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.
Alright, so you want to focus on the United States specifically. That works, there are plenty of examples of transgender people long before you were born.I'm asking you a very simple question....why were there no trans people in America before the Left concocted their no boundaries, no decency, no morality, anything goes, free for all bullshit?
gender is a social construct. It doesnt mean much to me. Of course, i think having 100 different genders is extremely silly.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.
Since we're speaking anecdotally here, I've spoken to many people just your age or older, and their accounts are quite different. It seems to be a very political thing, actually. I know a guy down the street, 70 some years old. Very educated, travelled the world, quite successful throughout his life. He sure as hell agrees that we shouldn't care what anyone else has to say, but he's very openly said that there's no point in his whole life where that was a commonplace practice. People have always imposed their ideals on others, and people have always been succumbing to those ideals. The few eccentric individuals that disregard what society says have always been in the extreme minority.I came from the generation that had some of the biggest NFL stars doing decidedly feminine hobbies and very feminine women doing very decidedly male hobbies.
We were the Reverend Mr. Rogers generation...
We liked what we liked and didn't care a thing about what anyone said.
Honestly, I don't think I've ever experienced this "homosexual brainwashing." In fact, nobody ever speaks about homosexuals except to say "don't intentionally be an asshole, just as you wouldn't intentionally be an asshole to anyone else." If you choose to be an asshole, that's fine, but if you're ostracized for that, don't be surprised.Between the gender disphoria of young people and the homosexual community trying to brainwash people....no wonder kids are dazed and confused.
Alright, so the issue is people raping others in bathrooms. Given how commonplace homosexuality is, why are transgenders any more of a concern?Personally I could care less what someone wants to identify themselves as, heck if they claim to be a unicorn then that's their business not mine. If I choose not to address them as such then that's my business not theirs and don't try and force me to do so........ As a former cop I view unisex restrooms as extremely problematic especially for women and girls. Regardless of what one identifies as if one has male genitals then they need to use the men's room and the same for women, they need to use the lady's room. And I agree that transgenders should not be allowed to compete alongside women in sports, transgenders have a strong edge over most women in this case making it unfair for the biological women.
As for myself I occasionally self identify as Ming the Merciless......... The only time I become gender fluid is when the men's room is out of order......... And the lady's room is a one seater.........
I'm going to assume you meant race, not ethnicity. To change ethnicities is actually nothing weird, since an ethnicity is a cultural group, not a color or set of physical attributes. If I went and lived in South Korea, learned Korean, adopt their customs, I'm just as good an ethnic Korean.Pandora's Box has been opened.....if people can "choose" a gender they most certainly can choose ethnicity as well.
Where does this go against rudimentary biology, may I ask?Where does it end? When does rudimentary biology play a role?
That's alright, who says you need to know the other person's argument to argue against them?Sorry I’m not reading all that.
In 1963, gender was defined as "a euphemism for the sex of a human being, often intended to emphasize the social and cultural, as opposed to the biological, distinctions between the sexes" in the Oxford English Dictionary. This is the definition I'm using. Even if we said "gender is synonymous with sex," I can just invent a new word and my argument is still the same. There are general social and psychological traits we associate with the different sexes, that's generally referred to as gender, and some people do not fit within the confines of their sexes associated gender. For those people, I cannot fathom how it is irrational to live as the gender opposite to the one they were assigned at birth.Gender until recently defined by leftist psychobabble was understood to be in reference to one’s physical sex.
It can be, yes, I acknowledged that. But even when it is considered a mental illness (and it's not always considered a mental illness), it is referred to as such for the level of distress caused by the misalignment between their sex and the traits others associate with that sex (gender).As for mental illness, it can be the result of mental illness.
People "don't accept who they were born as" all the time. I was born into this group, but I feel more at home with another group. This isn't a mental illness, and I don't see why a surgery suddenly makes it one. I believe you'd be hard-pressed to find a great number of professionals that consider gender-nonconformity by itself a mental illness.This is not to say LGBTQ feelings are an illness, the heart wants what the heart wants. What is a mental illness is not accepting yourself as what you were born as to the point of surgery.
