Drag Shows

[Metaphor]

I just don't care what their gender identity is. It's like you volunteering your star sign. I did not ask and do not care.

You have done this over and over and over in this thread. You really think we're stupid enough to forget that?

I'm glad you're ashamed enough about this behavior to lie about it, though.

You made a false statement about me. You said:

But when other people say things, you call them liars, even they are telling you their gender identity, which they have more reason to know than any other person alive.

I have never said somebody is lying about their gender identity. Not once. Stop your false accusations.

You have repeatedly implied that trans individuals are basing their claims of identity on ‘thoughts in their heads’ and that ‘thoughts in your head’ do not determine sex.''

Correct.

The unavoidable conclusion is that in your opinion, trans individuals are either lying or delusional because they insist something is true that you believe is impossible to be true.

If a biological male believes he is instead a biological female because his gender identity is 'female', then he is delusional, yes. That doesn't make him a liar, it makes him delusional.

If a biological male believes his 'gender identity' of 'female' means he should have access to single-sex spaces designed for females, I would not say that is a lie, it's simply an incoherent and selfish demand.

So, Politesse did not lie about you.

I did not accuse Politesse of lying. I said he made a false statement. He said:

But when other people say things, you call them liars, even they are telling you their gender identity, which they have more reason to know than any other person alive.

That is a false statement. I did not call anybody a liar for claiming something about their gender identity. Stop making false accusations about me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

and that therefore your claim that "There are only two sexes among humans - male and female. No human is any other sex, nor is any human both sexes, nor is any human some in-between sex" isn't based on a scientific understanding of human biology at all.

Weird, then, how they can do this:

Blood Test Predicts Baby's Sex at 7 Weeks

New technologies are pushing back the time it takes to determine a baby's gender in the womb, and a new review finds that blood tests are the most reliable, while urine tests turn up a lot of false results.

www.livescience.com

No. This detects fetal testosterone production, not fetal phenotype.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yet you reject using your body the way it was designed for use.

Our bodies were not designed.

Design may have been a poor word choice. Certainly human evolution has created us the way we are. Metaphor has rejected the way evolution has made us. I have no problem with that. What I object to is Metaphor's rejection of others who do the same as him. He downplays their "feelings" as if they do not matter yet they came to a similar choice as him through the same means. He clearly has a double standard.

 

[Oleg]

and that therefore your claim that "There are only two sexes among humans - male and female. No human is any other sex, nor is any human both sexes, nor is any human some in-between sex" isn't based on a scientific understanding of human biology at all.

Weird, then, how they can do this:

Blood Test Predicts Baby's Sex at 7 Weeks

New technologies are pushing back the time it takes to determine a baby's gender in the womb, and a new review finds that blood tests are the most reliable, while urine tests turn up a lot of false results.

www.livescience.com

No. This detects fetal testosterone production, not fetal phenotype.

It clearly says the test is with fetal cells in maternal blood, not testosterone level.

 

[Oleg]

He downplays their "feelings" as if they do not matter yet they came to a similar choice as him through the same means.

I dunno. Metaphor isn’t demanding that we ignore biology.

 

[Metaphor]

Yet you reject using your body the way it was designed for use.

Our bodies were not designed.

Design may have been a poor word choice. Certainly human evolution has created us the way we are. Metaphor has rejected the way evolution has made us. I have no problem with that. What I object to is Metaphor's rejection of others who do the same as him. He downplays their "feelings" as if they do not matter yet they came to a similar choice as him through the same means. He clearly has a double standard.

Explain what my 'double standard' is. What demands am I making?

 

[ZiprHead]

He downplays their "feelings" as if they do not matter yet they came to a similar choice as him through the same means.

I dunno. Metaphor isn’t demanding that we ignore biology.

Actually he is. The brain and the "feelings" that come from it are biological in nature.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yet you reject using your body the way it was designed for use.

Our bodies were not designed.

Design may have been a poor word choice. Certainly human evolution has created us the way we are. Metaphor has rejected the way evolution has made us. I have no problem with that. What I object to is Metaphor's rejection of others who do the same as him. He downplays their "feelings" as if they do not matter yet they came to a similar choice as him through the same means. He clearly has a double standard.

Explain what my 'double standard' is. What demands am I making?

