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

[JGalt]

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.

Yeah, harmless until you wake up the next morning in bed with one.

 

[Seymour Flops]

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

Wow.

What an incredibly gender-fluid-phobic implication!

Here's my take: You want to redefine the word gender? Go ahead, words get redefined all the time, most often by misuse that is so common that people forget that it is misuse. Like "I could care less" instead of the correct, "I couldn't care less," or "begs the queston" used to mean "begs that the question be asked" instead of "avoids the question," which is the actual meaning.

Just don't expect typical people, who still use the word "gender" in its original meaning, to be impressed when you pretend to correct them by telling them to use the word as you do. Expect push back when you try to cancel average Americans whose beliefs are far from yours. Expect greater pushback when you use government to do it.

 

[Stann]

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.

GOD obviously loves variety, he probably coined the phrase , " Variety is the spice of life." So I guess you hate GOD.

 

[Stann]

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 only thing that is being taught is the need not to be prejudiced and hateful.

 

[Stann]

Link, please.

How many were murdered because they were transgender?

www.forbes.com 375 transgender people murdered in 2021 deadliest year since records began. November 11th 2021. ( 350 transgender people were murdered in 2020 ).

 

[the other mike]

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.

If consenting adults want to do freaky stuff with their bodies behind closed doors, nobody has a problem with that.

When it becomes a problem is when you start teaching 6-year-olds that they may or may not be boys or girls.

That is child abuse at best.

 

[jc456]

The only thing that is being taught is the need not to be prejudiced and hateful.

Oh fk no sweetie

 

[Stann]

If consenting adults want to do freaky stuff with their bodies behind closed doors, nobody has a problem with that.

When it becomes a problem is when you start teaching 6-year-olds that they may or may not be boys or girls.

That is child abuse at best.

Sex education courses in our in our schools also address prejudice and hatred. You forget some of these little boys and girls are transgender. If everyone is taught not to judge and hate others then everyone wins, especially the most vulnerable.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Once again, this you parrot the most ridiculous lies of the right wing billionaires who work to gin up the outrage against yet another marginalized group, so you don't see how they're robbing you blind.

 

[the other mike]

Sex education courses in our in our schools also address prejudice and hatred. You forget some of these little boys and girls are transgender. If everyone is taught not to judge and hate others then everyone wins, especially the most vulnerable.

As long as they have to watch at least three Rock Hudson movies, .... and for home-schoolers porn hub for kids.

 

[Stann]

As long as they have to watch at least three Rock Hudson movies, .... and for home-schoolers porn hub for kids.

I hope that an attempt at humor, otherwise it's just another ridiculous statement.

 

[the other mike]

I hope that an attempt at humor, otherwise it's just another ridiculous statement.

Let's just say don't always expect a typical answer from me... I'm only here to find out the truth about JFK ..... everything else is just peripheral to me.

I'll let you guess if I was trying to be funny or not again.

 

[Stann]

Let's just say don't always expect a typical answer from me... I'm only here to find out the truth about JFK ..... everything else is just peripheral to me.

I'll let you guess if I was trying to be funny or not again.

I'll go with the humor, it's a much better option giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[emilynghiem]

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 **** 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.

Dear yumegari: the dysphoria is a problem when the person isn't at peace with their gender and sex. If they were mentally balanced, they would be fine being different. In comparison: Many Buddhists, Atheists, Muslims are fine being different in identity and affiliation (and not feeling oppressed enough to "demand govt change laws to recognize Atheists Buddhist or Muslims as ABM people") just because Christians who impose their beliefs or who have killed Muslims in the past don't respect them for their beliefs.

Many more Muslims have been killed for their beliefs and identity, yet their protection is still under religious freedom. They do not require a special law just to protect Muslims from harassment and discrimination.

There is something else going on behind this lobbying to recognize LGBT which is equally faith based as any other internal identity.

That dysphoria is what needs to be addressed, not bandaging it by relying on govt to recognize it. Unless we all agree to stop abuse and discrimination against:
Christians Muslims Conservatives Liberals Democrats Anarchists Atheists Exgays Extrans etc etc

As for whether LGBT people are mentally healthy or have unhealthy issues, the process of healing is the same as any other people having issues: the healing and recovery process is based on forgiveness of past abuses or problems.