Gender dysphoria isn't really bodily in many cases. There are many people that live as the opposite gender and feel perfectly fine with the genitalia they were born with. Some don't. The key is, in the vast majority of both cases, it's due to an observable separation between their gender (the psychological traits associated with their sex) and their sex.There’s an illness called Body Integrity Identity Disorder where the patient feels an urge to cut off a healthy appendage. There’s another illness called Body Dysmorphic Disorder where a person is obsessed with what they perceive as a flaw in their appearance.
People who have sex change operations are suffering from these disorders.
You're right, and that's because the doctor recognizes that it's due to a distorted perception of oneself. In gender dysphoria, there is no intrinsically distorted perception, one desires to conform with a set of observable traits of their own that happen to be associated with the opposite gender. Sometimes, they desire for their sex to conform with that gender. In other cases, they don't.The proof is simple. Go to your doctor and tell him you want your otherwise healthy arm removed. Will he do it? No.
I don't think it has much to do with sexuality. If I go to my doctor and ask for them to do that, they will refer me to a psychologist, and after some time of treatment, the psychologist will refer me back to the doctor. Once it has been identified that I truly do suffer from gender dysphoria, or simply heavily desire gender-nonconformity (because the two are different), that's when the doctor will take action.Go to your doctor and tell them to give your healthy breast a mastectomy or your healthy uterus a hysterectomy or surgically casterate a healthy penis. They won’t do it. But tell them you’re gay and suddenly it’s ok? It shouldn’t be.
They do receive therapy, and the therapist most often recognizes that conforming to their perceived gender is the best possible treatment for that misalignment.They won’t remove my healthy arm or leg why should they remove and try to reconfigure healthy sex organs? They shouldn’t. That person needs therapy not surgery. The issue goes much deeper. What ever your sexual preference you should accept yourself the way you are. If you can’t, surgery isn’t going too.
I won't claim that this doesn't happen, but there are numerous accounts of people living out as the opposite gender and finding sustained happiness through it. Psychologists for some time now have pretty openly admitted that living as the opposite gender is often a successful treatment for gender dysphoria.All those unhappy feelings will still be there once the surgery is done because your issue isn’t your body, it’s you hating on you. You need to go figure out why.
I pretty clearly outlined my point.Your point being?
Because it describes a real phenomenon. That's how words work, I think.I have a better question.
Why is gender-nonconformity even a word ?
I mean, what about homosexuals? Some women are stronger than others. By a lot. Some men are stronger than others. By a lot. Homosexuals have always existed, and bathroom rape has always been a thing as a result.“there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming “
Yes there is. In certain situations there’s problems. In example the restroom. The LGBTQ seems to think that transgender males should pee in the ladies room because they identify as female. It’s argued that they aren’t interested in females so they are no threat. I disagree
1 how do you know the person is actually transgender and not some perv trying to get a free peek in the ladies room? You don’t
2 How do you know they aren’t a rapist or pedophile in drag? You don’t.
3 How do you know the transgender isn’t bisexual and just being a perv? You don’t.
Men have greater muscle mass so in general are physically stronger than women. That’s a big risk for a female to take just to go to the bathroom. Then you get into the mental effects this could have on rape victims it’s unacceptable.
Agreed. That's why I don't support allowing transgender individuals to play professional sports.SPORTS is another area. As mentioned above men have greater muscle mass. This doesn’t physically change just because you identify as a woman. This give the transgender male an unfair advantage over the biological females.
I don't know anyone that gets offended over an honest mistake. I have messed up someone's pronouns before, and they have never gotten mad at me, as long as I made the effort to try to get it right every now and then. Now one thing I don't do, is I don't really assume someone's gender when I look at them. If you do, I get that, that's just a me thing. I usually refer to everyone as "they/them" and that works because it applies to any gender you can possibly conceive of.Transgender Karen’s. You look like a dude but you’re name is Tiffany. Don’t go off on me if I address you as miss or mam instead of sir. Your confusing sexual orientation is not my problem. There’s a female lawyer in my town who dresses like a dude but still addresses herself as female. You can’t get offended over an honest mistake.
You don't have to understand it. There are a lot of things I'll never understand, and you'll never understand. That shouldn't be relevant.I really like women, they are soft and usually smell good. I don’t know why anyone would want to be the other sex.
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.How about a similar thread on booger-eating?
