Or they are both sex. Or both gender. Or one is sex is the other one is Dancing the Charleston in a Tricorner Hat While Wearing Lederhosen. I don't care.

Now the transgender discussion always seems to wind up with a lot people arguing, without ever clarifying, from the position of some third category of completely internal distinction, something that's not inherently biological like genital structure or whatever but also not socially mandated like "Only women can wear" makeup and that's when the whole thing falls apart and puts right back at the "What I'm supposed to think differently?" question which I still haven't gotten anything resembling a valid answer to.

Okay. You're a biological man that identifies as a woman. What changes? I'm still not letting this go.

You don't want a penis anymore? Well sorry... can't help you there. A good surgeon could but that takes us right back to "Well that's just admitting that something physical has to change in order for your sexual identity to change."

You want to wear dresses instead of slacks? Fine I don't care that doesn't make you a woman, it's makes you a guy who wears dresses and there's nothing wrong that but men don't have to wear slacks and women don't have to wear dresses so I can't use that as some defining factor. Again when can't have gender stereotypes which only exist when they are subverted. So again nothing changes because "Wears dress" isn't a requirement to be a woman in my head, so you wearing one doesn't make you one. In order for you wearing a dress to make you a woman, I'd have to assign "Dress wearing" to women as a defining factor and I will not do that.

And then we just wind up right back at vague pleadings about "Being considered a woman" or "identifying as a woman" which is totally meaningless which you've removed all defining factors from the term and pure passive aggressive "Oh just do what they want, it doesn't hurt anything, why does it matter?" nonsense.

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 24th June 2020 at 11:03 AM.
JoeMorgue 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 24th June 2020, 11:23 AM   #316
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Then that would make said individuals either "female" or "both" (depending on retention of sperm production) under the gamete definition, or such individuals would remain "male" under the SRY+androgen definition. No idea why you seem to have such difficulty applying simple definitions to simple examples.
SRY + androgen definition is useless if one doesn’t have androgen receptors. It is as if you don’t have androgen at all. Plus there are XX women with more androgen than XY men. And trans-men receive a lot of androgen therapy, but to conceive with an ovary transplant one would probably be given a lot of estrogen and progesterones.

But my point is the senselessness of these definitions for the real topic of importance. An XY CAIS person appears to be completely female externally. Rumors have it that famous sexy actresses in were CAIS females. Do their XY karyotype matter or their SRY gene or the production of high androgens (which are really in practice the same thing) for how society viewed them, or should view them? Should they have been restricted to using the men’s restroom? Forced to compete in the Best male actor category of the Oscars? Those are the issues I thought this thread was about. Again if wrong I don’t need to stay here.

Last edited by Giordano; 24th June 2020 at 11:25 AM.
Giordano 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 24th June 2020, 11:34 AM   #317
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,202
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Now the transgender discussion always seems to wind up with a lot people arguing, without ever clarifying, from the position of some third category of completely internal distinction, something that's not inherently biological like genital structure or whatever but also not socially mandated like "Only women can wear" makeup and that's when the whole thing falls apart and puts right back at the "What I'm supposed to think differently?" question which I still haven't gotten anything resembling a valid answer to.
The first category you described sounds like "sex" (a set of genetic, primary and secondary physical characteristics which are usually aligned with each other) whereas the second one sounds like "gender expression" to me. The third category quoted above sounds like "gender identity." I think these are all covered in the approved definitions I linked from post 211.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n 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 24th June 2020, 11:37 AM   #318
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Well none of your explanations or rebuttals have amounted to a cogent, let alone sound, argument for your claim that biological sex is not binary. If all you have left is to argue that, if only you use your own personal specially-chosen definitions of words, you can still make the proposition true then sure, I agree this is extremely boring. Heck, you haven't even given any definition of sex such that it would not be binary in the first place.



Why would that give you a little thrill? And why do you think it's even possible for an organism to produce "the wrong types of gamete" - what does it mean to produce the "wrong" type of gamete? Wrong according to whom?
I’m being selective? I am arguing the broader, multi-criteria for defining men and women. I am arguing that gender, not sex, is the core of how trans people see themselves and how they are viewed by others. No one knows if they are producing sperm or ova or neither, nor do most people care. If a sexy women attracts your eye in a bar are you thinking about her gametes before you decide if you are attracted or not? When she walks into a restroom? Competes for Best Actress?

I have yet to see a reasonable response for my argument that if sex identity depends solely on producing sperm or ova, then what are young children, sterile adults, castrated males, or post menapausal women? Are they neither male nor female as some have tried to respond? Is that a practical definition? Is that how society actually views these people? Do we routinely assay for sperm or ova before we consider someone male or female? Unless you’ve had kids chances are you don’t even know the scientific status of your own gametes. Are you sure of your own sex?

The wrong gametes was referring to CAIS females, who the poster considered females (properly IMO) even though they produce (immature) sperm like prepubescent cis boys.

Last edited by Giordano; 24th June 2020 at 11:40 AM.
Giordano 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 24th June 2020, 11:50 AM   #319
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You're still not understanding: Intersex is not a term that relates to gender!

Unless, that is, you consider that sex and gender and interchangeable terms. So which is it?



I'm not asking you to. You seem to be knee-jerk responding to my posts because you keep missing the point even though I've written that point explicitly in my posts.



Quote me, or keep your posters straight. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I agree with anyone else.

Now, are you going to look up the word "intersex" as I suggested?
Please read what I write without the filter of what you would like to refute.

I am well aware of what intersex means. A big component of what I do involves endocrinology as well as cancer. Different people with different agendas like different definitions, But here is a nice solid definition from Planned Parenthood that most accept:

“Intersex is a general term used for a variety of situations in which a person is born with reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn't fit the boxes of “female” or “male.” Sometimes doctors do surgeries on intersex babies and children to make their bodies fit binary ideas of “male” or “female”.“

I have repeatedly stated that gender and sex (as defined here) are not the same, that gender is a much better term capturing what is the more important discussion.

If you don’t agree with the definition of sex meaning gamete type then why take me to task for my questioning of it? Why take me to task for preferring the broader criteria used for gender?
Giordano 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 24th June 2020, 11:54 AM   #320
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,957
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I’m being selective? I am arguing the broader, multi-criteria for defining men and women. I am arguing that gender, not sex, is the core of how trans people see themselves and how they are viewed by others.
Gender is how they see themselves. Sex is how other people see them, especially after they take off their clothes.

The difference between what you said and what I said is really important for understanding the major transgender fights of the day. In the locker room, a biological male will be seen as male. People talk about how someone "presents". The thing is, once you take off your clothes, you're going to present as whatever is between your legs.


That's something that the trans rights activists just can't seem to wrap their head around.
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
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 03:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.