I didn't say you made any demands. ???

 

[Oleg]

He downplays their "feelings" as if they do not matter yet they came to a similar choice as him through the same means.

I dunno. Metaphor isn’t demanding that we ignore biology.

Actually he is. The brain and the "feelings" that come from it are biological in nature.

Nah. Metaphor, as I understanding it, is a male with same-sex attraction. He is not a male who says he's a female. He not demanding we accept that women have penises.

 

[ZiprHead]

He downplays their "feelings" as if they do not matter yet they came to a similar choice as him through the same means.

I dunno. Metaphor isn’t demanding that we ignore biology.

Actually he is. The brain and the "feelings" that come from it are biological in nature.

Nah. Metaphor, as I understanding it, is a male with same-sex attraction. He is not a male who says he's a female. He not demanding we accept that women have penises.

And there's the problem. Virtually no one is asking anyone to accept that females have penises. They are saying my brain is telling me my body is differant than what my brain tells me it should be and I wish to be respected as the gender my brain tells me I am. Metaphor rejects that.

 

[Bomb#20]

You're challenging conclusions the sciences came to more than a century ago and offering no real evidence.

What universe are you from? Do they have time travel there? The term "transsexual" had not yet even been coined a century ago, let alone "transgender"; and "transgender" only started displacing "transsexual" in the 1980s. You are just making up nonsense about me, as you so often have. You will not exhibit any conclusion "the sciences" came to more than a century ago that I've "challenged". ...

Not the terms, the science;

It was your claims about the terms that I challenged! You said the language changed to transgendered from "transexual" because trans-identified people do not and cannot change sex, you said the new term was more correct, and you strongly implied we switched because we know something now about science that we didn't know then -- from context, apparently, that people cannot change sex. None of those claims about the terms have scientific support. That's why I challenged them. I challenged no conclusions the sciences came to more than a century ago. You made that up.

the observation than some individuals are what we would now call intersex was discovered at roughly the same time that chromosomes themselves were, way back in 1907.

Oh for the love of god. We've known about intersex people for centuries at least, probably for millennia. In the 1600s Chief Justice Coke was writing about how England's inheritance law had customarily dealt with intersex individuals. (... "an hermaphrodite"...)

The terminology shift came about for social and political reasons.

Thank you. That's what I said -- and you pulled that whole patronizing "I guess if you're not familiar with the sciences" rhetorical ploy at me for saying it. Why do you behave this way?

It actually took quite a long time, more than twenty years, for the social sciences to catch on and adopt the sex vs gender dichotomy.

Yeah. When academic disciplines are following social and political changes rather than leading them, that's a red-flag that the disciplines are apt to be long on the social and short on the science.

 

[Oleg]

Stunning and brave.

Man changes gender to get daughters’ custody in Ecuador

A 47-year-old man Thursday in Ecuador legally changed his gender to gain custody of his daughters. According to the details, Ecuadorian law always favours the

www.24newshd.tv

The laws say that the one who has the right is the woman. As of this moment, I am female.

 

[Oleg]

He downplays their "feelings" as if they do not matter yet they came to a similar choice as him through the same means.

I dunno. Metaphor isn’t demanding that we ignore biology.

Actually he is. The brain and the "feelings" that come from it are biological in nature.

Nah. Metaphor, as I understanding it, is a male with same-sex attraction. He is not a male who says he's a female. He not demanding we accept that women have penises.

And there's the problem. Virtually no one is asking anyone to accept that males have penises. They are saying my brain is telling me my body is differant than what my brain tells me it should be and I wish to be respected as the gender my brain tells me I am. Metaphor rejects that.

 

[ZiprHead]

He downplays their "feelings" as if they do not matter yet they came to a similar choice as him through the same means.

I dunno. Metaphor isn’t demanding that we ignore biology.

Actually he is. The brain and the "feelings" that come from it are biological in nature.

Nah. Metaphor, as I understanding it, is a male with same-sex attraction. He is not a male who says he's a female. He not demanding we accept that women have penises.

And there's the problem. Virtually no one is asking anyone to accept that males have penises. They are saying my brain is telling me my body is differant than what my brain tells me it should be and I wish to be respected as the gender my brain tells me I am. Metaphor rejects that.

