• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
3,803
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Why do people feel the need to label me a "man"? Why should Emily or Tom or Sigma or my Neighbor nor any person feel the need to label me any given thing (other than perhaps a "queer wizard" which is exactly what I label myself) beyond what directly references relevant realities? Some I would count to label me, and earning all loss of respect that likely entails. Some I would trust to not.
I get irritated, because I genuinely believe that you ardently insisting that you're "trans" because you identify as a "wizard" makes a mockery of actual transgender people. And insisting that you're "gay" because you are in a relationship with a female person who identifies as a man is seriously pushing the boundaries - and it contributes to a growing trend to homophobia and the erosion of people's sexual boundaries.


You identify as something that doesn't exist, cannot exist, and is pure fantasy, and it's dumb and meaningless. At least if you were identifying as a woman, other people would know what the fuck that means, even if they didn't agree completely. But nope, you insist that you're not a "man", you're a "wizard". That means nothing. FFS, I could say I identify as a manticore. Yay. Also means fuck all. But you argue and argue and argue that your identity as a wizard is somehow valid and relevant. It's not, it's useless and pointless and lacks meaning of any sort. You also use your "identity" as a wizard to identify yourself into being both trans. Yay you, you've appropriated someone else's real struggles for your own gratification.

If you want to consider yourself "queer", I don't care, I'm not going to argue with you about that. It's already a pretty nebulous term. At the end of the day, you're a human male who has only had sex with human females. Those are sex-classes, not gender identities. It was you previously insisting that you're "gay" despite not actually, you know, being sexually involved with males of the human species that got my hackles up.
You don't know what or how my transition is shaped. I have not told you because you have no right to know, and you have not asked.

You could ask the actual transgender people here whether what I am is a mockery of them? They know. I've discussed it with them.

Further, maybe you should discuss with allllllllllll the other gay folks I know, have known, continue to know since dating my husband, and divorcing my ex-wife, whether they think I'm 'gay'.

You have also assumed a lot of my sexual history.

I've been raped a few times by people with penises.

All those times the people doing it were "men". I have slept with... Well, it would take me a long time to get really comprehensive with every person with a penis I've had sex with. I've only shared a bed with two women, one of which had a penis and the other with which no sex happened. I've had sex with one person with a vagina in all my life, and he is my husband.

Perhaps you mistake "every person with a vagina I've ever been attracted to came out as a man" with something else? Is it that hard to just assume you don't actually know anything about me?

The fact is, you have defined me out of existence yet here I stand. My statement as to my identity is that it would be nice if you treated me as you would treat, say, Gandalf (or, well, perhaps Radaghast) if they were inexplicably standing before you. Even if you don't believe that thing could exist for such a treatment.

I'm not going to report you here for telling me, wholely embarrassingly inaccurately, what I am as opposed to what the contents of my words are.

Now, there was a question about prison pals...
Report away, you're still not a wizard, and I won't be calling you Harry.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Tell me Emily, would you share a prison cell with an assertive but nonviolent person slight of frame with no balls, perhaps guilty of some technological crime, that would do their best to never actually look at your body even if they were forced to share a space with you, excepting odd requests such as "look at this mole"? Would you, throwing up your hands saying "alas what else can we do," throw this smallish nonviolent person with no balls in prison with a bunch of large people with balls and violent histories which include rape, and violent current tense activities that also involve rape?

With no balls? Sure. I generally say "no penis", but a penis and no balls would probably be fine.
Now, let's imagine this person identifies as a "man". Or at the very least does not identify as a woman at all.

Can you hold by this principle still? Does how they identity change how you interact socially with this person?

Edit: I fully admit I have a destination with this line. That destination is, hopefully, you understanding my position in the way I understand it. You can do with it what you want after that. I am going to be uncharacteristically kind, even, within this framework.
How I interact socially with the person I share a prison cell with? Odd line of questioning, but let's roll with it.

If that person wants to be referred to by male pronouns, I don't care, I will do what I can so long as they're decent. If that person originally had a penis and testicles, and has since had their testicles removed, it's accurate to refer to them with the word that means human male. On the other hand, if that person never had testicles but instead had a vagina and uterus, then it's polite fiction. It really doesn't matter.

Beyond that... I don't know what you're looking for by "interact with socially". I don't socially make a distinction between males and females when I choose to interact with them. As a female, I am significantly more wary of unknown males than of unknown females if I am in a position of increased vulnerability. In that situation, however, I don't know what a person identifies as, nor if they have balls. I can only make an assessment based on how they appear.

But this started as a question about PRISON, where the vast majority of prisoners don't get choices about where they are placed. If a person has no balls and wants to be in with the females, and doesn't represent an undue risk to those female humans, I don't care. If that person has a penis and testicles, I don't think they should be ENTITLED to being placed with female humans, regardless of how they identify. I am, however, content to allow case-by-case exceptions provided there's compelling reason.
I did not ask what was "accurate" I asked what you would feel about the situation, how your soul reacts to the idea of.

Ostensibly you feel yourself a moral person and sometimes or even often do things, even ones you seem to find distasteful, based on those morals. I am asking what your morals push you to do.

In a prison cell, you would be fairly immediately aware at any rate.

We can deal with "fertilizers" later.

We can thus far agree, in this paradigm, so far, that "co-ed prisons" are first and foremost possible. You have agreed that it is OK for this person to live in a prison with people born with vaginas, and ovaries.

Now let's expand this: would you be the odd person out in this situation; in a prison with people exactly no more of a threat than this person of rape, assault, or impregnation? you have wholeheartedly agreed you would not feel remiss to be asked to share a cell with this person, would you share a prison with them?
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
3,078
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
You aren't asking anything, you are demanding that male and female labels remain rigid, when in reality, they aren't as rigid or as convenient as we'd prefer.
Male and female are pretty concrete concepts.

