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

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Gallup survey: 7.1% of American adults identify as LGBT+.

A couple of decades ago it was less than 2%. And, of course, the offensive of faggots in all spheres of activity does not play any role. "Innate", you say? Yes, of course!

The only effective poll on whether men are homo or not is to show them a picture of two men getting it on. The immediate reaction will reveal the truth.

 

[Stann]

Gallup survey: 7.1% of American adults identify as LGBT+.

A couple of decades ago it was less than 2%. And, of course, the offensive of faggots in all spheres of activity does not play any role. "Innate", you say? Yes, of course!

Gays used to marry to keep up a false front. I know very well, I am an older gay man, but most of my gay friends were married to women in their younger years. Finally we are in the age where the fear of being a homosexual is almost completely gone so now more and more are coming out of the closets. In a society where there is no cultural negativity attached to homosexuality I'm sure the gay population would be almost a third of the population as God intended.

 

[Stann]

The only effective poll on whether men are homo or not is to show them a picture of two men getting it on. The immediate reaction will reveal the truth.

That would include a lot of bisexual men, and curious, adventurous heterosexuals. True ( absolute ) homosexuals are a much smaller percent. Better to show them a picture of a man and a woman having sex, they probably be repulsed by that.

 

[Ringo]

In a society where there is no cultural negativity attached to homosexuality I'm sure the gay population would be almost a third of the population as God intended.

I don't even need to look at the picture of two men doing it, it's enough to read it...

 

[jc456]

I don't even need to look at the picture of two men doing it, it's enough to read it...

Right?
Butt fkers, ewwwww

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

That would include a lot of bisexual men, and curious, adventurous heterosexuals. True ( absolute ) homosexuals are a much smaller percent. Better to show them a picture of a man and a woman having sex, they probably be repulsed by that.

A real man would’ve repulsed by the homo picture and a homo man would be turned on.
Like a normal human would be repulsed by a pic of someone eating boogers.

 

[Stann]

I don't even need to look at the picture of two men doing it, it's enough to read it...

Extreme homosexuals would feel the same way about seeing a picture of a man and a woman doing it. You must be an extreme heterosexual. Both are tiny minorities of the population.

 

[Leo123]

Gays used to marry to keep up a false front. I know very well, I am an older gay man, but most of my gay friends were married to women in their younger years. Finally we are in the age where the fear of being a homosexual is almost completely gone so now more and more are coming out of the closets. In a society where there is no cultural negativity attached to homosexuality I'm sure the gay population would be almost a third of the population as God intended.

God created humans as 2 separate sexes with different bodies.

 

[Ringo]

Extreme homosexuals would feel the same way about seeing a picture of a man and a woman doing it. You must be an extreme heterosexual. Both are tiny minorities of the population.

And extreme feminists would feel, that Whoopi Goldberg should be nominated "Miss Universe". There 's enough crazy people in the world. The main thing, not to let them rule the opinion creation.
That's why they bun homo propaganda in Russia - to protect children from perversion.

 

[San Souci]

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.

Load of crap. These Trannys ae just sick fucks. Just like claiming to be a Werewolf. Time for Psycho therapy and MALE hormone treatment.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

How do you have everything backwords.

Two genders....male or female. Males wanting to be female, dressing as female, saying they are female are still males
Vice versa for the females.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Gays used to marry to keep up a false front. I know very well, I am an older gay man, but most of my gay friends were married to women in their younger years. Finally we are in the age where the fear of being a homosexual is almost completely gone so now more and more are coming out of the closets. In a society where there is no cultural negativity attached to homosexuality I'm sure the gay population would be almost a third of the population as God intended.

drugs do a lot of damage.

 

[Stann]

And extreme feminists would feel, that Whoopi Goldberg should be nominated "Miss Universe". There 's enough crazy people in the world. The main thing, not to let them rule the opinion creation.
That's why they bun homo propaganda in Russia - to protect children from perversion.

Extremists are the loudest of the people we have. Fortunately their voice does not rule. The rule of the majority and the majority are reasonable rules.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Extremists are the loudest of the people we have. Fortunately their voice does not rule. The rule of the majority and the majority are reasonable rules.

Only if you're a fan of mob rule, and your idea of "reasonable" is at a third-grade level. I think I'll stick with the concept of inalienable rights protected from the mob by a Constitution, if it's all the same to you. Or even if it's not.

 

[Stann]

Only if you're a fan of mob rule, and your idea of "reasonable" is at a third-grade level. I think I'll stick with the concept of inalienable rights protected from the mob by a Constitution, if it's all the same to you. Or even if it's not.

No I totally support the Constitution it protects all of our citizens.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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'm a 60 year old man but I identify as your granddaughters 16 year old boyfriend.

Fucking idiot

 

[Cecilie1200]

No I totally support the Constitution it protects all of our citizens.

If you really think you support the Constitution while also thinking "The rule of the majority and the majority are reasonable rules", then you're even less bright than I think you are, and spend a lot of time just spewing whatever goes through your head without bothering to think it through first.

The Constitution, by purpose and design, stands in opposition to majority rule. It exists precisely to thwart majority rule, to state that there are some things the majority cannot violate, no matter how big a majority agrees on it.

 

[22lcidw]

Gays used to marry to keep up a false front. I know very well, I am an older gay man, but most of my gay friends were married to women in their younger years. Finally we are in the age where the fear of being a homosexual is almost completely gone so now more and more are coming out of the closets. In a society where there is no cultural negativity attached to homosexuality I'm sure the gay population would be almost a third of the population as God intended.

People have been screwed with in the past. Unfortunately, I believe this was pushed by globalists and other agendas to force resources n us and to affect Hetero marriages. Once in full control, they will tighten the vice grip on all people as the resources that the one-time United States had is now distributed to other nations. A tougher life will make many people not in the best mood. And the traditional ways will be found to keep people living slightly better and with less in the general population.

 

[Stann]

Where in my argument did I say there were more than two genders?

I believe you meant to say more than two sexes. As we both know there are many types of genders.

 

[Stann]

If you really think you support the Constitution while also thinking "The rule of the majority and the majority are reasonable rules", then you're even less bright than I think you are, and spend a lot of time just spewing whatever goes through your head without bothering to think it through first.

The Constitution, by purpose and design, stands in opposition to majority rule. It exists precisely to thwart majority rule, to state that there are some things the majority cannot violate, no matter how big a majority agrees on it.

You are really confused. The Constitution protects all people, that includes people that the majority attempts to malign.