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

[yumegari]

People have their opinions, and they may not agree with you, and they may not want to take the time to engage with YOU.
But, they have every right to post in your thread as long as it's within the parameters of our posting guidelines.

I don't deny it. I never said they don't have the right to post here, but they sure as hell are going to be called out for making claims if they aren't going to argue them.

My biggest issue is the transgenders crossing over to women sports, not sure I read where you addressed that.

I didn't explicitly address it, but here's where I accommodated that:

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.

I stated that the accommodation of the gender-nonconforming should not extend to cases where biology does not offer them a distinct advantage. Sports are a case where biology may offer them a distinct advantage.

---

Gender non-conformity is not "bad", it's impossible.

A person can only be one gender or the other, that which they were born with. Of course there is that occasional hermaphrodite, but those are rarely-occurring freaks of nature.

Gender is completely and entirely the personality traits we associate with sex, not sex itself. Even if you use another word other than "gender" to define that, it doesn't change my argument at all.

Gender non-conformity is when you have a set of traits that do not conform with the traits traditionally assigned to one sex or another, and you desire to use another label (which I would argue should always be "male," "female," or "non-binary") to reflect the fact that your traits are, fairly undeniably, incongruent with the traits traditionally assigned to your sex.

---

I have no problem with individuals who like to "believe" that despite being born with the XY chromosomes, they consider themselves female or some other......thing.?

I'm sure they exist, but I've never met a transgender individual that "believes" they aren't the sex they were born as. They simply believe there's a misalignment between their biology and the cultural assumptions made about people with their biology.

Those individuals can live however they like. What I do not agree with is that we are supposed to be required to play "pretend" along with them.

I said nothing about you being required to do anything. I said it's irrational not to.

Also, where is there any pretending involved?

I also draw the line with those that insist that as individuals, they be referred to as...."they, those and them." Should I run into one of those nut-jobs, I will inform them that as soon as they perform binary fission, as does the ameba, right then and there, I will at that time, refer to such as "they or them." As they cannot and they are in actuality an individual entity, I will only refer to them in the singular form.

"they/them" can be singular. This is a grammatical feature.

If they wish to throw a childish tantrum over it, I don't care.

How about if they respectfully, calmly, and maturely argue you on it? I've met transgenders that will throw tantrums, just like I've met many members of many groups that will throw tantrums, but they simply aren't the bulk.

If one were to trace the latter's reason for this stance, it will no doubt be found coming out of their local college or university professors, pushing it as part of their, divide the nation goal.

Not too sure about that. Outside of sociology and psychology, where these topics are inherently relevant, I've never encountered professors "pushing" anything regarding transgenderism onto me. Unless you consider requiring me not to intentionally inflame others a form of "pushing" something onto me.

---

The wacko libbies think sexuality is another dumb game they can play with. They will pay heavily for their blasphemy of Nature.

If this goes against nature, humans have been going against nature for a really long time. Gender-nonconformity isn't a strictly modern thing.

---

What the left practices should be called "crimes against nature."

Not saying you claimed this, but just as an FYI, I'm not a leftist. Or a democrat, for that matter.

A person can no more be non-conforming to their gender, than they can be non-conforming to their species.

There is nothing biological that imposes a gender onto anyone, there most definitely is something biological that imposes one's own species.

I can't just wake up one morning and decide that I want to be a horse.

Once again.

---

Validating ‘transgenderism’ should be a very simple process that shouldn’t require big fancy words or loose theories.

Don't see too many big fancy words or loose theories. Every single one of these words I'm using existed well before I came along, or any of you. The only difference is how I combine them, perhaps, but that should be simple enough to grasp.

Just tell us where all these trans people were before the Left made ‘fucked in the head’ cool. The bearded woman at the circus doesn’t count.

Alright. Would you like me to start listing cultures throughout history where transgenderism was socially accepted? Along with sources, of course.

---

Traits do not define a person.

I'd partially agree, actually. Though, traits themselves are really quite relevant. A person is the (personality) traits that make them up, after all. Labels are what shouldn't define people, because labels are ways to group together different types of people and apply traits to them that may not universally comport. That's actually the basis of this argument. You really cannot get rid of the label, or at the very least I can't think of any historical example of a culture just deciding to get rid of a label, and removing all the traits associated with that label. Rather, this accommodates those people that don't conform with that label by making that label the choice of those that make it up.