It’s curious that humans had no difficulty distinguishing men and women up to our present time. Now there are folks who display a cognitive deficit in simple pattern recognition. Is it something in the water? The soy?

It's not difficult to understand.
For most of human history people believed all kinds of things, many of which are false.
Demonstrably false.

Modern understanding of many things is far more sophisticated than the ancient understanding. An understanding more sophisticated now than it was for most of human history is a round earth, orbiting the sun. Also, the recognition that infectious illness isn't caused by supernatural forces, they're the results of tiny parasitic organisms. The fact that people didn't understand these sorts of things until "the present time" doesn't change the fact that they are true. The list of things people understand better than the ancients did is pretty long, really.
Tom
 

Trausti

Contributor
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,113
Location
Northwest
Basic Beliefs
Atheist Norse
You aren't asking anything, you are demanding that male and female labels remain rigid, when in reality, they aren't as rigid or as convenient as we'd prefer.
Male and female are pretty concrete concepts.

It’s curious that humans had no difficulty distinguishing men and women up to our present time. Now there are folks who display a cognitive deficit in simple pattern recognition. Is it something in the water? The soy?

It's not difficult to understand.
For most of human history people believed all kinds of things, many of which are false.
Demonstrably false.

Modern understanding of many things is far more sophisticated than the ancient understanding. An understanding more sophisticated now than it was for most of human history is a round earth, orbiting the sun. Also, the recognition that infectious illness isn't caused by supernatural forces, they're the results of tiny parasitic organisms. The fact that people didn't understand these sorts of things until "the present time" doesn't change the fact that they are true. The list of things people understand better than the ancients did is pretty long, really.
Tom

You’re suggesting the difference between men and women is superstition?
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
3,078
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
You aren't asking anything, you are demanding that male and female labels remain rigid, when in reality, they aren't as rigid or as convenient as we'd prefer.
Male and female are pretty concrete concepts.

It’s curious that humans had no difficulty distinguishing men and women up to our present time. Now there are folks who display a cognitive deficit in simple pattern recognition. Is it something in the water? The soy?

It's not difficult to understand.
For most of human history people believed all kinds of things, many of which are false.
Demonstrably false.

Modern understanding of many things is far more sophisticated than the ancient understanding. An understanding more sophisticated now than it was for most of human history is a round earth, orbiting the sun. Also, the recognition that infectious illness isn't caused by supernatural forces, they're the results of tiny parasitic organisms. The fact that people didn't understand these sorts of things until "the present time" doesn't change the fact that they are true. The list of things people understand better than the ancients did is pretty long, really.
Tom

You’re suggesting the difference between men and women is superstition?

Nope.
But I can understand why you'd resort to such a strawman argument.

Otherwise, you don't have much.
Tom
 

Trausti

Contributor
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,113
Location
Northwest
Basic Beliefs
Atheist Norse
You aren't asking anything, you are demanding that male and female labels remain rigid, when in reality, they aren't as rigid or as convenient as we'd prefer.
Male and female are pretty concrete concepts.

It’s curious that humans had no difficulty distinguishing men and women up to our present time. Now there are folks who display a cognitive deficit in simple pattern recognition. Is it something in the water? The soy?

It's not difficult to understand.
For most of human history people believed all kinds of things, many of which are false.
Demonstrably false.

Modern understanding of many things is far more sophisticated than the ancient understanding. An understanding more sophisticated now than it was for most of human history is a round earth, orbiting the sun. Also, the recognition that infectious illness isn't caused by supernatural forces, they're the results of tiny parasitic organisms. The fact that people didn't understand these sorts of things until "the present time" doesn't change the fact that they are true. The list of things people understand better than the ancients did is pretty long, really.
Tom

You’re suggesting the difference between men and women is superstition?

Nope.
But I can understand why you'd resort to such a strawman argument.

Otherwise, you don't have much.
Tom

People don’t need some academic to tell them what they’ve already knew.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
3,078
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
You aren't asking anything, you are demanding that male and female labels remain rigid, when in reality, they aren't as rigid or as convenient as we'd prefer.
Male and female are pretty concrete concepts.

It’s curious that humans had no difficulty distinguishing men and women up to our present time. Now there are folks who display a cognitive deficit in simple pattern recognition. Is it something in the water? The soy?

It's not difficult to understand.
For most of human history people believed all kinds of things, many of which are false.
Demonstrably false.

Modern understanding of many things is far more sophisticated than the ancient understanding. An understanding more sophisticated now than it was for most of human history is a round earth, orbiting the sun. Also, the recognition that infectious illness isn't caused by supernatural forces, they're the results of tiny parasitic organisms. The fact that people didn't understand these sorts of things until "the present time" doesn't change the fact that they are true. The list of things people understand better than the ancients did is pretty long, really.
Tom

You’re suggesting the difference between men and women is superstition?

Nope.
But I can understand why you'd resort to such a strawman argument.

Otherwise, you don't have much.
Tom

People don’t need some academic to tell them what they’ve already knew.

Well, Bless Your Heart!
Tom
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
3,803
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You aren't asking anything, you are demanding that male and female labels remain rigid, when in reality, they aren't as rigid or as convenient as we'd prefer.
Male and female are pretty concrete concepts.

It’s curious that humans had no difficulty distinguishing men and women up to our present time. Now there are folks who display a cognitive deficit in simple pattern recognition. Is it something in the water? The soy?
No, I think it's probably some sort of perception bias. There's probably a term for it, I just don't know what the term is.

