What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CDZ Why is gender-nonconformity bad? Alternatively, why must one's gender align with their sex?

peacefan

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
670
Reaction score
195
Points
180
Dude, you're getting into a conversation with people who don't think like you do. And wonder why you're getting so triggered?

That's retarded. And an almost exact definition of trolling.
pot calling the kettle black.

i was merely defending my own viewpoints for a while here,
without getting triggered in the slightest by the way,
so i'd say we are both far from retarded.
we just don't like each other at all, and neither of us has a problem hiding that.

and now i'm gonna get some rest, i've worked 10 hours today and it's about bed-time in my locality (Netherlands).
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
42,691
Reaction score
7,571
Points
1,830
From other recent posts by you, i gather that you hate 'socialists', and other groups that differ significantly from you ...
I don't hate socialists, I just think they're wrong. I have no problem with people who are significantly different than me.
and i guesstimate that you are a republican supporter ...
You guesstimate wrong.
who "does not care about severe economic inequality", even when that causes severe hunger.
Inequality doesn't cause severe hunger. You're thinking of poverty.
But you cross the line into actual trolling whenever you start verbally attacking individuals from other sub-cultures (like 'socialists' or 'cancel-culture' or 'gays' or 'whatever aint fully republican')
Socialism isn't a sub-culture. It's a political ideology. One that I think is dangerously misguided. As to the rest, can you provide examples? I don't recall slamming gays, I actually support cancel culture and I'm not a republican. You're making a lot of presumptions. Wanna try again?
 

peacefan

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
670
Reaction score
195
Points
180
I don't hate socialists, I just think they're wrong. I have no problem with people who are significantly different than me.
That's such a relief, to hear you say that :D
You guesstimate wrong.

Inequality doesn't cause severe hunger. You're thinking of poverty.
but *severe* inequality does cause hunger (denying that is denying reality as it exists today and made clear even in mass-media news),
and you said you had no problem with either of that.
Socialism isn't a sub-culture. It's a political ideology. One that I think is dangerously misguided. As to the rest, can you provide examples? I don't recall slamming gays, I actually support cancel culture and I'm not a republican. You're making a lot of presumptions. Wanna try again?
a political ideology *is* a sub-culture :D

so how do you describe yourself then?
which sub-cultures do you gladly call yourself a part of?
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
42,691
Reaction score
7,571
Points
1,830
That's such a relief, to hear you say that :D

but *severe* inequality does cause hunger (denying that is denying reality as it exists today and made clear even in mass-media news),
and you said you had no problem with either of that.
I addressed that. Inequality doesn't cause hunger. Lack of food causes hunger. You can have wild inequality with little or no poverty. I'm not saying that is currently the case, but my point is that inequality isn't the culprit, poverty is. Poverty isn't correlated to inequality. Societies can have a lot of inequality and very little poverty, and you can find countries where everyone is equal but they're all dirt poor.

In my view, targeting "inequality", rather than poverty, is a bait-and-switch attempt by socialists who want general state control of the economy (wealth and property) more than they want to help the poor.
so how do you describe yourself then?
Smart, funny and drop-dead sexy.
which sub-cultures do you gladly call yourself a part of?
Ski bums.
 

peacefan

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
670
Reaction score
195
Points
180
I addressed that. Inequality doesn't cause hunger. Lack of food causes hunger. You can have wild inequality with little or no poverty. I'm not saying that is currently the case, but my point is that inequality isn't the culprit, poverty is. Poverty isn't correlated to inequality. Societies can have a lot of inequality and very little poverty, and you can find countries where everyone is equal but they're all dirt poor.
according to me, inequality inherently creates and prolongs poverty.
and severe inequality creates severe poverty.

In my view, targeting "inequality", rather than poverty, is a bait-and-switch attempt by socialists who want general state control of the economy (wealth and property) more than they want to help the poor.
socialists come in all sorts and flavors.
not all are after communism.

in my country (Netherlands) we have strong inequality, but very little actual poverty.
this is because our government values a strong social safety net and tax-sponsored social services.

Smart, funny and drop-dead sexy.
self-confident to the arrogant level too, then.

Ski bums.
i was more interested in which political sub-cultures you like to call yourself a part of.
 

Hang on sloopy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2015
Messages
9,651
Reaction score
12,034
Points
2,288
I'll preface this by saying that I have never made a thread on any forum, nor have I explored the CDZ. I read the guidelines for this subsection, and I didn't encounter anything outlining any specific format which these debates must follow, so long as the exchange remains respectful. Thus, if I miss any rules with regards to the creation of this thread, please do tell me.

