stevevw
inquisitive
Yes and maybe I was not explaining myself properly. What I am basically saying is that we are talking about an ideology about how we should determine gender. That ideology is based on an unfounded idea and ignores the facts that biology affects how we determine gender. Gender neutral language is part of that unfounded ideology and that is a risky basis for changing laws and language.I think I'm satisfied with concluding our discussion on this note. Remember how I characterized your argument:
Moral Orel said: ↑
In order to further your argument, you have to keep pointing to other areas that there might be a problem, which means you don't have any reasoning to support the idea that anyone should really care if we say "someone who is pregnant" instead of "woman who is pregnant". You seem to think that if we give in to some areas, that means we have to give in to all areas, and that's wrong. And thinking like that forces you to take things that are reasonable and argue that they are unreasonable.
And you responded exactly as I described with this:
stevevw said: ↑
I don’t think you understand what the self-ID laws mean. It means a male can self-identify as a female and then has the right to enter all women’s areas by law. So, no one can say this area is exempt or that area is exempt. They are declared women by law so have the right to all women’s areas by law regardless of how we determine gender.
Gender-neutral language must follow the use of self ID for gender. Self-gender ID allows people to claim they identify with several genders which means we now cannot say there is only male and female. Because we cannot say there are only two genders of male and female, we must now use gender neutral language to include the many self-perceived genders.I'm explaining that some areas are reasonable to consider gender, and using gender-neutral language when discussing pregnancy isn't important (although I agree it sounds silly sometimes). And you have to resort to talking about self-ID laws and women's spaces. Self-ID laws don't follow from using gender-neutral language.
It is a scientific fact that when we talk about biology the reproductive system is the main way we determine male and females. The women's reproductive system, her uterus, ovaries etc allows her to become pregnant. Only a Nate women can become pregnant. As you said we should be able to use biology in certain situations to determine gender. A women becoming pregnant as a result of her reproductive system is one of those situations. Because transgender ideology has no basis in determining what a females is it stands to reason that using gender neutral language also has no basis when talking about pregnancy and workplace laws. The fact it sounds silly to use this language is because it is. It is counter to scientific fact. Using a transgender male who is really a Nate female biologically also has no basis for the same reason that the ideology has no basis.
As opposed to the unsound reasoning of gender ideology that states feelings are how we determine reality. The reason I am making my argument is that transgender ideology is an unfounded and illogical basis for changing laws and implementing gender-neutral language. It is a concern if transgender ideology takes over as this will put many children and women at risk of harm.The only real motivation for your argument is a fear of transgender ideology taking over completely, but that isn't a sound reason to oppose some of the things that are being advanced.
Yes, it is already happening, and important things like laws and rights are being changed because of feelings and not facts. I am not arguing that reasonable things are unreasonable. I am arguing that the things claimed as reasonable are also an unreasonable basis for changing laws and language because they are based on an unfounded and illogical ideology.Don't get me wrong, I'd bet that the idea that biological sex never matters is going to win the debate with society at large because it has emotion on its side. But you've got to pick your battles. If you oppose the areas that are reasonable, then the rest of your argument is weakened because you lose credibility. You're arguing that reasonable things are unreasonable.
Also, I hope you give some serious thought to my notion of a broader sense of discrimination issues. I gave solid reasons for thinking of discrimination in a different light, but your only reason to refute it is that it isn't the way we've been doing it. This:
stevevw said: ↑
If discrimination is such a broad issue, then why do workplaces have specific laws and rights that only apply to women. Why do they have specific laws for sex, race, disability and religion.
So you are saying that the current discrimination laws and the language they use is wrong. Your reasons would work if the basis for transgender ideology had any truth. But it doesn't and I think this is where the confusion and conflict stems from including our ongoing debate.Isn't a reason to keep doing the same thing.
The point is we have been debating this issue and obviously have two differing views. So I have gone to the actual laws and science on the topic to see what they say. For example the Canadian Discrimination Commission specifies their position that pregnancy is sex discrimination and therefore sex is about biology and this only applies to women. This is current law and is not necessarily an outdated one. Like I said the Canadian government is one country open to transgender rights and would have up to date laws and rights on these matters.
Last edited:
Upvote
0