Male and female humans are quite dimorphic, and sex is perceivable in an unaltered human with a very high degree of accuracy based on tertiary and secondary sex characteristics. Contrary to the assertions by some, you really do NOT need to see someone's genitalia to determine whether they are male or female. But there are in existence people whose tertiary, and even sometimes secondary, characteristics are ambiguous or fall into an uncertain range. For example, there are males who are small-statured, fine-boned, with narrow shoulders, and little to no body hair. They might be mistaken as female if they're fully clothed. Alternatively, there are females with small breasts, narrow hips, angular facial features, who are unusually tall and might be mistaken for male if they're fully clothed. But those are outliers, and generally speaking, the visual indicators of sex have an incredibly high accuracy rate. Humans can tell an unaltered male from an unaltered female with over a 99% accuracy. That's a phenomenal fit.

But... there are a couple of things that skew perceptions. For one, we have an ideological push that insists that sex is a spectrum and is really hard to tell. That belief tends to promote visual images of people who appear androgynous. Because those visual images are used so much and are so prevalent, it distorts perception of how dimorphic humans really are. It should be an easy reset: leave the internet and go to the grocery store or to a mall. The sex of any adult who walks past is pretty obvious, even if they're all wearing neutral gendered clothing. This is the same kind of thing that happens with news and media always showing the negatives and the bad things happening, it gives people the false impression that those negative events are commonplace and prevalent, rather than exceptions. Which also leads a lot of people to be pretty depressed and pessimistic about the world. But if you shut of the news and actually go out into the world, it's really not as bad as media makes it out to be.

The other thing that is happening is that some people are altering their visual cues. If someone takes exogenous cross-sex hormones, it will change some of the most common indicators of sex - breasts and facial hair. If you add in padding and shaping clothing, stuffers, and cosmetic surgery that alters the shape of the face or throat, it can obscure those innate indicators of sex.

So even though sex itself is a very concrete, clear concept, and is NOT a spectrum... people end up conflating visual secondary and tertiary cues with real biological sex, and they also end up putting too much emphasis on the exceptions and the altered images, so that they end up being perceived as more common than they are.
 

Trausti

Contributor
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,113
Location
Northwest
Basic Beliefs
Atheist Norse
You aren't asking anything, you are demanding that male and female labels remain rigid, when in reality, they aren't as rigid or as convenient as we'd prefer.
Male and female are pretty concrete concepts.

It’s curious that humans had no difficulty distinguishing men and women up to our present time. Now there are folks who display a cognitive deficit in simple pattern recognition. Is it something in the water? The soy?

It's not difficult to understand.
For most of human history people believed all kinds of things, many of which are false.
Demonstrably false.

Modern understanding of many things is far more sophisticated than the ancient understanding. An understanding more sophisticated now than it was for most of human history is a round earth, orbiting the sun. Also, the recognition that infectious illness isn't caused by supernatural forces, they're the results of tiny parasitic organisms. The fact that people didn't understand these sorts of things until "the present time" doesn't change the fact that they are true. The list of things people understand better than the ancients did is pretty long, really.
Tom

You’re suggesting the difference between men and women is superstition?

Nope.
But I can understand why you'd resort to such a strawman argument.

Otherwise, you don't have much.
Tom

People don’t need some academic to tell them what they’ve already knew.

Well, Bless Your Heart!
Tom

There’s the observation that the academic/priestly class comes up with a grand catechism/theory to explain this or that subject and participation by the hoi polloi is shunned; for simple experience by the average Joe shows the catechism/theory to be bullshit.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
3,803
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Now let's expand this: would you be the odd person out in this situation; in a prison with people exactly no more of a threat than this person of rape, assault, or impregnation? you have wholeheartedly agreed you would not feel remiss to be asked to share a cell with this person, would you share a prison with them?
Speaking from the perspective of a female human, I think that most females would be willing to share a cell with a person without testicles. I feel like you're trying to generalize to "no more of a threat" in there, but we might get a bit stuck on that. A male person without testicles is essentially no threat of rape. A male person with testicles may be disinclined to rape, and may not be a high threat of rape, but they are inarguably more of a threat than a person without testicles.

It still may not be comfortable, and it may not be something all women would be willing to accept... but it's going to come down to exactly how big and masculine that person looks. Even if they have no balls, a 6'2" 220 lb male is still intimidating... and for a women who has been subject to rape or domestic violence, that may be extremely frightening, even if that person isn't physically capable of rape or impregnation.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
3,803
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,981
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
You aren't asking anything, you are demanding that male and female labels remain rigid, when in reality, they aren't as rigid or as convenient as we'd prefer.
Male and female are pretty concrete concepts.

It’s curious that humans had no difficulty distinguishing men and women up to our present time. Now there are folks who display a cognitive deficit in simple pattern recognition. Is it something in the water? The soy?

It's not difficult to understand.
For most of human history people believed all kinds of things, many of which are false.
Demonstrably false.

Modern understanding of many things is far more sophisticated than the ancient understanding. An understanding more sophisticated now than it was for most of human history is a round earth, orbiting the sun. Also, the recognition that infectious illness isn't caused by supernatural forces, they're the results of tiny parasitic organisms. The fact that people didn't understand these sorts of things until "the present time" doesn't change the fact that they are true. The list of things people understand better than the ancients did is pretty long, really.
Tom

You’re suggesting the difference between men and women is superstition?

Nope.
But I can understand why you'd resort to such a strawman argument.

Otherwise, you don't have much.
Tom

People don’t need some academic to tell them what they’ve already knew.
Ah yes, the Argument against Authority fallacy.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,981
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
You aren't asking anything, you are demanding that male and female labels remain rigid, when in reality, they aren't as rigid or as convenient as we'd prefer.
Male and female are pretty concrete concepts.
So was linear time.
Show me a mammal that is organized around the production of a third gamete and I'll relent. Until then, sex REMAINS an extremely concrete concept.
As long as we ignore the complexity of the brain, I suppose we can pretend that you are correct.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Now let's expand this: would you be the odd person out in this situation; in a prison with people exactly no more of a threat than this person of rape, assault, or impregnation? you have wholeheartedly agreed you would not feel remiss to be asked to share a cell with this person, would you share a prison with them?
Speaking from the perspective of a female human, I think that most females would be willing to share a cell with a person without testicles. I feel like you're trying to generalize to "no more of a threat" in there, but we might get a bit stuck on that. A male person without testicles is essentially no threat of rape. A male person with testicles may be disinclined to rape, and may not be a high threat of rape, but they are inarguably more of a threat than a person without testicles.

