sartre play
Gold Member
- May 4, 2015
- 10,494
- 3,327
- 210
I do see reasons for concern in regards to how things are handled with minors. But can not understand why anyone cares about adults sex life's or if they want to wear a dress.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The only thing I know about gender happened when I was in 1st grade. I first glimpsed upon this beautiful blond haired blue eyed girl named Ann. My God was I in love. Smackgoggled in love.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.
No no no no no, NO. YOU, as a non believer, do not have the right to use scripture, of which you don’t understand, to come and make your worldly, sulfur smelling point, completely devoid of many levels of context, while ignoring the hundreds of passages that command otherwise. It is offensive. You would not attempt anything of the sort with Muslims, or even black folk of your same culture. It is just as inappropriate here.Norms as such are laws. There's no law (outside the military at any rate) that a man should have a certain haircut. If one man shaves his scalp bald and another man has a ponytail — each man has to be the judge of that himself what makes him feel normal.
Women do have excessive menstrual flow at times, sometimes it is possible for a woman deemed to have been born male or born "as" a man can become pregnant, biologically, especially if the fact that she is a biological female was not immediately apparent at her birth. I'm sick of the neon open signs and cop-calling females in that district too, but some of you do need to be castigated, punished, and disciplined into accepting that other people's life situations do not always correspond to your version of "the truth" as you would like to inflict it as law without mercy or grace on them.
Some of those girls are just plain spoiled rotten, and a little social awkwardness or hesitation from time to time wouldn't hurt them a bit. Girls don't be so forward all the time and hold the boys back.
You need to read the Christian Bible then. Or do you leave certain parts out for the Sunday sermon because they make you feel "uncomfortable." What does Jesus say? Eunuchs are not rapists or sex offenders by any means.Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 19:12 - King James Version
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.www.biblegateway.com
Hooters girls don't deserve slaves dude. And you shotgun fathers got to get off the property before something even worse happens buddy.Most eunuchs came from slaves serving a woman master at the time. Some happening naturally as in actual hermaphroditism at birth
Why don't they? People have been wearing hats for no other reason than to look nice for a long long time. People have been listening to music for a long long time. So, yeah, a fad can last that long." Fads " don't last 4,500 years.
I am sorry you are upset or feel you can't accept this part of humanity.
They are part of the tapestry of life, whether you like it or not, whether you can accept it or not, doesn't really matter. They're not going anywhere, they're here to stay, just like the rest of us.
The male and female sex is obvious, thus 99.9% of the time, you are born one or the other.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.
You seem awfully confused when it comes to your understanding of the meaning of various English words. First, you use the term "normal" to refer to something that is extremely rare. The mere fact that an expressed trait exists throughout history does not make it "normal", especially when it has always been rare among any population. You lack the understanding necessary to differentiate between acceptance and normalcy." Fads " don't last 4,500 years. I am sorry you are upset or feel you can't accept this part of humanity. They are part of the tapestry of life, whether you like it or not, whether you can accept it or not, doesn't really matter. They're not going anywhere, they're here to stay, just like the rest of us.
True. Fewer than 1 in 10,000 people are transgender.The male and female sex is obvious, thus 99.9% of the time, you are born one or the other.
People are always flirting and playing sex as a game.Gender is just a play on words, so by all means someone can claim they're this, that or whatever, but facts and nature ignores that game.
I don't think so. Not for a minute. There's a male cop with his gun drawn sitting on the toilet in the women's room. Come to think of it, if you're not peeking under the partition of the toilet stall, how would you even know if there's another man in the women's room you are using.Men calling themselves women rape women in public bathrooms because of this fad
they are both 1 and 2 by physical nature.What about hermaphrodites?
Actually there were.I'm asking you a very simple question....why were there no trans people in America before the Left concocted their no boundaries, no decency, no morality, anything goes, free for all bullshit?
That's it ---- that's how I feel. People insist I use strange pronouns or pretend they are a woman when they are a man, I am not going to cooperate with any of that.And finally, I was brought up not to lie. So being told to call a bloke a woman, or a woman is a bloke, sorry, but take a hike.
I'm asking you a very simple question....why were there no trans people in America before the Left concocted their no boundaries, no decency, no morality, anything goes, free for all bullshit?
What the hell are you even saying? This is the best of the spirit of the age has, and they start talking about hooters girls shouldn’t own slaves...okay...I couldn’t think of a better red herring if I tried, so I’ll give you point for coming off the top rope with randomness.Hooters girls don't deserve slaves dude. And you shotgun fathers got to get off the property before something even worse happens buddy.
"They are bombarded with sex and bullshit by the media, Hollywood, music lyrics, and magazines."I can understand gender non-conformity to a point...........where children have not yet gotten to the point in their lives where they understand what male, female, and sex are. They aren't self-aware yet, they don't comprehend the political bullshit, lies, and propaganda that they are bombarded with every day.
I've even know some adults that have been struggling with this into their 30's........but for them, it's more deciding on whether they agree with aligning with the mandated prefaces of the standards for what society perceives as "male and female" roles. Hmmm.......does that make sense?
Most kids are so fucked up, because they have no concept of biology, division of the sexes, masculin vs feminine, and such. They are bombarded with sex and bullshit by the media, Hollywood, music lyrics, and magazines. All the while their parents are silent. Schools are completely useless now, as they are nothing more than breeding grounds for making political fodder for future politicians' propagandas.
As many of my teachers in school stated back when................"Be who are, be who you want to be, do what you want to do........but NEVER at someone elses expense. When you cross that line, then you've become the monster that people hate".
You're trying to preach religion and socially appropriate sex roles straight out of the restroom at the back of the Hooters chain restaurant.What the hell are you even saying? This is the best of the spirit of the age has, and they start talking about hooters girls shouldn’t own slaves...okay...I couldn’t think of a better red herring if I tried, so I’ll give you point for coming off the top rope with randomness.
I'll stay simple. If someone wants me to call a giraffe a hippopotamus I tell the to fucxxk themselves. Nuff said.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.