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 whole problem arises because of the men's intolerance in the men's room. You can't change your people are. That creates a big dilemma. The solution like all things has to be in compromise. Simply saying that all people that are born male must use the restroom for meals doesn't apply in this situation.
Your treachery is unbelievable, you have no integrity at all..
The solution cannot be a compromise when you have nothing to offer as a compromise.
You don't want a compromise as much as you want compliance with your ideology.
Stop speaking about principles you don't understand.
.
Your treachery is unbelievable, you have no integrity at all.
I leave all of you with this. " When we believe we've been wronged, we often want to prove to the one who's hurt or betrayed us just how wrong they are. Instead, the focus needs to be on forgiveness. When the desire to forgive takes precedent, The need to be right dissipates, opening the door for a more conscious and healthy connection. "- Scott Stabile. I am only human. I am not infallible. I do ask your forgiveness if I've offended you. I only hope I've given you a moment to pause and review your thoughts on this issue, that is all I can expect. I'm done here. Goodbye..
So you say, but have yet to prove ...
.
The media created a fake problem.The media saw there was a problem with hatred rising against transgenders so they put the information out there so people would feel more comfortable with transgender people there's no intent to shove anything on anyone other than information information is the best weapon against misinformation and outright lies. No one can make civilization aberrant, but people can destroy Civilization by being closed-minded, believing in lies, and being indifferent to their fellow human beings. That allows hatred and ignorance to grow, the real enemy of mankind in this world.
Nobody is saying people should be forced to eat in restrooms, histrionic one.The whole problem arises because of the men's intolerance in the men's room. You can't change your people are. That creates a big dilemma. The solution like all things has to be in compromise. Simply saying that all people that are born male must use the restroom for meals doesn't apply in this situation.
Sorry, I don't take men who think they are women seriously. I couldn't care less what they THINK they are they are men. That gays have made contributions is unarguable but they are still aberrant sexually.Since none of you take the issue seriously or have any rational solutions for the perceived problem and you keep condemning these people to death I'd say you are the ones that are being insanely melodramatic.
They created it as a tool to control us. They have been exploiting increasingly uncommon wedge issues in such a way that the mainstream is under constant attack by the fringe element, and they are trying to gaslight the mainstream by casting normalcy as abnormal.The media created a fake problem.
Goodby .I'm done here. Goodbye.
Boy in skirt gets in girls bathroom and rape a girlI am pleading for some sanity here you can't condemn people to death by your actions that is sick that is a Nazi Nation type thing it's not American at all it's not Christian at all it's not even human at all.
I dont care what game you wish to play.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.
Sorry you misunderstood, I'm not leaving I just ended my attempt to trying to discuss the issue. I will continue to monitor and it may even occasionally comment but I'm not going to get into incessant ongoing nonsense that doesn't Lead anything productiveGoodby .
Have fun at the next forum you choose to join.
Thank you for your impeccable use of logic.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.
It's not a game, it's called logic and deductive reasoning. No one can force you to learn. You just have to be willing.I dont care what game you wish to play.
don't force me to play along.
This thread needs to be retitled "The Longest Goodby".Sorry you misunderstood, I'm not leaving I just ended my attempt to trying to discuss the issue. I will continue to monitor and it may even occasionally comment but I'm not going to get into incessant ongoing nonsense that doesn't Lead anything productive
Funny !This thread needs to be retitled "The Longest Goodby".
I disagree. The best measure of a culture/society is the degree to which its individuals are free to pursue their own version of happiness.The best measure of a culture / society is how it treats it's minorities.
Father Nature doesn't see it that way.Mental sexual orientation or gender is totally relevant to every human being on the planet. That should extend to equality under the law, it's a basic human right.
That's good too.I disagree. The best measure of a culture/society is the degree to which its individuals are free to pursue their own version of happiness.
thought you said goodbye.It's not a game, it's called logic and deductive reasoning. No one can force you to learn. You just have to be willing.