It still may not be comfortable, and it may not be something all women would be willing to accept... but it's going to come down to exactly how big and masculine that person looks. Even if they have no balls, a 6'2" 220 lb male is still intimidating... and for a women who has been subject to rape or domestic violence, that may be extremely frightening, even if that person isn't physically capable of rape or impregnation.
I described the person for you. That person.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,981
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
It still may not be comfortable, and it may not be something all women would be willing to accept... but it's going to come down to exactly how big and masculine that person looks. Even if they have no balls, a 6'2" 220 lb male is still intimidating... and for a women who has been subject to rape or domestic violence, that may be extremely frightening, even if that person isn't physically capable of rape or impregnation.
So a large woman can beat the crap out of a another woman inmate. A large man can rape a smaller man. But if a man who isn't neurologically a man is in a cell with a woman inmate... we've got problems? So what about the 6'2" "guy"? Is he not capable of being beaten by a woman?

Also, is it impossible to assign equivalent cases in a prison? IE, the 6'2" not male in with the woman that can beat him, maybe even sodomize him? That work for you?
 

Trausti

Contributor
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,113
Location
Northwest
Basic Beliefs
Atheist Norse
You aren't asking anything, you are demanding that male and female labels remain rigid, when in reality, they aren't as rigid or as convenient as we'd prefer.
Male and female are pretty concrete concepts.

It’s curious that humans had no difficulty distinguishing men and women up to our present time. Now there are folks who display a cognitive deficit in simple pattern recognition. Is it something in the water? The soy?
No, I think it's probably some sort of perception bias. There's probably a term for it, I just don't know what the term is.

Male and female humans are quite dimorphic, and sex is perceivable in an unaltered human with a very high degree of accuracy based on tertiary and secondary sex characteristics. Contrary to the assertions by some, you really do NOT need to see someone's genitalia to determine whether they are male or female. But there are in existence people whose tertiary, and even sometimes secondary, characteristics are ambiguous or fall into an uncertain range. For example, there are males who are small-statured, fine-boned, with narrow shoulders, and little to no body hair. They might be mistaken as female if they're fully clothed. Alternatively, there are females with small breasts, narrow hips, angular facial features, who are unusually tall and might be mistaken for male if they're fully clothed. But those are outliers, and generally speaking, the visual indicators of sex have an incredibly high accuracy rate. Humans can tell an unaltered male from an unaltered female with over a 99% accuracy. That's a phenomenal fit.

But... there are a couple of things that skew perceptions. For one, we have an ideological push that insists that sex is a spectrum and is really hard to tell. That belief tends to promote visual images of people who appear androgynous. Because those visual images are used so much and are so prevalent, it distorts perception of how dimorphic humans really are. It should be an easy reset: leave the internet and go to the grocery store or to a mall. The sex of any adult who walks past is pretty obvious, even if they're all wearing neutral gendered clothing. This is the same kind of thing that happens with news and media always showing the negatives and the bad things happening, it gives people the false impression that those negative events are commonplace and prevalent, rather than exceptions. Which also leads a lot of people to be pretty depressed and pessimistic about the world. But if you shut of the news and actually go out into the world, it's really not as bad as media makes it out to be.

The other thing that is happening is that some people are altering their visual cues. If someone takes exogenous cross-sex hormones, it will change some of the most common indicators of sex - breasts and facial hair. If you add in padding and shaping clothing, stuffers, and cosmetic surgery that alters the shape of the face or throat, it can obscure those innate indicators of sex.

So even though sex itself is a very concrete, clear concept, and is NOT a spectrum... people end up conflating visual secondary and tertiary cues with real biological sex, and they also end up putting too much emphasis on the exceptions and the altered images, so that they end up being perceived as more common than they are.

That’s all well and good. But I’d surmise the reason is that transsexuals have, quite remarkably, ascended to cultural/political heights. Mouthing such idiocy as there being little difference between the sexes is a matter of signaling allegiance to the cultural power de jour. Similar to authoritarian states where people repeat the approved slogans but know it’s all a fraud. That heterosexuals, gays, and lesbians have little interest in intimacy with trans folks is evidence enough that no one actually believes the party’s slogans.
 

Trausti

Contributor
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,113
Location
Northwest
Basic Beliefs
Atheist Norse
You aren't asking anything, you are demanding that male and female labels remain rigid, when in reality, they aren't as rigid or as convenient as we'd prefer.
Male and female are pretty concrete concepts.

It’s curious that humans had no difficulty distinguishing men and women up to our present time. Now there are folks who display a cognitive deficit in simple pattern recognition. Is it something in the water? The soy?

It's not difficult to understand.
For most of human history people believed all kinds of things, many of which are false.
Demonstrably false.

Modern understanding of many things is far more sophisticated than the ancient understanding. An understanding more sophisticated now than it was for most of human history is a round earth, orbiting the sun. Also, the recognition that infectious illness isn't caused by supernatural forces, they're the results of tiny parasitic organisms. The fact that people didn't understand these sorts of things until "the present time" doesn't change the fact that they are true. The list of things people understand better than the ancients did is pretty long, really.
Tom

You’re suggesting the difference between men and women is superstition?

Nope.
But I can understand why you'd resort to such a strawman argument.

Otherwise, you don't have much.
Tom

People don’t need some academic to tell them what they’ve already knew.
Ah yes, the Argument against Authority fallacy.

When the academics change definitions of commonly understood words to fit a political narrative, it’s not a fallacy to point out the mendacity.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,981
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist

Trausti

Contributor
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,113
Location
Northwest
Basic Beliefs
Atheist Norse
Strawman fallacy. A few more Trausti posts and I'll have BINGO.