I will start this thread off with a claim or a series of interrelated claims, followed by definitions with regards to those claim(s), and then I will outline a simple argument justifying those claim(s) What I seek out of this thread is a firm counterargument to one or more of these claims, based in a traditional secular argument.

Claims
  1. Gender is not defined by sex.
  2. Gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness.
  3. There is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.
Definitions
  1. Sex, defined as the chromosome configuration you are born with.
  2. Gender, defined as the personality traits traditionally associated with one sex or the other (i.e., femininity, masculinity).
  3. Gender-nonconforming, defined as someone that does not align with the gender associated with their sex.
  4. Accommodation, defined as allowing these gender-nonconforming individuals to do anything others within their own gender are allowed to do, given their biology does not offer them a distinct advantage.
  5. Secular, this really shouldn't need to be defined, but some people seem to think "secular" means "atheist." No, it doesn't. Secular means areligious. Religious people can and do make secular arguments, because every argument they make where they do not use religion or spirit as a crutch is a secular argument.
Arguments
  1. Gender is not defined by sex. I'm sure we can agree that it is fundamentally undeniable that biological men and biological women have a set of statistically distinct traits, both physiological and psychological, and that to some extent, these traits are caused by biology. The extent to which they're caused by biology is irrelevant to our purposes here, but what is relevant is the word "statistical." In any group, including humans at-large, there is a statistical norm for any trait you'd like to pick out of the bunch (given that it may be measured numerically). However, that statistical norm is just that: statistical and a norm. Every group on this planet, including the two demographically-dominant sexes, regularly see traits that deviate significantly from the statistical norm.

    Case-in-point: height (see: fig. 1). As shown in this neat little chart, and as you probably already know, biological men are statistically taller than biological women. But a statistically significant chunk of men are shorter than a statistically significant chunk of women.

    Now, what does height have to do with gender? Gender is not synonymous with sex. Even if you are to claim that gender must align with someone's sex, the two are not the same. Gender is a set of traits that we traditionally associate with one sex or another, often pertaining to personality. As in, "men are assertive." Or, "women are neurotic." These two statements are provably true (See: fig. 2), just like sex-height claims, assuming that they are statistical statements, not absolute statements. Men are indeed more assertive. Women indeed are more neurotic. But the thing is, not all men are assertive. And not all women are neurotic. Just like with height, there is a great deal of overlap between the sexes, and there lay the issue of claiming that gender must align with one's sex.

    If a biological female's personality traits firmly fall inside the "masculine" box, and they believe the associations made with the term "male" and the pronouns "he/him" more accurately fit them, how is that wrong? I'd argue it isn't, because this individual's gender, their personality--every visible and relevant trait--goes against the gender they were assigned at birth. This is statistically evident through basic trait variance. Therefore, gender is not defined by sex.
  2. Gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness. Assuming that the prior claim is true, it cannot be reasonably claimed that being gender-nonconforming is in itself irrational, given that there is no intrinsic part of gender-nonconformity that does not comport with reality. However, the topic of mental illness is completely different.

    I will start by saying there is a distinction between gender dysphoria and gender nonconformity. Gender-nonconformity is exactly how I defined it, but gender dysphoria is when the misalignment between your assigned gender and your perceived gender causes distress. Gender dysphoria is therefore a mental illness, not because gender-nonconformity is a mental illness, but rather because of the anxiety and depression that some face in light of this misalignment. The solution to mental illnesses, if possible, is to address the route cause, not to squash the symptoms; in this case, the route cause is that misalignment, so the solution is the rectification of that misalignment. Therefore, gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness.
  3. Last but not least, there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming. A "secular" reason, in my mind, is any reason guided by enlightenment rationality. Appeals to authority do not fall under "secular" reasoning, and quoting a religious text as a reason is an appeal to authority. While I am not denying the right of the individual to accept whomever they'd like into their lives, and to refer to others how they wish within the confines of their own property, my claim here is that non-accommodation of the gender-nonconforming has no rational basis.

