To Seem, Rather Than To Be? (Trans Ideology)

[Moral Orel]

No; I do know something about the factors I mentioned; I may not know know the exact details about their biology, but If I'm talking to a guy, and on average guys have an average testosterone level of somewhere between 900-1200, or an average estrogen level of somewhere between 15-30, am I expected to know their exact numbers before addressing them? Of course not!

You don't know you're talking to a male, that's the point! You only know how he presents himself.

I look at them, and based on how they look I make assumptions about their biology; it's as simple as that.

Right, you refer to how they present while knowing nothing about the biological facts that involve their sex.

But when I address them, this assumption is based on their biology, NOT their gender (as redefined by you)

No, absolutely wrong. There is no assumption based on their biology. You may make assumptions about their biology. But everything that your determination is based on is how they present. You don't know their biology so you cannot base anything on it.

I haven't redefined gender. I'm pointing out that you, just like everyone else, treats it as a social construct at times. Biological sex is not identical to gender and even you recognize it. Stop pretending like you aren't referring to the society formed gender presentations.

Sometimes biological sex matters, and sometimes it doesn't. When you don't know anything about a person's biology, and you get by just fine, that's one of those times it doesn't matter.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, absolutely wrong. There is no assumption based on their biology. You may make assumptions about their biology. But everything that your determination is based on is how they present. You don't know their biology so you cannot base anything on it.

To know means to be convinced of, it does not mean you are correct. IOW you can know something to be true and still be wrong. When I say I know something about their biology based on how they present themselves, that only means I am convinced about their biology due to their presentation, it does not mean I will always be correct.

I haven't redefined gender. I'm pointing out that you, just like everyone else, treats it as a social construct at times.

When have I treated it as a social construct?

Biological sex is not identical to gender and even you recognize it. Stop pretending like you aren't referring to the society formed gender presentations.

Give an example of me doing this.

 

[Moral Orel]

To know means to be convinced of

lol No, it doesn't. Your argument is bad if you have to redefine "know".

When have I treated it as a social construct?

Every single time you've referred to someone as "he" or "she" because of the clothes they wear or the way they cut their hair or their use of makeup or lack thereof, etc. You know, how people present.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Every single time you've referred to someone as "he" or "she" because of the clothes they wear or the way they cut their hair or their use of makeup or lack thereof, etc. You know, how people present.

Not to mention forums such as this one -- how many of us have made assumptions based on screen names, avatar pictures, etc...?

 

[Ken-1122]

lol No, it doesn't. Your argument is bad if you have to redefine "know".

Definition of know | Dictionary.com
I've redefined nothing. The dictionary agrees with me

Every single time you've referred to someone as "he" or "she" because of the clothes they wear or the way they cut their hair or their use of makeup or lack thereof, etc. You know, how people present.

Those are traditional gender ROLES. I've never suggested adopting gender roles make you of that gender. Care to try again?

 

[didactics]

These sentences introduce some topics that are somewhat different from the question of how to relate to transgender people.

1. Consent: Consent is normally discussed in the context of sexual activity, not gender identity. Having your partner's consent is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for having sex with them in a way that is morally acceptable. I assume the reference to consent here is just an accidental oops, but I wanted to clarify.

I just meant in the context of a doctor agreeing to do a sex reassignment surgery (SRS), also known as gender Confirmation surgery (GCS). I mention it because I oppose this and I don’t think consent makes it okay.

2. Gender binary: This is more interesting, and I'd be interested in exploring it with you, if you'd like to discuss it. As a preliminary comment, I'll note that it's quite possible to talk about transgender people completely in terms of a gender binary -- namely, to say that everyone has a personality that's either masculine or feminine, and most of the time that aligns with their male or female body, but sometime's it's misaligned. This way of describing it still speaks in the language of a gender binary.

You are wanting “gender binary” to fit in, align with your beliefs about gender spectrum theory. What if I word it this way “gender is binary”? Gender is [something having two parts]. When someone wants to say that trans women are women, it’s a form of indoctrination. If you question it, then you would reason that transgender is its own gender. How could it then fit in the gender binary? 2 + 2 = 4, I thought this was universal but somehow transgenders got around this and found a loophole. From what I get transgenderism forms the bases for a belief in gender existing on a spectrum. It would all make better sense of course if gender and sex are merely synonyms. Men produce seeds, women produce eggs, if I can point to one singular factor that relates to reproduction. Man is not like marine wildlife in that we cannot switch sexes.

You say you want to be "affirming the gender binary", so I assume you disagree with at least some of what's in the preceding paragraph. What do you mean when you say that you want to affirm the gender binary

I want to say that gender is two sexes and they compliment each other.