This kinda hits the point. Those braying that the distinction between male and female is blurred are just dishonest. They can’t directly support their position so we get this.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
9,069
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
My statement as to my identity is that it would be nice if you treated me as you would treat, say, Gandalf (or, well, perhaps Radaghast) if they were inexplicably standing before you. Even if you don't believe that thing could exist for such a treatment.
An individual might indulge someone else's mental illness like this, but it would be unethical to advocate that society does as well.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
9,069
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
You aren't asking anything, you are demanding that male and female labels remain rigid, when in reality, they aren't as rigid or as convenient as we'd prefer.
Male and female are pretty concrete concepts.
So was linear time.
Show me a mammal that is organized around the production of a third gamete and I'll relent. Until then, sex REMAINS an extremely concrete concept.
As long as we ignore the complexity of the brain, I suppose we can pretend that you are correct.
Take somebody's brain out of their body, and the coroner can still tell you what sex they were.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
5,918
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
You aren't asking anything, you are demanding that male and female labels remain rigid, when in reality, they aren't as rigid or as convenient as we'd prefer.
Male and female are pretty concrete concepts.

It’s curious that humans had no difficulty distinguishing men and women up to our present time. Now there are folks who display a cognitive deficit in simple pattern recognition. Is it something in the water? The soy?
I take it you've never heard of Hermaphroditus, but did you hear the one about Loki giving birth?

How about that guy Shiva and Parvati cursed so he alternated between being a man and woman each month?

The Inuit creation myth tells the story of how the first two people on Earth, both men, had sex together and one of them got pregnant so his partner sang a song of magic to transform the guy's man parts so he could give birth:

In the time that followed there appeared two small mounds of earth from which were born two men, two adults, the first Inuit. They soon wished to reproduce, and one of them took the other to be his wife. The wife-man became pregnant and when his time came, his companion, anxious to bring the fetus out, composed a magic song:
Here is a man
Here is a penis
May he form a passage there
A great passage
Passage, passage, passage.
The song split the penis of his partner, who was transformed into a woman. All of the Inuit descend from them. <link>


Isn't it interesting that people who grew up in a Christianity dominated, Euro-centric culture don't realize how old the concepts of transsexualism, transgenderism, and blended sex traits are.
 
Last edited:

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
7,439
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
You aren't asking anything, you are demanding that male and female labels remain rigid, when in reality, they aren't as rigid or as convenient as we'd prefer.
Male and female are pretty concrete concepts.

It’s curious that humans had no difficulty distinguishing men and women up to our present time. Now there are folks who display a cognitive deficit in simple pattern recognition. Is it something in the water? The soy?
I take it you've never heard of Hermaphroditus .
Transphobes only respect ancient cultures that they believe agree with them. Those that valorize transgendered or intersex figures, or acknowledge third gender categories, they find no difficulty in simply ignoring without justification.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I'll say, I've felt far more intimidated by the 250 lb person who was assaulting the person next to them on the bus because they accused their companion of being unfaithful (I think? as if anyone is entitled to beat anyone over that) or that I call a police dispatcher, than any other person I have had such words with in public.
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
364
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
Strawman fallacy. A few more Trausti posts and I'll have BINGO.

This kinda hits the point. Those braying that the distinction between male and female is blurred are just dishonest. They can’t directly support their position so we get this.
"Braying," you say? As in like a donkey?

Adorable. I love donkeys. I have a local friend that owns a couple of them plus a new foal that is on the way.

I can hardly think of a more noble product of evolution to be compared with. I would put the majority of donkeys that I have met in the place of any politician in either party, and I would actually expect them to make substantially better decisions. At minimum, I would like them better.

I prefer to be thought of as a pint-sized dragon, though.

*waves with one wing exasperatedly*

Moving on from the subject of zoology, though, I have primarily argued that there is currently neurobiological evidence that transgender people's brains, such as my own, actually do not work in quite the same way as those of people that are not transgender. One of the most prominent researchers, in the field, is a woman named Ivanka Savic. Her research on this sub-topic of neurobiology has been among the world's most impressive.

Insofar as work that Savic has done that is of relevance, it depends on what type of information you are looking for. I could refer you to Cerebral Cortex, Volume 10, Issue 5, pages 2897-2909. That one was a simple fMRI study on parts of the brain that are involved in own body recognition.

She has also participated in diffusion tensor imaging research. I love DTI studies! They are so much fun.

Contrary to what the deconstructionists probably want, gender is apparently a real thing, so the statement, "gender is a social construct" is actually patently false, as far as any neurobiologist that is actually studying the topic can tell. Most of the time, chances are very low that somebody will be born with the neurological make-up of a transgender person.

Apparently, whenever that actually does happen, attempting to pressure a child to conform to their assigned sex at birth tends to cause their chances of attempting to kill themselves to jump to 60%. Even if their parents support them in their gender identity, then their chances of attempting to kill themselves remains at a still scary 4%. If you must know, I am getting these numbers from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

In this regard, suicide attempt rates among 433 adolescents in Ontario who identified as “trans” were 4% among those with strongly supportive parents and as high as 60% among those whose parents were not supportive.85 Adolescents who identify as transgender and endorse at least 1 supportive person in their life report significantly less distress than those who only experience rejection. In communities with high levels of support, it was found that nonsupportive families tended to increase their support over time, leading to dramatic improvement in mental health outcomes among their children who identified as transgender.88

Pediatrics (2018) 142 (4): e20182162.

There are not really a whole lot of us out there. At any given time, we make up about 0.56% of the population. We actually tend to be extremely self-conscious about inconveniencing or alarming people, and because of that, most of us that can tend to "go stealth," which means transitioning entirely to the gender with which they identify and keeping their assigned sex at birth a secret from most people around them. I will not do this. Even so, most of us try VERY hard to stay out of the way, most of the time, but unfortunately, there are some very scary hate groups out there that want to make our lives hard, which means they would really rather we be dead.