That's allowing the culture to define you.

Yeah, like most transgenders would recognize, the reason dysphoria occurs is because every aspect of culture is constantly putting pressure on you to let it define you. And throughout all of history, one of the strongest points of pressure has been in regards to gender, and the norms we associate with it.

You can say "ignore that pressure," but no group throughout history has just "ignored the pressure." That's not how people work, that's not how society works. Besides, even if we want to look at this from an individual perspective, this is a simple and rationally consistent way to relieve that pressure, and allow for the effort involved in manifesting oneself to be directed elsewhere.

 

[Muhammed]

What about hermaphrodites?

They're the exception that proves the general rule.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Validating ‘transgenderism’ should be a very simple process that shouldn’t require big fancy words or loose theories.
Just tell us where all these trans people were before the Left made ‘fucked in the head’ cool. The bearded woman at the circus doesn’t count.

Alright. Would you like me to start listing cultures throughout history where transgenderism was socially accepted? Along with sources, of course.

I'm asking you a very simple question....why were there no trans people in America before the Left concocted their no boundaries, no decency, no morality, anything goes, free for all bullshit?

 

[JohnDB]

I don't deny it. I never said they don't have the right to post here, but they sure as hell are going to be called out for making claims if they aren't going to argue them.

I didn't explicitly address it, but here's where I accommodated that:

I stated that the accommodation of the gender-nonconforming should not extend to cases where biology does not offer them a distinct advantage. Sports are a case where biology may offer them a distinct advantage.

---

Gender is completely and entirely the personality traits we associate with sex, not sex itself. Even if you use another word other than "gender" to define that, it doesn't change my argument at all.

Gender non-conformity is when you have a set of traits that do not conform with the traits traditionally assigned to one sex or another, and you desire to use another label (which I would argue should always be "male," "female," or "non-binary") to reflect the fact that your traits are, fairly undeniably, incongruent with the traits traditionally assigned to your sex.

---

I'm sure they exist, but I've never met a transgender individual that "believes" they aren't the sex they were born as. They simply believe there's a misalignment between their biology and the cultural assumptions made about people with their biology.

I said nothing about you being required to do anything. I said it's irrational not to.

Also, where is there any pretending involved?

"they/them" can be singular. This is a grammatical feature.

How about if they respectfully, calmly, and maturely argue you on it? I've met transgenders that will throw tantrums, just like I've met many members of many groups that will throw tantrums, but they simply aren't the bulk.

Not too sure about that. Outside of sociology and psychology, where these topics are inherently relevant, I've never encountered professors "pushing" anything regarding transgenderism onto me. Unless you consider requiring me not to intentionally inflame others a form of "pushing" something onto me.

---

If this goes against nature, humans have been going against nature for a really long time. Gender-nonconformity isn't a strictly modern thing.

---

Not saying you claimed this, but just as an FYI, I'm not a leftist. Or a democrat, for that matter.

There is nothing biological that imposes a gender onto anyone, there most definitely is something biological that imposes one's own species.

Once again.

---

Don't see too many big fancy words or loose theories. Every single one of these words I'm using existed well before I came along, or any of you. The only difference is how I combine them, perhaps, but that should be simple enough to grasp.

Alright. Would you like me to start listing cultures throughout history where transgenderism was socially accepted? Along with sources, of course.

---

I'd partially agree, actually. Though, traits themselves are really quite relevant. A person is the (personality) traits that make them up, after all. Labels are what shouldn't define people, because labels are ways to group together different types of people and apply traits to them that may not universally comport. That's actually the basis of this argument. You really cannot get rid of the label, or at the very least I can't think of any historical example of a culture just deciding to get rid of a label, and removing all the traits associated with that label. Rather, this accommodates those people that don't conform with that label by making that label the choice of those that make it up.

Yeah, like most transgenders would recognize, the reason dysphoria occurs is because every aspect of culture is constantly putting pressure on you to let it define you. And throughout all of history, one of the strongest points of pressure has been in regards to gender, and the norms we associate with it.