And? I said nothing about all trans individuals. I'm certain finding exception to almost any rule is quite an easy endeavor.

 

[Metaphor]

Yet you reject using your body the way it was designed for use.

Our bodies were not designed.

Design may have been a poor word choice. Certainly human evolution has created us the way we are. Metaphor has rejected the way evolution has made us. I have no problem with that. What I object to is Metaphor's rejection of others who do the same as him. He downplays their "feelings" as if they do not matter yet they came to a similar choice as him through the same means. He clearly has a double standard.

Explain what my 'double standard' is. What demands am I making?

I didn't say you made any demands. ???

So, what is my double standard? Is it "reject how evolution has made us" whilst forcing trans people to "accept" evolution? I am not forcing them to do anything.

 

[Metaphor]

He downplays their "feelings" as if they do not matter yet they came to a similar choice as him through the same means.

I dunno. Metaphor isn’t demanding that we ignore biology.

Actually he is. The brain and the "feelings" that come from it are biological in nature.

Nah. Metaphor, as I understanding it, is a male with same-sex attraction. He is not a male who says he's a female. He not demanding we accept that women have penises.

And there's the problem. Virtually no one is asking anyone to accept that males have penises. They are saying my brain is telling me my body is differant than what my brain tells me it should be and I wish to be respected as the gender my brain tells me I am. Metaphor rejects that.

I have no idea what it means to be "respected as the gender my brain tells me".

First, nobody can demand my 'respect'.

Second, if the demand for "respect" is "pretend (under the force of social censure and the force of the State) I am the sex I would have preferred to be and give me access to single-sex spaces on the basis of my gender identity", then hard no.

 

[Metaphor]

He downplays their "feelings" as if they do not matter yet they came to a similar choice as him through the same means.

I dunno. Metaphor isn’t demanding that we ignore biology.

Actually he is. The brain and the "feelings" that come from it are biological in nature.

We ignore the "feelings" of people all the time. "Feelings" do not qualify you to get whatever you demand. My biology would respond extremely positively to having sex with Henry Cavill but I do not get to demand Henry Cavill has sex with me.

 

[Politesse]

you said the new term was more correct, and you strongly implied we switched because we know something now about science that we didn't know then

In science, terms are meant to refer to concepts. The words themselves have no magical power, beyond acting as a the referent for a class of facts. Facts which, in this case, have been known for a very long time.

And my point was exactly the opposite, that these facts are hardly new. We gradually adopted the terminology of "transgendered" rather than "transexual" once it started appearing in popular society, as it clearly had utility in terms of what we knew about the biology versus sociology of sex, as we then called it, or between sex and gender, as we would now call it. Does that make more sense?

An analogy might be the term "personality", which came to gradually replace "temperament" throughout much the same time period iof the 1970s in psychology. Nothing changed in terms of our ability to describe or understand individual pscyhological dispositions, we just came to feel that personality was a better term to use in an era where behavioralist explanations of motivation were starting to lose popularity; like "sex", the meaning of "temperament" therefore narrowed considerably to refer only to deterministic factors as opposed to social ones.

We've known about intersex people for centuries at least

After a fashion, but I meant in termsa of having a substantive scientific description of sex and inheritance, ie the discovery and description of the 23rd chromosome pair.

rather than leading them, that's a red-flag that the disciplines are apt to be long on the social and short on the science

I don't think that's true. Science and society are always in conversation withone anotther to some degree. We shouldn't take concepts or beliefs from society without submitting to empirical rigor, but terminology is just words; we wouldn't adopt new terminology if it didn't have clear utility. Nothing changed about the scientific description of inheritance or sex because we borrowed this phrasing, it was just a more elegant way of describing the gap between sex and gender, so we adopted it.

and you pulled that whole patronizing "I guess if you're not familiar with the sciences" rhetorical ploy at me for saying it. Why do you behave this way?

Low tolerance for science denialism.

 

[ZiprHead]

He downplays their "feelings" as if they do not matter yet they came to a similar choice as him through the same means.

I dunno. Metaphor isn’t demanding that we ignore biology.

Actually he is. The brain and the "feelings" that come from it are biological in nature.