By contrast, people who talk about "rejecting the gender binary" are talking about the idea that people's personalities, interests, and aptitudes can range from the stereotypically masculine to the stereotypically feminine, with lots of gradations in between and lots of mixing-and-matching (e.g., a person can like to knit and also like to fix cars). The idea is that, while there may be some level of statistical correlation between psychological femininity and biological femaleness (or between masculinity and maleness), a person's body isn't anything like a perfect 100% predictor of their personality, and that it's good to acknowledge and celebrate people's wide varieties of personalities, interests, and aptitudes, instead of making them conform to one of two boxes, "masculine" or "feminine".

But that makes me think of the saying, don’t recreate the wheel. What if there are in fact good things that we associate with masculinity? Such as, a husband showing chivalry to his wife. We shouldn’t throw it all away simply because society latches on to, or holds in high regard things that are otherwise toxic behavior.

 

[PloverWing]

Agreed -- I like the way Christine Emba put it in her book: "Rethinking Sex: A Provocation." "Consent should be the floor, not the ceiling."

Thanks for the book recommendation!

Here I have to disagree somewhat, because you seem to be thinking of "personality" as a single monolithic thing, and not a collection of attitudes and behaviors... each of which are perceived as "masculine" or "feminine" by society.

Agreed -- but while you talk about the biological and the psychological, I think you're leaving out another crucial influence: sociological.

I don't think we actually disagree here. It's just that I've oversimplified.

Your observations are correct. I'm trying to use "personality" as a way of talking about the inner self, as distinct from the body. But you're right, that our inner selves aren't one monolithic thing. You're also correct about the sociological element. I intended for "psychological" to include "sociological", but again, oversimplification. Socialization is a huge element in how "masculine" or "feminine" our behaviors and attitudes and self-image are.

 

[didactics]

You guys are absolutely crazy the only difference is some of you are trying to out crazy each other. What seems to be assumed here is: there’s only one way to treat the psychological illness known as gender dysphasia, and that by indoctrinating everyone else to believe there’s only one way to treat gender dysphoria. Some of you go so far as to use preferred pronouns, and some of you don’t. Some of you want heavy emphasis on gender affirming hormone replacement therapy as young as possible and sex reassignment surgery, and some of you go along with it to a degree. I’m seeing a lot of internal debating. But what I’m proposing is radically different than most, which really makes me look like the crazy one, but here it is: gender affirming HRT and sex reassignment surgery is never, and I mean never, a good treatment option for gender confused people [period]. That’s the case I’m making and it doesn’t seem to be too popular.



These trans people what they need is counseling. The question is what kind of counseling. Though it is a real psychological issue it’s also a heart issue. We all have proclivities to do things we shouldn’t. Now this forum website has its own Christian counseling that it recommends [faithfulcounseling.com]. Instead I recommend [biblicalcounseling.com]. You might say that I’m no different proposing only one recourse. So I’ll also say, it wouldn’t hurt if we weren’t trying to disrupt the nuclear family.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Thanks for the book recommendation!





I don't think we actually disagree here. It's just that I've oversimplified.

Your observations are correct. I'm trying to use "personality" as a way of talking about the inner self, as distinct from the body. But you're right, that our inner selves aren't one monolithic thing. You're also correct about the sociological element. I intended for "psychological" to include "sociological", but again, oversimplification. Socialization is a huge element in how "masculine" or "feminine" our behaviors and attitudes and self-image are.

I see that -- but we can't lose sight of the act that these three factors -- biology, psychology, and sociology -- are distinct, but also mutually dependent.

"personality" in this case is a combination of psychology and sociology... which not only feed off each other, but also influence and are influenced by our biology.

 

[Moral Orel]

Definition of know | Dictionary.com
I've redefined nothing. The dictionary agrees with me

None of the definitions listed involve being "convinced" of things that might be false. You're wrong.

Those are traditional gender ROLES.

No, gender roles are like when we say women ought to do the cooking and cleaning.

I've never suggested adopting gender roles make you of that gender.

Your use of "he" and "she" is based on these things. Your use of "he" and "she" is not because of biology.

 

[didactics]

None of the definitions listed involve being "convinced" of things that might be false. You're wrong.

No, gender roles are like when we say women ought to do the cooking and cleaning.

Your use of "he" and "she" is based on these things. Your use of "he" and "she" is not because of biology.

In my opinion — not speaking for ken — I think it’s common sense, that's your reason for knowing. If you happen to not know someone’s sex at first, your common sense tells you not to make any judgments until you know, and perhaps they tell you. But how often does that happen, like .02% of the time?

