Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
Definitions are pretty relevant, to be fair. I am totally open to you proposing alternative definitions, but even if you change the definitions that doesn't really change my argument. At all, really. The definitions just make my argument easier to describe.
Sure there is. I think most trans people are completely insane and I won't teach anybody that they're not. I refuse to lie about what I believe, though I know the left would love for everybody to just stop having opinions.There is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.
Most normal people just say baby, and what's really sick is the people who want to kill them.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.
They would have you believe that that suicide rate is the fault of everybody else. The left takes no responsibility for itself, ever.The suicide rate for transgenders is almost 40%, I can see why after reading this obsessive paranoid dribble.
"Stop talking!"you shouldn't be posting here
They should have their chromosomes tested, and find out if they are XX or XY or something else. Anything without a Y should be defaulted to female sex organs and thusly the penis should be removed.What about hermaphrodites?
What about hermaphrodites?
They should have their chromosomes tested, and find out if they are XX or XY or something else. Anything without a Y should be defaulted to female sex organs and thusly the penis should be removed.
Posting a youtube video I'm never going to watch.... pointless.
No I am saying follow the science----anything without a Y is female---and it doesn't matter if it is X, XX, XXX, XXXXXX or anything else...it is female.So, you're saying that they have to conform, even though they clearly don't?
Can't have people going against a right wing agenda, now can we? Must stick them in the right gender and force them to act that gender.
The reality is that a hermaphrodite proves that there is not just two things out there. The reality is that what exists inside of humans is rather more complicated. But then I guess some people can't cope dealing with more than two things at the same time, so they force everyone down to their simplistic level.
How is that his fault that you're lazy?
I watched it.....I rather enjoyed it. The girl was wrong but was still able to show that she was atleast learning although she was thinking like a lib still. She's young----she may grow up one day mentally. I keep telling myself that if you aren't a lib by the time you are 20, you don't have a heart. If you aren't a conservative by the time you are 30, you don't have a brain. She may grow a brain in a few years. The guy talking was the correct one even though many libs don't understand this. They don't understand that having ovary and testicular tissues does not make some sort of male woman that the ovary tissue basically does nothing in this case--it is just there.So, you're saying that they have to conform, even though they clearly don't?
Can't have people going against a right wing agenda, now can we? Must stick them in the right gender and force them to act that gender.
The reality is that a hermaphrodite proves that there is not just two things out there. The reality is that what exists inside of humans is rather more complicated. But then I guess some people can't cope dealing with more than two things at the same time, so they force everyone down to their simplistic level.
No I am saying follow the science----anything without a Y is female---and it doesn't matter if it is X, XX, XXX, XXXXXX or anything else...it is female.
Those with xy, xxy etc are more in a grey area.
www.mvorganizing.org
I'll lose some sleep over that confession.Posting a youtube video I'm never going to watch.... pointless.
I watched it.....I rather enjoyed it. The girl was wrong but was still able to show that she was atleast learning although she was thinking like a lib still. She's young----she may grow up one day mentally. I keep telling myself that if you aren't a lib by the time you are 20, you don't have a heart. If you aren't a conservative by the time you are 30, you don't have a brain. She may grow a brain in a few years. The guy talking was the correct one even though many libs don't understand this. They don't understand that having ovary and testicular tissues does not make some sort of male woman that the ovary tissue basically does nothing in this case--it is just there.
He wrote NOTHING. He didn't tell me what HIS opinion is. Hardly me being lazy, is it? It's more me having principles on what makes a post worth replying properly or not. I don't come on here to have a youtube battle or whatever the fart he's trying to do.
Gender non conformity is actually just an altruistic way of saying gender denial. Why not just say gender denial?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
Definitions
- Gender is not defined by sex.
- Gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness.
- There is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.
Arguments
- Sex, defined as the chromosome configuration you are born with.
- Gender, defined as the personality traits traditionally associated with one sex or the other (i.e., femininity, masculinity).
- Gender-nonconforming, defined as someone that does not align with the gender associated with their sex.
- 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.
- 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.
Images
- 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.- 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.- 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.
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)
- 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.