Same relevance and prevalence.
Not really. This is pretty heavily studied, but a lot of researchers will say it's 50/50. There's a lot of genetics involved in personality, and there's a lot of experience involved in personality. That's not really relevant to the discussion here, though, I don't think.Wrong.. Personality traits are learned through experience. They are acquired by way of how we are taught, how our parents raised us.
Sex is coded in our DNA, yeah, but gender is just the psychological traits we associate with sex. You can discard the word gender and use anything else you'd like to describe this, but the argument still stands.Gender on the other hand, its coded into our DNA. It is acquired at some point between conception and birth, in the womb.
Alright, let me rephrase that, since you don't want me to use the word gender.I never said anything about definitions, my comments were about WORD play.
Words matter. It's the reason people change or add words so the definitions change in the first place.
"Gender is different from Sex"..... LOL
Being able to conceive of a child has nothing to do with gender, really.When a biological male becomes pregnant and conceives a child let me know.
Unsubstantiated.Sure there is. I think most trans people are completely insane
Well, while I'm not a leftist, I assure you that I have no problem with others having opinions.and I won't teach anybody that they're not. I refuse to lie about what I believe, though I know the left would love for everybody to just stop having opinions.
Once again, not a leftist, but very few people commit suicide for reasons that aren't somehow related to their social experiences. That's a pretty basic feature of suicide.They would have you believe that that suicide rate is the fault of everybody else. The left takes no responsibility for itself, ever.
Never said that. But I'm definitely within the right for calling someone out if they're going to make claims without substantiating them in a thread intended for debate."Stop talking!"
No tiptoeing required. Basic courtesy is always nice, though. I'm not a fan of universal validation, because I believe we should call out others for their actions and behaviors when it is rational to do so, but I've still yet to see a rational reason to call out the gender-nonconforming for being that way.Nobody owes you or anybody else any kind of social gratification. Nobody is obligated to be aware of and tiptoe around your needs. Stop demanding everybody else to validate you.
Not a democrat. And I didn't say anything about god, actually, all I said was that appeals to authority aren't valid arguments.Oh spare us....you Dims all think you are somehow more important than God, who created you. Give it a rest.
It's not transgenders that are the real concern, it's those who will use it as an excuse to gain potentially easy, unwitnessed access to be able to commit their crime. None of this is black and white, bad people are out there and will use any means possible to get what they want, by allowing unrestricted access for them in this area gives them one more easy vehicle to be able to commit their crimes. This doesn't mean some haven't trapped their victims in bathrooms prior to the unisex bathroom push, they have it's just now it potentially opens up greater possibilities/opportunities for them.Since we're speaking anecdotally here, I've spoken to many people just your age or older, and their accounts are quite different. It seems to be a very political thing, actually. I know a guy down the street, 70 some years old. Very educated, travelled the world, quite successful throughout his life. He sure as hell agrees that we shouldn't care what anyone else has to say, but he's very openly said that there's no point in his whole life where that was a commonplace practice. People have always imposed their ideals on others, and people have always been succumbing to those ideals. The few eccentric individuals that disregard what society says have always been in the extreme minority.
Honestly, I don't think I've ever experienced this "homosexual brainwashing." In fact, nobody ever speaks about homosexuals except to say "don't intentionally be an asshole, just as you wouldn't intentionally be an asshole to anyone else." If you choose to be an asshole, that's fine, but if you're ostracized for that, don't be surprised.
Alright, so the issue is people raping others in bathrooms. Given how commonplace homosexuality is, why are transgenders any more of a concern?
However, I can see the argument that if someone would like to receive the benefits of living as the other gender fully and legally, they should speak to a psychologist. Not because anything is terribly wrong with them, but for that reason exactly: I don't want a man walking into a woman's bathroom for the purposes of committing terrible acts. It should be verified that the individual truly desires to live as the opposite gender.
I'm going to assume you meant race, not ethnicity. To change ethnicities is actually nothing weird, since an ethnicity is a cultural group, not a color or set of physical attributes. If I went and lived in South Korea, learned Korean, adopt their customs, I'm just as good an ethnic Korean.