If you notice with politicized conflicts, the common factor is unforgiveness and fear. Part of the dysfunction requires resolving those factors.

We still need to address the discrimination and abuse. But should apply equally to all people and sides

It is most revealing that some other agenda is going on when even the LGBT inclusion activists "deny exclude harass and disparage" the ex gay and ex trans as illegitimate. By the time we include the X in LGBT, the process of healing and recovery it takes to stop that discrimination will enable health and healing globally for all groups.

This is already what the First Amendment should enforce, religious freedom and expression for everyone regardless of Creed and identity.

The dysphoria is not being at peace with oneself. The LGBT abusing govt to project that blame and responsibility on other people including abusing govt is disproportionate. Many people especially both liberals and conservatives suffer discrimination by Creed on a daily basis. If we are serious we would stop that bullying abuse which is far more common and affects everyone.

 

[Stann]

Dear yumegari: the dysphoria is a problem when the person isn't at peace with their gender and sex. If they were mentally balanced, they would be fine being different. In comparison: Many Buddhists, Atheists, Muslims are fine being different in identity and affiliation (and not feeling oppressed enough to "demand govt change laws to recognize Atheists Buddhist or Muslims as ABM people") just because Christians who impose their beliefs or who have killed Muslims in the past don't respect them for their beliefs.

Many more Muslims have been killed for their beliefs and identity, yet their protection is still under religious freedom. They do not require a special law just to protect Muslims from harassment and discrimination.

There is something else going on behind this lobbying to recognize LGBT which is equally faith based as any other internal identity.

That dysphoria is what needs to be addressed, not bandaging it by relying on govt to recognize it. Unless we all agree to stop abuse and discrimination against:
Christians Muslims Conservatives Liberals Democrats Anarchists Atheists Exgays Extrans etc etc

As for whether LGBT people are mentally healthy or have unhealthy issues, the process of healing is the same as any other people having issues: the healing and recovery process is based on forgiveness of past abuses or problems.

If you notice with politicized conflicts, the common factor is unforgiveness and fear. Part of the dysfunction requires resolving those factors.

We still need to address the discrimination and abuse. But should apply equally to all people and sides

It is most revealing that some other agenda is going on when even the LGBT inclusion activists "deny exclude harass and disparage" the ex gay and ex trans as illegitimate. By the time we include the X in LGBT, the process of healing and recovery it takes to stop that discrimination will enable health and healing globally for all groups.

This is already what the First Amendment should enforce, religious freedom and expression for everyone regardless of Creed and identity.

The dysphoria is not being at peace with oneself. The LGBT abusing govt to project that blame and responsibility on other people including abusing govt is disproportionate. Many people especially both liberals and conservatives suffer discrimination by Creed on a daily basis. If we are serious we would stop that bullying abuse which is far more common and affects everyone.

If it were just limited to bullying. Transgenders are murdered four times more often as cisgender individuals. Most of the time they are murdered just because of who they are. That hatred and prejudice is alive and well in the United States unfortunately. The current laws protecting gender identity are obviously not enough. Every American needs equality and justice under the law.

 

[Ringo]

 

[Leo123]

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?

That would be exceedingly rare if it could happen at all. Got any proof besides your belief?

 

[notmyfault2020]

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.

why do people not love themselves AS IS?

Why do they feel they have to go through some mutilation in order to... I dunno.. express themselves. I mean if a girl is a tomboy or a guy is effeminate (not gay), no one cares as long as he/she doesn't do perverse stuff. So why go to all that trouble and mutilate yourself when you can be any person you choose without mutilating yourself..? I mean, you can be artistic or non-artistic.. athletic or not.. THAT is who you are.. your interests, your talents.. your desire to help others.. .etc.. Why all the focus on gender? to the point u mutilate yourself?

In other words, why don't people spend time doing (whatever) according to their talents and interests and etc.. instead of obsessing about body parts?

 

[themirrorthief]

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 **** 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.

its not illegal to be a freaky weirdo bizarro...go for it...we need the laughs

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Playng an old fashion love schlong, I see.