You can say "ignore that pressure," but no group throughout history has just "ignored the pressure." That's not how people work, that's not how society works. Besides, even if we want to look at this from an individual perspective, this is a simple and rationally consistent way to relieve that pressure, and allow for the effort involved in manifesting oneself to be directed elsewhere.

I came from the generation that had some of the biggest NFL stars doing decidedly feminine hobbies and very feminine women doing very decidedly male hobbies.

We were the Reverend Mr. Rogers generation...
We liked what we liked and didn't care a thing about what anyone said.

And Aesop's Fables had a fable about listening to others...
But others never did.

Between the gender disphoria of young people and the homosexual community trying to brainwash people....no wonder kids are dazed and confused.

 

[Ringel05]

Personally I could care less what someone wants to identify themselves as, heck if they claim to be a unicorn then that's their business not mine. If I choose not to address them as such then that's my business not theirs and don't try and force me to do so........ As a former cop I view unisex restrooms as extremely problematic especially for women and girls. Regardless of what one identifies as if one has male genitals then they need to use the men's room and the same for women, they need to use the lady's room. And I agree that transgenders should not be allowed to compete alongside women in sports, transgenders have a strong edge over most women in this case making it unfair for the biological women.
As for myself I occasionally self identify as Ming the Merciless......... The only time I become gender fluid is when the men's room is out of order......... And the lady's room is a one seater.........

 

[BrokeLoser]

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.

Pandora's Box has been opened.....if people can "choose" a gender they most certainly can choose ethnicity as well.
Where does it end? When does rudimentary biology play a role?

 

[Stann]

Like always, with the left, it's a play on words.........gender, fetus, etc., etc.

Greatest is the correct scientific name. Unborn child is a play on words, one the far right have really pushed. trump had the audacity to forbid HHS to use the scientific word fetus. It's just plain sick.

 

[Stann]

Greatest is the correct scientific name. Unborn child is a play on words, one the far right have really pushed. trump had the audacity to forbid HHS to use the scientific word fetus. It's just plain sick.

Correction: Fetus is the correct scientific name.

 

[Marianne]

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.

Sorry I’m not reading all that.

Gender until recently defined by leftist psychobabble was understood to be in reference to one’s physical sex.

What the left is actually referring to is sexual preference. This has nothing to do with sex/gender. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is not my business.

As for mental illness, it can be the result of mental illness. This is not to say LGBTQ feelings are an illness, the heart wants what the heart wants. What is a mental illness is not accepting yourself as what you were born as to the point of surgery. There’s an illness called Body Integrity Identity Disorder where the patient feels an urge to cut off a healthy appendage. There’s another illness called Body Dysmorphic Disorder where a person is obsessed with what they perceive as a flaw in their appearance.
People who have sex change operations are suffering from these disorders. The proof is simple. Go to your doctor and tell him you want your otherwise healthy arm removed. Will he do it? No. Go to your doctor and tell them to give your healthy breast a mastectomy or your healthy uterus a hysterectomy or surgically casterate a healthy penis. They won’t do it. But tell them you’re gay and suddenly it’s ok? It shouldn’t be. They won’t remove my healthy arm or leg why should they remove and try to reconfigure healthy sex organs? They shouldn’t. That person needs therapy not surgery. The issue goes much deeper. What ever your sexual preference you should accept yourself the way you are. If you can’t, surgery isn’t going too. All those unhappy feelings will still be there once the surgery is done because your issue isn’t your body, it’s you hating on you. You need to go figure out why.

Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) is a rare, infrequently studied and highly secretive condition in which there is a mismatch between the mental body image and the physical body. Subjects suffering from BIID have an intense desire to amputate a ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Body dysmorphic disorder - Symptoms and causes

www.mayoclinic.org

 

[Stann]

Sorry I’m not reading all that.

Gender until recently defined by leftist psychobabble was understood to be in reference to one’s physical sex.

What the left is actually referring to is sexual preference. This has nothing to do with sex/gender. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is not my business.

