A simple fix for the Transgender issue.

[KCfromNC]

I do not see trans women as real women; I see them as men who imagine themselves as women.

A protestant who didn't have the self-control to avoid saying the a similar thing about a Catholic's Christianity here would get banned.

 

[Ken-1122]

And just because you think they aren't real women, just because you think that a person needs to be born with a vagina to be a real woman, doesn't mean you are right.

Since ytou can't treat trans folk with respect and since you have shown that you aren't interested in treating them with respect, but instead only want to justify your disrespect of them, it's plain that nothing I can say will change your mind, and so I'm done.

There you go with sex organs again! Penis = man, Vagina = woman. I never said anything like that; yet you keep bringing it up. Why? I've been clear from the jump my reasoning is based on biology not sex organs; yet you refuse to address biology and insist on bringing up sex organs. It appears you have no interest in an honest conversation. Until you are ready to address my actual reasons rather than making stuff up.... yeah I agree, you're done!

 

[Ken-1122]

A protestant who didn't have the self-control to avoid saying the a similar thing about a Catholic's Christianity here would get banned.

My argument is supported by scientific evidence. Is the protestant argument supported by scientific evidence? If not; your argument fails.

 

[Kylie]

There you go with sex organs again! Penis = man, Vagina = woman. I never said anything like that; yet you keep bringing it up. Why? I've been clear from the jump my reasoning is based on biology not sex organs; yet you refuse to address biology and insist on bringing up sex organs. It appears you have no interest in an honest conversation. Until you are ready to address my actual reasons rather than making stuff up.... yeah I agree, you're done!

Are you saying sex organs are not biological?

In any case, it does not change the point I am making.

 

[Moral Orel]

My argument is supported by scientific evidence. Is the protestant argument supported by scientific evidence? If not; your argument fails.

No it's not. You're arguing that we should arbitrarily define the word "gender" based on biological science, that isn't the same thing as having biological science support your argument. There is no scientific evidence that the string of letters g-e-n-d-e-r refers to biological sex. It is your opinion that gender should be defined in such a way, and it is the opinion of some folk that Catholics aren't Christians based on their own subjective decisions on how to define words. His argument wins. Your argument lost a long time ago.

 

[Ken-1122]

Are you saying sex organs are not biological?

No, I'm saying biology is much more than sex organs. The fact that you are constantly claiming I base it strictly on sex organs rather than biology (as I have been saying since day one) tells me you aren't interested in addressing my point

In any case, it does not change the point I am making.

You needed to replace vagina with biology. If your point is I don’t consider them real women unless they are biological women, then I would agree with that point. But then if that is what you meant I’m sure you would have phrased it that way rather than acting as if it’s all about the sex organs.

 

[Ken-1122]

No it's not. You're arguing that we should arbitrarily define the word "gender" based on biological science, that isn't the same thing as having biological science support your argument. There is no scientific evidence that the string of letters g-e-n-d-e-r refers to biological sex. It is your opinion that gender should be defined in such a way, and it is the opinion of some folk that Catholics aren't Christians based on their own subjective decisions on how to define words. His argument wins. Your argument lost a long time ago.

I’ve never said anything close to that. I said Gender is based on “make believe” and biology is based on science. That is why I address biology not gender. Care to try again?

 

[Moral Orel]

I’ve never said anything close to that. I said Gender is based on “make believe” and biology is based on science. That is why I address biology not gender. Care to try again?

Ugh... Just trying to keep it concise, but okay:

No it's not. You're arguing that we should arbitrarily define the word "man" based on biological science, that isn't the same thing as having biological science support your argument. There is no scientific evidence that the string of letters m-a-n refers to biological sex. It is your opinion that "man" should be defined in such a way, and it is the opinion of some folk that Catholics aren't Christians based on their own subjective decisions on how to define words. His argument wins. Your argument lost a long time ago.

No it's not. You're arguing that we should arbitrarily define the word "woman" based on biological science, that isn't the same thing as having biological science support your argument. There is no scientific evidence that the string of letters w-o-m-a-n refers to biological sex. It is your opinion that "woman" should be defined in such a way, and it is the opinion of some folk that Catholics aren't Christians based on their own subjective decisions on how to define words. His argument wins. Your argument lost a long time ago.

No it's not. You're arguing that we should arbitrarily define the word "he" based on biological science, that isn't the same thing as having biological science support your argument. There is no scientific evidence that the string of letters "h-e" refers to biological sex. It is your opinion that "he" should be defined in such a way, and it is the opinion of some folk that Catholics aren't Christians based on their own subjective decisions on how to define words. His argument wins. Your argument lost a long time ago.

Do I need to keep going through all the gendered pronouns for you to get the point? Didn't say "anything close to that" indeed.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ugh... Just trying to keep it concise, but okay:

No it's not. You're arguing that we should arbitrarily define the word "man" based on biological science, that isn't the same thing as having biological science support your argument. There is no scientific evidence that the string of letters m-a-n refers to biological sex. It is your opinion that "man" should be defined in such a way, and it is the opinion of some folk that Catholics aren't Christians based on their own subjective decisions on how to define words. His argument wins. Your argument lost a long time ago.

Do I need to keep going through all the gendered pronouns for you to get the point? Didn't say "anything close to that" indeed.

Here is my argument.
According to science, humans are mammals. Mammals are divided into two categories; male and female (XY Chromosomes for male XX for female) .
If humans are more than two categories, that would mean we are not mammals. But according to science we are. My argument has nothing to do with the letters we use referring to male or female (man woman,); which seems to be the crux of your arguments.
Care to try again?