However, to change races and to change genders is totally different. There is a tangible, stark, undeniable, identifiable difference between the genders. Race, not so much, unless you're referring to culture, which I already addressed. To switch genders is to say that you better fit within the tangible set of traits we associate with the opposite gender, which is a real phenomenon, as I established.
Where does this go against rudimentary biology, may I ask?
That's alright, who says you need to know the other person's argument to argue against them?
In 1963, gender was defined as "a euphemism for the sex of a human being, often intended to emphasize the social and cultural, as opposed to the biological, distinctions between the sexes" in the Oxford English Dictionary. This is the definition I'm using. Even if we said "gender is synonymous with sex," I can just invent a new word and my argument is still the same. There are general social and psychological traits we associate with the different sexes, that's generally referred to as gender, and some people do not fit within the confines of their sexes associated gender. For those people, I cannot fathom how it is irrational to live as the gender opposite to the one they were assigned at birth.
It can be, yes, I acknowledged that. But even when it is considered a mental illness (and it's not always considered a mental illness), it is referred to as such for the level of distress caused by the misalignment between their sex and the traits others associate with that sex (gender).
People "don't accept who they were born as" all the time. I was born into this group, but I feel more at home with another group. This isn't a mental illness, and I don't see why a surgery suddenly makes it one. I believe you'd be hard-pressed to find a great number of professionals that consider gender-nonconformity by itself a mental illness.
Gender dysphoria isn't really bodily in many cases. There are many people that live as the opposite gender and feel perfectly fine with the genitalia they were born with. Some don't. The key is, in the vast majority of both cases, it's due to an observable separation between their gender (the psychological traits associated with their sex) and their sex.
In the case of body dysmorphia, the observations the individuals makes about their own body are false. They observe features that aren't there, or grossly overexaggerate existing features. I believe body dysmorphia is often the basis for anorexia nervosa.
You're right, and that's because the doctor recognizes that it's due to a distorted perception of oneself. In gender dysphoria, there is no intrinsically distorted perception, one desires to conform with a set of observable traits of their own that happen to be associated with the opposite gender. Sometimes, they desire for their sex to conform with that gender. In other cases, they don't.
I don't think it has much to do with sexuality. If I go to my doctor and ask for them to do that, they will refer me to a psychologist, and after some time of treatment, the psychologist will refer me back to the doctor. Once it has been identified that I truly do suffer from gender dysphoria, or simply heavily desire gender-nonconformity (because the two are different), that's when the doctor will take action.
They do receive therapy, and the therapist most often recognizes that conforming to their perceived gender is the best possible treatment for that misalignment.
I won't claim that this doesn't happen, but there are numerous accounts of people living out as the opposite gender and finding sustained happiness through it. Psychologists for some time now have pretty openly admitted that living as the opposite gender is often a successful treatment for gender dysphoria.
I pretty clearly outlined my point.
Because it describes a real phenomenon. That's how words work, I think.
I mean, what about homosexuals? Some women are stronger than others. By a lot. Some men are stronger than others. By a lot. Homosexuals have always existed, and bathroom rape has always been a thing as a result.
I'm not saying you should be able to just freely walk into any bathroom you'd like. Personally, I can see an argument that you should have the referral of a psychologist first. Psychologists are pretty damn good at what they do, and I'll be frank: I trust them to identify whether someone really is gender-nonconforming or if they're trying to BS their way into a bathroom so they can commit ungodly acts.
Agreed. That's why I don't support allowing transgender individuals to play professional sports.
I don't know anyone that gets offended over an honest mistake. I have messed up someone's pronouns before, and they have never gotten mad at me, as long as I made the effort to try to get it right every now and then. Now one thing I don't do, is I don't really assume someone's gender when I look at them. If you do, I get that, that's just a me thing. I usually refer to everyone as "they/them" and that works because it applies to any gender you can possibly conceive of.
Conclusion: transgenders are usually very respectful and considerate if you're respectful and considerate.
I thought that I explained this...there is XX, and XY people--these people are FEMALE XX or XY MALE. But there is rarely also X, XXXX and XXY people and other chromosome people out there....X is always female, and Y always mean male. I have never heard of anyone having more than one Y male chromosome but the Female X's have all sorts of variations.Is it science? Or is it using science to try and promote a narrative?