    The reasoning here is simple. If one is to do something entirely rational, as follows in my second claim, and this rational action does not impose itself on the well-being of others, others can not rationally act in a discriminatory manner against them. The same applies to the assumption of an identity which does not associate itself with actions that are either irrational and/or impose themselves on the well-being of others. Gender-nonconformity is not irrational, as per the second argument, and it does not intrinsically harm the well-being of others, therefore there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.
Images

Figure 1: Relationship between height and biological sex
View attachment 551503

Figure 2: Relationship between big five personality and gender, compared between executives and non-executives
View attachment 551470

Notes (edited in after the fact, because this dumb fuck accidentally posted this early)
  1. I will be using the big five personality measurements and the data regarding that as my back-up for any personality-related claims or arguments. Not only is it the most respected in the scientific community, it also has been thoroughly researched on many fronts, and that wealth of statistics is very useful for the purposes of an argument. Read more about it here.

    Yes, this is a Wikipedia page. If you request a more direct source, I will provide you one.
Could you summarize your post in about 3 sentences. No one will read all this. You're giving us a dissertation.

He who posts the less says the most
 

YoursTruly

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2019
Messages
2,034
Reaction score
1,203
Points
930
Trannies are weirdo's.


There. That solves the problem. Now if trannies would go back to understanding how others think they're weird, and keep that shit to themselves, we'd all be better off.
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
42,691
Reaction score
7,571
Points
1,830
Trannies are weirdo's.

Well, they are weird. So what?

Libs seem to have this passion to normalize every odd quirk humans might exhibit, and I see no need for that. By all means, everyone should have equal rights under the law. Beyond that, we all have our preferences - and we have a right to them.
 

YoursTruly

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2019
Messages
2,034
Reaction score
1,203
Points
930
Well, they are weird. So what?

Libs seem to have this passion to normalize every odd quirk humans might exhibit, and I see no need for that. By all means, everyone should have equal rights under the law. Beyond that, we all have our preferences - and we have a right to them.

I don't have to tell you this, because most normal folks have already thought about it. But for the others, normal working class Americans have lost their jobs because they didn't call some dude "Ma'am."

These people are insane. In cases like I mentioned, they have more rights than normal folks.

Teacher fired for refusing to use transgender student's pronouns

Here's a weirdo trying to act like a Karen. It's hilarious.
 

Resnic

Diamond Member
Joined
May 2, 2021
Messages
2,662
Reaction score
2,881
Points
1,908
Only two.....1 and 2.....

Male and female.

Aside from the rare genetic anomaly you are correct. Humans are either born male or female, that is it.

You have 2 sexes/genders - male and female.

You only have 4 sexual orientations - straight, gay, bi, and asexual. Anything beyond that is still one of those 4 categories. The reasons as to why you would be one of them can vary, but you're still just one of those 4 and dressing up those reasons with long explanations and definitions still doesn't change that. You either like the opposite sex, your own sex, both sexes, or you're someone who has no desire for sex in any capacity.

There are over 7.5 billion people in this world, that's too many to pretend I care about the pretences of even 1% of them. Plus one day I'll be dead and it won't matter. So I'll stick purely to what biology, genetics, and facts have shown us that there are only 2 sexes, beyond that I don't care enough to worry about helping someone else live out their fantasies of a multitude of genders and sexes.
 

Resnic

Diamond Member
Joined
May 2, 2021
Messages
2,662
Reaction score
2,881
Points
1,908
Well, they are weird. So what?

Libs seem to have this passion to normalize every odd quirk humans might exhibit, and I see no need for that. By all means, everyone should have equal rights under the law. Beyond that, we all have our preferences - and we have a right to them.

But they don't have a right to force them on others or try to force other people what to say or what to think.

I don't care if someone is a tranny, but that's their business and not mine. They can pretend to be whatever they want, but they don't have a right to tell me to change my language for them, lie to indulge their fantasy, or tell me I need to ignore scientific fact.

They can be anything they want, but it's not my responsibility to make sure I play a part in their cosplay.
 

sartre play

Gold Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
6,479
Reaction score
1,554
Points
140
Peoples sexual preferences I Have zero interest in. ... Adults sexual Legal anything, private matter.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
51,998
Reaction score
12,134
Points
2,220
Location
PNW
I don't care if a person sees themselves as whatever, I am good with that and let them live and let live.

Where I have issues is when they demand that I recognize and call them what they want me to call them. I leave them alone and they should return in kind.
 

Resnic

Diamond Member
Joined
May 2, 2021
Messages
2,662
Reaction score
2,881
Points
1,908
Peoples sexual preferences I Have zero interest in. ... Adults sexual Legal anything, private matter.

At the end of the day the only time someone else's sexual preferences or interests interest me is someone I'm doing it with. Other than that there 7.5 billion people in this world, I couldn't give a shit about what they all like or don't.

If I'm not doing it with you then I don't care.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top