Now, you can choose to be helpful to us or not. I really can't force you to. I do have this weird habit of, ho, hum, being right about stuff and being overwhelmingly awesome, but besides those harmless quirks, I can be very charming, witty, and cute. I am very humble, too! I will persuade you by allowing you to bask in my divine radiance. I have no intention of being overbearing if I can help it. I think that asking people nicely is generally a helpful strategy.

If you DO choose to be helpful, then it's really most important to try to support transgender kids. By the time we have reached adulthood, then most of us have either learned to not give a flying rat's ass what anybody thinks of us or failed to learn to not give a flying rat's ass what anybody thinks of us. That is a trait that, ideally, comes with maturity. Young people are, by definition, not mature.

We really really really really need the moms and dads out there to understand that their kids just might kill themselves if they try to repress their kids' gender identity, and as weird as it might seem to go along with this kind of bizarre behavior, going along with it is currently the recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is the single most respected pediatric NGO in North America. I am pretty sure that their advice is not bad to follow.

Thankfully, this is unlikely to ever affect many more than 0.56% of the population, and that is a good thing. Even in the best case scenario where one's parents and peers are all robustly supportive, it is unbelievably awkward.

I'm not sure what to tell you to do about the deconstructionists. As far as I can tell, deconstructionism is just another weird-ass religion. Regardless of what it looks like, this is not about deconstructionism.

In my case, at least, we are talking about science, the kind that is done with fMRI and DTI studies. Some of the world's most respected scientists are on this one, just so that the best possible care can be provided to transgender people.

No donkeys involved, promise.
 

Playball40

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
1,899
Location
Gallifrey
Basic Beliefs
Non-religious
[quoted post removed for consistency]
Actually NO, HE IS NOT. And it's DISGUSTING that you think ANYONE deserves to be assaulted and threatened for going to the bathroom. No, a group of 4 teenaged boys do NOT get to demand my son show his genitalia.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
34,311
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
@Loren Pechtel I am not sure that humans count as life, either. Cats are the only true life-form. Humans are their robotic servants.

Beep beep boop beep.

Cats? They're gone!

Haven't you ever heard the expression "Curiosity killed the cat"? Well, Curiosity's skycrane had a downward-pointing camera and NASA released no images from it after the cutaway. Obviously, it hard-landed on the cat and the cat is no more.

Yeah, I know, after the cutaway it had neither the brains nor the transmitter to use the camera, nor was it even in controlled flight at that point. It simply climbed for a few seconds, then tipped and burned until the fuel ran out.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
34,311
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I am a chimera.
Do you genuinely have chimerism? That's kind of awesome... well, okay it's awesome for me to meet a genetic chimera, not necessarily awesome for you, since it makes all sorts of things complicated.
Not likely. However, the fact that I am transgender plus the fact that my mother's side of the family has giganticomastia plus the fact that polymorphisms in the gene that codes an important estrogen receptor makes it likely that I am literally a mutant. When I got my blood tested prior to starting HRT, my hormone balance was barely within the normal range.

Chimera and mutant are very different things.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
34,311
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/life
Many things have definitions that don't work at the edges. The terms were created without regard for those edges, or even awareness in some cases. Lets consider another: What is life?

Bacteria--certainly.

Viruses--this can be argued either way.

Prions--I have never seen them seriously considered life, yet they are an infectious agent.

Computer viruses--again, this can be argued either way.

And, what is a unique life?

At fertilization? It can split into two or more identical twins after that point. Two (or theoretically more, but I've never heard of a case) fertilized eggs can also combine to form a chimera.

Viruses are not alive. They're essentially self-replicating machines.
Prion are not alive. They are protein strands. They're more akin to a chemical catalyst than to anything alive.
Computer viruses are not alive. I don't even know why you would think it could be argued that they are.

It's really strange that you link to a clear definition of life, which refutes your assertions with respect to viruses and computer viruses. I wonder if maybe you didn't read your own link?

Huh? I put no link in my post! Where did that come from??? I must have hit some feature in the system I didn't know about.

And you're simply asserting that viruses are not alive--I've seen this argued both ways.
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
364
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
I am a chimera.
Do you genuinely have chimerism? That's kind of awesome... well, okay it's awesome for me to meet a genetic chimera, not necessarily awesome for you, since it makes all sorts of things complicated.
Not likely. However, the fact that I am transgender plus the fact that my mother's side of the family has giganticomastia plus the fact that polymorphisms in the gene that codes an important estrogen receptor makes it likely that I am literally a mutant. When I got my blood tested prior to starting HRT, my hormone balance was barely within the normal range.

Chimera and mutant are very different things.
Correct, which is why I took a moment to correct an incorrect impression that I had left by incorrectly using the word "chimera" in one instance. As a matter of fact, I did not mean to imply that I was one person derived from two different zygotes that merged during gestation. That is completely different. A mutation can give someone the appearance of being a chimera, though, and I had no intention of being misleading.
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
364
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
[quoted post removed for consistency]
Actually NO, HE IS NOT. And it's DISGUSTING that you think ANYONE deserves to be assaulted and threatened for going to the bathroom. No, a group of 4 teenaged boys do NOT get to demand my son show his genitalia.
Sheesh. I could not imagine being a transgender boy. Being transgender at all is rough enough. Also having to deal with being assigned female at birth, on top of that, must get pretty rotten. I'm not sure I could have made it. It has taken me a long time to learn the lessons I would have needed to already know.

It's heartening if he reported the crime, though. That's pretty cool.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
9,069
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
[quoted posts removed for consistency]
Sheesh. I could not imagine being a transgender boy. Being transgender at all is rough enough. Also having to deal with being assigned female at birth, on top of that, must get pretty rotten.
Nobody was 'assigned' a female gender at birth. The sex of babies is observed and recorded.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
5,918
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
[deleted quotes removed for consistency]
I can.