 

[TLK Valentine]

In my opinion — not speaking for ken — I think it’s common sense, that's your reason for knowing. If you happen to not know someone’s sex at first, your common sense tells you not to make any judgments until you know, and perhaps they tell you. But how often does that happen, like .02% of the time?

More like 99% of the time on the internet.

And let's not trivialize "common sense" -- these days, it's practically a superpower.

 

[didactics]

More like 99% of the time on the internet.

And let's not trivialize "common sense" -- these days, it's practically a superpower.

Well OK but you can take their word on it. And that’s a good rule, to give someone the benefit of the doubt. But that’s not all there is to it, as you can see if they are being consistent to what they are saying about themself. And if you have reasonable suspicion, a rule of thumb is don’t feed the trolls.

 

[Kylie]

My dog is female, and I refer to my dog as she/her. Does my dog have a gender identity now?

Quite possibly. She'd just have a hard time telling you.

However, there are quite a few cases of animals who are apparently trans.

 

[Ken-1122]

None of the definitions listed involve being "convinced" of things that might be false. You're wrong.

dictionary.com says:

To perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty:

Just because you perceive or understand something as fact or truth does not mean you can’t be wrong.
To apprehend means to understand; so to apprehend clearly and with certainty does not mean you can’t be wrong. IOW I am right.

No, gender roles are like when we say women ought to do the cooking and cleaning.

Actually you are right; clothes and hair style are gender styles; not roles, but the same applies. Just because you wear your hair in a traditional gender style does not mean you are of that gender

Your use of "he" and "she" is based on these things. Your use of "he" and "she" is not because of biology.

Again; my use of “he” and “she” is based on my assumption of their biology.

 

[Ken-1122]

Quite possibly. She'd just have a hard time telling you.

However, there are quite a few cases of animals who are apparently trans.

My dog is actually very good at communicating with me. My dog told me her pronouns are no longer she/her, but now they are they/them. My cat on the other hand told me he is no longer a Tom Cat but non-binary.
I told them I don’t have any special pronouns, but I do have my own adjectives. My adjectives are “Brilliant” and “handsome”, and I demand to be addressed as such. Because they refuse to respect my adjectives, I refuse to respect their pronouns. (LOL)

 

[Kylie]

My dog is actually very good at communicating with me. My dog told me her pronouns are no longer she/her, but now they are they/them. My cat on the other hand told me he is no longer a Tom Cat but non-binary.
I told them I don’t have any special pronouns, but I do have my own adjectives. My adjectives are “Brilliant” and “handsome”, and I demand to be addressed as such. Because they refuse to respect my adjectives, I refuse to respect their pronouns. (LOL)

There's just no point in trying to talk to someone who insists on being silly.

 

[Moral Orel]

dictionary.com says:

To perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty:

Just because you perceive or understand something as fact or truth does not mean you can’t be wrong.
To apprehend means to understand; so to apprehend clearly and with certainty does not mean you can’t be wrong. IOW I am right.

You can't "apprehend clearly" things that are false, so no you can't be wrong if you actually "apprehend clearly". IOW you are wrong.

Actually you are right; clothes and hair style are gender styles; not roles, but the same applies. Just because you wear your hair in a traditional gender style does not mean you are of that gender

That's how you use the words "he" and "she", so yeah, it does. Your use of "he" and "she" is based on how people present themselves, so if "he" and "she" has anything to do with "gender" then yes, it does make you that "gender".

That doesn't change what their biological sex is, but that is a different concept.

Again; my use of “he” and “she” is based on my assumption of their biology.

Again, it is not based on their biology, it is based on the only information about them that you know, which has nothing to do with science or biology. Your repeated assertion of this falsehood doesn't make it true.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Again, it is not based on their biology, it is based on the only information about them that you know, which has nothing to do with science or biology. Your repeated assertion of this falsehood doesn't make it true.

To be fair, it's based on the information he's assuming about their biology, so it does have something to do with it... although, barring some sort of genital inspection, it would only be assumptions, not actual knowledge.

And not even the Ohio GOP would demand something that outrageous... not anymore, anyway.

After backlash, GOP leader says ‘genital inspections’ won’t be part of anti-trans athlete bill - Ohio Capital Journal

 

[Kylie]

To be fair, it's based on the information he's assuming about their biology, so it does have something to do with it... although, barring some sort of genital inspection, it would only be assumptions, not actual knowledge.

And not even the Ohio GOP would demand something that outrageous... not anymore, anyway.

After backlash, GOP leader says ‘genital inspections’ won’t be part of anti-trans athlete bill - Ohio Capital Journal

Regardless, the biology of a person is not what determines their gender identity.