Clearly a hermaphrodite can be XX or XY
What chromosomes do intersex have? – MV-organizing.com
www.mvorganizing.org
"Females typically have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), and are called the homogametic sex. Males typically have two different kinds of sex chromosomes (XY), and are called the heterogametic sex."
That doesn't make them "normal". That doesn't mean EVERYONE is "normal". That doesn't mean we can define everyone as male or female only and then say that everyone is "normal".
Clearly there are gay people who have XX or XY chromosomes and yet something else is going on there. I've known way too many people who came out as gay after I first knew them, or years after I stopped having daily contact with them. And you realize that yes, there was something there. Something "not right". But that it's also NATURAL.
Nope... completely untrue. As recently seen in the media about teachers losing jobs and others being sued over not guessing the gender the trans person was "feeling" that moment.Conclusion: transgenders are usually very respectful and considerate if you're respectful and considerate
"gender is a social construct"gender is a social construct. It doesnt mean much to me. Of course, i think having 100 different genders is extremely silly.
My only problem with this shit is the special rights people want. I am against that. I support equality. TRUE equality.
Because they aren't denying anything.Gender non conformity is actually just an altruistic way of saying gender denial. Why not just say gender denial?
I don't really understand what you're saying here, but I'd like to hear how anything involved here is a fantasy.I have yet to hear how a transgender person's community has been allowed to identify them and they have enjoyed and entertained the fantasy and are now having a tantrum when society as a whole is destroying this fantasy they live in.
Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
Yeah, not a big fan of the over-publicization of sex lives. I mean, I think we should be more or less open about sex, but the obsession with it is quite annoying.See that for some people in regards to children it may be concerning, But this obsession with other peoples sex life's why? No interest in going back to the 1950s.
I'm with you on this one. There are two genders, and if you don't think you're a part of them, I'm fine with you just saying "non-binary." I'm not going to use any pronouns other than she/her, he/him, or they/them. And I certainly don't support special rights for any group.gender is a social construct. It doesnt mean much to me. Of course, i think having 100 different genders is extremely silly.
My only problem with this shit is the special rights people want. I am against that. I support equality. TRUE equality.
Well, we can restrict those greater possibilities/opportunities through the means I stated: psychological evaluation.It's not transgenders that are the real concern, it's those who will use it as an excuse to gain potentially easy, unwitnessed access to be able to commit their crime. None of this is black and white, bad people are out there and will use any means possible to get what they want, by allowing unrestricted access for them in this area gives them one more easy vehicle to be able to commit their crimes. This doesn't mean some haven't trapped their victims in bathrooms prior to the unisex bathroom push, they have it's just now it potentially opens up greater possibilities/opportunities for them.
Yes, the title of the thread is very much an oversimplification. However, I don't believe the argument I posted at the beginning of this thread did anything but expand upon that and clarify what I meant by each of these terms.The title of this thread is very simple-minded. It isn't a case of "good" or "bad" but one of how to deal with it by society.
I don't know the exact statistics, but I meet gender-nonconforming people all over the place. And I still live in a conservative area.People who believe they are actually members of the opposite sex are EXTREMELY rare, despite all the attention given it by our fifth column media whose agenda is quite subversive. As it currently stands, the 99.99% of the population is being forced to capitulate to the demands of the 0.01% by not only tolerating the anomaly,
How is it illegitimate?but LEGITIMIZING it.
I don't support allowing them in sports, and I already explored measures that would largely prevent the bathroom issues stated.If a male thinks they are a female or visa versa, then so be it. No skin of my teeth. Being forced by authoritarian Stalinists to treat males as if they ARE females complete with granting them access to bathrooms of females and competing against them in sports is the problem here is the real problem here.
Alright, well if you'd like to establish where I've abandoned what you perceive to be common sense, I'm all ears.It isn't a matter of tolerance but one of coercion arising from those who make demands that the overwhelming majority abandon even the slightest iota of common sense and capitulate to this forced mass delusion.
It happens that I've met hundreds of transgenders and none of them have ever been anything but respectful and accommodating when I've gotten their pronouns wrong once or twice by accident.Nope... completely untrue. As recently seen in the media about teachers losing jobs and others being sued over not guessing the gender the trans person was "feeling" that moment.
