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

[Stann]

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.

We all have our opinions, yours seems quite unusual to me. It sounds like a conspiracy theory.

 

[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.

There are examples of trans people throughout history. They represent a very small majority so they are seldom seen or heard. You're only hearing about them because they are become so threatened and so many have been murdered because of who they are.

 

[BrokeLoser]

There are examples of trans people throughout history. They represent a very small majority so they are seldom seen or heard. You're only hearing about them because they are become so threatened and so many have been murdered because of who they are.

How many have been murdered because of who they are?

 

[Stann]

How many have been murdered because of who they are?

Way too many.

 

[Stann]

How many have been murdered because of who they are?

Way too many.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Way too many.

How many…you must have the data?

 

[Stann]

How many…you must have the data?

375 transgenders were murdered in 2021, remember we were talking about a small minority you can multiply that by 100,000 if you want to make parallels to the general population. At any rate it's a crisis for transgendered people.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Brilliant post and well presented but it’s too simple and logical for this crowd.

They don’t need no stinking facts or data. They got feelings and people who don’t conform to gender expectations are the latest right wing dog whistle. The right goes bat shit crazy over trans people and they don’t even know why. Except they’re told to do it by their leaders.

 

[JGalt]

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.

Nice word salad. You could have at least put some ranch dressing on it to make it palatable.

Now let me ask you one question please: Can a biological male get pregnant?

 

[whitehall]

Go for it babe/dude but don't expect the rest of us to conform to your personal fantasy.

 

[jc456]

Brilliant post and well presented but it’s too simple and logical for this crowd.

They don’t need no stinking facts or data. They got feelings and people who don’t conform to gender expectations are the latest right wing dog whistle. The right goes bat shit crazy over trans people and they don’t even know why. Except they’re told to do it by their leaders.

showing off your projecting skills I see.

 

[jc456]

I believe you can be a man, say, and wind up with a girl's brain, or visa versa.



What do you do in that case?

I'd say that is most likely murder. I'm thinking. If you stole someone's brain, you must have had to kill said person to get their brain. Right?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Go for it babe/dude but don't expect the rest of us to conform to your personal fantasy.

Tolerance is not enough for the Stalinists, though. They demand that transexualism be taught, promoted, seen as the lone quality necessary to be given a high-profile job and otherwise treated as the latest fad in cutting-edge virtue signaling.

 

[the other mike]

Only two.....1 and 2.....

Male and female.

3
male, female
confused

 

[Rocko]

it’s a problem we never had in the past, but for the most part men that claim to be women are harmless. I couldn’t care less if a dude wants to be called a chick. The only issue I see is when dudes want to get in the ring with women and compete. That to me is a no no.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

it’s a problem we never had in the past, but for the most part men that claim to be women are harmless. I couldn’t care less if a dude wants to be called a chick. The only issue I see is when dudes want to get in the ring with women and compete. That to me is a no no.

O.k., sure, but your problem here is that you have common sense.

Don't you realize that this will prevent you from ever being accepted into the woke fraternity of lock step conformity?


Common sense is almost as bad as asking questions in today's hip and happening woketopia!

 

[jc456]

Tolerance is not enough for the Stalinists, though. They demand that transexualism be taught, promoted, seen as the lone quality necessary to be given a high-profile job and otherwise treated as the latest fad in cutting-edge virtue signaling.

barbarism returns.

 

[Ringo]

It seems that the ruling reptilians are just distracting us with all that LBGT crap from the really scary stuff.
And this world will not be destroyed by rainbow fagots of 1488 genders, but by quite heterosexual aging women, thrust into senior leadership positions in governments and armies of different countries.

 

[Markle]

375 transgenders were murdered in 2021, remember we were talking about a small minority you can multiply that by 100,000 if you want to make parallels to the general population. At any rate it's a crisis for transgendered people.

Link, please.

How many were murdered because they were transgender?

 

[jc456]

Link, please.

How many were murdered because they were transgender?

The same as Wuhan