Nah. Metaphor, as I understanding it, is a male with same-sex attraction. He is not a male who says he's a female. He not demanding we accept that women have penises.

And there's the problem. Virtually no one is asking anyone to accept that males have penises. They are saying my brain is telling me my body is differant than what my brain tells me it should be and I wish to be respected as the gender my brain tells me I am. Metaphor rejects that.

I have no idea what it means to be "respected as the gender my brain tells me".

First, nobody can demand my 'respect'.

Second, if the demand for "respect" is "pretend (under the force of social censure and the force of the State) I am the sex I would have preferred to be and give me access to single-sex spaces on the basis of my gender identity", then hard no.

He downplays their "feelings" as if they do not matter yet they came to a similar choice as him through the same means.

I dunno. Metaphor isn’t demanding that we ignore biology.

Actually he is. The brain and the "feelings" that come from it are biological in nature.

We ignore the "feelings" of people all the time. "Feelings" do not qualify you to get whatever you demand. My biology would respond extremely positively to having sex with Henry Cavill but I do not get to demand Henry Cavill has sex with me.

Why do you keep bringing up "demand"? There are no demands in either of my posts.

 

[Bomb#20]

you said the new term was more correct, and you strongly implied we switched because we know something now about science that we didn't know then

In science, terms are meant to refer to concepts. The words themselves have no magical power, beyond acting as a the referent for a class of facts. Facts which, in this case, have been known for a very long time.

That doesn't mean it's okay for you to make a false claim about the words themselves and then trump up a false charge against me for having the temerity to point out your false claim about the words.

And my point was exactly the opposite, that these facts are hardly new.

So when you explained the terminology change with "when we knew less" you were giving a poor explanation; and when you explained my rejection of that explanation with "I guess if you're not familiar with the sciences" you were using a baseless ad hominem instead of going back and correcting the problem that what you'd actually said was exactly the opposite of what your point was.

We gradually adopted the terminology of "transgendered" rather than "transexual" once it started appearing in popular society, as it clearly had utility in terms of what we knew about the biology versus sociology of sex, as we then called it, or between sex and gender, as we would now call it. Does that make more sense?

Not sure which specific facts you intend "what we knew about the biology versus sociology of sex" to refer to. If you're talking about facts that make "transgendered" more useful than "transsexual", that sounds kind of like a claim that the dysphoric people in question are unhappy about the roles society assigns them due to their sex rather than about the structure or physiology of the bodies they find themselves trapped in. If that's what you're getting at, saying the new term is more "correct" sure sounds like an overgeneralization. Some are unhappy with one; some are unhappy with the other; some are unhappy with both. People are all individuals.

We've known about intersex people for centuries at least

After a fashion, but I meant in termsa of having a substantive scientific description of sex and inheritance, ie the discovery and description of the 23rd chromosome pair.

That sounds rather like sex-essentialism -- as though defining "sex" based on karyotype were somehow more "substantive" and "scientific" than defining it so as to more closely correspond to the existing common usage of the language community.

rather than leading them, that's a red-flag that the disciplines are apt to be long on the social and short on the science

I don't think that's true. Science and society are always in conversation withone anotther to some degree. We shouldn't take concepts or beliefs from society without submitting to empirical rigor, but terminology is just words; we wouldn't adopt new terminology if it didn't have clear utility.

No doubt; but often it's clear political or cultural utility rather than clear scientific utility.

Nothing changed about the scientific description of inheritance or sex because we borrowed this phrasing, it was just a more elegant way of describing the gap between sex and gender,

Possibly so; but there's a heck of a lot of daylight between "more elegant" and "more correctly".

so we adopted it.

That is a claim of causality. I.e., it's a claim that if society's phrasing had not been more elegant, then the social sciences would not have borrowed it. I.e., it's a claim that although society's terminology shift came about as you say for social and political reasons, those social and political reasons would have been insufficient to induce the social sciences to follow suit. That appears to be an extraordinary claim. Do you have any evidence for it?

and you pulled that whole patronizing "I guess if you're not familiar with the sciences" rhetorical ploy at me for saying it. Why do you behave this way?

Low tolerance for science denialism.

Wrong answer. That's not the reason you behave this way. We can tell, because you behave this way in spite of having zero evidence of any science denialism on my part.