I admit I used some anecdotal evidence, but it was minimal and simply directed towards other anecdotal claims or misapplications of real phenomena. The rest wasn't anecdotal at all, I used tangible examples.And anecdotal evidence of how gender disphoria wasn't seized upon by people telling someone they "shoulda been a girl/guy" and then the emotionally challenged person gravitated towards that identity is not proof of anything.
I don't see how it's letting others decide your identity, really. It's accommodating the unavoidable associations we make with sex (gender), and allowing people to decide which set of associations they'd like to live by. These associations have always been imposing, and as much as I wish that would change, I can't imagine it will anytime soon.Its flat out letting others decide your identity instead of YOU.
I can fully understand why someone might be upset when another person acts intentionally inflammatory. I generally don't get upset over those things, but most human beings definitely would, regardless of their political persuasion or gender status.Then getting upset when the rest of the world destroys the fantasy is all too common too. It's rather pathetic.
What does genitalia have to do with gender?"gender is a social construct"
With their not so clever word games the whackos have tried their best to make it so.
Be careful...Don't buy the filth they're selling...Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina.....Gender LIKE SEX is not a feeling.
Psychological evaluation on such a scale is polyannish at best making it unrealistic outside of academic musings.Because they aren't denying anything.
I don't really understand what you're saying here, but I'd like to hear how anything involved here is a fantasy.
Yeah, not a big fan of the over-publicization of sex lives. I mean, I think we should be more or less open about sex, but the obsession with it is quite annoying.
I'm with you on this one. There are two genders, and if you don't think you're a part of them, I'm fine with you just saying "non-binary." I'm not going to use any pronouns other than she/her, he/him, or they/them. And I certainly don't support special rights for any group.
Well, we can restrict those greater possibilities/opportunities through the means I stated: psychological evaluation.
Yes, the title of the thread is very much an oversimplification. However, I don't believe the argument I posted at the beginning of this thread did anything but expand upon that and clarify what I meant by each of these terms.
I don't know the exact statistics, but I meet gender-nonconforming people all over the place. And I still live in a conservative area.
How is it illegitimate?
I don't support allowing them in sports, and I already explored measures that would largely prevent the bathroom issues stated.
I also don't support the government "forcing" people to treat them any which way. My argument was that non-accommodation is irrational.
Alright, well if you'd like to establish where I've abandoned what you perceive to be common sense, I'm all ears.
It happens that I've met hundreds of transgenders and none of them have ever been anything but respectful and accommodating when I've gotten their pronouns wrong once or twice by accident.
I admit I used some anecdotal evidence, but it was minimal and simply directed towards other anecdotal claims or misapplications of real phenomena. The rest wasn't anecdotal at all, I used tangible examples.
I don't see how it's letting others decide your identity, really. It's accommodating the unavoidable associations we make with sex (gender), and allowing people to decide which set of associations they'd like to live by. These associations have always been imposing, and as much as I wish that would change, I can't imagine it will anytime soon.
I can fully understand why someone might be upset when another person acts intentionally inflammatory. I generally don't get upset over those things, but most human beings definitely would, regardless of their political persuasion or gender status.
What does genitalia have to do with gender?
"The psychological traits we associate with our biological features are not the same as those biological features."
Being able to conceive of a child has nothing to do with gender, really.
No tiptoeing required. Basic courtesy is always nice, though. I'm not a fan of universal validation, because I believe we should call out others for their actions and behaviors when it is rational to do so, but I've still yet to see a rational reason to call out the gender-nonconforming for being that way.
I like money. I want to be George Soros.What the left practices should be called "crimes against nature." A person can no more be non-conforming to their gender, than they can be non-conforming to their species.
I can't just wake up one morning and decide that I want to be a horse.
Where is the obsession? Where is the paranoia? Where is the dribble?
Also, why are suicide rates relevant to this argument? Throughout history, there has been variation in the suicide rates of many groups, some higher than others. Almost universally, the suicide rate being higher among one group than the other is very easily explained by social factors. I cannot think of an example outside of that.
So why is my argument wrong? You're making a claim, which I thoroughly argued against in my claim. Did you read my argument? If not, then you shouldn't be posting here, this is a section for debate. If so, then you should be justifying your claim, this is a section for debate.
I don't care. Just stop trying to shove it down my throat.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.