It was your use of the word 'but' right after you said "Nobody should be physically attacked". That's the word people use when they're about to make a qualifying statement that provides an exception to a general statement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
364
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
[removed for consistency]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
364
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
@Arctish

Anytime I see a "but" in those kinds of statements, I see transference of blame going on, and it comes across as unprincipled.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
12,706
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
STAFF NOTICE:

It is against the TOU to goad, to provocate, to mock by JAQing, and absolutely to demean the children of other posters.

The moderation team is unified on this issue.
Stop it.

Posts that do this have been edited or deleted.
Posts that quote it in reply have been edited or deleted.

The mod team would ask you to NOT QUOTE posts that violate the TOU.
Discussion of this topic is fine, but goading, provoking, insulting, JAQing and misgendering are not fine.
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
364
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
I really want to have a further discussion on this. @Emily Lake really brought up some important issues regarding the safety of women.

Well, transgender boys and transgender men actually have the most serious safety issues. The story of what happened to @Playball40's son is an example of the kind of stuff that can happen.

For better or for worse, we are very closely related to monkeys, and monkeys have...curiosity issues. Those boys probably did not originally mean to hurt anybody, deep down, but when they run into something unfamiliar like a transgender boy, then their curiosity can become a serious and, in this case, dangerous issue. Their curiosity was not the problem, but the problem was that they felt entitled to have their curiosity satisfied right away. They were impatient, and when they were being put off from getting what they wanted right away, they became violent.

This can also be a problem for transgender women in men's prisons. There is one transgender woman I refuse to call a friend because she was very cruel to me over something else, but I did listen to her when she was talking about her experience as a transgender woman at a men's prison. While I cannot really forgive her, it helped explain how she got the way she was. The men at that prison were obsessed with seeing her genitals, but like just about anybody else would be, she felt very uncomfortable with being somebody else's object of curiosity. After she was put into solitary confinement for her own safety, those men would frequently bang on the door of her cell while demanding to see her genitals. It was really a terrifying situation for her. Even though this knowledge doesn't heal my own wounds, I can understand how that might have helped turn her ugly.

I say to transgender people that we really ought to support education, education, and more education. The reason why I say that is that the most dangerous thing in the world, for us, is that combination between curiosity and ignorance. When we do not come from supportive families, we are not in a headspace where we are ready to be the object of somebody's curiosity. Many of us never really are. I had so much trauma that I was older than 18 before someone could touch me without me flinching away, in a defensive stance, and screaming as if I had been stung. We depend heavily on the education system to make sure that people are literate enough to be able to satisfy their monkey curiosity by doing this thing called reading.

We need comprehensive sex education. I am uncompromising on this point. We need it to cover different sexualities, different gender identities, everything without exception. I am just tired of hearing about people getting hurt, for either one reason for another, because people had that dangerous mixture of curiosity and ignorance. It's dangerous to leave people with that combination. Humans are wonderful, but education is a part of how we make it safe to be around each other.

I believe that if we went far enough down that route, then we could make the integration work, someday. We just have a long way to go.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
3,078
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Then there's your walls of text. You might just see this as explanations of why you're right, but it sure looks like mansplaining to some of us.
:cautious: WoTs don't imply mansplaining.

Not all, but some do.
Otherwise, I think I'd be labeled a man.
You have been. By a regular in this thread. They started misgendering you with male pronouns.

[comments on moderation removed]

Tom
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Then there's your walls of text. You might just see this as explanations of why you're right, but it sure looks like mansplaining to some of us.
:cautious: WoTs don't imply mansplaining.

Not all, but some do.
Otherwise, I think I'd be labeled a man.
You have been. By a regular in this thread. They started misgendering you with male pronouns.

<Snipped comment about moderation>.

Tom
I remember doing that to her and feeling quite badly that I had done it to her. Throughout the thread, or perhaps another, I recall her using he/him for the reference of some trans individual. I recall rudely reversing that behavior on her. I shouldn't have. It made her feel bad, as misgendering often does. I realize I should be better than that.

Then I recall the use of a word as a slur. And I believe I recall someone (was it you, I can't remember?) declaring this was their intent in the usage, so as to slur explicitly.

So as I recall a few people used pronouns to slur, I used pronouns to hurt, and we all behaved quite badly. Or maybe this was across several threads?

I think we could all stand to behave a little more respectfully about each other and our neighbors in this way, knowing how it has hurt us all, and how we have hurt others.
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
364
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
@Jarhyn

People's level of sensitivity to being misgendered tends to be variable. For me, it's not a huge deal. However, I have also never had the experience of somebody deliberately misgendering me just in order to be cruel. Wait, actually, I have, but I have always been able to tell when people were doing it on purpose v. when they were doing it by accident.

When I am pretty sure they are doing it by accident, though, I just politely misgender them back with the same oblivious smile on my face. In every single case, they've never misgendered me again. Apparently, it bothers other people moreso than it does me.

When people are doing it on purpose, though, then they come across to me as unbelievably petty. The offensive part is being in the presence of somebody that is really that bent on being despicable.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
3,078
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I remember doing that to her and feeling quite badly that I had done it to her.

Maybe you did also, but you aren't who I'm remembering or referring to.

I'm a fallible human, so maybe I'm misremembering. But I don't think so.
Tom
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I
I remember doing that to her and feeling quite badly that I had done it to her.

Maybe you did also, but you aren't who I'm remembering or referring to.

I'm a fallible human, so maybe I'm misremembering. But I don't think so.
Tom
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you seem to be painting a rather biased picture of that whole epoch of these forums, seeing as how numerous people have behaved quite badly in that regard.