 

[Kylie]

No, I'm saying biology is much more than sex organs. The fact that you are constantly claiming I base it strictly on sex organs rather than biology (as I have been saying since day one) tells me you aren't interested in addressing my point

You needed to replace vagina with biology. If your point is I don’t consider them real women unless they are biological women, then I would agree with that point. But then if that is what you meant I’m sure you would have phrased it that way rather than acting as if it’s all about the sex organs.

Yet the fact remains that you think your arbitrary decision about how gender should be defined is more important than what those people want for themselves. You are disrespecting them every single time you say that you are better qualified to tell their gender than they are. Hence, you are disrespectful, and you show no sign that you want to do anything more than say that you are right and they are wrong. So, like I said, I am done.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yet the fact remains that you think your arbitrary decision about how gender should be defined is more important than what those people want for themselves.

For the ump-teenth time, I am not defining GENDER, I speak of biology. Can you bring yourself to mention biology? That's what my entire argument is based on and you seem to be avoiding it like the plague.

You are disrespecting them every single time you say that you are better qualified to tell their gender than they are.

Again; I don't speak of their gender. If you had been listening to what I am saying this would be obvious.

Hence, you are disrespectful, and you show no sign that you want to do anything more than say that you are right and they are wrong. So, like I said, I am done.

Unless you are willing to respond to what I actually say, I agree you are done.

 

[KCfromNC]

Here is my argument.
According to science, humans are mammals. Mammals are divided into two categories; male and female (XY Chromosomes for male XX for female) .

Funny thing is, real biology is a lot more complex than this.

But in any case, what difference does it make to the pronouns people prefer? I mean, I don't need to go have a genetic test to figure out that I'd prefer to be called a man. Do you?

ETA - and more to the point, do you require genetic testing before deciding which personal pronouns to use for other people? Seems expensive. And totally not how anyone actually goes about the process back here in reality.

 

[Ken-1122]

Funny thing is, real biology is a lot more complex than this.

But in any case, what difference does it make to the pronouns people prefer? I mean, I don't need to go have a genetic test to figure out that I'd prefer to be called a man. Do you?

No. But I fail to understand what this has to do with the conversation.

ETA - and more to the point, do you require genetic testing before deciding which personal pronouns to use for other people?

No. Again; I fail to see your point.

 

[Kylie]

For the ump-teenth time, I am not defining GENDER, I speak of biology. Can you bring yourself to mention biology? That's what my entire argument is based on and you seem to be avoiding it like the plague.


Again; I don't speak of their gender. If you had been listening to what I am saying this would be obvious.


Unless you are willing to respond to what I actually say, I agree you are done.

Okay, you wanna talk biology, how about a person with XY chromosomes who is a fertile woman?

Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development

By your logic, you should call her a man.

Or do you have some other definition of "biologically a man"?

In any case, you are completely ignoring the fact that if someone asks you to refer to them by a certain set of pronouns, it's disrespectful not to. You do not seem to care about people, you only care about fitting people into the only little boxes you have decided are suitable. Like I've said many times, disrespectful.

 

[Belk]

I’ve never said anything close to that. I said Gender is based on “make believe” and biology is based on science. That is why I address biology not gender. Care to try again?

Actual scientists disagree with you.

Anatomy Does Not Determine Gender, Experts Say

 

[KCfromNC]

No. But I fail to understand what this has to do with the conversation.

You were the one who brought up the presumed genetic makeup of the people you want to talk to. I figured it had something to do with the conversation?

 

[Ken-1122]

Okay, you wanna talk biology, how about a person with XY chromosomes who is a fertile woman?

Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development

By your logic, you should call her a man.

As I said before, there are always going to be rare exceptions, like hermaphrodite/intersexual.

In any case, you are completely ignoring the fact that if someone asks you to refer to them by a certain set of pronouns, it's disrespectful not to.

Should I refer to them as a leprechaun if they ask me to? Or do I have the option of recognizing leprechauns don't exist and refer to them as human.

You do not seem to care about people, you only care about fitting people into the only little boxes you have decided are suitable. Like I've said many times, disrespectful.

Why is biology disrespectful?

 

[Ken-1122]

Actual scientists disagree with you.

Anatomy Does Not Determine Gender, Experts Say

The link you provided does not even address the point I made. Your link is about gender and anatomy; Not what I actually spoke of. Do you have something that supports your claim that science disagrees with me? Or is your word supposed to be good enough?

 

[Ken-1122]

You were the one who brought up the presumed genetic makeup of the people you want to talk to.

No that is what this conversation is about

 

[Speedwell]

No that is what this conversation is about

Perhaps we should go all the way back to the OP and start over.

How about if we just don’t address it? When referring to men vs women, when deciding which public restroom or shower facility to use, when unsure to call someone a ma'am or sir, instead of assuming gender, why not just assume sex? The difference? Sex refers to biology, (XX vs XY chromosomes, sex organs, etc) where as gender refers to perceived social roles based on sex.

When I speak to people, if I use the pronoun he or she, I’m referring to their sex not their gender. I’m making an assumption of their biology, not whatever confusion they might have going on inside of their heads. If a biological woman identifies as a man, she shouldn’t assume I am addressing her identification when I call her she, this woman should assume I am referring to her biology.

Does this make sense? Your thoughts?

Ken

1. If you are addressing the person, then the question doesn't come up; just say "you."
2. If you are speaking of the person to someone else and neither of you know anything about his or her self-identification, then a choice of pronoun based on appearance is acceptable.
3. If you do know what that person's self-identification is, then the choice of pronoun should be determined by that identification.

Your opinion that a person's self-identification is a result of "confusion going on inside their heads" can be kept to yourself.