As for mental illness, it can be the result of mental illness. This is not to say LGBTQ feelings are an illness, the heart wants what the heart wants. What is a mental illness is not accepting yourself as what you were born as to the point of surgery. There’s an illness called Body Integrity Identity Disorder where the patient feels an urge to cut off a healthy appendage. There’s another illness called Body Dysmorphic Disorder where a person is obsessed with what they perceive as a flaw in their appearance.
People who have sex change operations are suffering from these disorders. The proof is simple. Go to your doctor and tell him you want your otherwise healthy arm removed. Will he do it? No. Go to your doctor and tell them to give your healthy breast a mastectomy or your healthy uterus a hysterectomy or surgically casterate a healthy penis. They won’t do it. But tell them you’re gay and suddenly it’s ok? It shouldn’t be. They won’t remove my healthy arm or leg why should they remove and try to reconfigure healthy sex organs? They shouldn’t. That person needs therapy not surgery. The issue goes much deeper. What ever your sexual preference you should accept yourself the way you are. If you can’t, surgery isn’t going too. All those unhappy feelings will still be there once the surgery is done because your issue isn’t your body, it’s you hating on you. You need to go figure out why.

Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) is a rare, infrequently studied and highly secretive condition in which there is a mismatch between the mental body image and the physical body. Subjects suffering from BIID have an intense desire to amputate a ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Body dysmorphic disorder - Symptoms and causes

www.mayoclinic.org

I can assure you, most non-conventional gender people are happy with themselves. The real problem seems to be those who are upset that it exists.

 

[Markle]

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.

Your point being?

 

[Stann]

Validating ‘transgenderism’ should be a very simple process that shouldn’t require big fancy words or loose theories.
Just tell us where all these trans people were before the Left made ‘fucked in the head’ cool. The bearded woman at the circus doesn’t count.

Validating ‘transgenderism’ should be a very simple process that shouldn’t require big fancy words or loose theories.
Just tell us where all these trans people were before the Left made ‘fucked in the head’ cool. The bearded woman at the circus doesn’t count.

 

[Stann]

Does Joan of Arc count ?

 

[the other mike]

This aught to be good.........

So much for CDZ rules ^^

 

[Marianne]

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.

“there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming “

Yes there is. In certain situations there’s problems. In example the restroom. The LGBTQ seems to think that transgender males should pee in the ladies room because they identify as female. It’s argued that they aren’t interested in females so they are no threat. I disagree

1 how do you know the person is actually transgender and not some perv trying to get a free peek in the ladies room? You don’t

2 How do you know they aren’t a rapist or pedophile in drag? You don’t.

3 How do you know the transgender isn’t bisexual and just being a perv? You don’t.

Men have greater muscle mass so in general are physically stronger than women. That’s a big risk for a female to take just to go to the bathroom. Then you get into the mental effects this could have on rape victims it’s unacceptable.

SPORTS is another area. As mentioned above men have greater muscle mass. This doesn’t physically change just because you identify as a woman. This give the transgender male an unfair advantage over the biological females.

Transgender Karen’s. You look like a dude but you’re name is Tiffany. Don’t go off on me if I address you as miss or mam instead of sir. Your confusing sexual orientation is not my problem. There’s a female lawyer in my town who dresses like a dude but still addresses herself as female. You can’t get offended over an honest mistake.

 

[the other mike]

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.

I have a better question.
Why is gender-nonconformity even a word ?

 

[Stann]

Pandora's Box has been opened.....if people can "choose" a gender they most certainly can choose ethnicity as well.
Where does it end? When does rudimentary biology play a role?

They always have, ever hear of Joan of Arc, Roman emperor Elagabalus, historian Cassius Dio, Navajo nadleehi, Zuni lhamana , the third sex hijras of India numbering over 1million. As well as large populations in Bangladesh, Thailand. People that don't fit gender boxes in our society, have existed since ancient times at least 4,500 years. We are foolish to think human nature is going to change.

 

[Ringel05]

So much for CDZ rules ^^

What? That I considered the thread to be highly entertaining? How is that a violation of the CDZ rules?

 

[the other mike]

What? That I considered the thread to be highly entertaining? How is that a violation of the CDZ rules?

Upon further observation, I guess it isn't.
My bad.

 

[Plow Boy]

I really like women, they are soft and usually smell good. I don’t know why anyone would want to be the other sex.