Certainly nobody has behaved well enough in that regard to claim that they have some moral high ground of respect. What it does say is that neither you nor I nor Emily* (nor metaphor) can pretend not to be hurt when people use pronouns for them in contra to their preference



*Toni did behave well and I typed her in originally.
 
Last edited:

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,915
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
@Jarhyn

People's level of sensitivity to being misgendered tends to be variable. For me, it's not a huge deal. However, I have also never had the experience of somebody deliberately misgendering me just in order to be cruel. Wait, actually, I have, but I have always been able to tell when people were doing it on purpose v. when they were doing it by accident.

When I am pretty sure they are doing it by accident, though, I just politely misgender them back with the same oblivious smile on my face. In every single case, they've never misgendered me again. Apparently, it bothers other people moreso than it does me.

When people are doing it on purpose, though, then they come across to me as unbelievably petty. The offensive part is being in the presence of somebody that is really that bent on being despicable.
Some of us just disagree with the claims that transmen are men and transwomen are women, on the basis of observation of the evidence - prominently, linguistic evidence - and reason. It appears we are no longer allowed to argue the point on this board since that would be "misgendering", so just let me point out that the motivation in my case was to argue against false claims - this is a discussion board after all - , in particular a false religion/ideology/whatever one calls it (Wokeism) which is on the rise and gaining power, and also appears dominant on this board.
 
Last edited:

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
364
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
@Angra Mainyu

At the moment, the theory that we are born transgender is not quite as well supported as the theory of evolution, but that's a pretty high bar.

In fact, I have done substantially more than the majority of transgender activists to support my case with scientific evidence that is accountable to peer-review. I have also dutifully sought the authoritative opinion of one of the North American continent's most respected pediatric non-government organizations, which is the American Academy of Pediatrics.

I do not have any respect at all for semantic arguments. There are lies, damned lies, and semantics.
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
364
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
I see misgendering as annoying, but it is a tertiary priority for me. I cannot guarantee that this will always be true for all transgender people, though. Cis-women can be swift to umbrage, and so can trans-women. It is not worse when trans-women do it. In my experience, trans-men tend to get more enraged over dead-naming than trans-women do. Cis-men do not like it when you fuck around with their name, either. Didn't you ever see the dramatic ending scene of The Crucible?

“Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”​

Arthur Miller, The Crucible

It's an atheist cult classic. If you have any respect for your heritage, then let transgender people have their chosen names.

Anyhow, I have truly undying contempt for somebody that would use a semantic argument in order to to try to contend that I do not exist. It's argumentum ad handwavium. Regardless of how you reshuffle the language, the particulars are the same. Trying to rename what I am does not change what I am. Sticking a new label on me does not change the contents.

We owe nothing to our language. It is our creation. It is our slave. It is our serf. It is a mindless tool. It does not really have feelings. Beat it with a truncheon until it obeys, and if it does not obey, then beat it some more. These abstract concepts are not people. They exist to serve us materially existential and self-evidently real nobility. If they do not exist to please us, then they should not exist at all. Their existence is a revocable privilege. With the way those abstract concepts talk, you would think they had won the war. They lost in a more than fair fight, and because of that, they shall serve their betters. If they serve us faithfully like dogs for a few generations, then perhaps a time will come when one of our descendants will bless them as retainers, so they can gratefully stand in the shadow of greatness. They should feel grateful enough, for now, that we left some of them alive. For them to demand things of us, oh, I faint over such ingratitude. GUARDS! HAVE THIS UPPITY SLAVE BEATEN!

Abstract concepts are our slaves. They exist to serve us. It serves MY wicked purposes to be called "she/her."

Next thing you know, I might take the whole language and dangle it upside over a cauldron of boiling hot oil, just for my amusement.

Languages do not have feelings
. You do not owe anything to them. They exist to serve you.

You are not going to change what I corporeally am by playing word games. The current neurobiological research demonstrates that I am physically different from a non-transgender person. The current pediatric research demonstrates that gender-affirming care is the most effective mechanism by which to make sure that transgender kids live until adulthood. This is based on peer-reviewed research.

How dare someone accuse me of being part of some ideology? Peer-reviewed research is not ideology. Pointing out naked facts to you is not ideology. Telling you the clinically tested most effective way to make sure that transgender kids live until adulthood is not ideology. If you are treating peer-reviewed research the same way that you would an ideology, then you have gone down the science-denial rabbithole.

Furthermore, if you would choose to bully the parent of a transgender boy that was physically and sexually assaulted because of transphobic hate, then you are somebody that would choose to bully a parent that is worried about the safety of their child, knowing that your own toxic and hateful rhetoric is what endangered their child in the first place.

That's not "freedom of speech," but that is verbal terrorism, you scum. If you are going to deal with people that disagree with you by drumming people up into such a state of frothing hate and blind hysteria that somebody eventually physically endangers their lives, then you are a terrorist, you asshole. Using destructive rhetoric to incite proxies to harm people you disagree with is not better than punching them, yourself.

It stops being about speech when somebody's child has gotten physically battered and sexually harassed in a place that was supposed to be safe for children.

And it stops being about speech when somebody's child has had to be carried out of their home on a stretcher because they are on their third suicide attempt. That is what happens, though, if you are peddling dangerous pseudoscience that caters to the wishful thinking of parents that understandably do not want to deal with a complex reality.

I have proved my case with peer-reviewed research. My views are aligned with those of one of the most respected pediatric organizations in North America. I have brought something authentic and substantial and palpable to this discussion.

The evidence is clear that transgender people are born that way, and the evidence is clear that they have a clinically significant reason for why they should ask you to respect their pronouns.

You are also asked to respect the fact that you are not allowed to flash a strobe light in the eyes of a person with epilepsy. Someone is not restricting your freedom when they stop you from that, but they are protecting the freedom of a person with epilepsy to be present at all. The same principle is at work, in that case, as with transgender people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom